Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History

Germany

and

the Americas

Other Titles in ABC-CLIO’s

Transatlantic Relations Series

Africa and the Americas, by Richard M. Juang, Kim Searcy, and Noelle Searcy Britain and the Americas, by Will Kaufman and Heidi Slettedahl Macpherson France and the Americas, by Bill Marshall, assisted by Cristina Johnston Iberia and the Americas, by J. Michael Francis Ireland and the Americas, by Philip Coleman, Jason King, and Jim Byrne

Germany and the Americas Culture, Politics, and History A Multidisciplinary Encyclopedia VOLUME I EDITED BY

Thomas Adam

Transatlantic Relations Series Will Kaufman, Series Editor

Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England

Copyright © 2005 by Thomas Adam All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Germany and the Americas : culture, politics, and history / edited by Thomas Adam. v. cm.— (Transatlantic relations series) Also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook from ABC-CLIO Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Vol. 1: A-F — v. 2: G-N — v. 3: O-Z. ISBN 1-85109-628-0 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 1-85109-633-7 (ebook) 1. America—Relations—Germany—Encyclopedias. 2. Germany—Relations—America—Encyclopedias. 3. America—History—Encyclopedias. 4. Germany—History—Encyclopedias. 5. North America—History—Encyclopedias. 6. Latin America—History—Encyclopedias. 7. South America—History—Encyclopedias. 8. America—Politics and government—Encyclopedias. 9. Germany—Politics and government—Encyclopedias. I. Adam, Thomas. II. Series. E18.75.G48 2005 303.48'27043—dc22 2005021064

08 07 06 05 10 9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an e-Book. Visit abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, Inc. 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper ∞ . Manufactured in the United States of America The Acquisitions Editor for this title was Simon Mason, the Project Editor was Carla Roberts, the Media Editor was Sharon Daugherty, the Media Manager was Caroline Price, the Assistant Production Editor was Cisca Schreefel, the Production Manager was Don Schmidt, and the Manufacturing Coordinator was George Smyser.

To my parents

CONTENTS Advisory Board, xv Series Editor’s Preface, xvii Editor’s Preface, xix Topic Finder, xxiii Chronology of Germany and the Americas, xxxi Germany and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History Volume 1, Introductory Essays, A–F Introductory Essays, 1 North America, 3 German Jewish Migration to the United States, 13 South America, 23 German Migration to Latin America, 27 Changes in Migration Paterns in the Twentieth Century, 33 Americanization, 75 Amerika Institut, 79 Amish, 80 Anarchists, 81 Anneke, Mathilde Franziska, 84 Antisemitism, 85 Anzeiger des Westens (Western Informer), 92 Argentina, 93 Assimilation of Germans in the United States, 97 Assing, Ottilie, 103 Astor, John Jacob, 105 Aufbau (Construction), 108 Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold, 109

Adams, John Quincy, 37 Addams, (Laura) Jane, 38 Adelsverein (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas), 40 Adelung, Johann Christoph, 43 Admiral Graf Spee, 45 Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund, 47 African Americans, 48 Altgeld, John Peter, 51 Amana Colonies, 53 American Churches in Germany, 57 American Civil War, Financial Support of Frankfurt Bankers for, 61 American Civil War, German Participants in, 62 American Occupation Zone, 65 American Students at German Universities, 69 Americanisms in the German Language, 71

Baegert, Christoph Johannes Jakob, 111 Bananas and Pineapples, 112 Bancroft, George, 115 VII

VIII

CONTENTS

Barbie, Klaus, 118 Bartz, Fritz, 119 Baudissin, Adelbert Heinrich, Count, 120 Bauhaus, 122 Becker, João, 127 Becker, Philip, 127 Beckmann, Max, 129 Beer, 130 Berger, Victor L., 133 Berlin Wall, 135 Berliner Journal, 137 Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario, 138 Bernoulli, Carl Gustav, 142 Bernstorff, Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht Count von, 143 Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law (1878–1890), 145 Bitburg, 146 Bloch, Felix, 149 B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant), 150 Bodmer, Karl, 152 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 155 Bosse, Georg von, 156 Boveri, Margaret, 158 Brackebusch, Ludwig, 159 Brandt, Willy, 160 Braun, Wernher von, 163 Brazil, 165 Brazil, German Exile in, 172 Brazil, Religion in, 176 Brecht, Bertolt, 179 Bremerhaven, 181 Brummer, 183 Brüning, Heinrich, 184 Buffalo, 186 Buffalo Bill, 190 Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine (Federation of German Women’s Clubs), 192 Burgess, John William, 195 Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad, 196 Business, U.S.–Third Reich, 198 Cahensly, Peter Paul, 201 Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II), 202 Canadian Military Forces in West Germany, 212 Carranza, Venustiano, 216

Casablanca Conference/Unconditional Surrender, 218 Catholic Women’s Union, 219 Central Park, 222 Chamisso, Adelbert von, 225 Chewing Gum, 227 Chicago, 229 Chile, 234 Cincinnati, 239 Cluss, Adolf, 248 Coca-Cola, 250 Committee on Public Information, 252 Conquista, 254 Consumerism, 256 Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe/Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany, 259 Council for a Democratic Germany, 261 Darmstaedters (The Forty), 265 Davis, Angela Yvonne, 267 Dawes Plan, 269 Deckert, Friedrich Karl Emil, 272 Denazification, 273 Dieseldorff, Erwin Paul, 276 Dieterle, William, 277 Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene, 278 Dimension2, 280 Dobrizhoffer, Martin, 282 Dohms, Hermann Gottlieb, 282 Duden, Gottfried, 283 Dunt, Detlef, 285 Dutch, 287 Eckener, Hugo, 289 Ederle, Gertrud, 291 Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, 292 Ehrenreich, Paul Max Alexander, 295 Eichmann, Karl Adolf, 296 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 297 Einhorn, David, 300 Einstein, Albert, 302 Encyclopaedia Americana, 305 Ende, Amalie (Amelia) von, 311 Ephrata, 312 Ernst, Friedrich, 314

CONTENTS Ertl, Hans, 316 Eschwege, Wilhelm Ludwig von, 318 Espionage and Sedition Act, 319 Eugenics/Euthanasia, 320 Everett, Edward, 325 Far East, U.S.-German Entente in the, 329 Faupel, Wilhelm, 331 Feininger, Andreas, 333 Festivities, German Brazilian, 334 Film and Television (American) After World War II, Germany in, 338 Film (German), American Influence on, 340 Film (German), The Image of the United States in, 347 First Moroccan Crisis (1905–1906), 354 Flügel, Johann Gottfried, 355 Follen, Charles (Karl), 356 Ford, Henry, 358 Fordism, 360 Foreign Policy (U.S., 1949–1955), West Germany in, 362 Förster, Bernhard, 368 Forty-Eighters, 369 Francke, Kuno, 372 Frankfurt am Main Citizens in the United States, 373 Frankfurt School, 378 Fredericksburg, Texas, 381 Freiheit (Freedom), 385 Freund, Ernst, 387 Friedman, Perry, 389 Friedrich, Carl Joachim, 390 Friends of the New Germany, 391 Fritz, Samuel, 394 Fromm, Erich, 395 Fuchs, Klaus, 396 Fulbright Program, 398 Fuller, Margaret, 400 Volume II: G–N Geisel, Ernesto, 403 Georgia, 403 German Almanacs in Rio Grande Do Sul, 405 German American Bund (Amerikadeutscher Volksbund), 410

German American Clubs (in West Germany), 412 German American Women’s Organizations, 413 German Catholic Central-Verein, 418 German Democratic Republic Studies in the United States, 421 German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., 423 German Reformed Church, 424 German Scare, 428 German Society of Pennsylvania, 428 German Society of the City of New York, 430 German Students at American Universities, 432 German Unification (1871), 436 German Unification (1990), 436 Germanism in Rio Grande Do Sul, 440 Germantown, Pennsylvania, 443 Gert, Valeska, 446 GIs in West Germany, 448 Glassmaking, 445 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, and the United States, 453 Goldschmidt, Richard Benedict, 455 Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr., 457 Göttingen, University of, 459 Great Depression, 460 Griesinger, Karl Theodor, 464 Gropius, Walter Adolph, 466 Grund, Franz Josef, 467 Gusinde, Martin, 469 Haenke, Thaddäus, 471 Halvorsen, Gail S., 472 Hamburg, 474 Hammerstein, Oscar, I, 476 Hanfstaengl, Ernst and Helene, 477 Hapag, 480 Harmony Society, 482 Harnack, Mildred Fish, 484 Hart, James Morgan, 486 Hartmann, Franz, 487 Hauthal, Rudolf Johannes Friedrich, 488 Haymarket, 489 Heartfield, John, 490 Hecker, Friedrich, 493

IX

X

CONTENTS

Hegemann, Werner, 494 Helbig, Karl Martin Alexander, 496 Hermann, Missouri, 497 Herzog, Werner, 500 Hessians, 502 Hettner, Alfred, 504 Hexamer, Charles J., 505 Heym, Stefan, 507 Hindenburg Disaster, 508 Holborn, Hajo, 510 Hollywood, 511 Holm, Hanya, 515 Horkheimer, Max, 517 Huebsch, Ben W., Stefan Zweig, Lion Feuchtwanger, Franz Werfel, and the Viking Press Imprint, 518 Humboldt, Alexander von, 530 Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 532 Hutten, Ulrich von, 533 Ihering, Hermann Friedrich Albrecht von, 537 Illinois, 538 Illinois Staatszeitung, 540 Indian Captivity, 542 Indian Films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft, 546 Indiana, 550 Indians in German Literature, 554 Integralism, 561 Intellectual Exile, 562 International Council of Women, 565 Iowa, German Dialects in, 566 Jackson, Robert H., 571 Jamaica, 572 Jannings, Emil, 573 Jessing, John Joseph, 575 Jewish Refugee Scientists, 575 Johann, King of Saxony, 586 Johns Hopkins University, 588 Johnson, Philip Cortelyou, 589 Joist, Johann Heinrich, 590 Judaism, Reform (North America), 591 Kansas, German Dialects in, 597 Kapp, Friedrich, 600 Kappler, August, 601 Kelly, Petra, 602

Kelpius, Johann, 603 Kenkel, Frederick P., 604 Kiesling, Hans von, 606 Kindergartners, 606 Kino, Eusebius Franciscus, 611 Kirchhoff, Theodor, 613 Kisch, Egon Erwin, 613 Kissinger, Henry, 614 Koch-Grünberg, Christian Theodor, 616 Koerner, Gustave Philipp, 618 Koerner, William Henry Detlef, 619 Kohl, Johann Georg, 620 Kohler, Kaufmann, 621 Kollonitz, Paula von, 622 Korngold, Erich Wolfgang, 623 Koseritz, Karl von, 625 Kracauer, Siegfried, 626 Kraemer, Fritz Gustav Anton, 628 Krause, Arthur and Aurel, 629 Kuhn, Fritz Julius, 630 Kunwald, Ernst, 631 Landscape Architects, German American, 635 Lang, Fritz, 636 Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von, 638 Latin America, German Military Advisers in, 639 Latin America, Nazi Party in, 643 Latin America and Nazi Economic Policy, 647 Latin America, Nazis in, 651 Leeser, Isaac, 653 Leni, Paul, 654 Lenk, Margarete, 655 Leo Baeck Institute, 656 Leopoldine Foundation, 658 Leutze, Emanuel Gottlieb, 660 Lewis, Sinclair, 662 Liberal Republican Movement, 664 Lieber, Francis (Franz), 666 Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 668 Lindbergh, Charles Augustus, 670 List, Friedrich, 672 Literature (Canadian), Germany and Germans in, 674 Literature (German American) in the Nineteenth Century, 675 Literature, German Canadian, 679

CONTENTS Literature (German), The United States in, 681 Llewellyn, Karl Nickerson, 689 Loeb, Jacques, 691 Loewenstein, Karl, 692 Löhe, Johannes Konrad Wilhelm, 694 Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 694 Lorre, Peter, 696 Louisiana, 698 Löwe (Lowe), Adolph, 701 Lubitsch, Ernst, 702 Ludwig-Missionsverein, 703 Luschan, Felix von, 705 Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, 707 Maack, Reinhard, 713 Maeser, Karl Gottfried, 715 Mann, Thomas, 717 Marcuse, Herbert, 719 Markgraf, Georg, 721 Martius, Carl Friedrich Philipp von, 722 May, Karl Friedrich, 724 McDonald’s Restaurant, 727 Meusebach, John O., 729 Mexico, 731 Mexico, German Jesuits in, 738 Mexico, German Mexican Relations in, 741 Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph, 746 Meyer, Herrmann, 747 Meyer, Kuno, 749 Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, 750 Milwaukee, 752 Milwaukee Socialists, 757 Mining, 760 Minnesota Holy Land, 763 Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin, 767 Morgenthau, Hans J., 770 Morgenthau Plan, 772 Mosquito Coast, Moravian Missionaries, 774 Mosse, George Lachmann, 776 Most, Johann, 777 Motley, John Lothrop, 780 Muck, Karl, 781 Mucker, 783 Muench, Aloisius, 785 Muench, Friedrich, 787 Muhlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad, 789

Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior, 790 Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel, 792 Mumford, Lewis, 793 Münsterberg, Hugo, 795 Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm, 796 Music (U.S.), German Influence on, 799 Nast, Thomas, 803 National German-American Alliance, 805 Natterer, Johann Baptist, 809 Neue Heimat, 810 Neumann, Franz L., 811 New Braunfels, Texas, 812 New Orleans, 815 New York City, 817 New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, 820 Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States, 822 Norddeutscher Lloyd, 826 Nova Scotia, 829 Novel, German American, 833 Nueces, Battle of the, 836 Nuremberg Trials, 837 Volume III: O–Z Obwexer, 843 Olmsted, Frederick Law, 844 Olympic Games, 846 Ontario, 850 Ontario, German-Language Press in, 855 Orozco y Huerta, 858 Osterhaus, Peter J., 859 Paepcke, Walter Paul, 861 Panama, 863 Papen, Franz von, 865 Paraguay, 867 Pastorius, Francis Daniel, 869 Paul Wilhelm, Duke of Württemberg, 871 Pennsylvania, 872 Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language, 877 Peter, Val J., 879 Philippi, Bernhard Eunom, 880 Philippi, Rudolph Amandus, 882 Photography, 883 Pietism, 887 Plant, Richard, 890 Poeppig, Eduard Friedrich, 892 Politics and German Americans, 893

XI

XII

CONTENTS

Potatoes, 898 Prager, Robert Paul, 900 Preminger, Otto Ludwig, 901 Presley in Germany, 902 Preuss, Edward F., 904 Printing and Publishing, 905 Radio Free Europe, 911 Radio Inside the American Sector, 912 Ratzel, Friedrich, 913 Reconstruction of West Germany (1945–1949), 915 Redlich, Josef, 917 Reed, Dean, 918 Reinhardt, Max, 920 Reiss, Johann Wilhelm, 921 Rheinstein, Max, 923 Rittinger, John Adam, 924 Roebling, John Augustus and Washington Augustus, 925 Rotermund, Wilhelm, 928 Ruppius, Otto, 929 Ruth, George Herman, “Babe”, 931 Salomon, Edward S., 933 Sapper Family, 934 Sartorius, Karl C., 936 Sauer, Christoph, 936 Schaff, Philip, 938 Schiff, Jacob Henry, 939 Schimmelpfennig, Alexander, 941 Schindler, Rudolf, 942 Schlüter, Hermann, 944 Schmidel (Schmidl, Schmidt), Ulrich, 945 Schomburgk, Robert Hermann, 947 Schönberg, Arnold, 948 Schultze-Jena, Leonhard Sigmund, 950 Schurz, Agathe Margarethe, 951 Schurz, Carl, 953 Schutz, Anton (Joseph Friedrich), 954 Schwab, Frank X., 955 Schwab, Justus H., 957 Schwarzenegger, Arnold, 958 Schwenkfelders, 960 Sealsfield, Charles, 964 Seghers, Anna, 965 Seume, Johann Gottfried, 967 Shuster, George Nauman, 969 Sievers, Wilhelm, 970

Sigel, Franz, 971 Singmaster, Elsie, 972 Slavery in German American and German Texts, 974 Socialist Labor Party, 976 Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aéreos, 978 Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of, 983 Sons of Hermann, 985 Sorbs (Wends), 987 SS St. Louis, 991 St. Raphaelsverein zum Schutze katholischer deutscher Auswanderer, 993 St. Vincent Monastery and College, 994 Staden, Hans, 996 Stalin Note, 998 Steffen, Hans, 999 Steinen, Karl von den, 1000 Sternberg, Josef von, 1002 Sternburg, Hermann Speck von, 1004 Steuben, Friederich Wilhelm von, 1005 Steuben Society of America, 1007 Stiefel, Ernst C., 1008 Strauch, Adolph, 1009 Strauss, Leo, 1013 Stroessner, Alfredo, 1014 Stroheim, Erich von, 1016 Strubberg, Friedrich August (Ps. Armand), 1017 Stübel, Moritz Alphons, 1018 Taylor, (James) Bayard, 1021 Tehran Conference, 1022 Termer, Karl Ferdinand Franz, 1024 Texas, 1025 Texas German Dialect, 1029 Thompson, Dorothy, 1035 Ticknor, George, 1037 Tomuschat, Christian, 1039 Transcendentalism, 1041 Travel Literature, German-U.S., 1043 Traven, B., 1051 Treaty of 1785, (Prusso-American Treaty), 1053 Treaty of Versailles, 1055 Tschudi, Johann Jakob, 1057 Turner Societies, 1058 Twain, Mark, 1063

CONTENTS

Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern, 1065 United States, East German Perception of the, 1066 U.S. Bases in West Germany, 1069 U.S.-GDR Relations, 1071 U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange, 1073 U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany (1941–1945), 1078 Vagts, Alfred, 1085 Vansittartism, 1086 Vater, Johann Severin, 1088 Veidt, Conrad, 1091 Venezuelan Crisis (1902–1903), 1092 Verein, 1094 Viereck, George Sylvester, 1097 Vietnam War and West German Protests, 1099 Volga Germans (Volga Deutsche) in the United States, 1101 Volkswagen Company and Its VW Beetle, 1102 Von-Der-Heydt’sches Reskript (Heydt Edict), 1105 Waibel, Leo Heinrich, 1107 Waldseemüller, Martin, 1108 Walther, Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm, 1109 Warburg, Felix Moritz, 1112 Washington, Booker T., and German Togoland, 1113 Waterloo County, Ontario, 1115 Waterloo, Ontario, 1119 Weischet, Wolfgang, 1122 Weiser, Conrad, 1123

XIII

Weissmueller, Peter Jonas, 1124 Weitling, Wilhelm (Christian), 1126 Welskopf-Henrich, Liselotte, 1128 Wenders, Wim, 1131 West Berlin, 1134 Wied-Neuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu, 1139 Wigner, Eugen(e) Paul, 1141 Wilder, Billy, 1142 Wilhelmy, Herbert, 1144 Willich, August (von), 1145 Wirz, Henry, 1147 Wise, Isaac Mayer, 1148 Wolf, Franz Theodor, 1150 Woman and Socialism, 1152 World War I, 1153 World War I and German Americans, 1163 World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in, 1167 World War I, German Sabotage in Canada during, 1169 World War II, 1171 World War II, German American Soldiers in, 1179 World War II, Internment of Germans from Latin America in, 1181 World Wars I and II, Brazil and Germany in, 1183 World Wars I and II, Canada and Germany in, 1184 Wyler, William, 1188 Zakrzewska, Marie Elizabeth, 1191 Zenger, John Peter, 1194 Zeppelin, 1195 Zuckmayer, Carl, 1198

List of Contributors, 1201 Index, 1209 About the Editor, 1307

ADVISORY BOARD James M. Bergquist, Vilanova University, Vilanova, PA Dieter Buse, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada Yves Laberge, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada Michael Zeuske, Universität zu Köln, Köln, North Rhine Westphalia, Germany

XV

SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE The transatlantic relationship has been one of the most dynamic of modern times. Since the great age of exploration in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the encounters between the Old World and the New have determined the course of history, culture, and politics for billions of people. The destinies of Europe, Africa, North and South America, and all the islands in between have been intertwined to the extent that none of these areas can be said to exist in isolation. Out of these interconnections comes the concept of the “Atlantic world,” which Alan Karras describes in his introductory essay to Britain and the Americas in this series: “By looking at the Atlantic world as a single unit, rather than relying upon more traditional national (such as Britain) or regional (such as North or South America) units of analyses, scholars have more nearly been able to re-create the experiences of those who lived in the past.” This perspective attempts to redefine and respond to expanding (one might say globalizing) pressures and new ways of perceiving interconnections—not only those rooted in history (“the past”) but also those that are ongoing. Just one result of this conceptual redefinition has been the emergence of transatlantic studies as an area of inquiry in its own right, growing from the soil of separate area studies, whether European, North American, African, Caribbean, or Latin American. Students and scholars working in transatlantic studies have embarked on a new course of scholarship that places the transatlantic dynamic at its heart. In this spirit, the Transatlantic Relations Series is devoted to transcending, or at least challenging, the boundaries of nation/region as well as discipline: we are concerned in this series not only with history but also with culture and politics, race and economics, gender and migration; not only with the distant past but also with this morning. The aim, in a phrase, is to explore the myriad connections and interconnections of the Atlantic world. However, although the Atlantic world concept challenges the isolation of smaller, national perspectives, nations do continue to exist, with boundaries both physical and conceptual. Thus this series acknowledges the intractability of the national and the regional while consistently focusing on the transcending movements—the connections and interconnections—that go beyond the national and the regional. Our mode of operation has been to build an approach to the Atlantic world through attention to the separate vectors between the nations and regions on both sides of the Atlantic. We do this by offering the six titles XVII

XVIII

SERIES EDITOR’S PREFACE

within the series so far commissioned, devoted respectively to Africa, Britain, France, Germany, Iberia, and Ireland in their engagements with the Americas. In each case, the transatlantic exchanges are those of all kinds: cultural, political, and historical, from the moment of the first contact to the present day. With this organizing principle in mind, the object is to offer an accessible, precisely focused means of entry into the various portals of the Atlantic world. Finally, a word about this series’ origins: in 1995, Professor Terry Rodenberg of Central Missouri State University invited scholars and teachers from eighteen universities on both sides of the Atlantic to establish an educational and scholarly institution devoted to encouraging a transatlantic perspective. The result was the founding of the Maastricht Center for Transatlantic Studies (MCTS), located in the Dutch city whose name, through its eponymous treaty, resonates with transnational associations. Since its foundation, MCTS has continued to bring together students and scholars from a host of worldwide locations to explore the intricate web of Atlantic connections across all disciplines. It has been a dynamic encounter between cultures and people striving to transcend the limitations of separate area and disciplinary studies. I am pleased to acknowledge the extent to which the Transatlantic Relations Series grows out of the discussions and approaches articulated at MCTS. Therefore, although the separate titles in the series carry their own dedications, the series as a whole is dedicated with great respect to Terry Rodenberg and the students and scholars at Maastricht. Will Kaufman University of Central Lancashire Maastricht Center for Transatlantic Studies

EDITOR’S PREFACE

The German-speaking world has had an impact on the history of the Americas for more than five hundred years. In 1507, Martin Waldseemüller of Freiburg provided the first world map showing the shape of the American continent explored by Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci—it was in fact Waldseemüller who suggested naming this new land “America” after Vespucci. Since then, Germans have been among the major ethnic groups and nationalities to settle the American continents, especially in the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina. In contrast to other European settler groups of the nineteenth century (Spanish, Portuguese, French, and English), Germans migrated to all parts of the American continents. This appears to be even more intriguing if one considers that Germany was the only major European power without American colonies. For the millions of people who left Germany for political, religious, and economic reasons between the seventeenth and twenty-first centuries, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Texas, Rio Grande do Sul, and Santa Catarina—among many other regions—became home. Yet, the majority of these migrants did not leave Germany but one of the many Germanies: the Holy Roman Empire, the German Confederation, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, and the two German states founded on the ruins of World War II. After their arrival in the New World, Palatines, Saxons, Bavarians, and Prussians became Germans only in the eyes of the British, Spanish, and Portuguese. Language was the major indicator of ethnic belonging. That these Germans spoke very different dialects and represented distinct social and cultural backgrounds was lost in translation. However, New World Germans did not only arrive from “Germany proper.” Siebenbürgen Saxons, Sudeten Germans, and Volga Germans left their homes for North and South America. In addition, German speakers from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austria (after 1918), and Switzerland joined in this transatlantic migration. Germans left Europe for several reasons: The first settlers who immigrated to Pennsylvania were attracted by its religious tolerance. For them the New World offered opportunities and freedom of thought and belief. After the failed revolution of 1848/49 many liberal and progressive German revolutionaries left for North America in order to avoid political persecution and in search for personal freedom and civil liberties. However, the XIX

XX

EDITOR’S PREFACE

majority of the ca. 5.5 million German-speaking immigrants, who arrived in the United States alone between 1815 and 1914, left for economic reasons. To them the United States represented the land of unlimited opportunities and social advancement. Disillusionment with the Treaty of Versailles and the Weimar Republic caused Germans to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Strict limitations on immigration imposed by the American government resulted in an increased migration to South America. Adolf Hitler’s appointment as Reich chancellor on January 30, 1933, forced left-leaning intellectuals and Jews to flee their home country. In contrast to the Forty-Eighters a century earlier, Jews and left-leaning intellectuals could not count on unlimited access to the United States or Canada. While the United States, Canada, and even Brazil refused to accept larger numbers of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, it was Argentina that welcomed thousands of refugees who were in need of a new home. Argentina, as Holger M. Meding points out in his article, accepted per capita more Jewish refugees than any other country in the world besides Palestine. The forceful removal of Germans from all of Eastern Europe after World War II as well as the attempts to escape denazification trials and judicial persecution for war crimes spurred Germans again to leave Germany in large numbers. According to Frederick C. Luebke, 90 percent of all German migrants went to North America. By the time of the American Revolution about 8 or 9 percent of the population of the United States were of German extraction. More than two hundred years later, in 1980, about 52 million U.S. citizens (out of 226 million) claimed German heritage in a nationwide census. This made the Germans the largest ethnic group in the country “exceeding both the Irish and the English” (Luebke 1990, 174). German American relations include the wide variety of social, cultural, economic, political, military, literary, and intellectual encounters of German speakers with this New World. It is common knowledge that during the twentieth century, the United States (together with other North and South American countries) faced Germany in two world wars and, after the second, contributed to the transformation of authoritarian Germany into a democracy. Many know, too, of Germany’s pivotal position between the contending forces in the cold war. Nevertheless, German American relations cannot merely be reduced to military or political engagements: the first German settlers contributed to the emerging national cultures in the Americas, and their descendants have continued to exert their influence. They established their own subcultures, printed their own newspapers, imported their cuisine, music, literature, art, and cinema, and greatly enriched the cultural life of the American societies. German actors, producers, and composers gave Hollywood its image. German universities educated the elite of the United States before 1900. Bauhaus and German landscape art shaped American cities. Emanuel Leutze produced one of the foremost American paintings depicting Washington crossing the Delaware. In turn, the Americas have acted upon Germany through a host of historical, political, and cultural developments. German cuisine without potatoes is now unthinkable. Tropical fruits (bananas) are taken for granted by German consumers. Coca-Cola, chewing gum, and McDonald’s are common elements of modern German life. Thanks to Karl May, Liselotte Welskopf-Henrich, and many more authors and film producers, Indians populated German novels, movies, and the fantasies of German children and adults.

EDITOR’S PREFACE

XXI

This encyclopedia contains hundreds of articles on all aspects of the German American encounter written by scholars from several countries including Austria, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, South Korea, the Netherlands, and the United States. Following five introductory essays on the migration of German-speaking people to North and South America, the bulk of articles follows the A to Z format. I would like to thank James M. Bergquist, Alexander Emmerich, Yves Laberge, Gabriele Lingelbach, Christof Mauch, Holger M. Meding, Michael Rudloff, and Ralf Roth for agreeing to write articles on very short notice. Many students and scholars in Arlington, Texas, helped in the translation of articles, which were submitted in German. Further, I would like to thank Linda Wiencken Williams, Sarah E. Wobick, Michael L. Dailey, Deana Covel, and Scott G. Williams for their continued and tireless support in the translation of the German articles. In addition, I would like to thank Scott G. Williams and his students Martin Boyd, Michael Daily, Steffany Fischer, Phillipp Foroughi-Esfahani, Steven Hagle, Marina Kljucevic, Hildegard Lombardo, Eva McKendrick, Angela Moritz, Kiet Nguyen, Scott Strough, Jennifer Kraig Takacs who translated biographical articles as part of fulfilling the requirements in their spring 2004 course on German Translation Theory and Practice. All translations have been authorized by the contributors to this encyclopedia. For the sake of comprehension, I have insisted on translating all book, journal, and newspaper titles to give the English-speaking reader at least a general idea about the many German titles listed in this work. Thomas Adam The University of Texas at Arlington References Colin G. Calloway, Gerd Gemünden, and Susanne Zantop, eds. Germans and Indians: Fantasies, Encounters, Projections. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2002. Frederick C. Luebke. Germans in the New World: Essays in the History of Immigration. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1990. Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh, eds. America and the Germans: An Assessment of a ThreeHundred-Year History. 2 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985.

TOPIC FINDER

DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS AND TRANSATLANTIC POLITICAL INFLUENCES Anarchists Berlin Wall Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law (1878–1890) Canadian military forces in West Germany Casablanca Conference/Unconditional Surrender Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe/Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany Dawes Plan Denazification Far East, U.S.-German Entente in the First Moroccan Crisis (1905–1906)

Foreign Policy (U.S., 1949 to 1955), West Germany in Forty-Eighters German Unification (1871) German Unification (1990) GIs in West Germany Halvorsen, Gail S. Haymarket Latin America, German military advisers in Latin America, Nazi Party in Latin America and Nazi economic policy Latin America, Nazis in Liberal Republican Movement Mexico, German Mexican relations in Milwaukee Socialists Neue Heimat Nuremberg Trials Olympic Games Radio Free Europe

XXIII

Radio Inside the American Sector Reconstruction of West Germany (1945–1949) SS St. Louis Stalin Note Tehran Conference Treaty of 1785 (PrussoAmerican Treaty) Treaty of Versailles United States, East German perception of the U.S. bases in West Germany U.S.-GDR relations U.S. plans for postwar Germany (1941–1945) Vansittartism Venezuelan Crisis (1902–1903) Vietnam War and West German protests Von-Der-Heydt’sches Reskript (Heydt Edict) Washington, Booker T., and German Togoland West Berlin

XXIV

TOPIC FINDER

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS Bananas and pineapples Beer Business, U.S.–Third Reich Chewing Gum Coca-Cola Fordism Frankfurt am Main citizens in the United States Glassmaking Great Depression Hapag Hindenburg Disaster Hollywood McDonald’s Restaurant Mining Norddeutscher Lloyd Obwexer Potatoes Roebling, John Augustus and Washington Augustus Volkswagen Company and its VW Beetle Zeppelin EDUCATION American students at German universities Amerika Institut Bauhaus Forty-Eighters Fulbright Program German Democratic Republic Studies in the United States German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C.

German students at American universities Göttingen, University of Johns Hopkins University Leo Baeck Institute U.S.-German intellectual exchange GERMAN IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES BETWEEN INTEGRATION AND ASSIMILATION Amana Colonies Assimilation of Germans in the United States Changes in migration patterns in the twentieth century Committee on Public Information Conquista Darmstaedters (The Forty) Dutch Espionage and Sedition Act Frankfurt am Main citizens in the United States German Jewish migration to the United States German migration to Latin America (1918–1933) German Scare Integralism Mucker North America Politics and German Americans Sorbs (Wends) South America Volga Germans (Volga Deutsche) in the United States

INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE African Americans Americanisms in the German language Americanization Antisemitism Bauhaus Brazil, German exile in Buffalo Bill Central Park Consumerism Encyclopaedia Americana Eugenics/Euthanasia Festivities, German Brazilian Film and Television (American) After World War II, Germany in Film (German), American Influence on Film (German), The Image of the United States in Fordism Frankfurt School Germanism in Rio Grande do Sul Germany in American films and TV after WWII Goethe and America Hollywood Indian Captivity Indian films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft Indians in German Literature Intellectual exile Iowa, German dialects in Jewish refugee scientists

TOPIC FINDER

Kansas, German dialects in Kindergartners Landscape architects, German American Literature (Canadian), Germany and Germans in Literature (German American) in the Nineteenth Century Literature, German Canadian Literature (German) The United States in McDonald’s Restaurant Music (U.S.), German influence on Novel, German American Pennsylvania German (Dutch) language Photography Presley in Germany Slavery in German American and German texts Texas German dialect Transcendentalism Travel literature, Germany U.S. United States, East German perception of U.S.-German intellectual exchange MILITARY CONFLICTS AND COLLABORATION Admiral Graf Spee American Civil War, financial support of Frankfurt bankers for

American Civil War, German participants in American Occupation Zone Brummer Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II) Casablanca Conference/Unconditional Surrender Conquista 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment Hessians Morgenthau Plan Nueces, Battle of the Nuremberg Trials Tehran Conference Treaty of Versailles U.S. plans for postwar Germany (1941–1945) Vansittartism World War I World War I and German Americans World War I, German prisoners and civilian internees in World War I, German sabotage in Canada during World War II World War II, German American soldiers in World War II, internment of Germans from Latin America World Wars I and II, Brazil and Germany in

XXV

World Wars I and II, Canada and Germany in ORGANIZATIONS Adelsverein B’nai B’rith Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine (Federation of German Women’s Clubs) Catholic Women’s Union Council for a Democratic Germany Darmstaedters (The Forty) Friends of the New Germany German American Bund (Amerikadeutscher Volksbund) German American Clubs (in West Germany) German American Women’s organizations German Catholic CentralVerein German Society of Pennsylvania German Society of the City of New York Harmony Society International Council of Women Leopoldine Foundation Ludwig-Missionsverein National GermanAmerican Alliance Neue Heimat Sons of Hermann Socialist Labor Party Steuben Society of America

XXVI

TOPIC FINDER

St. Raphaelsverein zum Schutze katholischer deutscher Auswanderer Turner Societies Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern Verein PEOPLE Adams, John Quincy Addams, (Laura) Jane Adelung, Johann Christoph Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund Altgeld, John Peter Annecke, Mathilde Franziska Assing, Ottilie Astor, John Jacob Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold Baegert, Christoph Johannes Jakob Bancroft, George Barbie, Klaus Bartz, Fritz Baudissin, Adelbert Heinrich Count Becker, João Becker, Philip Beckmann, Max Berger, Victor L. Bernoulli, Carl Gustav Bernstorff, Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht Count von Bloch, Felix Bodmer, Karl Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bosse, Georg von

Boveri, Margaret Brackebusch, Ludwig Brandt, Willy Braun, Wernher von Brecht, Bertolt Brüning, Heinrich Buffalo Bill Burgess, John William Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad Cahensly, Peter Paul Carranza, Venustiano Chamisso, Adelbert von Cluss, Adolf Davis, Angela Yvonne Deckert, Friedrich Karl Emil Dieseldorff, Erwin Paul Dieterle, William Dietrich, Marlene Magadlene Dobrizhoffer, Martin Dohms, Hermann Gottlieb Duden, Gottfried Duke Paul Wilhelm of Württemberg Dunt, Detlef Eckener, Hugo Ederle, Gertrud Ehrenreich, Paul Max Alexander Eichmann, Karl Adolf Einhorn, David Einstein, Albert Ende, Amalie (Amelia) von Ernst, Friedrich Eschwege, Wilhelm Ludwig von Everett, Edward Faupel, Wilhelm Feininger, Andreas Flügel, Johann Gottfried

Follen, Charles (Karl) Ford, Henry Förster, Bernhard Francke, Kuno Freund, Ernst Friedman, Perry Friedrich, Carl Joachim Fritz, Samuel Fromm, Erich Fuchs, Klaus Fuller, Margaret Geisel, Ernesto Gert, Valeska Goldschmidt, Richard Benedict Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr. Griesinger, Karl Theodor Gropius, Walter Adolph Grund, Franz Josef Gusinde, Martin Haenke, Thaddäus Halvorsen, Gail S. Hammerstein, Oscar, I Hanfstaengl, Ernst and Helene Harnack, Mildred Fish Hart, James Morgan Hartmann, Franz Hauthal, Rudolf Johannes Friedrich Heartfield, John Hecker, Friedrich Hegemann, Werner Helbig, Karl Martin Alexander Herzog, Werner Hettner, Alfred Huebsch, Ben W., et al., and the Viking Press Imprint Hexamer, Charles J. Heym, Stefan

TOPIC FINDER

Holborn, Hajo Holm, Hanya Horkheimer, Max Humboldt, Alexander von Humboldt, Wilhelm von Hutten, Ulrich von Ihering, Hermann Friedrich Albrecht von Jackson, Robert H. Jannings, Emil Jessing, John Joseph Johann, King of Saxony Johnson, Philip Cortelyou Joist, Johann Heinrich Kapp, Friedrich Kappler, August Kelly, Petra Kelpius, Johann Kenkel, Frederick P. Kiesling, Hans von Kino, Eusebius Franciscus Kirchhoff, Theodor Kisch, Egon Erwin Kissinger, Henry Koch-Grünberg, Christian Theodor Koerner, Gustave Philipp Koerner, William Henry Detlef Kohl, Johann Georg Kohler, Kaufmann Kollonitz, Paula von Korngold, Erich Wolfgang Koseritz, Karl von Kracauer, Siegfried Kraemer, Fritz Gustav Anton Krause, Arthur and Aurel Kuhn, Fritz Julius Kunwald, Ernst Lang, Fritz

Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von Leeser, Isaac Leni, Paul Lenk, Margarete Leutze, Emanuel Gottlieb Lewis, Sinclair Lieber, Francis (Franz) Liebknecht, Wilhelm Lindbergh, Charles Augustus List, Friedrich Llewellyn, Karl Nickerson Loeb, Jacques Loewenstein, Karl Löhe, Johannes Konrad Wilhelm Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth Lorre, Peter Löwe (Lowe), Adolph Lubitsch, Ernst Luschan, Felix von Maack, Reinhard Maeser, Karl Gottfried Mann, Thomas Marcuse, Herbert Markgraf, Georg Martius, Carl Friedrich Philipp von May, Karl Friedrich Meusebach, John O. Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph Meyer, Herrmann Meyer, Kuno Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin Morgenthau, Hans J. Mosse, George Lachmann

XXVII

Most, Johann Motley, John Lothrop Muck, Karl Muench, Aloisius Muench, Friedrich Muhlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel Mumford, Lewis Münsterberg, Hugo Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm Nast, Thomas Natterer, Johann Baptist Neumann, Franz L. Obwexer Olmsted, Frederick Law Orozco y Huerta Osterhaus, Peter J. Paepcke, Walter Paul Papen, Franz von Pastorius, Francis Daniel Peter, Val J. Philippi, Bernhard Eunom Philippi, Rudolph Amandus Plant, Richard Poeppig, Eduard Friedrich Prager, Robert Paul Preminger, Otto Ludwig Preuss, Edward F. Ratzel, Friedrich Redlich, Josef Reed, Dean Reinhardt, Max Reiss, Johann Wilhelm Rheinstein, Max Rittinger, John Adam

XXVIII

TOPIC FINDER

Roebling, John Augustus and Washington Augustus Rotermund, Wilhelm Ruppius, Otto Ruth, George Herman, “Babe” Salomon, Edward S. Sapper family Sartorius, Karl C. Sauer, Christoph Schaff, Philip Schiff, Jacob Henry Schimmelpfennig, Alexander Schindler, Rudolf Schlüter, Hermann Schmidel (Schmidl, Schmidt), Ulrich Schomburgk, Robert Hermann Schönberg, Arnold Schultze-Jena, Leonhard Sigmund Schurz, Agathe Margarethe Schurz, Carl Schutz, Anton (Joseph Friedrich) Schwab, Frank X. Schwab, Justus H. Schwarzenegger, Arnold Sealsfield, Charles Seghers, Anna Seume, Johann Gottfried Shuster, George Nauman Sigel, Franz Sievers, Wilhelm Singmaster, Elsie Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of Staden, Hans Steffen, Hans Steinen, Karl von den

Sternberg, Josef von Sternburg, Hermann Speck von Steuben, Frederick Wilhelm von Stiefel, Ernst C. Strauch, Adolph Strauss, Leo Stroessner, Alfredo Stroheim, Erich von Strubberg, Friedrich August (ps. Armand) Stübel, Moritz Alphons Taylor, (James) Bayard Termer, Karl Ferdinand Franz Thompson, Dorothy Ticknor, George Tomuschat, Christian Traven, B. Tschudi, Johann Jakob Twain, Mark Vagts, Alfred Vater, Johann Severin Veidt, Conrad Viereck, George Sylvester Waibel, Leo Heinrich Waldseemüller, Martin Walther, Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Warburg, Felix Moritz Washington, Booker T., and German Togoland Weischet, Wolfgang Weiser, Conrad Weissmueller, Peter Jonas Weitling, Wilhelm (Christian) Welskopf-Henrich, Liselotte Wenders, Wim

Wied-Neuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu Wigner, Eugen(e) Paul Wilder, Billy Wilhelmy, Herbert Willich, August (von) Wirz, Henry Wise, Isaac Mayer Wolf, Franz Theodor Wyler, William Zakrzewska, Marie Elizabeth Zenger, John Peter Zuckmayer, Carl PLACES Argentina Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario Bitburg Brazil Bremerhaven Buffalo Chicago Chile Cincinnati Egg Harbor City, New Jersey Fredericksburg, Texas Georgia Germantown, Pennsylvania Göttingen, University of Hamburg Hermann, Missouri Illinois Indiana Jamaica Louisiana Mexico Milwaukee New Braunfels, Texas New Orleans New York City

TOPIC FINDER

Nova Scotia Ontario Panama Paraguay Pennsylvania Texas Waterloo County, Ontario Waterloo, Ontario West Berlin

Illinois Staatszeitung New Yorker Staats-Zeitung Newspaper press, Germanlanguage in the United States Ontario, German-language press in Printing and Publishing Woman and Socialism

PUBLISHING Anzeiger des Westens Aufbau Berliner Journal DIMENSION2 Freiheit (Freedom) German-Language Literature German Almanacs in Rio Grande do Sul Huebsch, Ben W., et al., and the Viking Press Imprint

RELIGION Amana Colonies American Churches in Germany Amish B’nai B’rith Brazil, religion in Catholic Women’s Union Ephrata Harmony Society German Catholic CentralVerein

XXIX

German Reformed Church Judaism, Reform (North America) Leopoldine Foundation Ludwig-Missionsverein Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (“Missouri Synod” or “LC-MS”) Mexico, German Jesuits Minnesota Holy Land Mosquito Coast, Moravian missionaries Mucker Pietism Schwenkfelders St. Raphaelsverein zum Schutze katholischer deutscher Auswanderer St. Vincent Monastery and College

CHRONOLOGY OF GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS 1507

Martin Waldseemüller publishes a collection entitled Cosmographiae Introductio (Introduction to Cosmography) with a world map, in which he suggests naming the newly discovered continent America.

1519

Ulrich von Hutten publishes his book De Guaiaci Medicina et morbo gallicus liber unus (Of the Wood Called Guaiacum). It confirms his status as the most prominent early European victim of syphilis, which was introduced to Europe by Spanish sailors returning from the New World after 1492.

1525

The printer Jacob Cromberger and his son-in-law Lazarus Nürnberger are the first Germans to receive permission to enter the American trade, which has until now been exclusively reserved for Spaniards.

1527

1528

Representatives of the Welser firm of Augsburg contract with the Spanish crown to transport fifty miners from Saxony to the American continent, where they are to extract precious metals on the island of Santo Domingo and in other provinces.

Bartholomäus Welser, conclude a treaty with Emperor Charles V of Spain that gives them jurisdiction over the territory that will become known as Venezuela. 1557

Hans Staden publishes his Wahrhaftige Historia und Beschreibung eines Landes der wilden, nackten und grimmigen Menschenfresser, in der Neuen Welt Amerika gelegen (True History and Description of a Country of Wild, Naked, Terrible Man-eaters Who Dwell in the New World Called America) in Marburg. Staden’s Wahrhaftige Historia represents one of the earliest American Indian captivity narratives—if not the earliest captivity narrative of all.

1567

Ulrich (Utz) Schmidel from Straubing publishes a description of his trip and twenty-year sojourn in the La Plata region of Argentina under the title Wahrhafftige Historien einer Wunderbaren Schiffart (True Stories from a Marvelous Journey). With this book Schmidel becomes the first historian of Argentina.

c. 1598

The first German Jesuit to serve as a missionary overseas appears to be Peter de Gouveia from Edister, who is made coadjutor of the village of San Bernabé in Brazil.

Heinrich Ehinger and Hieronymus Sailer, acting for the Augsburg firm of XXXI

XXXII

1683

1691

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

Thirteen Dutch Quaker families from Crefeld arrive in Philadelphia and settle in what is to become the first self-conscious attempt to create a German settlement in North America. Francis Daniel Pastorius, the agent of the German settlers, envisions this community as a “Germanopolis” or “little German city.”

1735

German American printer John Peter Zenger is charged with libel for criticism of New York governor William Cosby published in the New York Weekly Journal, which was printed in Zenger’s establishment. A jury, however, acquits him of any guilt. This verdict is considered the first landmark decision in the history of American press freedom.

1737

The Pennsylvania German Indian agent Conrad Weiser develops a pacifist colonial policy for dealing with the Iroquois Confederacy. His successful negotiations on behalf of the Pennsylvania provincial government with the Iroquois authority in Pennsylvania avoid military confrontation between settlers and Indians.

1738

The German printer Christoph Sauer of Germantown, Pennsylvania, begins publishing the Hoch-Deutsch Pennsylvanische Geschichts-Schreiber (High German Pennsylvania Chronicle), later known as the Pennsylvanische Berichte (Pennsylvania Reports).

1741

Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf founds the Pennsylvania Synod, a preecumenical gathering of pietists.

1748

Pennsylvania German Lutheran clergyman Henry Melchior Muhlenberg organizes the Lutheran churches into the first Lutheran Church synod in the American colonies, officially known as the Ministerium of Pennsylvania.

German Jesuit Samuel Fritz produces the first accurate map of the Amazon River. Eusebius Franciscus Kino makes the first of many expeditions to what will become modern Arizona, and by locating the source of the Colorado River he definitively proves that (Baja) California is not an island.

1710

continuing on to Savannah, Georgia. Their arrival marks the beginning of German settlement in Georgia. They call their new town “Ebenezer.”

Samuel Güldin is the first ordained German Reformed minister to arrive in Pennsylvania. The first-known significant German immigrant group from the Palatinate arrives in New York City.

1720

John Law, a Scottish emigrant to France and the founder of the Compagnie des Indoes (Company of the Indies), brings the first German settlers to Louisiana.

c. 1728

Conrad Beissel founds a monastic community of Sabbatarians in northern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, which he names Ephrata.

1731

German-speaking Silesian Schwenkfelders immigrate to Pennsylvania in six waves of migration between 1731 and 1737.

1732

Benjamin Franklin is the first to print a German-language newspaper, the Philadelphische Zeitung (Philadelphia News), in Britain’s North American colonies. The paper, however, soon fails.

1750

German Lutherans living in the Tyrol region are forced into exile by the archbishop of Salzburg. These “Salzburg Germans” cross the Atlantic and arrive in Charleston, South Carolina, before

The first significant German-speaking settler groups arrive in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They come from the German Palatinate, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and other German-speaking areas.

1753

The British establish the predominantly German settlement of Lunenburg in Nova Scotia.

1734

CHRONOLOGY 1764

The German Society of Pennsylvania is founded with the purpose of protecting new immigrants.

1776

Pennsylvania German minister John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg delivers his famous farewell sermon to his parish. According to legend, he concludes with the phrase: “There is a time to pray and a time to fight, and that time has now come!” With that statement, he throws off his gown at the pulpit, revealing the uniform of a Continental Army colonel. Prince Friedrich II of Hesse-Cassel enters into a treaty with his brother-inlaw, George III of England, according to which Hesse-Cassel promises to supply about 12,000 troops annually for military duty in Britain’s North American colonies. This is the basis for German large-scale support for British troops during the American War of Independence.

1777

1778

1779

Benjamin Franklin, the American ambassador to Paris, offers Friedrich Steuben a place in the Continental Army as a drillmaster. Franklin liberally exaggerates his qualifications to George Washington, promoting Steuben to major general and emphasizing the “von” title, which the Steuben family had never used. After Steuben arrives in Britain’s North American colonies, he trains a “model company” in Europeanstyle military drill in order for them to train the remaining rebel forces. The brothers Johann Anton and Peter Paul (von) Obwexer of Augsburg establish a trading house on the Caribbean island of Curaçao, where their representative Pierre Brion markets central European textiles imported via Amsterdam and purchases tropical goods. August Ludwig von Schlözer publishes his Vertrauliche Briefe aus Kanada und Neu-England vom Jahre 1777 und 1778 (Confidential Letters from Canada and New England, 1777 and 1778).

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

XXXIII

1781

The decisive battle at Yorktown, Virginia, becomes the most “German” of all battles during the American War of Independence as both sides, Americans as well as the British, rely on German support.

1784

The German Society of the City of New York is formed after the model of the German Society of Philadelphia. Its goal is to aid German immigrants to New York City.

1785

The United States and Prussia conclude their first commercial treaty.

1786

The first Mennonite settlements are established in Ontario, Canada.

1788

German immigrant Anton Heinrich publishes Canada’s first German newspaper, the Neu-Schottlaendischer Kalender (Nova-Scotian Calendar) in Halifax.

1789

Pennsylvania German politician Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg is elected the first Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives.

1793

The Reformed Coetus formally severs its European connection and constitutes itself as the Synod of the German Reformed Church in the United States of America.

1799

Alexander von Humboldt, together with the French botanist Aimé Bonpland, embarks on his South American expedition.

1804

George Rapp brings a group of German religious dissenters from Württemberg to Pennsylvania, where they found one of the most successful communal societies in nineteenth-century America— the Harmony Society.

1806

Pennsylvania German immigrant Abraham Erb founds Waterloo, Ontario. Located in the center of a large Pennsylvania German colony, Waterloo over the years develops into Waterloo County’s agricultural center.

XXXIV

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

1806 (cont.)

German linguists Johann Christoph Adelung and Johann Severin Vater begin publication of the Mithridates. This eminent work of comparative linguistics includes the first comprehensive analysis and reference work of the known American Indian languages.

1807

The Mennonite bishop Benjamin Eby leads members from his community in Pennsylvania to settle in Ontario, Upper Canada. The hamlet is established under the name Ebytown and later renamed Berlin.

1815

1817

Prince Maximilian von Wied-Neuwied embarks on his expedition to Brazil. After a stay in Rio de Janeiro he sets out for the coastal region north of Rio, together with the ornithologist Georg Wilhelm Freyreiss and the botanist Friedrich Sellow. Although only a few miles from the coast, this jungle area had scarcely been explored. The Indian peoples of the Coropó, Coroado, Purí, Pataxó, and Camacan live here largely untouched by European civilization. Prince Maximilian spends several months among the Botokude before reaching Bahia (Salvador) in April 1817. The detailed ethnological observations that he publishes in his travel account (Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815 bis 1817 [Journey to Brazil in the years 1815 to 1817], 2 vols., 1820–1821) provide the first comprehensive description of this area. The expedition to Brazil makes Maximilian famous, and his home at Neuwied becomes a meeting place for numerous learned visitors. The marriage of Princess Leopoldine, the daughter of Emperor Francis I, with Portuguese crown prince Dom Pedro sparks a large-scale Austrian expedition into Brazil. Fourteen explorers, physicians, and painters are invited to join this expedition. However, after their arrival in Brazil, conflicts break out among them over the goals and objec-

tives of this enterprise. In the end, the expedition splits up. Johann Christian Mikan and his team return to Europe in 1818 with about 700 drawings and paintings, as well as extensive zoological, botanical, and mineralogical collections. Johann Emanuel Pohl remains in Brazil until 1821 and returns with two Botokude natives to Austria. The last to return from this expedition is Johann Natterer (1836) who collects over 12,000 birds and nearly 33,000 insects. The Hessian nobleman Wilhelm Ludwig von Eschwege becomes general director of Brazil’s gold mines. 1818

The first German settlements are established in southern Bahia and Nova Friburgo in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

1821

German globetrotter and Russian consul general to Brazil Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff publishes his book Bemerkungen über Brasilien. Mit gewissenhafter Belehrung für auswandernde Deutsche (Remarks on Brazil: With Careful Advice for Germans Who Are Considering Emigration) to promote German emigration to Brazil.

1823

Harvard professor George Ticknor presents his reform of Harvard University, which is inspired by his experiences at the University of Göttingen. Ticknor proposes two major reorganizations. First, the students are to be grouped by ability. Second, traditional classes will be abolished and the college organized by departments. As at Göttingen, students may advance at their own pace through examination, rather than as a group by recitation.

1824

A group of Rhenish and Westphalian merchants and manufacturers in Elberfeld creates the Deutsch-Mexikanischer Bergwerks-Verein (German-Mexican Mining Society), later renamed Deutsch-Amerikanischer Bergwerksverein (German-American Mining Society).

CHRONOLOGY 1825

The first theological seminary of the German Reformed Church in the United States is opened in Carlisle.

1826

Prussia and Mexico conclude their first trade treaty based on the principle of mutual preferential treatment.

1827

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe writes his famous poem “Den Vereinigten Staaten” (To the United States).

1828

German American scholar Charles Follen publishes his German grammar. It is the first to be used widely in American schools and eventually appears in over twenty editions in the next three decades. In addition, he publishes his Deutsches Lesebuch für Anfänger (A German Reading Book for Beginners) in the United States, which includes selections from the writings of numerous authors, including Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Christoph Martin Wieland, Novalis, and Friedrich Schiller. This textbook is used for several decades in American colleges.

1829

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

Lexicon in Philadelphia. This encyclopedia represents the successful transfer and adaptation of the German type of encyclopedia, namely Brockhaus’s twelve-volume Allgemeine deutsche RealEncyclopaedie für die gebildeten Stände or Conversations-Lexikon (Universal German Encyclopedia for the Educated Classes, 1827–1829). The Vienna-based Leopoldine Foundation, which will support the development of the Catholic Church in North America during the nineteenth century, is founded. The goal of the society is to support Catholics in North America through the donation of funds and spiritual articles. German writer Charles Sealsfield, after Karl May the most popular German novelist using American settings, publishes his first novel Tokeah and the White Rose, which is apparently written first in English. 1830

Gottfried Duden publishes his famous Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten Nordamerikas und einen mehrjährigen Aufenthalt am Missouri in den Jahren 1824, 25, 26 und 27. In Bezug auf Auswanderung und Überbevölkerung (Report on a Journey to the Western States of America and a Stay of Several Years Along the Missouri during the Years 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1827). Bremerhaven is opened and facilitates much of German immigration to North America. Francis Lieber begins the publication of the famous thirteen-volume Encyclopaedia Americana, Popular Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, History, Politics and Biography, Brought Down to the Present Time; Including a Copious Collection of Original Articles in American Biography; On the Basis of the Seventh Edition of the German Conversations-

XXXV

German American philologist Johann Gottfried Flügel publishes his Complete Dictionary of the English and German Languages, which also contains a great number of americanisms. Enlarged, updated, and newly edited by his son Felix, it becomes a standard work, appearing in its fifteenth edition in 1891. Karl C. Satorius brings German settlers to Veracruz, Mexico, and assembles a small colony of Germans in the tropics.

1833

The Frankfurt banker August Belmont moves to New York City, where he represents the banking house of the Rothschilds.

1834

Detlef Dunt publishes one of the earliest German guidebooks to Texas entitled Reise nach Texas, nebst Nachrichten von diesem Lande; für Deutsche, welche nach Amerika zu gehen beabsichtigen (Journey to Texas: With Information about This Land for Germans Planning to Go to America).

XXXVI

1834 (cont.)

1835

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

German Jacksonian Democrats establish the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung (New York Public News), which becomes the most important German-language publication in the city and by far the most successful German newspaper in the United States after the American Civil War. Its circulation rises above 50,000 in the 1880s, making it the sixth-largest newspaper in the United States. It will become the longest-lasting German newspaper in America and, by the end of the nineteenth century, the largest and most powerful. It is the oldest German-language newspaper still operating in the United States. The Anzeiger des Westens (Western Informer) in St. Louis, Missouri, is the first German-language newspaper to be published west of the Mississippi River.

is the dueling, drunken, and rebellious Otto von Rabenmarck, who represents Otto von Bismarck with whom Motley is befriended from their student days at Göttingen and Berlin. c. 1840

From the 1840s on, the Little Germany on Manhattan Island becomes the largest residential area and most important settlement of German immigrants in New York City.

1840

The Sons of Hermann is founded in New York City as a German American fraternal order. It works for solidarity among German immigrants in the United States through the promotion of their common heritage and traditions.

1842

Twenty-one German noblemen interested in founding a German colony in Texas create the Verein zum Schutze deutscher Einwanderer in Texas (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas) at Biebrich on the Rhine.

The first German immigrants arrive in Jamaica and settle around Seaford Town. The Canada Museum und Allgemeine Zeitung (Canada Museum and General Newspaper) is launched as Ontario’s first German-language paper. 1836

John Jacob Astor opens the Astor House in New York City as the finest hotel in the United States.

1837

Hermann, Missouri, is founded by a group of Philadelphia Germans. It attracts freethinkers, left-liberals, and eventually Forty-Eighters.

1838

1839

The Ludwig-Missionsverein is formed with the permission of King Ludwig I of Bavaria and directed by the archbishop of Munich-Freising. It is charged with promotion of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. Prince Maximilian von Wied-Neuwied publishes his Reise in das innere NordAmerika (Travels in the Interior of North America), which is illustrated by Karl Bodmer. John Lothrop Motley publishes his first novel, Morton’s Hope. Its main character

The first Jewish Reform congregation in the United States, the Har Sinai Verein (Har Sinai Association), is established in Baltimore by a group of German Jewish laymen and modeled after the Hamburg Temple. 1843

Twelve German Jews establish the Jewish fraternal order B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant) in New York City.

1844

The German American brewer Jacob Best establishes the Pabst Brewing Company in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

1845

Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels establishes the hamlet of New Braunfels in Texas. A few weeks later, Baron Otfried Hans Freiherr von Meusebach founds Fredericksburg in Texas.

1846

The Bavarian monk Boniface Wimmer founds St. Vincent Archabbey, near Latrobe, Pennsylvania, as the first Benedictine monastery in the United States and one of the first Roman Catholic institutions in the United States to see to the needs of German Catholic immi-

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

come at the end of the nineteenth century, together with two other libraries, the New York Public Library.

grants. The monastery, located in the Diocese of Greensburg (formerly part of the Diocese of Pittsburgh), forms a college and sends out missions to establish many of the early Benedictine monastic communities in the country.

Frankfurt citizens found the Frankfurter Verein zum Schutz der Auswanderer (Frankfurt Association for the Protection of Emigrants). Its purpose is to organize individual, as well as group, emigration in a safe and modest way.

American travel writer Bayard Taylor publishes his widely popular travel account of Germany Views A-Foot, or, Europe Seen with Knapsack and Staff. A group of young German Jewish women of the newly founded Temple Emanu-El in New York City, guided by Henriette Bruckman, the wife of a German Jewish medical doctor in New York’s Little Germany, establish the Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern (UOTS). This American Jewish sororal order is supposedly the first such organization exclusively for women in the United States. 1847

The Darmstaedters or “The Forty,” a group of thirty-four young men from the duchy of Baden, immigrate to Texas to form a utopian communistic settlement.

The Illinois Staatszeitung (Illinois Public News) is founded. It will become one of the leading German American daily newspapers during the nineteenth century. 1848–1849 The failure of the national liberal revolutions in central Europe forces many liberal intellectuals to flee the Germanspeaking countries. These FortyEighters settle mostly in the United States and Brazil. German refugees of the failed German revolutions found the first Turner societies in the United States. 1849

A group of Hamburg ship owners comes together to form a shipping line, christening it the HamburgAmerikanische-Paketfahrt-AktienGesellschaft (Hapag). Die Deutsche Evangelisch-Lutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio und anderen Staaten (The German Evangelical-Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States) is founded. The Deutsche Gesellschaft (German Society) of New Orleans is established with the goal of providing support for the numerous German immigrants in the New Orleans area by arranging for housing, helping them to find employment, and assisting them in reaching their ultimate destinations. 1848

In his last will German American merchant John Jacob Astor gives orders to build the Astor Library, which will be-

XXXVII

German American painter Emanuel Gottlieb Leutze begins working on his famous painting Washington Crossing the Delaware in Düsseldorf. Moravian brothers (Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine) establish their first mission in Bluefields (Mosquito Coast). The Wendish migration to Texas begins.

1850

Blumenau, Santa Catarina (Brazil), is founded by seventeen German immigrants. The city will be dominated by German architecture and culture into the twenty-first century.

1851

The Brummer, German mercenaries who had fought in the war of independence for the two duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark in 1848 and 1849, emigrate to Brazil where they will serve in the army in exchange for land to be given to them upon completion of their four years of military service.

XXXVIII

CHRONOLOGY

1851 (cont.)

German immigrants begin to settle around Lake Llanquique in Chile. By 1861, several communities will have developed around the lake.

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS 1854

The Socialistischer Turnerbund von Nordamerika (Socialist Turner Union of North America) is founded. German socialist Wilhelm Weitling creates his Socialist colony Communia in County Clayton, Iowa. 1852

The German translation of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin sets the paradigm for a German discussion of slavery. A point of reference for expository texts and an influential model for many novels on slavery, it will have a vital impact on German attitudes toward slavery during the nineteenth century. Cincinnati businessman Robert B. Bowler, an avid horticulturalist, hires German landscape architect Adolph Strauch to design the landscape of his new seventy-three-acre estate, Mount Storm (a public park in 2005) in the picturesque hilltop village of Clifton, newly incorporated just north of the old city of Cincinnati. Strauch also “improves” the landscapes of Robert Buchanan’s forty-three-acre Greenhills, George Neff ’s twenty-five-acre The Windings, Henry Probasco’s thirty-acre Oakwood, William Resor’s Greendale, and George Schoenberger’s forty-sevenacre Scarlet Oaks—all without walls or fences so that the whole neighborhood looks like a large, unified park reached by sinuous drives through undulating terrain for a processional revealing “a sequence of carefully designed, gradually unfolding views.” Clifton, one of the first picturesque designed suburbs, is acclaimed the “Eden of Cincinnati Aristocracy” by Emperor Dom Pedro of Brazil and the prince of Wales.

1853

The German American politician Gustave Koerner is elected lieutenant governor of Illinois.

A group of prominent Germans in Philadelphia founds Egg Harbor as a pure German hamlet outside the city. Envisioned as “a new German home in America. A refuge for all German countrymen who want to combine and enjoy American freedom with German Gemütlichkeit” it has the distinction of being the most “German” town in America. As late as 1900 virtually everyone in Egg Harbor will still be speaking German. Wendish immigrants found the settlement of Serbin in Texas.

1855

The Amana Society establishes the Amana Colonies in Amana, East Amana, Middle Amana, High Amana, West Amana, South Amana, and Homestead located in the Iowa River valley in Iowa County in east-central Iowa. Chicago witnesses the so-called Beer Riot, a violent protest of German and Irish immigrants against a ban on the public sale and consumption of alcohol by the city. The German Catholic Central-Verein is founded in Baltimore. Originally organized as a confederation of parish-based mutual aid societies, it is at first oriented to the social, economic, and religious needs of first-generation immigrants. Roman Catholic missionary priest Francis Xavier Pierz publishes his book Die Indianer in Nord-Amerika (The Indians of North America). This book is intended to encourage Catholic immigrants to come to Minnesota (Minnesota Holy Land).

1856

One of the very first German Brazilian almanacs, Der neue hinkende Teufel. Deutscher Volkskalender für das Jahr 1856 für die Provinz S. Pedro do Sul (The New Limping Devil. German Popular Calendar for the Year 1856 for the Province of S. Pedro do Sul, 1856–1858) is published.

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

granted previously and forbids all further recruitment for emigration to Brazil. The edict soon becomes known as the von-der-Heydt’sches Rescript (Heydt Edict) after Baron August von der Heydt, the Prussian minister for trade and industry whose department handles emigration.

Margarethe A. Schurz opens the first kindergarten in the United States in Milwaukee. 1857

1858

Two Bremen shippers, Carl Eduard Crüsemann and Hermann Henrich Meier, form the Norddeutscher Lloyd (North German Lloyd). It will become one of the world’s largest shipping firms before World War I. Its main route covers the Atlantic and it serves as a major tie between the United States and Europe as it takes out emigrants and brings back staple goods. Luxury liners ferry elite passengers between Germany and America.

1859

1861

1862

Friedrich Rittinger and John Motz found the weekly German-language newspaper Berliner Journal that will be published every Thursday, without interruption, from now until 1918 in Berlin (Kitchener), Ontario. Robert Avé-Lallemant, a physician from Lübeck returning from Brazil, reports about the horrible conditions of German colonists at the Mucury River in Minas Gerais, who have been deprived of their rights and are being exploited by lack of sufficient nourishment and medical care as well as rising indebtedness. Avé-Lallemant speaks of “human butchery” and labels any further immigration to Brazil as “unsafe and dangerous.” Prussian authorities react immediately. An edict is issued that revokes all concessions permitting recruitment

Frankfurt banking houses financially support the Union in the American Civil War, holding nearly 40 percent of the North’s debts, which will rise from $90 million to $2.74 billion between 1860 and 1865. Emmanuel Gottlieb Leutze receives a government commission for a painting to be called Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way (popularly Westward Ho!). After an excursion into the Rocky Mountains, Leutze paints the mural directly upon the wall of the great stairway in the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.

New York City’s Central Park opens. This first landscaped public park in the United States could not have been envisioned, let alone built, without a profound knowledge of German garden theory and German garden design. Heinrich Balduin Möllhausen (the “German James Fenimore Cooper”) publishes his first book Tagebuch einer Reise vom Mississippi nach den Küsten der Südsee (Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific).

XXXIX

The 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment, which includes numerous German volunteers, is mustered into service for fighting in the American Civil War. In the Battle of the Nueces, German militiamen from Texas who want to join the Union army are massacred by Texas Confederate troops at the Nueces River, near where the town of Comfort will be established.

1863

With U.S. aid, the first German Protestant church in Chile is built in Osorno.

1864

Austrian-born Emperor Maximilian ends discriminatory legislation in Mexico that had discouraged immigration. Enticed by the prospect of living under the rule of Maximilian, thousands of German-speaking immigrants flock to Mexico. The vast majority of these immigrants are young, male, and single, and many of them will return home after Maximilian’s execution in 1867.

XL

CHRONOLOGY

1864

1865

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

For his role in the capture of Atlanta, Georgia, German American Peter J. Osterhaus is promoted to major general of the Union army. He is one of five German Americans (the others being August Willich, Franz Sigel, Carl Schurz, and Edward S. Salomon) to reach the rank of major general in the American Civil War.

Brazilians living in the southern provinces of Brazil are feared to be a fifth column of the German Empire that might eventually help Wilhelm I to establish colonies in Brazil. 1872

German priest John Joseph Jessing establishes the Ohio Waisenfreund (Ohio Orphan’s Friend), which quickly gains a significant voice in the German American Catholic press of Ohio.

German American Mathilde Franziska Anneke, together with Cecilia Kapp, opens her Töchter Institut (Daughters Institute) in Milwaukee. Henry Wirz, a German-speaking Swiss immigrant to America who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War and commanded the Andersonville prisoner-of-war camp from April 1864 to the end of the war in April 1865, is put on trial for war crimes. Arrested by Union military forces, he is questioned, released, rearrested, and sent to Washington for a war crimes trial relating to his treatment of prisoners at the Andersonville camp. He is convicted and executed for “murder in violation of the laws and customs of war.”

1867

German American engineers John Augustus and Washington Augustus Roebling begin planning the construction of the suspension bridge that will link Manhattan with Brooklyn across the East River.

1870

U.S. president Ulysses S. Grant appoints Edward S. Salomon, the highestranking German Jewish officer in the Union army during the American Civil War, to the position of territorial governor of the Washington Territory.

1871

Simon Peter Paul Cahensly founds the St. Raphaels-Verein zum Schutz der katholischen deutschen Auswanderer (St. Raphael’s Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants) in Mainz.

c. 1871

Brazil’s government propagates the perigo alemão (German scare) that will continue until World War I. German

German Brazilians in Porto Alegre organize the first Kaiserfeier to celebrate the birthday of Wilhelm I.

Several Waterloo County, Ontario, publishers found the Deutsch-Kanadischer Pressverein (German-Canadian Press Association) to lobby for Germanlanguage education in Ontario’s public schools. St. Louis’s daily Catholic newspaper, Die Amerika, begins publication. It will become the largest and most successful German Catholic daily in the United States. The Canadian government adopts a proactive immigration policy, resulting in a system of immigration agencies in Europe. Jakob Emil Klotz of Preston becomes Canadian emigration agent in Hamburg, while Wilhelm Hespeler of Waterloo is appointed Canadian immigration agent in charge of all Germanspeaking territories in Europe and takes up his post in Straßburg, Alsace. Berlin industrialist Jacob Yost Shantz becomes a leading organizer and activist for the settlement of several thousand Germanspeaking Russian Mennonites in Manitoba, and later establishes his own colony in Didsbury, Alberta, which attracts many descendants of German pioneers from Waterloo County. 1873

Reform Jewish congregations of the West and South launch the formation of a national lay union of Jewish congregations in the United States, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), in Cincinnati, Ohio.

CHRONOLOGY 1874

1875

James Morgan Hart publishes his book German Universities: A Narrative of Personal Experiences. Together with Recent Statistical Information, Practical Suggestions, and a Comparison of the German, English and American Systems of Higher Education.

OF

1881

Jacobo Schaerer builds the first permanent German colony in Paraguay at San Bernardino.

An average of 30,000 Volga Germans from Russia per year begin arriving in the United States and settling in Kansas, the Dakotas, and Oregon along the lines of the Northern Pacific Railroad. Aided by the U.S. Homestead Act and subsidized loans from the railroads, Volga German communities spread across the upper Midwest. The influx will continue at these levels until 1914. 1877

U.S. president Rutherford B. Hayes appoints Carl Schurz secretary of the interior. Schurz effectively reorganizes the Indian affairs administration and introduces many civil service reforms. The Socialist Labor Party of the United States is founded. The party has a predominantly German working-class membership.

1878

Several German-speaking colonies are established in Paraguay in the late 1800s, of which Nueva Germania, San Bernardino, and Hohenau are the largest.

Johns Hopkins University is founded. It will come to be considered the most “German” of all American universities.

Karl May begins publishing his famous Winnetou in three volumes.

The German parliament passes the Anti-Socialist Laws, which force many

The two first German assemblymen are elected to the provincial assembly in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Henry Higginson founds the Boston Symphony and puts the German George Henshel in charge of the new orchestra, which is staffed heavily by German and Austrian players.

Philip Becker and Henry Overstolz are the first German immigrants to serve as mayors of major American cities—Buffalo (New York) and St. Louis (Missouri).

German American educator Karl Gottfried Maeser is appointed principal of the Brigham Young Academy in Provo, Utah.

XLI

Social Democrats to leave Germany and emigrate to North America.

The Hebrew Union College (HUC) is founded in Cincinnati and begins training American rabbinical students. 1876

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

1882

Johann Most moves Freiheit (Freedom), one of the longest-running anarchist periodicals, from London to New York City.

1884

Karl von den Steinen embarks on his first South American expedition. His expedition will find the source of the Rio Xingú, and a member of his team, the physicist Otto Clauss, will produce the first map of the Rio Xingú river system.

1885

At the Pittsburgh Conference, Reform rabbis agree upon the “Pittsburgh Platform” that becomes the basis for “Classical Reform.” This movement stresses the Reform principle (i.e., that Judaism’s basis is spirit, not law, so that continuous religious progress can be achieved) over communal unity. In Pittsburgh, Reform Jews define themselves as a community of belief. They give up the idea of Jewish nationhood and instead stress their identity as American Jews. The conference decides to use David Einhorn’s prayer book Olat Tamid as a model for the Union Prayer Book of the American Reform movement.

XLII

1886

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

An alliance of Chicago factory owners, media concerns, and members of the political establishment seize the opportunity of the Haymarket bombing to destroy Chicago’s popular (and mostly German American) radical left, especially the anarcho-syndicalist groups. The German antisemite Bernard Förster establishes his settlement Nueva Germania in Paraguay. Together with his wife, Elizabeth Nietzsche (sister of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche), Förster attempts to establish a “pure” racial living space of Aryans. Wilhelm Rotermund creates the Synod of Rio Grande do Sul, which will serve as a model for the creation of three other synods: the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Santa Catarina, Paraná and Other States (1905); the Evangelical Synod of Santa Catarina and Paraná (1911); and the Synod of Central Brazil (1912). The first English translation of August Bebel’s influential book Woman and Socialism appears in the United States. The original German book, first published in 1879, will go through over fifty reprintings and new editions in German by 1913 and achieve translation into more than twenty languages. It will rank among the world’s first best-sellers. Certainly, it will inspire many women throughout the world to rethink their social situation and some to join the Socialist or women’s movements. Its main point is that “[t]he freedom of humanity is not possible without the establishment of the social independence and equality of the genders.”

1888

The International Council of Women (ICW) is founded in Washington, D.C. Its intention is not merely to bring together women from across the globe, but also to provide coordination for national women’s movements. As such, the ICW is intended as a federation of national organizations.

1889

Richard Sapper, a wealthy German coffee planter, becomes president of the German Society of Guatemala.

1890

German Canadian publisher and journalist John Adam Rittinger begins writing his “Briefe vun Joe Klotzkopp, Esq.” (Letters of Joe Klotzkopp, Esq.). These letters, 120 of which he will write until his death in 1915, will all be published in the Ontario Glocke and the Berliner Journal. The letters are composed in the Pennsylvania German dialect.

1890–1891 Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show goes to Germany. By the end of its travels it will have performed in the German cities of Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Brunswick, Hanover, Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, Strassburg, Dortmund, Duisburg, Baden-Baden, Mannheim, Darmstadt, Koblenz, and Aachen. It also visits the Austrian cities of Innsbruck and Vienna. 1891

German American conductor Thedore Thomas founds the Chicago Symphony. German geologist and explorer in South America Moritz Alphons Stübel offers the city council of Leipzig to present his collections to the city in return for a suitable museum space. The city council agrees to this, and when a new building for the Museum of Ethnology is opened in 1896 the Stübel Collections find a home as the Department of Comparative Regional Geography in a separate room. Stübel’s donation includes 82 oil paintings, 100 drawings (including more than 30 large-format Andean panoramas), about 2,000 photographs, and 3,000 geological samples, as well as ethnological artifacts. He develops this unique geographical museum with his own funds, including a library with a map collection—also deriving from his private collection. His expedition notes will form the basis of an Archiv für Forschungsreisende (Archives of Exploration) that will open in 1902.

CHRONOLOGY 1892

German American politician John Peter Altgeld is elected governor of Illinois.

OF

1901

German priest John Joseph Jessing creates the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio, which will become a leading educational center for German American Catholic priests during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instruction is provided in both English and German. 1894

The Deutsche Schule von Mexico/ Colegio Alemán de México opens its doors in Mexico City.

German parliament revokes the vonder-Heydt’sches Rescript (Heydt Edict) for the three southern states (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná), but not for the rest of Brazil.

1897

The Hermann monument in New Ulm, Minnesota, financed by contributions from the Sons of Hermann lodges, is opened to the public.

1898

Herrmann Meyer creates his colony Neu-Württemberg in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Victor L. Berger cofounds the Social Democratic Party of the United States, Branch 1, and is soon recognized as the unchallenged leader of the Socialist movement in the most German city in the United States, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, at the turn of the twentieth century.

1899

Charles Hexamer founds the GermanAmerican Central Alliance of Pennsylvania and becomes its first president. The stated goal of the organization is to preserve German culture in America and to establish a national organization for German Americans.

XLIII

Booker T. Washington agrees to help the German government to improve the cotton output of the German colony of Togo in West Africa from 1901 to 1909. For this purpose he sends an expedition consisting of three Tuskegee graduates, Allen L. Burks, Shepherd L. Harris, and John W. Robinson, led by a Germanspeaking Tuskegee faculty member, James N. Calloway, to Togoland. The four establish a model plantation at Tove that will operate throughout the German colonial period. The Deutsch-Amerikanische National Bund (National German-American Alliance, NGAA) is founded, and Charles Hexamer is elected president. The NGAA focuses on promoting the teaching of the German language in public schools, preserving German culture, praising the achievements of German Americans, and fostering closer ties between the United States and Germany.

On March 29, the Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine (BDF, or Federation of German Women’s Clubs) is founded in Berlin. It is the first umbrella organization with the specific aim of connecting and centralizing the broad spectrum of women’s interests and concerns. 1895

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

1902–1903 The clash of German and American interests in Venezuela leads to the Venezuela Crisis. 1904

Richard Wagner’s Parsifal premieres at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City, violating the Wagner family’s wishes that it not be performed outside of Germany.

1905

U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt mediates between Germany and France in resolving the First Moroccan Crisis peacefully.

1908

Georg von Bosse publishes his history of Germans in the United States, Das deutsche Element in den Vereinigten Staaten (The German Element in the United States, 1908), which becomes a standard work.

1910

German American leading academic Hugo Münsterberg organizes the Amerika Institut in Berlin for the purpose of maintaining and furthering academic relations and cooperation between Germany and the United States.

XLIV

1910 (cont.)

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS The Canadian government begins to intern Germans. During the war about 8,000 enemy aliens, mostly Ukrainians but also Germans and Austro-Hungarians are held at 24 locations (e.g., at Amherst and in the national parks at Banff, Jasper, Yoho, and Mount Revelstoke).

Victor Berger, a German American politician from Milwaukee, is the first member of the Socialist Party elected to the U.S. Congress. Due in large part to efforts by the National German-American Alliance, a statue of Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben is unveiled in Washington, D.C.

1911

1912

Kuno Meyer, professor of Celtic Philology at Berlin University, embarks on a propaganda tour throughout the United States to facilitate the collaboration between German American and Irish American organizations with the goal of ensuring American neutrality in World War I.

The Waterloo Lutheran Seminary is founded as Canada’s first institution to train pastors for Lutheran congregations within the country. Prior to this, Canada’s Lutheran clergy has been exclusively trained in Germany and the United States. Placed in the midst of a predominantly Lutheran and German community, the seminary contributes greatly to Waterloo’s German Canadian identity. It later becomes integrated into Wilfrid Laurier University.

Felix Moritz Warburg and Jacob H. Schiff are instrumental in creating the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC). The JDC is originally conceived as a short-term project. It originates as a war-relief committee aiming to assist its overseas brethren during the Great War. In the interwar period, following the Russian Revolution, Warburg and the JDC will assist Soviet Jewry by creating the American Jewish Joint Agricultural Corporation (the “Agro-Joint”). Following the Nazi rise to power, Jews from Germany and later from Nazi-occupied Europe will receive the JDC’s assistance in emigration and absorption elsewhere. The JDC will help persecuted Jews during World War II and assist displaced persons and Holocaust survivors in its aftermath.

German conductor Ernst Kunwald is hired by the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra. German conductor Karl Muck, one of history’s greatest Wagnerians, is engaged as the conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

1913

B’nai B’rith founds the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to fight antisemitism. The Nebraska legislature passes the Mockett Law. This law calls for instruction in modern European languages for students in the fifth grade and higher if requested by the parents of fifty or more pupils. Given the large percentage of German Americans in Nebraska, the legislation results in German becoming an “official” second language.

1914

1915

Following Great Britain, Canada declares war on Germany.

The German-born Carl Laemmle opens one of the first film studios, Universal City, thus contributing to the rapid growth of the film industry in Hollywood.

The War Measures Act gives the Canadian government powers of “arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation” of individuals, and specifically denies the rights of bail and habeas corpus to anyone arrested “upon suspicion that he is an alien enemy.”

Mexican revolutionary Victoniano Huerta meets with German representatives in New York City. The Germans promise to provide Huerta and Pascual Orozco with $895,000, along with rifles and ammunition. In return, Germany hopes that Orozco and Huerta

CHRONOLOGY

OF

The German Admiralty issues a declaration announcing all waters around the United Kingdom to be a war zone and threatening any merchant vessels found within the zone with destruction. Importantly, the declaration indicates that no guarantee can be given as to the safety of the crew and passengers. Neutral shipping will be treated the same as that from combatant nations. This includes American merchant vessels. For the first time, German submarines are directly threatening American ships and American lives.

Since the Chilean Allied Statutory or Black Lists interrupted German Chilean and German businesses, the German Chamber of Commerce (now Camara Chileno Alemana de Comercio e Industria) is established. The Liga Chilena Alemana (DCB, German-Chilean Association) is created as an umbrella organization in response to Allied propaganda and black lists to protect German Chilean institutions (especially the schools), to lobby for Chilean neutrality, and to protect the interests of German citizens.

The German policy of unrestricted warfare soon makes itself clear when the William P. Frye, an American vessel carrying a shipment of wheat to England, is sunk in the South Atlantic. This is the first loss of an American ship, and U. S. president Woodrow Wilson’s reaction is to warn Germany that it will be held responsible for the safety of American lives.

1916

In a show of patriotism, Berlin, Ontario, is renamed Kitchener after the late British minister of war, Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener. Torontonians form an Anti-German League, aiming at the dismissal of all Canadians of German heritage from public office and the administration, as well as taking measures considered necessary against German Canadians. Bilingual schools (English and German) are abolished in Manitoba, Canada.

XLV

German American Catholic women form the Catholic Women’s Union (CWU) in St. Louis, Missouri, which is modeled after the Katholischer deutscher Frauenbund (Catholic German Women’s Organization, KDF).

will overthrow the Mexican government and set up a pro-German government, thus giving them an ally geographically close to the United States.

The sinking of the liner Lusitania by torpedo off the coast of Ireland with the loss of 128 American lives and of the British passenger liner Arabic inflames public opinion in the United States, with Wilson threatening to break diplomatic relations with Germany.

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

The Lafayette Escadrille (initially known as the Escadrille Americaine) is formed under the command of a French officer, Captain Georges Thenault. This unit is made up of American volunteer pilots. Although the U.S. government granted the volunteers’ petition to undertake military service abroad, the United States still maintains its neutrality. 1917

After Germany returns to unrestricted submarine warfare, U.S. president Woodrow Wilson breaks off diplomatic relations and begins to arm American merchant vessels. This “armed neutrality” is the final step before American entry into the war. The German navy torpedoes the Brazilian ship Paraná. Brazil declares war on Germany. The Brazilian government prohibits the circulation of German newspapers and orders the closing of German schools. A state of siege is declared in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná, São Paulo, and the Federal District.

XLVI

1917 (cont.)

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS ning nonnaturalized male Germans are interned in local jails and at Ellis Island. During the war between 8,500 and 10,000 nonnaturalized German civilians will be interned in camps at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia; Fort Douglas, Utah; Fort McPherson, Georgia; and Hot Springs, North Carolina.

The Canadian War-Times Election Act disfranchises all Germans (and other “enemy aliens”) who were naturalized but had arrived after 1898, which includes the vast majority of Germans in western Canada. All Mennonites lose the vote without exception. Both groups are also exempted from the draft. In the Zimmermann Telegram, Germany offers Mexico an alliance. Germany asks that Mexico attack the United States should it attack Germany. In return, Germany, after winning the war, will make sure that Mexico receives back lands that the United States had taken from it in the nineteenth century.

1918

Woodrow Wilson presents his famous Fourteen Points to Congress and to the world. Promising “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” and national self-determination, his speech is to give the first democratically elected German government some hope for a just peace.

The Zimmermann Telegram and the unrestricted submarine warfare practiced by Germany force the United States to enter World War I.

In an extreme instance of violence directed against German Americans during World War I, a lynch mob murders a German American worker, Robert Prager, in Collinsville, Illinois.

The American Expeditionary Force (AEF) arrives at Saint-Nazaire, France. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson creates the Committee on Public Information (CPI) to disseminate American propaganda about World War I. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson signs the Espionage Act. This act is intended to catch and punish German spies and to stop the subversive activities of enemies. The U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act requires that foreign-language papers file translations with proper officials of any article dealing with the Red Cross, the Liberty Loan program, the draft, or the war in general. It also gives A. Mitchell Palmer, the alien property custodian, the authority to confiscate tangible or intangible property in the form of land, patents, money, and securities that belong to the enemy. The term enemy applies to any citizen of Germany or person residing in Germany even if American-born who owns property in the United States. The selective internment of Germans in the United States begins. In the begin-

Bilingual schools (English and German) are abolished in Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada.

1919

The Treaty of Versailles is concluded between Germany and the four Allies (the United States, France, Great Britain, and Italy). It ends World War I and imposes harsh conditions on Germany (limitation of armed forces, territorial and population losses, loss of industrial facilities, colonial losses, acknowledgement of war guilt, and reparation payments). The U.S. Senate refuses to ratify the treaty. The enactment of Prohibition forces German brewers to fold or retool to produce flavored soda, “near beer,” cheese, and candy and to close down the traditional beer gardens. German and Colombian businessmen found the Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aéreos (SCADTA, Colombian German Air Transport Company) in Barranquilla, Colombia. It is one of the earliest and, for more than a decade, will be one of the most successful ventures in civil aviation in Latin America.

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

German American brewer Frank X. Schwab is elected mayor of Buffalo, New York. Schwab acquires national publicity in the 1920s for his open hostility to both Prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan.

A small group of German Americans in New York City that suffered from considerable anti-German sentiment following World War I creates the Steuben Society of America, which is named after the hero of the American War of Independence, Frederick von Steuben. The organization’s goal is to combat anti-German sentiment by celebrating the numerous social, cultural, political, and scientific contributions of German Americans to American society. 1921

The Treaty of Berlin formally ends the war between Germany and the United States. Henry Ford’s blatantly antisemitic Der Internationale Jude (The International Jew), is published in Germany. Ford’s book, which will still be praised and published by antisemites worldwide on the Internet in 2005, also catches the attention of men like Adolf Hitler, who comes to deeply respect and admire Ford as an industrialist and fellow antisemite. The Germanic Collection at Harvard University, housed in the Adolphus Busch Hall is opened. It combines Renaissance, Gothic, and Romanesque styles to highlight the history of German architectural achievements.

1922

The position of Germans living in South and Central America taken in the Flaggenstreit (debate over the German flag) displays their predominantly conservative attitude. The official flag of the Weimar Republic is black, red, and gold—since the Napoleonic Wars the flag of German democrats. The vast majority of Germans in Latin America refuse to recognize these colors, preferring the black, white, and red flag of the Empire. A poll taken by the Verband Deutscher Reichsangehöriger (Confederation of Citizens of the German Reich) in Mexico favors the imperial over the republican flag by a vote of 1,800 to 2.

XLVII

Peter Jonas Weissmueller, descendent of a Donauschwaben (Danube Swabian) family, swims to his first world record: the 200-meter in 2:15.5 minutes, and thus beats the three-time Olympic gold medalist Norman Ross. 1923

The Heidelberger Austauschstelle (Heidelberg Exchange Center) is founded as an institution to further academic contacts between the United States and Germany and especially to further German American student exchange.

1924

The U.S. government introduces a quota system to limit immigration (25,957 German immigrants per year). An Allied Reparations Commission headed by the American financier Charles G. Dawes calls for lower reparations payments as part of a comprehensive reform of the German economy (Dawes Plan). Hugo Eckener pilots the zeppelin (LZ 126) from Friedrichshafen across the Atlantic to Lakehurst, New Jersey. Eckener receives a ticker tape parade through Manhattan and is praised as the “modern Columbus” by U.S. president Calvin Coolidge. The crossing of the Atlantic by LZ 126 leads to the founding of Goodyear-Zeppelin in Akron, Ohio. This new enterprise employs thirteen German engineers and begins construction of American airships in 1928. Ten of these ships were to be employed in the crossing of the Pacific. German Brazilians celebrate Der 25. Juli. Unser Tag (The 25th of July. Our Day) for the first time. It commemorates the arrival of the first German immigrants in São Leopoldo in 1824.

XLVIII

1925

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS America during which he records the everyday speech of the Indian peoples. He first stays in the Mexican provinces of Guerrero and Oaxaca among the Tlapaneca, Mixteca, and Aztec language groups. Subsequently he travels to the western highlands of Guatemala to study the Mayan language of the Quiché; his last project is to record the language of the Pipil in Salvador.

Wrigley’s establishes its first German production facility in Frankfurt am Main, where it produces the P. K. gumball. The Akademischer Austauschdienst (Academic Exchange Service, AAD) is founded to increase academic contacts between Germany and the United States.

1926

The German American Gertrud Ederle is the first woman to swim the English Channel. Concordia University at Austin is founded by thirteen Lutheran congregations in central Texas, the majority membership of which is of Wendish descent. The university regards itself as the only university in the world founded largely by people of Wendish ancestry and will continue to have strong percentages of Wends among its student body, faculty, and staff.

1927

1929

1930

Marlene Dietrich moves to Hollywood to become one of its most glamorous and provocative stars. 1931

The National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) opens its first Latin American branch in Paraguay. American journalist Dorothy Thompson publishes her interview with Adolf Hitler (I Saw Hitler!). In a somewhat sensational lapse, Thompson emerges convinced of the insignificance and ridiculousness of the führer, but she also introduces him as the “apotheosis of the little man,” thus shifting attention to the sociopolitical problem of the masses that will continue to cheer and support him.

The first Coca-Cola vending machines are installed in Germany. The Young Plan, a new American-led effort to reduce Germany’s reparations burden after World War I, is published.

The Great Depression spreads from the United States to Germany because of close connections in the financial market. Leonhard Sigmund Schultze-Jena embarks on his research trip to Central

The Austrian Creditanstalt is the first major European bank to fail as the Great Depression spreads to Europe. It causes a chain reaction, and a run at all major German banks ensues. The Hoover Moratorium effectively cancels all German reparation payments.

Fritz Lang releases his film Metropolis. Lang had the idea for this film back in 1924, while arriving on a ship in New York City. The vision of the skyscrapers seen in the sunrise inspired him to write a story about an inhuman, gigantic city of the future.

The German Protestant Church in Rio Grande do Sul enters into an affiliation with the German Federation of Protestant Churches, which becomes part of the German Protestant Church in 1933.

The German branch of the Coca-Cola Company is founded in Essen.

1932

Albert Einstein accepts an appointment at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Adolf Hitler appoints his friend Ernst Hanfstaengl, the heir of a prominent German art publishing firm and closely connected with American upper society, to be foreign press chief of the NSDAP.

CHRONOLOGY

OF

1933

After the Nazi seizure of power, the German Parliament passes the Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases. It states that anyone with a hereditary illness may be sterilized against his or her will if a medical expert determines that he or she is likely to produce children with a serious hereditary defect. This law is based on several state laws in the United States.

The Austrian composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold goes to Hollywood, where his film music—written in the tradition of Wagner, Puccini, and Strauss—contributes to the power of the pictures and becomes the prototype of American film music. His musical style becomes the style of Hollywood. 1935

Inspired by current events in Germany, Sinclair Lewis publishes his warning novel, It Can’t Happen Here, in which he depicts his own country in the iron grip of a 100 percent American dictator.

1936

The African American Jesse Owens wins the 100 meters, the 200 meters, the long jump, and the 4 x100-meter relay at the Olympic Games in Berlin. His success spoils Nazi ambitions to showcase its notion of Aryan racial superiority on the athletic field. After congratulating the Finnish medal winners in the 10,000 meters, German leader Adolf Hitler refuses to congratulate black American Cornelius Johnson, who had won the high jump. Hitler refrains from congratulating medal winners after the IOC informs him that he must congratulate all or none.

The Friends of the New Germany (FONG) is founded as a Nazi organization in the United States. 1934

The journal Aufbau (Construction) is founded in New York City by the German Jewish Club. This German Jewish periodical will achieve considerable influence and standing in the years around World War II.

Fritz Kuhn founds the German American Bund (GAB) in Buffalo, New York, as the successor to the Friends of the New Germany. In contrast to its predecessor, which had many German nationals among its members, the GAB insists that members must be American citizens of German origin.

The Frankfurt School moves to New York where it becomes affiliated with Columbia University. It continues as the Institute for Social Research. The pro-Nazi Deutscher Bund Kanada (German Association Canada), thinly disguised as a cultural and social club, is founded. The U.S. Congress creates the Special House Committee to Investigate the Extent, Character, and Objects of Nazi Propaganda in the United States. This is the predecessor for the Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities that will become infamous in the 1940s and

XLIX

1950s for excesses in its hunt for alleged Communists in the United States.

The novelist Plínio Salgado founds the Ação Integralista Brasileira, which represents the Brazilian version of fascism. The former swimmer Peter Jonas Weissmueller begins his movie career as Tarzan in Hollywood. Within sixteen years he will play in twelve Tarzan movies and act in another sixteen films as the star of the Jungle Jim series. With his well-trained body and innocent looks, he is considered to be the ideal person to play the role of Tarzan.

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

Max Schmeling travels to New York City for a boxing match with African American Jesse Jones. 1937

After the Nazi seizure of power, the Bauhaus is closed and its members leave Germany for the United States. Industrialists succeed in bringing Laszlo Moholy-Nagy to Chicago to head the New Bauhaus, soon to be reorganized as the School of Design.

L

CHRONOLOGY

1937 (cont.)

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS One week after Great Britain, Canada declares war on Germany.

Harvard’s Graduate School of Design offers Walter Gropius a professorship of architecture and then the departmental chair from 1938 to 1952, positions through which he makes modernism the dominant international style for a generation of students and emulators, breaking the American architectural establishment away from the Beaux-Arts style. Brazil introduces a system of immigration quotas. According to this system, immigration is reduced to an annual maximal number of 2 percent of the total number of immigrants of a certain nationality that had immigrated in the previous fifty years. The Brazilian constitution prohibits all political activities and in the beginning of 1938 all foreign political parties, including the NSDAP.

Canada introduces the Defence of Canada Regulations (DCR) under the War Measures Act. Under the DCR, the justice minister may detain without charge anyone who might act “in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state.” 1940

Charlie Chaplin produces the only fulllength anti-Nazi movie, The Great Dictator, before the U.S. declares war on Germany. 1941

The zeppelin LZ 129, christened Hindenburg, explodes over Lakehurst, New Jersey. It is the largest and last zeppelin used to transport passengers from Germany to North and South America. 1938

A group of German-speaking exiles in Mexico that includes Egon Erwin Kisch and Anna Seghers founds the political and cultural monthly Freies Deutschland (Free Germany). Germany declares war on the United States. The U.S. government, fearing Nazi subversion in Latin America, organizes the expulsion of over 4,000 German residents from 15 Latin American countries and their internment in U.S. camps in Texas, Louisiana, and other states.

The McCormack Act, which requires the registration of “Agents of Foreign Principals” and outlaws alien political activists in the United States, is passed by the U.S. Congress. The S.S. St. Louis, a German passenger ship with Jewish refugees, is denied entry to Havana and thus forced to return to Europe.

Stefan Zweig publishes his book Brasilien. Ein Land der Zukunft (Brazil: A Land of the Future), which praises and romanticizes Brazil. The book is seen as an homage to Brazilian dictator Getúlio Vargas and is even considered to have been commissioned by him. The U.S. government issues the Trading with the Enemy Act that sets legal prohibitions on trade with Axis nations.

James Mooney, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Benito Mussolini receive the Verdienstkreuz Deutscher Adler (Grand Cross of the German Eagle), the highest award available to foreigners to reward invaluable service to the Third Reich. The Ford Motor Company’s German subsidiary Ford-Werke AG begins producing troop transport trucks for the German military.

1939

With the passage of the Alien Registration Act in the United States, the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 are reactivated and aliens have to register with government authorities.

1942

Stefan Zweig and his wife commit suicide in Brazil and receive a pompous state funeral.

CHRONOLOGY

OF

At the Tehran Conference, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin decide key points of their grand strategy in the European theater and the treatment of defeated Nazi Germany (occupation, division).

Franz L. Neumann publishes his book Behemoth: The Spirit and Structure of National Socialism, which makes him widely known both within and outside academic circles as an expert on contemporary Germany.

Canadian soldiers participate in the invasion of Sicily and subsequent liberation of Italy. During the Christmas Battle of Ortona—“Little Stalingrad” as the exhausted Canadian infantry ruefully names it—vicious house-to-house fighting against fanatic German paratroopers wins the enemy more respect than hatred.

Canadian forces engage in a disastrous raid on Dieppe in France. In a matter of hours, the 5,000 Canadian soldiers who composed the bulk of the 6,000man attacking force were decimated— with more than 900 killed and another 2,000 taken prisoner, most of them wounded, more prisoners than the Canadian army would suffer in the entire 10-month-long Northwest Europe campaign.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) and the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) bomb Hamburg. Incendiary bombs, filled with phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), create a firestorm that kills over 44,000 people. In addition to the heavy civilian casualties, the bombing reduces half the city to rubble and the remainder must be evacuated.

American forces land in French Morocco and Algeria as the initial part of the North African campaign. At the end of the British American conference in Casablanca, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Winston Churchill at his side, explains that the elimination of Axis war power means their unconditional surrender. The enforced ban on all political parties and the prohibition of political activities of foreigners in Brazil leads to the end of exile groups such as the Movimento dos Alemães Antinazis (Movement of German Anti-Fascists), the committee Das Andere Deutschland (The Other Germany), and the Movimento dos Alemães Livres (Movement for a Free Germany), which was related to the Communist Bewegung Freies Deutschland (Movement for a Free Germany) in Mexico.

LI

Mildred Fish Harnack is executed for her involvement in the German resistance group known as the Red Orchestra. She is the only U.S. civilian the Nazi government will execute during World War II.

In “Operation Pastorius” German Nazis use recently remigrated German Americans and Nazi sympathizers as agents for acts of sabotage in the United States and land them in two groups by submarine on the shores of Long Island and Florida.

1943

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

1944

Nineteen left-liberal political and cultural representatives (among them Bertolt Brecht, Hermann Budzislawski, and Paul Hagen) under the chairmanship of the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich establish the Council for a Democratic Germany (CDG) in New York City to add an organized voice of the “other Germany” to the American public wartime debate and in the hope of influencing the official U.S. planning for postwar Germany. Henry Morgenthau publishes his pamphlet Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III (commonly known as the Morgenthau Plan). It is

LII

CHRONOLOGY

1944 (cont.)

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

the most comprehensive scheme for the reconstruction of German society. Morgenthau argues that a powerful, industrialized Germany would inevitably attempt to wage war on its neighbors and the world again. He postulates that Adolf Hitler’s rise to power was the logical consequence of the German national character that had earlier produced Prussian authoritarianism and militarism. Only the country’s territorial dismemberment and its political and economic impotence would assure future peace. At the conference of Yalta the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain agree to establish an Allied Control Council (ACC), comprised of the Allied commanders in chief. The American government drafts JCS 1067, a postsurrender interim occupation directive. It prohibits any steps toward Germany’s economic rehabilitation and clarifies that the country had not been liberated but defeated. Yet, the same text gives the U.S. military commander substantial leeway to determine actual occupation policies, further enhanced through provisions granting him the explicit authority to ensure the production of goods and services essential for the prevention of disease and civil unrest. American and Canadian troops participate in the Normandy (D-Day) landing on the coast of France. Altogether 57,500 American troops and 75,215 British and Canadian troops are landed on D-Day and the assaulting forces suffer 6,000 American casualties and 4,300 British and Canadian ones on the first day of the operation.

1945

The Royal Air Force (RAF) and the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) bomb Dresden. Some 650,000 bombs fall on the city from February 13 to 15, 1945, and Dresden is almost totally destroyed as a result of the ensuing firestorm. Es-

timates vary as to the number of civilian casualties caused by the bombing from 40,000 to 50,000. American, British, and Russian troops cross the rivers Rhine in the west and Oder in the east, thus advancing deeply into the German heartland. At the end of April, Russian troops encircle Berlin and American and Russian troops meet at the river Elbe. On May 7 and 8 the remaining German military leadership unconditionally surrenders to the American and Russian forces. American military forces establish the American Occupation Zone in the territories of the German states of Bavaria and parts of Württemberg, Baden, the former Prussian province of Hesse, the U.S. enclave in the city of Bremen with Bremen’s port at Bremerhaven, and a sector of western Berlin. American occupation forces enforce a strict denazification policy by requesting that every adult German complete a lengthy questionnaire (Fragebogen), detailing the subject’s personal, professional, and political past. The Conference of Potsdam, with Harry S. Truman as the new U.S. president, leads to the creation of an additional zone of occupation for the French and accommodates the Soviets on the reparations issue. Germany is to be treated as an economic and administrative unity under the supervision of the Allied Control Council. It is to be subjected to a policy of democratization, decartelization, demobilization, and denazification. American military forces move into the six districts that will become part of the American sector of occupation in the city of Berlin (Kreuzberg, Neukölln, Schöneberg, Steglitz, Tempelhof, and Zehlendorf ) in the middle of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, later to become the German Democratic Republic.

CHRONOLOGY The Nuremberg Trials start. They are a series of thirteen trials that begin on November 20, 1945, and last until April 1949. Indictments are brought against 207 Nazis, who are charged with conspiracy to wage war, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes. The trials are held at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, because this was one of the few courthouses that had not been damaged during the air raids and because the city of Nuremberg had been the site for all the NSDAP rallies. The International Military Tribunal (IMT), directed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States against major Nazi war criminals, leads the first trial. The IMT not only sentences individuals but also bans organizations such as the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei, Secret Political Police), the SS (Schutzstaffel, Protective Squadron), and the SS Totenkopfverbände (SS Death Head Special Units).

OF

1946

Margaret Boveri publishes her antiAmerican America Primer for Grown-up Germans. An Attempt to Explain What Has Not Been Understood. The Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany (CRALOG) is founded. It collects donations in the United States for the purpose of humanitarian aid to Germany. The first German American club in West Germany, the Bad Kissingen Cos-

LIII

mopolitan Club, is founded by Captain Merle Potter, a local military governor who sees the need for friendly interaction between Germans and Americans. Aloisius Münch, bishop of the diocese of Fargo and apostolic visitor to Germany, publishes his controversial pastoral letter One World in Charity, in which he rejects the notions of “collective” guilt and responsibility for Germany’s population during the Nazi dictatorship. The Radio Inside the American Sector (RIAS) is created in West Berlin. 1947

The German colony Neu-Württemberg in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, is renamed Panambi. Chicago entrepreneur Walter Paul Paepcke develops Aspen, Colorado, into a modern ski resort with the longest ski lift in the world to create a successful economic basis for his wider schemes: to establish a modern Weimar (the city the famous Johann Wolfgang von Goethe lived in from 1775 until his death in 1832) in America together with his friend Walter Gropius.

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

Siegfried Kracauer publishes his famous book From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film with Princeton University Press. This study purports to find the ideological roots of National Socialism in some silent films from the Weimar Republic. For Kracauer, the German films produced between 1915 and 1933 already included many of the ideological values that unconsciously prepared German society for Nazism, such as a “collective complex of inferiority,” the cult of authority, and the awaiting of a strong chief. The U.S. secretary of state, George C. Marshall, announces the European Recovery Program (ERP, or Marshall Plan) at Harvard University.

1948

Conflict over currency reform in West Berlin leads the Soviets to block all access into West Berlin sectors by land or on water. In response, the U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force organize the Berlin Airlift that will support the population and military garrisons in West Berlin during the eleven months that the blockade will last before it is suspended after successful U.S.-Soviet negotiations in May 1949. These eleven months will achieve legendary status for German American relations and will strengthen the U.S. commitment to West Berlin.

LIV

1949

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

German nuclear physicist Klaus Fuchs is sentenced to prison for espionage. He participated in the British and American projects to produce an atomic bomb and is convicted of relating some of the information to the Soviet Union.

also permits the establishment of a foreign ministry for West Germany. 1952

The Petersberg Agreement restricts the dismantling of German industrial plants and gives West Germany the right to establish consular relations with foreign nations and to join international organizations. At the same time, West Germany concludes a bilateral economic agreement with the United States on Marshall Plan aid and joins the Council of Europe as an associate member. 1950

Soviet leader Joseph Stalin offers in his famous Stalin Note the reunification of Germany to the former Western Allies. The Stalin Note proposes an end to the “abnormal situation” in Germany by (1) a peace treaty between the Four Powers and Germany, (2) administrative unification of the four occupied zones of Germany, and (3) holding of all-German elections (in that order). The proposal also asserts the right of a sovereign Germany to arm itself, with the conspicuous proviso that it is to remain neutral. The Stalin Note is finally rejected by the Western powers and the West German government.

Radio Free Europe (RFE) is created with headquarters in Munich as part of the National Committee for a Free Europe. It is secretly funded and controlled by the CIA. West Berlin’s government receives a replica of Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell, which is installed in the City Hall of Schöneberg following an extensive fundraising drive across the United States. This move symbolizes the mutual identification of America and West Berlin with the cause of freedom and strengthens emotional ties. George Nauman Shuster is named land commissioner of Bavaria, presiding over the continuing denazification program and preparing for home rule at the close of the American occupation.

The Volkswagen Company opens its Volkswagen Canada, Ltd., division with headquarters in Toronto. 1953

The Volkswagen Company opens its Volkswagen do Brasil S.A. in São Bernardo do Campo near São Paulo. In the same year the Verkaufsgesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen Marketing Company of America) is established with its seat in Inglewood, New Jersey.

1954

Alfredo Stroessner, the son of German Paraguayan parents, becomes president of Paraguay and creates a dictatorship that will last until 1989.

1955

The High Commissioner for Germany is dissolved and West Germany receives full sovereignty from the Allies.

West Germany and the United States sign the Marshall Plan agreement. 1951

East German author Liselotte Welskopf-Henrich begins to publish her three-volume epic novel that begins with Die Söhne der grossen Bärin (The Sons of Great Mother Bear), which deals with Dakota Indians. A comprehensive revision of the Occupation Statute not only brings virtually complete internal self-government but

The German American Fulbright Program is established to facilitate the bilateral exchange of German and American students, instructors, professors, researchers, and professionals.

The Convention on Relations between the Three Powers (United States, Great Britain, and France) and the Federal Republic of Germany lays out the rationale and circumstances of the deployment of Allied troops in West Germany.

CHRONOLOGY The document declares that the Allied powers have the right to station troops in West Germany, and, although the Americans often state that they will return a property if the Germans insist, such events rarely occur.

OF

1960

1956

1958

German political scientist and Harvard professor Carl Joachim Friedrich publishes, together with Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. This book is best known for its exposition of the conservative theory of totalitarianism that postulates that the similarities between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia far outweigh the differences. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev declares the 1944 London Protocol invalid. The Western powers of France, Great Britain, and the United States had forfeited their rights to stay in West Berlin, he says, and the latter should become an “independent political unit, a free city.”

The Paraguayan government issues a Paraguayan identification certificate to war criminal Josef Mengele, who is also known as the “Angel of Death.” He is awarded full citizenship under the thinly disguised pseudonym “José Mengele.”

Ex-Nazi Wernher von Braun becomes director at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, a part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

Following the equipping of the West German army with tactical nuclear weapons (1958), the West German peace movement initiates the Easter Marches. 1963

American president John F. Kennedy visits West Berlin and gives his famous speech in which he declares “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

1964

The Volkswagen Company establishes a production facility in Puebla, Mexico, where it produces the VW Beetle. The Neue Heimat, an organization that is concerned with good relations of East Germans with citizens of German descent in non-Socialist countries, is founded in East Berlin. This society takes full control of East German activities in the United States and provides assistance for Americans in the German Democratic Republic.

1965

The Group 47, a loose organization of West German poets and writers, distances itself publicly from Chancellor Ludwig Erhard’s assurance to President Lyndon B. Johnson that West Germany fully supports U.S. policy in Vietnam. The Group 47 denounces the American Vietnam War as a “scorched-earth” tactic and tantamount to genocide.

1966

Canadian folk singer Perry Friedman founds the Hootenanny-Klub Berlin in East Germany, which is later renamed the Oktoberklub.

The rock legend Elvis Presley lands by boat in Bremerhaven to serve with the U. S. Army in Germany. When he arrives, he is greeted by hundreds of German fans eager to catch a glimpse of the young rock ’n’ roll star. 1959

LV

Israeli secret service agents find the Nazi war criminal and organizer of the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, living on Garibaldi Street in Buenos Aires. The spectacular kidnapping of Eichmann and his secret abduction to Israel result in his trial in Jerusalem.

The Leo Baeck Institute is founded to document, research, and publish the distinct history of German Jewry and its impact on German society from the Enlightenment to the Holocaust. It is established in the three main centers of German Jewish immigration and German Jewish life after the Holocaust: London, New York, and Jerusalem. West Germany is admitted to NATO and introduces general male conscription.

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

LVI

CHRONOLOGY

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

1966 (cont.)

The East German Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft (DEFA) starts to produce a cycle of fourteen highly popular films featuring American Indians as the main characters.

1968

The West German extraparliamentary opposition organizes an international conference on the Vietnam War.

1971

The first German McDonald’s restaurant is opened in Munich.

Petra Kelly, influenced by the American antiwar and civil rights movements, plays a vital role in the founding of the West German Green Party. 1982

The Easter Marches in West Germany are resumed to protest the dual-track strategy of NATO.

1983

Peru extradites Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie to France. The German Democratic Studies Association of the USA is founded.

Encouraged and organized by the East German government, thousands of East Germans write protest letters to the U.S. government demanding the release of civil rights activist and Marxist Angela Davis from prison. 1972

American singer-songwriter, actor, film director, and peace activist Dean Reed, the “Red Elvis,” decides to move to East Germany.

1973

German-born Henry Kissinger is appointed secretary of state by President Richard M. Nixon.

1974

An agreement between the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX) in Washington, D.C., facilitates the exchange of academics between both countries, but is clouded by the GDR’s intention to send primarily natural and engineering scientists to obtain technological knowledge banned from trade with Western countries. 1985

German Brazilian Ernesto Geisel becomes president of Brazil. The United States government establishes diplomatic relations with the German Democratic Republic and opens an embassy in East Berlin.

1975

1979

The International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), which was founded in 1968 by the American Council of Learned Societies to negotiate exchanges with Socialist and other countries, begins to support study trips of American scholars to the German Democratic Republic. The NATO “dual-track” decision, which calls for modernization of the nuclear arsenal in Western Europe and simultaneous offers of negotiations, causes peace demonstrations in both East and West Germany that will continue for years to come.

American president Ronald Reagan visits Bitburg War Cemetery to honor German soldiers who died in World War II. Intended as a symbolic act of German American reconciliation, the ceremony provokes strong protests from U.S. veterans of World War II and the American Jewish community after approximately forty-eight graves of Waffen-SS soldiers are discovered and Reagan equates victims of the concentration camps with fallen German soldiers. Günther Walraff publishes his book Ganz unten (Totally Down Under). After having worked under the disguise of a Turkish national at a McDonald’s restaurant, Walraff details McDonald’s mistreatment of employees. His book becomes a big success and results in high losses for the West German McDonald’s.

1986

German American writer and scholar Richard Plant publishes his study of the fate of homosexuals under the Nazis, The Pink Triangle.

CHRONOLOGY 1987

The German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., is founded to further German American academic and intellectual exchange.

1989

Visa requirements to enter West and East Berlin are waived on December 22. Farcically, passport checks remained in place until June 30, 1990.

1990

The Two-Plus-Four Accord, involving the four World War II Allies (the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union) and the two Germanies, pave the way for the Second German Unification.

1997

German legal expert Christian Tomuschat is appointed head of the Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification (Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, CEH). Its mandate is to undertake the clarification of human rights violations and acts of violence that occurred during over thirty years of armed confrontation between government forces and guerilla insurgents. Based on its findings, the CEH is supposed to formulate recommendations with the objective of promoting peace and national harmony in Guatemala.

1999

McDonald’s opens its 1,000th restaurant in Berlin-Treptow (former East Berlin).

OF

GERMANY AND THE AMERICAS

LVII

2002

German chancellor Gerhard Schröder distances himself from the war-mongering policy of U.S. president George W. Bush. Struggling for his reelection, Schröder refuses to support any military action against Iraq. After his reelection, Schröder steers Germany closer to France and Russia who also oppose an American invasion in Iraq.

2003

The last VW Beetle (No. 21,529,464) rolls off the assembly line in Puebla, Mexico, after an unexpected and unprecedented lifespan of fifty-eight years. Sold in the United States until 1978, the VW Beetle and VW Bus became the symbols of an alternative counterculture during and after the 1968 student revolutions. No longer just a car, the Beetle has become the center of a cult since the 1960s and its association with the hippie movement. It still has a very strong fellowship of believers worldwide. It even became the star, “Herbie,” of a Walt Disney movie The Love Bug (1968), followed by three sequential movies: Herbie Rides Again (1974); Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo (1977); and Herbie Goes Bananas (1980). Austrian American world-champion bodybuilder and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger is elected governor of California.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS GERMAN-LANGUAGE MIGRATION TO THE AMERICAS

NORTH AMERICA Dirk Hoerder

German-speaking men and women departed Europe for many parts of the world but in particularly large numbers for North America. Agricultural settlers, miners, and skilled workers came from the contiguous German-language territories in Central Europe and, toward the end of the nineteenth century, in secondary migrations from earlier migration destinations and settlement enclaves in SouthEastern and Eastern Europe. Until the early nineteenth century German speakers who reached North America were mainly indentured servants. In the next decades, large numbers came in search of agricultural land; from the mid-nineteenth century on, migrants were predominantly laboring men and women. Refugees reached the Americas first after the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848 and 1849 in Europe; then under Otto von Bismarck’s anti-Socialist laws after 1878; finally, and most importantly, after the Nazi rise to power in 1933. From the 1880s to 1918, at the height of its nationalism and imperialist designs, the German Reich attempted to use the migrants, designated Auslandsdeutsche, for expansionist designs and thus warped the processes by which these immigrants became part of their host societies.

Origins and Diasporas:The Many German-Language Societies “German” migrants originated in many cultures, came from different states, and were differentiated by class and gender, as well as by their stages of economic and political development at the time of departure. In contrast, nationalist historiography has for a long time constructed a German continuity and unity from the medieval Hohenstaufen Empire via the small (“dwarf ”) principalities to the Habsburg and Hohenzollern empires and, with the “interruption” of the refugee-generating Third Reich, to the Federal Republic of Germany and to unified Germany after 1989. People, however, do not migrate from historians’ constructs but from regional societies into which they have been socialized. Thus, the territories and societies from which speakers of the many German dialects departed need to be described first. The early modern German-language settlement areas constituted only a part of what had been the medieval transeuropean Holy Roman Empire, later called the Holy Roman 3

4

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

Empire of German Nation. Around 1500, when the dynasties of the Iberian peninsula reached out for the Americas, the German-language territories were differentiated by cultures and dialects, consisted of culturally mixed borderlands, and were in contact with neighboring non-German societies. The contiguous region of German dialects included Holstein and Lower Saxony in the northwest; formerly Slavic Mecklenburg and Pomerania in the northeast; Saxony, Franconia, Bavaria, Austria, Styria, and Carinthia in the central and southeast; Tyrol and several Swiss cantons in the south; Alsace, Swabia, and Lorraine in the southwest; and the Rhenisch, Palatine, and Hessian regions in the west. This core region was ringed by mixed borderlands: Schleswig and the Baltic region; Bohemia, Silesia, Moravia; regions in which Italian dialects were spoken; and mixed German French and German Dutch territories. By the time of the nineteenth-century mass migrations, the Habsburg dynasty had incorporated historic Hungary, the Hohenzollern dynasty, and the western third of Poland into their realms. From all of these regions men and women moved outward, first mainly eastbound, but subsequently mainly westbound to the Americas. From the medieval and early modern period to the beginning of the twentieth century, migrations were artisanal, rural-urban, interurban, but also circular—men and women returned to their places of origin after periods of work elsewhere and with experience of different lifestyles. Even when migrants to other cultures intended to establish a cultural enclave, as was the rule in dynastic states, they interacted with the surrounding society, whether as “Germans” in the Slavic lands or as Huguenots in one of the German states. A bird’s-eye view reveals a complex pattern of mobility and settlement: In the late Middle Ages, along the shores of the eastern Baltic, a rural Balto-Slavic-German-Flemish mixed population emerged and, halfway between Belgrade and the Black Sea, the Transylvania Saxons established themselves. In subsequent centuries, migrants established an East Central European and Eastern European urban German-language culture based on special ius civitatum urbanum (the law of particular cities, especially of Magdeburg, and their burghers), not on “German” ius teutonicum (a generic law of a German polity). German was not a designation found useful at the time because people identified themselves by region and religion. The Ashkenazim communities in Poland, Lithuania, and Russia and their shtetl cultures of German Jewish origin used the Yiddish dialect of the Germanlanguage family. Migrating artisans reached eastward to St. Petersburg, southeastward via Budapest to the cities of the eastern Mediterranean, and westward to Paris and London. An artisanal German dialect became the lingua franca of Europe’s craftspeople and, in the nineteenth century, in competition with English, of technological innovation. In a new eighteenth- and nineteenth-century eastward movement, the Danube Swabians, the Black Sea and Volga Germans, the Mennonites in East Prussia and South Russia, and ethnic German workers in Polish towns and cities established their many distinct cultures. While the craftsmen voluntarily adopted German as the lingua franca, the Habsburg and Hohenzollern bureaucracies imposed it on other peoples. In the early nineteenth century, emigrants changed direction westward to North America, where settlements as differentiated as in Eastern Europe, although in a nineteenth-century industrializing context, emerged. Others moved southwestward to Latin America, South Africa, and Australia, where islands of settlement developed.

NORTH AMERICA

5

Throughout these centuries, the contiguous German-language region also received immigrants from many other cultures. Traders from as far as Africa visited the early modern South Germany commercial towns. After the Reformation and the resulting schism of western Christendom in 1517, German principalities generated masses of religious refugees and admitted coreligionists sent fleeing from elsewhere. These included the French-language Huguenots as well as the Moravians. Religion served as the marker of identity and belonging rather than language or ethno-culture. Whether in Lübeck, Cologne, or Vienna, urban populations were culturally mixed: The language of Hamburg’s stock exchange was Flemish. Vienna had a Greek colony, and Cologne its important Jewish quarter. Along the rivers and the littorals of the northern seas sailors of many origins arrived; courts called administrators and military officers from afar and hired soldiers wherever they could be had for comparatively low wages. With commercial and industrial development, Italians, Poles, Swiss, Swedes, Dutch, and many others came as laborers and technicians from their internally diverse societies. By the end of the nineteenth century, Germany, Britain, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and the United States ranked as the largest importers of labor migrants. In all of these countries, industrial and societal development depended on migrants. The origin of Germans in America has never been one Germany but many Germanies, as well as culturally mixed regions and colonies of settlement further afield. While transatlantic migration began in the sixteenth century for Iberian colonization in Latin America as well as the establishment of the Caribbean plantation societies, the vast majority of migrants chose North America as a destination. From the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the aftermath of World War II, some 7 million people left that segment of the culturally diverse, politically divided but geographically contiguous Central European German-language region that was to become the German Empire in 1871. To these, German-speaking migrants from other states and distant destinations of earlier migrations have to be added. German emigration was second only to that from the United Kingdom until Italian emigration surpassed it in 1900. Per thousand of population it ranked tenth among European sending countries. Remittances of emigrants’ savings to relatives in their home countries contributed to an image of an America of considerable opportunities. German thus is a mix of many influences that developed dynamically over the centuries, and the Germany after 1871 was a society influenced to some degree by emigrants, in particular those in the United States.

North America: From Many-Cultured German Immigrants to German Americans Although event-oriented historical memory usually dates the commencement of German migration to the founding of Germantown in Pennsylvania in 1683 by Mennonite and Quaker families from the Krefeld region, the New Amsterdam/New York colony (founded in the 1620s) had accommodated English and Scottish dissenters, Mennonites and Quakers, as well as German Lutherans even earlier. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when some 75,000 (or according to other estimates: 110,000) men, women, and children migrated across the Atlantic, areas of origin coincided for east- and

6

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

westbound transcontinental and transatlantic departures: the southwestern principalities, the German Swiss territories, Alsace, and the Palatinate (Fertig 1994). Settlement opportunities in Pennsylvania mobilized Mennonites and pietists who formed compact colonies like their coreligionists in the east. When, in the 1750s, the British government attracted Protestant settlers to Catholic and French-speaking Acadia, renamed Nova Scotia in 1713, some 1,500 came from British-ruled Hanover and Brunswick, but also from Switzerland and elsewhere (Bell 1990). The German-language so-called foreign Protestants of Nova Scotia formed their own municipality, and in the Pennsylvania legislature procedures were bilingual up to the era of the American Revolution. In the early phase, migration involved mass recruitment of “redemptioners” or indentured servants of German as well as English and French origin. Under this system, ship captains and entrepreneurs transported migrants and sold them “for time” to recover the cost of the transatlantic voyage. People without means thus had a chance to move upon their own decision, outside of the often collective migrations based on religious ties. Poverty in the regions of origin, an efficient labor market in the region of arrival, and postcontract independent lives explain why between one-half and two-thirds of all white immigrants before 1776 came to North America under this system. At first, these migrants were mainly destined for the mid-Atlantic colonies’ staple-crop production, especially tobacco. They subsequently also settled as skilled artisans in seaboard cities. Demand directed men and women from the Germanies to Philadelphia as a port of arrival and from there to Pennsylvania’s hinterlands—that is, to the German-language segment of the North American labor markets. After serving their time, usually seven years, they could move freely. For them, Pennsylvania became the “best poor man’s country” and information sent back home induced sequential migrations. Such relational continuity is characteristic of migration networks. A further group of migrants, the so-called Hessians, came against their will when central German princes sold male subjects as soldiers to the British Hanoverian ruler during the American War of Independence after 1775. As in warfare in Europe—for example, the Habsburg campaigns in the Balkans—such involuntary soldier-migrants became scouts: They took note of opportunities, sent information back to their communities of origin, and thus induced others to follow. Land could easily be acquired and, while in Germany one grain of wheat sowed produced three grains at harvest, the crop yield in Pennsylvania amounted to ten grains. At the founding of the United States in 1789, the population consisted of English (49 percent), African slaves and free blacks (20 percent), Germans and Scots (7 percent each), as well as of Irish, Dutch, French, Swedish, and Spanish. Because of the revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars in Europe, few migrants came in the next quarter century. When, in 1815, the Congress of Vienna reversed the changes of the Age of Revolution and reestablished the reactionary regimes and when, in the 1820s, the Habsburg and Romanov governments restricted in-migration of ethnic German peasant families, the importance of transatlantic destinations increased. Furthermore, the particularly cold winter of 1816 and 1817 resulted in famine-induced departures from the traditional regions. These then expanded from the German southwest to the Hessen principalities in the

NORTH AMERICA

7

1840s, to Mecklenburg in the 1850s, and to the agrarian northeast and to cities across the Germanies in the 1870s. Departures in the century from 1815 to 1914 peaked from the mid-1840s to the mid-1850s, from the mid-1860s to the mid-1870s, and from 1880 to the early 1890s. The nineteenth-century economic migrants, rather than also seeking religious selfdetermination like those of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, wanted to rid themselves of their respective principalities’ overbearing bureaucracy and reactionary regimes. Peasant families were aware of the far lower taxes and the absence of tithes in North American societies. Notwithstanding some aristocrats’ attempts to establish a German-cultured state in Texas, they migrated in networks to areas where earlier migrants from the same (micro)region of origin had established themselves and where soil and climate suited their intentions, where land prices were low and market access easy. In their letters, many reported home that they could elect their local officials themselves. From the mid-1840s on, an ever-larger percentage came as labor migrants from both rural and urban origins. At this time, internal mobility in the German Federation increased while Europe-wide migrations of German-language artisans and skilled workers declined. In contrast, German American neighborhoods in New York, New Orleans, Galveston, and especially in the cities of the Midwest experienced vigorous growth as part of the rapidly expanding U.S. economy. Skilled artisans left the Germanies when incipient factory production threatened the survival of their crafts and their social position. In North America, with no institutionalized craft apprenticeship, they could become foremen in the new factories. The refugees from the revolutions of 1848 and 1849, the Forty-Eighters, carried genuinely German reformist political convictions across the Atlantic. As a political and intellectual elite, they were outspoken and some—Carl Schurz, for example—became prominent in U.S. politics. Because of their high visibility, their influence has been as overemphasized in public memory as that of the Puritan migrants in English American memory. They numbered but a few hundred out of the 1 million arriving in the decade after 1848. The anti-Socialist laws of the Bismarckian government (1878–1890) resulted in another political refugee movement to the United States. But, again, activists were few in relation to the mass migration of proletarians. Rapid industrialization, rigid class structure, as well as antilabor legislation, induced 2.4 million working men and women to leave Germany between 1871 and 1893 (Marschalck 1973), despite appeals by the Social Democratic Labor Party to stay in Germany and struggle for better conditions at home. Some emigrated because of the harsh, obligatory military service and because, after the German wars against Denmark and France, they feared further warfare. The migrants, predominantly from cities and the regions east of the Elbe River, were of agrarian and proletarianized backgrounds and selected cities as destinations. Thus, Chicago became one of the largest centers of the German American working class. A Social Democratic diaspora developed and, by sending back money, contributed to the survival of social democracy under Bismarckian repression. Acculturation in both Canadian and U.S. societies involved cultural interaction with mainstream society and other immigrant groups, ethno-cultural diversity as well as homogenization, and internal social stratification. In rural areas, German Catholics and

8

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

German Lutherans often settled separately, but among Americans, Canadians, and immigrants from many countries of Europe. Insertion into communities was quick because these communities were built by the newcomers. Even in so-called ethnic-bloc settlements, cultural interaction was ever present. Socialized in multiethnic interaction, Germans from Russia or the Balkans often spoke several languages. Children mingled in school. Men in need of cash for their families frequently worked far from their homesteads and mingled with Galicians, Irish, Scots, English, Italians, Russians, Norwegians, Swedes, and others. Self-organization usually occurred along regional lines, in Landsmannschaften (associations of people from the same region), and, often, separately in Catholic and Protestant communities. The position of German citizens of Jewish faith was ambivalent. Some joined the German American communities; others became part of Jewish American organizations. At the same time, a postmigration Germanization process began, comparable to developments in other immigrant groups. From the outside, the newcomers were quickly reduced to generic “Germans” by their Anglo-American and immigrant neighbors who could not distinguish between the many regional cultures of origin. Within their communities, the multiregional Landsleute (countrymen and countrywomen) established common institutions to pool resources for political action. Their cultural Germanness developed in the frame of U.S. or Canadian society in interaction with non-German cultures. Because an ethnic group’s status depended in part on its host society’s image of its state of origin, the imagined community of Germans identified with the new German Empire when it became a factor in international affairs, but many dissociated themselves from it when Wilhelm II’s increasing arrogance and the declaration of war in 1914 resulted in hostility in the U.S. and Canadian host societies. The continuing connections immigrants had to kin in their respective regions of origin, return migration, and migrants shuttling between labor markets on the two continents by the 1870s had resulted in the emergence of diasporic-stratified ethnic communities with an urban bourgeoisie, a working class, and rural clusters from New York to Wisconsin—as well as in Texas and Missouri. Ethno-culturally German men and women americanized, crossed the group’s boundaries, and mingled with other ethno-cultural groups. Some, in particular those who disagreed with German policies, did so quickly, the majority in the course of two or three generations. In Canada, the emergence of a German Canadian group was even more complex because of the country’s regional diversity and lower level of urbanization in the early 1900s, as well as because of the Germanspeaking immigrants’ diversity. In the 1890s a caesura occurred in the patterns of German migration. After 1893 the German Empire’s economy was able to absorb surplus agrarian labor. In the two decades before 1914, only between 20,000 and 40,000 German migrants arrived annually in U.S. ports (Marschalck 1973). Between 15 and 20 percent of these migrants returned to Germany (Kamphoefner 1988). Beginning in the mid-1880s, German Junkers and industrialists hired Poles for low-paying seasonal labor on the eastern estates or for mining jobs in the industrialized Ruhr district. Italians and western Ukrainians (Ruthenians) came; Russian Jews migrated to major cities. After 1900 Germany—an exporter of human labor a

NORTH AMERICA 9

German emigrants for New York embarking on a Hamburg steamer, 1874. (Corbis)

mere decade earlier—had become the second-largest labor importer after the United States in absolute figures (Herbert 1986). This caesura is less evident as regards migration to Canada. As in the case of Germantown, Pennsylvania (founded 1683), a few men and women arrived early but, in general, Canada became a destination only in the nineteenth century. Migrants aimed for the cities and, when settlement of the prairies began in the 1870s, for the West. When the United States began to reduce immigrant admission after 1917, Canada’s populationist policy kept its borders open, and German and other European immigrants increasingly selected this society. However, during the worldwide depression of 1929, entry into Canada became more difficult, too. In both North American states, the multiple German-speaking groups diversified even more when Russian Germans and Russian Mennonites, as well as Hutterites, decided to move to North America in semivoluntary or compelled secondary migrations. From the 1880s, the age of nationalizing dynastic societies, the czarist government abolished the settler colonies’ privileges: self-administration with separate schools and exemption from military service. Thereafter, all children were required to attend Russian schools. The Mennonites’ pacifist convictions were violated. At first in the U.S. Dakotas, then increasingly on the Canadian prairies, these migrants once again attempted to achieve an enclave-type cultural retention through patterns of bloc settlement. A comparison from 1881 to 1941 of the ethnic-origin with the mother-tongue immigration statistics of the

10

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

Canadian census shows that many of the non-Mennonite immigrants, self-designated “Germans from Russia,” no longer spoke the German language (Szabo 1996, 11–31). At the same time, the Danube and Transylvanian Saxons left their economically marginal regions for wage labor in North America. These migrations lasted into the 1920s. From the North American German-(Empire)-origin community, the Mennonite and Amish “Pennsylvania Dutch” and the Hutterite and other ethno-religious groups remained distinct. They continued their traditional ways of life, and when land in Pennsylvania became increasingly scarce for new generations, some migrated to Ontario to the area around Berlin (now Kitchener) and nearby St. Jacobs, where this Mennonite community continues to exist into the twenty-first century. Similarly, German-speaking migrants from Austria and Switzerland and from the mixed areas in east-central Europe—Hungary, for example—preferred to organize among themselves. Their cultural ways and dialects were different and they resented a hierarchy in which Germans from the German Empire placed themselves at the top of “Germanness” in the two North American societies. Nevertheless, interaction among these groups occurred when it was mutually beneficial. Boundaries were constructed and reconstructed; they were never clearly delineated and always permeable. The migrants were neither dislocated, nor uprooted, nor even hyphenated. They lived, according to recent concepts, transculturally. Migrating in a period that has been labeled the apogee of nationalism, they had, in fact, left empires that were yet to be transformed into state-nations or self-described nation-states. While the German Empire emphasized “Germanness” (although citizenship was still that of the constituent states), the Habsburg monarchy—despite rampant German Austrian nationalism—still referred to itself as a state of many peoples. The Romanov Empire, which had never disputed its many-cultured composition, from the 1880s began to abrogate the special status accorded to immigrants of earlier centuries. Though divided by region of origin, dialect, class, religion, and time of arrival (making newcomers “greens” or greenhorns), as well as by urban or rural lifestyle, gender, generation, or nationalist or working-class political views, a sizable part of those labeled or self-defined as Germans in the United States combined into a full-fledged community with institutions, a press, and group politics. The continuing transatlantic migration, up to the 1890s in the United States and into the 1920s in Canada, reinvigorated communities with each new cohort of immigrants and prevented memories from becoming “frozen in time” and relationships to the communities of origin from withering. Even though farming communities in the American Midwest or the Canadian prairies could retain culture over generations and though they struggled for German-language schools, interaction with neighbors and in the market prevented the emergence of a separatist mentality. In multiethnic urban neighborhoods, acculturation lurked at every street corner, as some immigrants put it. The period from the 1870s to the early 1900s was the apogee of German American visibility and organizational activity. With the end of mass emigration from Germany in 1893, however, German Americans began to lose their connectedness to their society of origin. At the same time, at the height of its nationalism and imperialist designs, the German Empire’s government attempted to utilize the emigrants as Auslandsdeutsche and, for those who accepted this rein-

NORTH AMERICA

11

Percent of Persons of German Ancestry: 1990 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing.

corporation, this warped the processes of acculturation into their host societies. When in 1914 war began in Europe, German American institutions had stagnated for two decades, and Auslandsdeutsche supporters of the German aggression were viewed as subversives. When public opinion labeled the German Americans “enemy aliens” after U.S. entry into the war in 1917, many of their institutions folded. The interpretation that such antiGerman feelings destroyed a lively and viable community is contradicted by the decline of immigration since the 1890s, the declining interest in the community’s press, and the attrition of membership in its associations. After the war, the censuses of 1920 (United States) and 1921 (Canada) indicated a sharp decline in number of those who designated themselves as “German,” while the numbers of “Dutch” increased almost correspondingly. The war accelerated a process of becoming part of mainstream society that had been underway already for a long time. See also Amish; Assimilation of Germans in the United States; Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Laws; Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Chicago; Forty-Eighters; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Hessians; New Orleans; New York City; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Nova Scotia; Ontario; Pietism; Politics and German Americans; Schurz, Carl; Texas; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Bade, Klaus J., ed. Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland. Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart. München: Beck, 1992. Bell, Winthrop P. The ‘Foreign Protestants’ and the Settlement of Nova Scotia. First ed., 1961, repr. Sackville, NB: Mount Allison UP, 1990. Chmelar, Hans. Höhepunkte der österreichischen Auswanderung. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1974.

12

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS Conzen, Kathleen Neils. Making Their Own America. Assimilation Theory and the German Peasant Pioneer. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1990. Engelmann, Frederick C., Manfred Prokop, and Franz A. J. Szabo, eds. A History of the Austrian Migration to Canada. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1996. Fertig, Georg. “Migration from the German-Speaking Parts of Central Europe.” Europeans on the Move. Studies on European Migration 1500–1800. Ed. Nicholas Canny. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994, 210–218. Harzig, Christiane. Familie, Arbeit und weibliche Öffentlichkeit in einer Einwanderungsstadt. Deutschamerikanerinnen in Chicago 1880–1910. Ostfildern: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991. Harzig, Christiane, ed. Peasant Maids—City Women. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1997. Herbert, Ulrich. Geschichte der Ausländerbeschäftigung in Deutschland 1880 bis 1980. Saisonarbeiter, Zwangsarbeiter, Gastarbeiter (Berlin-West, 1986); English translation under the title A History of Foreign Labor in Germany 1880–1980. Seasonal Workers, Forced Laborers, Guest Workers, transl. by William Templer (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991). Hoerder, Dirk. “The German-Language Diasporas. A Survey, Critique, and Interpretation.” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 11, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 7–44. Hoerder, Dirk, and Jörg Nagler, eds. People in Transit. German Migrants in Comparative Perspective, 1820–1930. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1995. Kamphoefner, Walter D. The Westfalians. From Germany to Missouri. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1987. ———. “Umfang und Zusammensetzung der deutsch-amerikanischen Rückwanderung.” Amerikastudien 33 (1988), 291–307. Keil, Hartmut, and John B. Jentz, eds. German Workers in Industrial Chicago, 1850–1910: A Comparative Perspective. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, 1983. Lehmann, Heinz. The German Canadians 1750–1937. Immigration, Settlement and Culture. Trans. and ed. Gerhard P. Bassler. St. John’s, NF: Jesperson, 1986. Marschalck, Peter. Deutsche Überseewanderung im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur soziologischen Theorie der Bevölkerung. Stuttgart: Klett, 1973. Moltmann, Günter, ed. Deutsche Amerikaauswanderung im 19. Jahrhundert: Sozialgeschichtliche Beiträge. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1976. Rippley, LaVern J. The German-Americans. New York: American University, 1976. Sauer, Angelika E., and Matthias Zimmer, eds. A Chorus of Different Voices. German-Canadian Identities. New York: Lang, 1998. Scherer, Karl, ed. Pfälzer-Palatines. Kaiserslautern: Arbeitskreis für Familienforschung, 1981. Szabo, Franz A. J., ed. Austrian Immigration to Canada. Selected Essays. Ottawa: Carleton University, 1996. ———. “German-Speaking Immigrants of Many Backgrounds and the 1990s Canadian Identity.” Austrian Immigration to Canada. Selected Essays. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1996, 11–31. Wokeck, Marianne. Trade in Strangers. The Beginnings of Mass Migration to North America. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University, 1999. Yedlin, Tova, ed. Germans from Russia in Alberta: Reminiscences. Edmonton, AB: Central and East European Studies Society, 1984.

GERMAN JEWISH MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES Adi Gordon and Gil Ribak

The immigration of German-speaking Jews to North America began long before both the United States and Germany were born as independent countries. The circumstances that brought about Jewish migration out of Central Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were socioeconomic and political. The situation was much different after 1933, however, when Nazi Germany engaged in a systematic persecution of Jews. Between 1933 and 1940, when German Jews were still able to leave the Third Reich (though it became harder and harder), the United States remained their favored destination. British-ruled Palestine came second. While the first Jews with Ashkenazic (denoting Jews who originated in Medieval Germany) names arrived in North America as early as 1654, Jewish migration from Germanand Austrian-ruled regions to America remained minuscule until the 1820s. Between the 1820s and 1870s, some 150,000 to 180,000 Jews emigrated from Central Europe to the United States (Diner 1992, 35; Cohen 1984, 12). This migration virtually constituted American Jewry before 1880. The period stretching between the 1880s and 1933 saw German Jewish immigration to the United States coming almost to a halt. In those years (before the United States curtailed immigration in 1924), Germany primarily served as a transit point for the masses of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe en route to the United States. The Austro-Hungarian Empire witnessed the migration of masses of mostly Yiddish-speaking Jews from Austrian-ruled Galicia to the United States.

Early Emigration from Central Europe to North America (1654–1820) Several Jews with Ashkenazic names were among the first group of Jews who sailed to North America and landed (1654) on Manhattan Island, New Amsterdam (renamed New 13

14

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

York when England captured it in 1664). During the second half of the seventeenth century, many German states expelled their Jewish populations in the wake of the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). Many of those Jews emigrated to Holland and later to England, and the push westward was increased by a general economic decline in the German states during the eighteenth century. Yet only a handful of German and Polish Jews continued and crossed the Atlantic to North America before 1820: by the time of the American Revolution (1776) the number of Jews in the thirteen colonies was estimated at between 1,500 and 2,000 (mostly of Ashkenazic origin), usually residing in cities along the eastern seaboard and involved in commerce and artisanship (Faber 1992, 107; Sarna 1986, 359). Most American Jews at the time were already completely acculturated and often indifferent to Jewish religious practices. Not every Central European Jew emigrated to North America due to poverty: some belonged to families of merchants in Europe seeking to widen their trading sphere by sending a family member to the New World. Ashkenazic Jewish immigrants had been considered somewhat uneducated and uncouth by Sephardim (Jews who originated in the Medieval Iberian peninsula), who made up a minority among the colonies’ Jewry. Still, most Jewish congregations in eighteenth-century North America adhered to the Sephardic rite of worship.

Emigration between the 1820s and World War I Up to 1820 Jewish migration to the United States remained a trickle. The census of 1820 estimated that only about 2,700 Jews lived in the young republic. But within sixty years the number would mushroom to almost 280,000 (Faber 1992, 107–108; Cohen 1984, 12; Barkai 1994, 9). In the decades between the 1880s and World War I, the immigration of Central European Jews to the United States significantly waned, while more than 2 million Eastern European Jews left their homes for America. Yet despite their shrinking numbers, German-speaking Jews continued to play an important role in the life of American Jewry. The reasons for that wave of migration were manifold. In the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars (which ended in 1815) Central Europe witnessed the first signs of profound changes, mainly urbanization and industrialization. These changes brought about a gradual dissolution of the agrarian and feudal society, which prompted a wave of immigration to America from across Western and Central Europe, in which Jews were only a small fraction. There were other upheavals as well. At the same time, Europe’s monarchs were determined to restore the political order that prevailed before the French Revolution (1789) and to clamp down on any expression of liberalism or nationalism. Jews found themselves in an especially precarious situation: after centuries of imposed separation and degradation among Christians, some Jews (like Moses Mendelssohn) were imbued with the ideas of the Enlightenment, such as universal human rights. But Jewish hopes for legal and social emancipation were frustrated by the prevailing political regression. In addition, many in the German national movement were openly hostile toward Jews, as the latter were considered non-Germans or “backward.” Some German nationalists also saw the Jews as the alleged financers of the erstwhile French occupation forces, hence unworthy

GERMAN JEWISH MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

15

of emancipation. Those factors and others retarded Jewish emancipation in Germany (achieved fully only after Germany’s unification in 1871). Even more troubling were the economic dislocations. The gradual dissolution of traditional peasant society, in which the Jews had played an important role as middlemen, small merchants, and peddlers, left some of them with little hope for earning a living. Those changes happened, moreover, when many German Jews were moving from small towns to larger cities and becoming more integrated into German culture (language, clothing). Among the most profound responses to the pressures of partial emancipation and modernization involved the emergence of Reform Judaism. Supported initially by the urban economic elite of German Jewry in the 1810s and 1820s, reformers sought to modernize the beliefs and practices of Judaism. Reform rabbis like Abraham Geiger and David Einhorn emphasized the universal and nonnational essence of Judaism, while asserting the right of Jews to amend ancient laws to fit a modern setting. By harmonizing Judaism with modern conditions, reformers believed they would both prevent Jews from abandoning their religion while demonstrating to their Gentile neighbors that Jews were ready for full emancipation. The United States was well advertised by the second quarter of the nineteenth century in Europe as the “common man’s utopia.” Shippers and American consuls circulated guidebooks on the young country, and letters from relatives and friends in America fed an “immigration fever.” Among Central European Jews, the poorer one was, the more likely one was to go to America. Nevertheless, it was not only the promise of prosperity that lured them but also the vision of a country where neither guilds, nor a state church, nor Jewish origin would limit one’s success. In America emancipation was guaranteed. Many of the Jewish immigrants hailed from areas where German was not the only (or not even the more common) language—such as Galicia, Hungary, Moravia, and Bohemia in the Austrian Empire, and western Poland in Prussia. Jews from German states, particularly Bavaria, still made up the single-largest group in the Jewish migration to the United States between the 1820s and the 1870s. Immigration reached its peak in the early 1850s, when increased government repression following the abortive revolutions of 1848 and 1849 combined with economic depression. Jewish settlement spread across the country. Central European Jews could be found not only on the eastern seaboard (New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore), but also along the Mississippi River (New Orleans, St. Louis, Louisville, Minneapolis), or the Ohio River (Cincinnati), throughout the Great Lakes area (Buffalo, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee), the Deep South (Jackson, Mobile, Birmingham), and the Pacific West (San Francisco, Portland), to name but a few. Most Jewish immigrants concentrated on what they knew best: small commerce (peddlers, shopkeepers). As a group, American Jews achieved a high degree of economic mobility, though only a small group of bankers and businessmen struck gold (Joseph Seligman, Jacob Schiff, Meyer Guggenheim, Lazarus Strauss, and Julius Rosenwald). Jewish upward mobility in America can be explained by the fact that Jews pursued occupations closely resembling those they knew in Europe; strove for selfemployment and were willing to defer marriage and family until they could afford them; and relied heavily on family and community networks of support, especially for credit,

16

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

and drew on the labor of relatives. In short, the very economic pattern that made Jews pariahs in Bavaria or Bohemia made them respectable citizens in the United States, where self-made businessmen were admired. The development of most small congregations usually followed a similar path: first came a burial society, then a synagogue, and only later a school. To overcome the sense of isolation, Jews opted to live, work, socialize, and fulfill religious obligations with one another. Philanthropy became the backbone of institutions formed by American Jews. Despite the success of many, Jewish communities did not lack poor people, particularly in large cities. Dozens of charitable societies soon proliferated to aid the sick, widows, orphans, and poor brides. Combining Jewish tradition of communal charity and American philanthropy, these organizations were established to counter the influence of Christian societies who might target Jews in need in order to convert them. Furthermore, Jewish leaders were concerned over how American society perceived them and resolved to prove that Jews were never a burden on the community at large, as seen in the creation of the fraternal society B’nai B’rith (Sons of the Covenant) and others. Formed by German Jews, organizations such as the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society, the United Hebrew Charities, and the Educational Alliance aided the masses of their Eastern European brethren who came to the United States between 1881 and 1924. A different national organization was the Young Men’s Hebrew Association (YMHA), whose first association was founded in Baltimore (1845). Influenced by the emergence of the YMCA, the YMHA offered intellectual leisure activities for middle-class, urban Jewish youth, including lecture courses, classes in different languages, and musical programs. Though the YMHA watered down traditional Judaism, it emphasized themes such as pride in one’s Jewish identity and the importance of Jewish fellowship. The immigration of Central European Jews brought about a tremendous growth of Reform Judaism in the United States. Reformers and laity alike sought shorter services, prayers in German or English, and improved decorum (like the introduction of choirs and organs, mixed seating for men and women, and uncovered heads in synagogue). One of the prominent reformers, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise, founded the Union of American Hebrew Congregations in Cincinnati (1873), which was Reform Judaism’s laity organization, and two years later a rabbinical seminary (the oldest seminary in the United States), Hebrew Union College. The movement’s rabbinical organization, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, was established in 1889. The essence of nineteenth-century Reform Judaism was expressed in the “Pittsburgh Platform” (1885) adopted by nineteen American Reform rabbis. The platform rejected laws relating to diet or priestly purity, abolished most passages in prayers relating to a return to Zion, and stressed that Jews share only religious beliefs and do not constitute a nation. By the 1930s, however, Reform Judaism reversed its course and abandoned its antinational stance due to mounting antisemitism in the United States and abroad; the growing influence of Eastern European Jews and their children, who became the vast majority among American Jews; and the emergence of a strong Zionist movement in America. Jewish Reform ideology and American middle-class decorum enabled Jewish women to play a greater role in communal life. Jewish women’s organizations in America usually

GERMAN JEWISH MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

17

began as local charities, study societies, and synagogue sisterhoods. By the 1870s mixed choirs were already quite common in synagogues, and gradually women’s galleries were replaced by mixed seating. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, acculturated middleclass Jewish women became involved in communal activities beyond the Jewish fold. Hannah Solomon of Chicago worked with Jane Addams to improve the conditions of the city’s poor. Solomon was also among the chief organizers of the Jewish Women’s Congress that was held in Chicago (1893) and included ninety-three delegates, mainly of German origin, aimed at organizing a body that would represent all Jewish women in America. German Jewish women also had been active in propagating Jewish education. Rebecca Gratz, who led many philanthropic programs in Philadelphia, established there in 1838 the first Jewish Sunday school. Gratz and her students recited prayers, read chapters from the Bible, and sang hymns. The Philadelphia school grew rapidly and soon branched out to other cities, becoming the most popular form of Jewish education in America. Still, many in the newly organized German congregations opposed the Sunday school, seeing it as a distasteful imitation of the Gentiles. Hearing about some of the innovations in American Reform Judaism, many observant Jews in Germany came to believe that, religiously speaking, in Amerika geht alles! (in America anything goes). Unlike Germany, where the government lent some support to the orthodox, the separation of state and church in the United States precluded traditionalists from appealing to the government. Yet even though Reform Judaism made considerable progress in nineteenth-century America, it met traditional opposition. Influential German Jewish leaders like Isaac Leeser of Philadelphia and Samuel Isaacs of New York rebuked the innovations by reformers and argued that the changes in Jewish law should be limited to what is absolutely necessary (such as Sunday schools that would defend Jewish children from Christian missionaries). The Jewish press was a main forum for the dispute about religious reforms, as well as for communal news, discussions of Jewish history, Jewish Gentile relations, American politics, and Jewish life around the world. Anglo-Jewish periodicals outnumbered those in German and survived longer. In 1855 reformer Isaac Mayer Wise founded in Cincinnati the first German-language periodical of any longevity, the monthly Die Deborah, as a women’s supplement to his weekly English-language Israelite (later The American Israelite). The following year another Reform rabbi, David Einhorn of Baltimore, began publishing Sinai. Yet, already before 1914, the last Jewish periodical in German ceased publication. Among the first generation of German Jewish immigrants there were many who proudly accepted the label “Germans” and were active in German American cultural life. Many spoke German at home and kept records and prayed in German. Jews were prominent in German musical and theatrical societies and regularly contributed as writers and subscribers to German newspapers. During the Civil War, some northern Jews joined units of German volunteers to fight on the side of the Union. Still, not all immigrants shared the special bond to the German language and culture. Some immigrants, especially those hailing from the Slavic regions of Prussia or Austro-Hungary, did not speak German very well or were deterred by anti-Jewish sentiments harbored in some German organizations. The more traditional Jewish immigrants preferred to stay within the confines of

18

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

their own community. Others, who sought rapid Americanization, urged immigrants to conduct their lives only in English. After 1870 the German Jewish link dissolved quite quickly. Americanization weakened foreign customs and loyalties. Moreover, the eruption of antisemitism in the newly unified Germany disenchanted many German Jews with their former country. The rise of racial theories highlighting the differences between “lowly” Jews and Aryans pulled German American and Jewish American communities farther apart. German Jews entered politics mostly at the local level as established businessmen and in the nineteenth century did not climb higher than mayor, or less often, U.S. congressman. Though Simon Wolf of Washington, D.C., became an unofficial Jewish lobbyist, especially among the Republicans, most Jewish leaders warned their public to refrain from voting as a bloc; and, indeed, no party received an overwhelming majority among nineteenth-century American Jews. Jewish communities usually preferred to keep a low profile and disapproved of partisanship. During the Civil War, American Jews were split and tended to side with their home state. There were exceptions, however, such as antislavery reformer David Einhorn, who had to flee proslavery Baltimore in 1861, or Rabbi Morris Raphall of New York who supported slavery. As a rule, most communities tried to muzzle their rabbis on the issue of slavery. American Jews usually came together against antisemitism at home or abroad. When in 1862 General Grant ordered “Jews as a class” to be expelled from the military zone under his command (later rescinded by President Abraham Lincoln), Republican and Democratic Jews fought together. In a similar manner Jews struggled to abolish restrictions on office holding by Jews or Christian missionary influence in public schools. German Jews in the United States were also active in attempts to help their persecuted brethren around the world, whether during the blood libel in Damascus (1840) or Russian pogroms (1880s, 1900s). Prominent German Jews established early defense agencies like the American Jewish Committee (1906) and the Anti-Defamation League (1913). German Jewish financers like Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg played a major role in founding the Joint Distribution Committee (1914) to help East European Jewry, which suffered immensely after the outbreak of World War I. Yet many times it was the Jewish press that was crucial for alerting the Jewish public to antisemitic occurrences.

Emigration from the Weimar Republic (1918–1932) The German defeat in World War I and the subsequent years of political crisis and economic hardships prompted a considerable emigration from the short-lived German democracy (1918–1932). This immigration of more than 420,000 Germans to the United States included an estimated number of more than 7,000 Jews (Niederland 1998, 172). Jewish immigrants did not differ in essence from the broader German immigration to the United States in both motivations and figures (increasing steadily before 1924 and decreasing until 1933). Though this immigration included some ideologically driven exiles (e.g., a notable group of left-wing intellectuals disillusioned by the crushed Socialist revolutions in Germany), most left for America out of different motivations. These were, for the most part, young single men of the World War I generation. Most of them were

GERMAN JEWISH MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

19

academics, professionals, or merchants, though initially many had to practice manual labor to make ends meet. A German Jewish periodical (Israelitisches Familienblatt 20.4.1932, 2) claimed in those years that German Jewish emigrants formed their own organizations in response to rising antisemitism in the German immigrants’ organizations in the United States and their own alienation toward the Eastern European Jews now dominant in the Jewish American street. Like other potential emigrants to the United States, Central European Jews were influenced by the growing restrictions in American immigration policy prior to the Great Depression. These restrictions were fateful to the history of Central European Jewish emigration: The Immigration Act of 1917 initiated the principle of blocking applications of “persons who were likely to become public charges” (LPC Clause). The 1921 Emergency Immigration Restriction Act (Johnson Act) originated the quota system (i.e., the principle of a fixed yearly quota of immigrants from any given country respectively; 25,000 from Germany, which was still much higher than Eastern European quotas). The Immigration Act of 1924 (National Origins Act) required that emigrants apply for a visa in their native countries, which would then be accepted or rejected according to the abovementioned categories. And finally, during the Great Depression, came a stricter interpretation of the LPC Clause and the Hoover Directive of September 13, 1930, which demanded exacting proofs from applicants on these qualifications, thus drastically limiting the numbers of immigrants even without a cut in the quota itself. This rigorous immigration policy proved tragic for European Jews seeking to flee Nazi persecution.

Emigration from the Third Reich (1933–1945) The last and most important chapter in the history of the German Jewish immigration to the United States started with the Nazi rise to power in Germany in 1933. The state policy of Nazi Germany was to ruthlessly encourage and accelerate Jewish emigration. Though an overtly proclaimed policy, it did take both German Jews and the Western world—the United States included—some time to fully acknowledge and react accordingly. Prior to World War II, some two-thirds of the Jews left Germany (Rosenstock 1956, 373). Approximately 85,000 of them left for the United States, rendering it the major destination of Jewish emigrants (supplanting Palestine as early as 1937) (http://www.ushmm .org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005139). The Third Reich inflicted an escalating series of unprecedented blows on its Jews during the first years, from the exclusion of “non-Aryans” (Jews) from an ever-growing circle of professions, positions, and associations starting in 1933, to the endorsement of the racial Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which deprived German Jews of their citizenship and outlawed marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans.” This unbearable situation in the first seven years of Nazi rule generated a relatively steady stream of emigrants. During these years a significant change occurred in the consciousness and self-confidence of the Jews and their vision of the future: Whereas in its early months, Nazi rule was perceived by most Jews as provisional, in the following years most would accept that, in the long run, Jews had no future in Germany. Accordingly, Jewish organizations and leadership, both in Germany and in the free world, embraced a policy aimed at preparing the

20

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

prospective emigrants and rendering this almost-inevitable emigration as orderly as possible. This was conducted without any panic: one envisaged a process of many decades, and thus in the mid-1930s a tenth of the Jewish emigrants had even returned to Germany. Historian Herbert Strauss described German Jewish immigrants as “basically urban, an aging and overaged group, concentrated in commerce and selected professions” (Strauss 1980, 325). This professional profile was molded to a large extent by Nazi persecution policy in the 1930s that initially focused on select professions (e.g., Jewish civil servants, academics, lawyers) earlier than on others (e.g., big business) out of pragmatic considerations. The need for an affidavit from American friends and relatives sustained the dominance of southern and western Germans among the Central European Jewish emigrants to the United States. Compared to other destinations for Jewish emigration from the Reich, emigration to the United States seems to have included a larger percentage of entire families. In 1938 a new Nazi policy turned this stream of emigrants to a wave of refugees. Following the unparalleled actions of the SS in brutally forcing Jews from newly annexed Austria, Nazi Germany redefined its anti-Jewish policy, using unrestricted terror measures to force Jewish emigration from all over the country. This brutal policy reached new peaks at the end of 1938 with the October expulsion of 17,000 Polish-born Jews from Germany (October 28), and the Kristallnacht (“Night of Broken Glass”) pogrom of November 9 and 10, during which synagogues all over Germany were demolished and set ablaze, as well as houses and enterprises of Jews. Hundreds of Jews were beaten, more than 90 murdered, and some 30,000 were arrested and sent to concentration camps (Breitman and Kraut 1987, 53). At this stage, most German Jews wished to immigrate to nearly any place that would accept them. American immigration policy remained strict all through these years, permitting but a small percentage of the fixed immigration quota and creating a years-long waiting list for American visas. According to the Hoover Directive, prospective immigrant affidavits from friends and family in the United States were needed under the LPC Clause. But due to the virtual halt of Central European Jewish immigration to the United States since the 1870s, Jews from Nazi Germany found it very hard to meet this demand. Thus, for example, during the first year of Nazi rule, only some 1,450 German Jews were permitted to immigrate to the United States (see Table 1.1). But by the late 1930s the humanitarian challenge was too big to ignore. In 1938, following the public assault on Jews in the cities of newly annexed Austria, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convened an international conference to address together the deteriorating refugee problem. This conference took place in Evian (France) with the participation of thirty-two states and the attendance of twenty-four voluntary organizations. But beyond the symbolic gesture, the conference was adjourned with no breakthrough and no new hope for Central European Jews. The United States did not take any drastic measures, such as increasing its quota. Even though Roosevelt somewhat eased the LPC Clause in 1936, only in 1939 did the United States admit, for the first time, the full yearly fixed quota of 27,370. During World War II, Nazi Germany moved from a policy of persecution to a policy of systematic murder. By late 1941—as Jewish emigration from the Reich was closed off

GERMAN JEWISH MIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES

21

Number of German Immigrants, 1933–1944 Year

Percentage of German Quota Filled

Number of Immigrants

1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944

5.3 13.7 20.2 24.3 42.1 65.3 100.0 95.3 47.7 17.4 4.7 4.8

1,450 3,740 5,530 6,650 11,520 17,870 27,370 26,080 13,500 4,760 1,290 1,351

Source: Straus, Herbert A. “The Immigration and Acculturation of the German Jew in the United States of America,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 16 (1971): 68.

and the first deportations of Jews from the Reich were leaving to the camps and killing sites—most (around 60 percent) German Jews had already managed to emigrate (Rosenstock 1956, 373). Being the first victims of Nazi persecution in the 1930s, many German Jews understood earlier the danger and emigrated; some, however, did not flee far enough and were caught by the Germans in Belgium, Holland, and France. Still, this emigration proved to be the rescue of many, and it explains the relatively high percent of survival among Central European Jews compared with their Eastern European counterparts. In the summer of 1945, soon after the end of the war, there were some 100,000 Jewish survivors in Germany and Austria (Dinnerstein 1982, 24). By the end of 1946, their number rose to approximately 250,000 Jewish displaced persons (DPs), most of them of Eastern European descent (Dinnerstein 1982, 111, 278). After the Holocaust they wished to rebuild their lives outside Europe—primarily in Palestine—but stayed in the central European DP camps until the gates of emigration opened. A directive by President Harry S. Truman provided very partial aid by enabling 28,000 of them (mostly German citizens) to enter the United States between May 1946 and June 1948. The solution to the refugees’ problem came with the establishment of the state of Israel (1948) and the implementation of new U.S. immigration laws shortly thereafter. Some two-thirds immigrated to Israel, but a good third immigrated to the United States (Lavsky 1990, 377). Physicist Albert Einstein, intellectual Hannah Arendt, novelist Franz Werfel, composer Arnold Schönberg, and future secretary of state Henry Kissinger are but a few examples of the significant contribution of individual Jewish immigrants from the Third Reich to American life. At the same time, it is important to note the magnitude of Central European Jewry’s contribution in terms of the overall development of the American Jewish community. It was Central European Jews, wrote historian Naomi W. Cohen, “who laid the foundations of the modern American Jewish community. They set the institutional framework and the codes of behavior that, with relatively few important qualifications, obtain today” (Cohen 1984, xi) on remained intact even decades after the German component became numerically minor among American Jews. They left a legacy of

22

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

integration and progress built in the plethora of organizations they established as well as in the cultural manifestations of their time; for example, Reform Judaism, the Jewish press, and philanthropic activities. Through these endeavors they strove to maintain their Jewish identity, yet for them this identity assumed a religious rather than a national form. See also Antisemitism; B’nai B’rith; Einhorn, David; Einstein, Albert; Judaism, Reform (North America); Kissinger, Henry; Leeser, Isaac; Schiff, Jacob Henry; Schönberg, Arnold; Warburg, Felix Moritz; Wise, Isaac Mayer References and Further Reading Barkai, Avraham. Branching Out: German-Jewish Immigration to the United States 1820–1914. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1994. Breitman, Richard D., and Alan M. Kraut. American Refugee Policy and European Jewry 1933–1945. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1987. Cohen, Naomi W. Encounter with Emancipation: The German Jew in the United States 1830–1914. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1984. Diner, Hasia R. A Time for Gathering: The Second Migration 1820–1880. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 1992. Dinnerstein, Leonard. America and the Survivors of the Holocaust. New York: Columbia University, 1982. Faber, Eli. A Time for Planting: The First Migration, 1654–1820. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Genizi, Haim. “New York Is Big—America Is Bigger: The Resettlement of Refugees from Nazism 1936–1945.” Jewish Social Studies 46 (Winter 1984): 61–72. Gurock, Jeffrey S., ed. Central European Jews in America 1840–1880: Migration and Survival. New York: Routledge, 1998. Lavsky, Hagit. “Displaced Persons, Jewish.” In Israel Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, vol. 1, 1990: 377–394. Niederland, Doron. “Leaving Germany: Emigration Patterns of Jews and Non-Jews during the Weimar Period,” Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte 27 (1998): 169–194. Rosenstock, Werner. “Exodus 1933–1939: A Survey of Jewish Emigration from Germany.” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 1 (1956): 373–390. Sarna, Jonathan D., ed. The American Jewish Experience: A Reader. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1986. Straus, Herbert A. “The Immigration and Acculturation of the German Jew in the United States of America.” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 16 (1971): 63–94. ———. “Jewish Emigration from Germany: Nazi Policies and Jewish Responses (I).” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 25 (1980): 313–361. ———. “Jewish Emigration from Germany: Nazi Policies and Jewish Responses (II).” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 26 (1981): 343–409. Wyman, David S. The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941–1945. New York: Pantheon, 1984.

SOUTH AMERICA Dirk Hoerder

Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Latin America was a destination for miners and soldiers. The craft of warfare (Kriegshandwerk) was an itinerant one, and in mining Germanspeaking experts had a long history of mobility. The Spanish crown, in general reluctant to admit foreigners to New Spain, during a liberal phase after 1526 leased Venezuela to the South German Welser Company. In later centuries, German and Iberian miners brought ore-refining technology to Spanish Mexico. Other commercial connections to Latin America, originally to Dutch Suriname and Dutch Brazil, originated with a Portuguese Sephardic Jewish community from Amsterdam that had reestablished itself in seventeenth-century Danish Altona, adjacent to the port of Hamburg. Of the approximately 55 million European migrants to the Americas from the 1830s to the 1950s, about one-fifth went to Latin America. Arrivals increased from 1850 to 1885, then rose rapidly to 1914. Commerce, stock ranching, and plantation agriculture attracted settlers, merchants, entrepreneurs, and laborers in large numbers. They mingled with Flemings, Germans, Neapolitans, Genoese, Greeks, and others. Their children often migrated internally to regions of sustained economic growth or, in search of riches, to new mining districts. Some, however, chose to seclude themselves in small agricultural settlements, which sometimes have been romanticized as, for example, the German Blumenau colony in southern Brazil (f. 1850). Such rural colonies professed a “Germanness” that was frozen in time because of distance, separation, and isolation. Most of the European migrants to the Afro-Native-Latin societies originated in the Mediterranean cultures. From the 1850s to 1924, 38 percent came from Italy, 28 percent from Spain, 11 percent from Portugal, and the rest from Russia (Jews), Germany, and France. Argentina and Brazil received almost four-fifths of the newcomers. In Brazil, the first postindependence phase of European immigration from the 1820s to the 1860s brought German, Italian, and Polish settlers to the coffee plantations of Rio Grande do Sul. Because the politically powerful planters imposed miserable working conditions, many of the immigrants fled their regime. This oligarchic rule made Brazil different from any other country in the Americas. 23

24

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

Some 400,000 German-speaking migrants, at the most, reached Ibero-America, the German term for the countries from Mexico to Chile. Five phases of migration may be discerned: The first took place after the disastrous winter in Europe of 1816 and 1817 spurred flight from famine for a decade and a half, mainly to Brazil. The second phase was a consequence of the agrarian crisis of 1846 and 1847, which was delayed by the Revolution of 1848 and 1849, and involved a decade-long emigration to the independent states. Parallel to the initial phase of southern European mass migration from 1850 to 1885, a third phase of German migration began to grow after 1865. However, while the former rose rapidly from 1885 to 1914, German migration “boomed” only between 1885 and 1894. As in North America, a fourth—brief—migration peak after the end of World War I (86,000 from 1920 to 1924) was caused by disgust about the war, disagreement with the conditions of the Versailles Peace Treaty, or discontent with economic prospects in general. The fifth discernable phase of German migration to South America occurred from 1933 to the late 1940s. It was a new, trifurcated sizeable migration: first of German Jews, then of political and intellectual refugees, and finally of Nazi fugitives from justice after the collapse of fascism. Diversity of destination and of patterns of insertion characterized the Germanspeaking immigrant communities. Most selected Portuguese-speaking Brazil and Spanishspeaking Argentina as destinations; smaller numbers chose Uruguay and Chile; and a few ended up in Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Venezuela, and Colombia. The time lags between the five phases indicate that each cohort of newcomers came from different socio-economic conditions in Germany and, even if destined for the same regions as earlier migrants, met partly or fully acculturated immigrant populations. In the two major receiving countries, the different cohorts also often settled in different regions. The southernmost Brazilian states were the destination of phase-one migrants; those of phase two settled in São Paulo, often as plantation labor, or as first settlers in southern Chile. Groups of them formed agricultural colonies similar to those in eighteenth-century Eastern Europe, but numerically smaller, without special privileges, and with fewer connections to the society of origin. Geographic isolation permitted autonomy but retarded economic integration of the rural colonies. Low wages retarded integration of plantation laborers. The pre-1933 Brazilian, Argentine, and Chilean communities—often perceived in Latin America as a single German group—formed clusters of rural islands in different regions, separated from the surrounding culture; clusters of urban elites with ties to the Latin indigenous elites and a certain communality of interests; and, third, clusters of rural and urban laborers. Although in Eastern Europe and in North America the elites emerged out of the German-speaking immigrant communities, elite formation in Latin America involved a distinct movement of merchants, entrepreneurs, and financiers, as well as teachers, scholars, engineers, and military officers. The close connection of the elites to Germany was based on economic interest and the “esteem value” to be derived from German culture, merchandise, and authoritarian political rule. These diverse communities formed neither a diaspora nor full-fledged ethnic groups. They remained an appendix. Politically and economically, the German state from 1871 to

SOUTH AMERICA

25

1945, with its high level of diplomatic exchange and trade, considered the emigrants bridgeheads to fuller exploitation of the New World. See also Argentina; Brazil; Brazil, German Exile in; Chile; Conquista; German Migration to Latin America (1918–1933) References and Further Reading Bade, Klaus J. Europa in Bewegung: Migration vom späten 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Gegenwart. München: Beck, 2000. ———. Migration in European History, transl. Allison Brown. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Bade, Klaus J., ed. Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland. Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart. München: Beck, 1992. Fröschle, Hartmut, ed. Die Deutschen in Lateinamerika. Schicksal und Leistung. Tübingen: Erdmann, 1979. Hoerder, Dirk. “The German-Language Diasporas. A Survey, Critique, and Interpretation.” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 11, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 7–44. Luebke, Frederick C. Germans in Brazil: A Comparative History of Cultural Conflict during World War I. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1987. Marschalck, Peter. Deutsche Überseewanderung im 19. Jahrhundert. Ein Beitrag zur soziologischen Theorie der Bevölkerung. Stuttgart: Klett, 1973. Mühlen, Patrick von zur. Fluchtziel Lateinamerika. Die deutsche Emigration 1933–1945. Politische Aktivitäten und soziokulturelle Integration. Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1988.

GERMAN MIGRATION TO LATIN AMERICA (1918–1933) Stefan Rinke

After World War I, a wave of Germans emigrated to Latin America. Between 1919 and 1933 more than 140,000 people left for that continent. This number was almost as high as the total of German emigration to Latin America between 1846 and 1918. Most of these migrants left Germany in the six years following the end of the war. In several years Latin America attracted more Germans than even the United States, usually the preferred choice of immigrants. In 1924 the number of Germans leaving for South American shores reached an all-time high of more than 32,000 people. After 1924 the number sank almost continuously until 1932, when it did not reach more than some 2,600 (Statistik 1930, 229; Bickelmann 1980, 143, 149). The reasons for this development were manifold. Most important were World War I and the social and economic crisis in Europe after the war. The dissatisfaction with the Peace Treaty of Versailles, the November Revolution, and the new system of republican government in Germany were additional factors. Hyperinflation, unemployment, lack of housing, and fear of the future dominated postwar German society. The importance of this latter factor can easily be measured by looking at the drastic decline in the numbers of emigrants after the situation in Germany stabilized somewhat in 1925. An important factor in stimulating emigration to Latin America was the migratory policy of the United States. Until 1921, German immigrants were prohibited from coming to that country and after that date a quota continued to restrict their number. No such quota existed in Latin America. Nevertheless, immigration to Latin America was not simply a diversion of people who would otherwise have gone to the United States. Additional pull factors included Latin American and German emigration agencies that advertised the possibilities for the purchase of land and social mobility in that region in an aggressive and often misleading manner. The economic potential of countries such 27

28

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

as Argentina or Brazil was overestimated immediately after the war. News of the failure of settlement projects, economic problems, and the large number of returning emigrants contributed to the strong decline in German emigration to Latin America after 1925. The constitution of the Weimar Republic allowed emigration in principle, yet the German state considered it a loss of potential. Legislative measures tried to regulate emigration to prevent the abuse of the migrants abroad that had frequently happened before the war. Hence, starting in 1924 private settlement enterprises and emigration agencies were placed under governmental control. In general, German policy was not to support emigration but to steer those who still wanted to leave into suitable countries where they would remain “useful” for the mother country by buying German products and preserving their German culture and language. Although the state thus remained largely passive, German shipping lines took an active interest in promoting immigration to Latin America for the sake of profit. In addition, a mushrooming number of private enterprises openly advertised the advantages of emigration. Within Germany, emigration experts preferred Latin America to the United States as a destination for German emigrants. As World War I had proven beyond doubt, Germans in the United States assimilated rapidly and—according to the biologistic discourse of the time—became “cultural fertilizer” (Kulturdünger) contributing to the positive development of that country. On the contrary, in Latin America German migrants usually settled in tight communities and remained loyal to their cultural heritage for many generations. In addition, contemporary German experts emphasized the fact that in the weak countries of Latin America, the German government had more freedom to support and to guide its emigrants than in the United States. Some even claimed that the German emigrants could become compensation for the German colonies lost as a result of the Treaty of Versailles. Thoughts like these inspired the foundation of the Gesellschaft für wirtschaftliche Studien in Übersee (Society for Economic Studies Overseas) in 1927, a central institution for the coordination of emigration to Latin America. Yet, the activities of that organization remained negligible due to the declining number of emigrants. The main destination of German emigrants to Latin America in this period remained Brazil, despite the fact that the country had joined the Allies in 1917. According to the Brazilian statistics, the German share of immigrants was above average, reaching a climax of 22.6 percent in 1924 (Statistik 1930, 266–267). According to an estimation of 1932, about 685,000 Germans and people of German descent lived in Brazil, which accounted for 1.9 percent of the Brazilian population (Grothe 1932, 45). The main reason for Brazil’s attractiveness was its land policy that offered convenient credit for the purchase of government land. In addition, immigrants received a number of benefits upon their arrival, such as free transportation to their destination and free meals and medical care for an initial period. From 1919 on, Brazilian agencies started an advertising campaign that achieved good results. Most Germans who came to Brazil settled in the southernmost federal states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná, where they mingled with a relatively large population of German settlers from the prewar period. A new destination for Germans who came to Brazil after 1919 was the federal state of São Paulo with its

GERMAN MIGRATION TO LATIN AMERICA

29

booming capital. The state government subsidized trips from Germany to Brazil, and its fledgling industry offered jobs to numerous Germans. Yet there were many complaints by Germans who reported maltreatment, especially on the coffee plantations. These reports seemed to suggest that the German immigrants experienced a modern form of indentured servitude. In addition, the numerous revolutionary upheavals and economic crises affected the German immigrants in this period negatively. The number of people who wanted to return to Germany increased steadily in the later 1920s, but only a small percentage could afford the passage or benefited from the offers of the various German auxiliary associations in the big cities. Argentina was almost as important as Brazil for German emigration after 1918. More than 48,000 people migrated to the Rio de la Plata in this period (Statistik 1930, 229; Bickelmann 1980, 143, 149). After 1926, Argentina was the preferred destination within Latin America. The decline of German emigration to Argentina in the late 1920s was below the Latin American average. Argentina had remained neutral during the war and positive economic development had a strong attractive effect. In addition, exaggerated news about the Argentinean Homestead Act of 1917 opening up government lands in the northern territories of Entre Ríos and Santa Fé heightened expectations. Argentinean immigration policy, though explicitly excluding anarchists and sick people from entering the country, granted benefits to immigrants, including temporary lodging and free transportation to the projected settlement. The capital city of Buenos Aires remained the most important destination for German migrants to Argentina. Yet it was in this metropolis that social problems among Germans reached new proportions, especially when the Argentinean boom drew to a close by the end of the 1920s. In addition, there were several settlement projects in the subtropical northern territories of Chaco and Misiones. Although some of these colonies worked in close cooperation with agencies in Germany, such as the Gesellschaft für wirtschaftliche Studien in Übersee, not all were successful. Problems increased in the wake of the Great Depression. The Argentinean government reacted by restricting immigration, and thus in 1933 fewer than 1,000 Germans entered the country (Bickelmann 1980, 42–43). The third traditional country of destination for German emigrants to Latin America was Chile. In comparison to Argentina and Brazil, however, it did not reach the same proportions as in the prewar period. For lack of statistical material, we do not know the exact number of Germans who emigrated to Chile during the whole period. Yet, with 133 immigrants in 1924, it is clear that this migration was negligible (Statistik 1930, 229; Bickelmann 1980, 143,149). Those who came to Chile went into the already existing settlements in the south or stayed in the cities of Valparaíso and Santiago. In 1929 the settlement at Peñaflor was the only coordinated German settlement effort sponsored by the Chilean government. Reasons for the relative failure to attract German immigrants included high passage prices, the passive Chilean immigration policy, and the news about Chilean economic problems. To a certain degree, Paraguay took the place of Chile in becoming the thirdmost important destination for German emigration to the region. Although neither German nor Paraguayan statistics list exact numbers, an estimate for 1927 gives a number of 7,000

30

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

German Immigration to Brazil and Argentina (1919–1932)

Year

Total number of immigrants to Brazil

1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 total

37,898 71,027 60,784 66,967 86,679 98,125 84,886 117,695 96,880 76,586 94,931 61,099 26,183 34,683 1,014,423

Number of Germans among the immigrants to Brazil 466 4,120 7,920 5,038 8,254 22,168 7,185 7,674 4,878 4,228 4,351 4,180 2,621 2,273 85,356

Total number of immigrants to Argentina

Number of Germans among the immigrants to Argentina

41,299 87,032 98,086 129,263 195,063 159,939 125,366 135,011 161,548 129,047 140,086 135,403 64,922 37,626 1,639,691

1,992 4,798 4,113 6,514 10,138 10,238 4,933 5,112 5,165 4,165 4,581 5,171 3,045 2,089 72,054

Germans in the country as compared to some 4,500 in 1918 (Grothe 1932, 81). In particular, contemporary observers evaluated the region of the Alto Paraná as a promising settlement area for Germans. Much like Argentina, the Paraguayan government tried to support immigrants by various measures, such as free transportation from Buenos Aires to the destination in Paraguay, free lodging and meals for an initial period, and—last but not least—cheap government lands. Despite problems due to revolutionary upheaval and economic crises in the 1920s, the German settlements in Paraguay continued to grow on a modest scale, and in 1932 more than 20 German colonies were counted in the country (Grothe 1932, 86). In the rest of Latin America, only Mexico and Uruguay received some German settlers. In addition, given the low number of Germans in the prewar period, the number of Germans increased considerably in countries such as Guatemala and Nicaragua after the war. In Germany, some agencies even investigated the opportunities for major settlement projects in Venezuela, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Yet, these projects were never realized. Apart from the countries discussed, there was no German mass emigration to Latin America in this period. Yet capitals and major cities such as Mexico City, Lima, Caracas, and Bogotá continued to attract German professionals, such as businessmen and teachers. Although quantitatively negligible, these German immigrants often made important contributions to the economy and culture of their host countries.

GERMAN MIGRATION TO LATIN AMERICA

31

See also Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Mexico; World War I References and Further Reading Bernecker, Walther L., and Thomas Fischer. “Deutsche in Lateinamerika.” Deutsche im Ausland— Fremde in Deutschland: Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Ed. Klaus J. Bade. München: Beck, 1992, 197–214. Bickelmann, Hartmut. Deutsche Überseeauswanderung in der Weimarer Zeit. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980. Blancpain, Jean Pierre. Les Allemands au Chili, 1816–1945. Köln-Wien: Böhlau, 1974. Grothe, Hugo. Die Deutschen in Übersee: Eine Skizze ihres Werdens, ihrer Verbreitung und kulturellen Arbeit. Berlin: Zentralverlag, 1932. Illi, Manfred. Die deutsche Auswanderung nach Lateinamerika: Eine Literaturübersicht. München: Fink, 1977. Kellenbenz, Hermann, and Jürgen Schneider. “La emigración alemana a América Latina desde 1821 hasta 1930.” Jahrbuch für Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 13 (1976): 386–403. Newton, Ronald C. German Buenos Aires, 1900–1933: Social Change and Cultural Crisis. Austin: University of Texas, 1977. Rinke, Stefan. “Der letzte freie Kontinent”: Deutsche Lateinamerikapolitik im Zeichen transnationaler Beziehungen, 1918–1933. Stuttgart: Heinz, 1996. Statistik des Deutschen Reiches, vol. 360, Die Bewegung der Bevölkerung in den Jahren 1925 bis 1927. Berlin. 1930.

CHANGES IN MIGRATION PATTERNS IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY Dirk Hoerder

The decline of emigration in the 1890s reduced cultural transfer from Germany to the societies in the Americas. The role of Auslandsdeutsche imposed by Germany’s nationalism imperiled insertion into the host societies. This unsolicited conceptual unification from outside was detrimental to the communities after 1914. In protest or simply in order to escape discrimination, many Germans changed ethnic affiliation to Dutch when in 1920 and 1921 the U.S. and Canadian censuses were taken. The further development of the ethnic communities in Canada, the United States, and Latin America, as well as migration to the three regions, followed different patterns. Immigration caesurae varied from country to country. The United States first legislated restrictions on immigration during World War I, while Canada and Latin American imposed restrictions only during the Great Depression. In the United States, two brief twentieth-century peaks of immigration came after each of the world wars. Men and women who saw no chance in devastated Germany left for the better options and less militaristic attitudes in the United States. In Canada, immigration continued in the decades before World War I, and after the Treaty of Versailles, so-called Volksdeutsche from territories outside of the post-1918 German borders came in considerable numbers. Economically far less secure than earlier immigrants from Germany proper, they were also marginalized by the latter’s attitude of superiority. From 1919 to 1929, half a million Germans departed (Marschalck 1986). Immigration slowed with 33

34

INTRODUCTORY ESSAYS

the beginning of the worldwide depression after 1929, and the Canadian state tightened immigration regulations. However, throughout the 1920s, Russian Mennonites and Russian Germans from the Soviet Union were accepted as settlers for prairie communities. As in Canada, doors remained open in Latin America, and Germans continued to arrive in the 1920s. The rise of fascism to power in 1933 resulted in the flight of Germans of Jewish faith and of those politically persecuted. However, racism was not confined to Europe’s Fascist regimes. Many states in the Americas, like the West European democracies, were slow in accepting Jewish refugees—the Canadian immigration authorities being particularly adamant in this respect. At the July 1938 refugee conference in Evian, France, U.S. diplomats insisted on establishing an Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees to negotiate an end to the chaos of expulsions and procedures of property transfer. The latter would free receiving societies from the cost of support. This was a subterfuge to keep refugee admission low. In the decade before 1939, a mere 120,000 immigrants from Germany were admitted into the United States (Marschalck 1986). In Latin America, the refugees from fascism had little in common with either the rural or the urban communities of earlier migrants. They came ill prepared and impoverished, selecting Latin American countries because visas were available, rather than because of cultural or economic preference. On the other hand, after 1945 the fugitives from prosecution for war crimes found a certain receptiveness in the prewar ethnic communities. The capture of, or rumors about, hiding Nazi officials have made headlines from time to time. At the end of World War II, the Allies prohibited German emigration but, after a short period of hesitation, accepted displaced persons (DPs) from the forced labor, prisoner-of-war, and concentration camps. A total of 450,000 had received visas by the end of 1951. The figures included Germans of Jewish faith who had survived the Holocaust. A mere 118,000 people designated as Germans immigrated to the United States in the 1940s (Marschalck 1986). In Canada, migration resumed in the late 1940s with further Volksdeutsche being admitted under humanitarian demands by the churches. Because of the economic dependency of the Latin American economies on the United States, these societies no longer attracted migrants from West Germany after the 1950s. In the Federal Republic of Germany, authorities attempted to slow down emigration of able-bodied men; under a still-racial concept of the unity of the Volk, they were needed to rebuild the ruins. The government, however, supported emigration of unwanted members of the Volk—single women and refugee landowners from eastern, formerly German, territories. Even with these restrictions, approximately 577,000 still migrated to the United States. With the economic upswing in the mid-1950s, the post–World War II peak of emigration came to an end. Less than a quarter of a million left for the United States in the 1960s (Marschalck 1986). Since then small numbers have continued to depart, in particular to the United States and, increasingly, to Canada. See also Argentina; Barbie, Klaus; Eichmann, Karl Adolf; Great Depression; Latin America, Nazis in References and Further Reading Bade, Klaus J., ed. Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland. Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart. München: Beck, 1992.

CHANGES

IN

MIGRATION PATTERNS

IN THE TWENTIETH

CENTURY

35

Fröschle, Hartmut, ed. Die Deutschen in Lateinamerika. Schicksal und Leistung. Tübingen: Erdmann, 1979. Goñi, Uki. The Real Odessa: Smuggling the Nazis to Perón’s Argentina. London: Granta, 2002. Hoerder, Dirk. “The German-Language Diasporas. A Survey, Critique, and Interpretation.” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 11, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 7–44. Hoerder, Dirk, and Jörg Nagler, eds. People in Transit. German Migrants in Comparative Perspective, 1820–1930. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1995. Marschalck, Peter, comp. Inventar der Quellen zur Geschichte der Wanderung, besonders der Auswanderung in Bremer Archiven. Veröffentlichung aus dem Staatsarchiv der Freien Hansestadt Bremen, Bd. 53. Bremen: Staatsarchiv, 1986, 47–51. Meding, Holger. Flucht vor Nürnberg? Köln: Böhlau, 1992. Sauer, Angelika E., and Matthias Zimmer, eds. A Chorus of Different Voices. German-Canadian Identities. New York: Lang, 1998.

A ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY

by the Jay Treaty. Secretary of State Timothy Pickering also ordered an expansion of the contraband list (the list of goods that neutrals could not trade with a belligerent and still be considered neutral), the removal of the mutual exemption from general embargoes, and a reversal of the ban on privateering (outfitting private vessels as warships) in the event of war between the United States and Prussia. Neither Adams nor the Prussian government was prepared to give up the principle of neutral rights— the idea that neutral nations should be able to trade in a wide variety of goods, ship the goods of other nations in their own ships, and carry belligerent goods without being subject to capture—embodied in the 1785 treaty. Formal negotiations began in June 1798. Because there were no real controversies between the two countries, only slow communications prevented a rapid conclusion. The final treaty, signed on July 11, 1799, marked a significant revision of the 1785 treaty. Article 12 was rewritten to exclude the principle that free ships make free goods, citing a general lack of respect for the idea from the belligerent powers. Yet Prussia and the United States formally expressed the hope that with the return of peace there might be a general agreement among maritime powers protecting neutral rights. The Senate ratified the treaty on

b. July 11, 1767; Braintree, Massachusetts d. February 23, 1848;Washington, D.C. John Quincy Adams served as the first U.S. minister to Prussia from 1797 to 1801. Adams, his wife, and his brother (serving as secretary of legation) arrived at Hamburg on October 26, 1797, and at Berlin on November 7 of the same year. Two days later Count Finckenstein, one of the three Prussian foreign ministers, received him. The illness and subsequent death of King Friedrich Wilhelm II on November 16 prevented a formal reception until June 5, 1798, when Adams met Friedrich Wilhelm III. In the interim, Adams made the rounds of the diplomatic receptions in Berlin, encountering many diplomats who had known his father, John Adams (1735–1826). Adams’s mission was to secure a renewal of the Prussian-American Treaty of 1785. The new treaty had to be compatible with the Jay Treaty, signed between the United States and Great Britain in 1794. The first casualty was article 12, which stated that free ships made free goods, meaning that goods belonging to a belligerent carried in a neutral vessel were considered neutral. The principle was at the heart of American diplomacy during the American Revolution but was repudiated 37

38

ADDAMS, JANE

February 18, 1800, and the two nations exchanged ratifications on June 22, 1800. During his time in Berlin, Adams studied the German language by translating Christoph Martin Wieland’s Oberon. He also sought to introduce German literature and culture to Americans. To this end, he translated Friedrich von Gentz’s Der Ursprung und die Grundsätze der Amerikanischen Revolution, verglichen mit dem Ursprunge und den Grundsätzen der Französischen into English (Origin and Principles of the American Revolution Compared with the Origin and Principles of the French Revolution, 1800). In July 1800 Adams toured Silesia and wrote a series of letters to his brother describing the society and productions of that province (Letters on Silesia, 1801). Like many commentators before and after, Adams noted that Silesian linens were a perfect article for Prussian American trade. Robert W. Smith See also Treaty of 1785 References and Further Reading Adams, Henry M. Prussian-American Relations, 1775–1871. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1960. Adams, John Quincy. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams. Vol. 1. Ed. Charles Francis Adams. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott, 1874. Scott, James Brown, ed. The Treaties of 1785, 1799, and 1828 between the United States and Prussia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1918.

ADDAMS, (LAURA) JANE b. September 6, 1860; Cedarville, Illinois d. May 21, 1935; Chicago, Illinois One of the founders of Chicago’s HullHouse settlement and an internationally

known peace activist, Jane Addams was one of the best-known reformers of the Progressive Era and one of the most widely admired women of her day. Adams graduated from Rockford [Illinois] Female Seminary in 1881. As part of the first generation of college-educated women in the United States, Addams struggled for a way to put her talents to use. Uninterested in careers traditionally open to women, such as teaching, Addams sought a way to better the world. In 1889, she joined with Ellen Gates Starr to found Hull-House in a rundown mansion built decades earlier by Charles Hull. Located in the largely immigrant Nineteenth Ward, it served as the initial settlement house in Chicago and the model for many others. Designed initially to allow wealthy women to uplift the poor by sharing their knowledge of literature and art, Hull-House quickly shifted into a provider of social services and an employer of women eager to find some socially worthwhile use for their brains. Just as importantly, it served as a means of preserving the culture of the Old World. Hull-House offered visiting nurses, legal services, a nursery and kindergarten for the children of working mothers, a theater, a music school, multiple reading groups, a museum of immigrant crafts, a butcher shop, a coffee shop, and a bakery. German immigrants, often better educated than other newcomers to the United States, came to Hull-House to pursue courses in German history and literature. They used the settlement to introduce German arts, especially music, to their American-born offspring. At a time when the sons and daughters of immigrants dismissed all of the Old World and wholeheartedly embraced Americanization, Hull-House promoted respect for German heritage. Hull-House would re-

ADDAMS, JANE

main as Addams’s home until her death, and its accomplishments made her into a national figure. During the 1890s and 1900s, she lobbied city, state, and national authorities for an eight-hour day, employment regulations for women and children, unemployment insurance, improved sanitation, factory legislation, municipal playgrounds, public kindergartens, a juvenile court system, and the enforcement of antiprostitution and antidrug laws. Addams served on the Chicago School Board and as a vice president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association and helped found the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. One of the first public intellectuals, Addams wrote and spoke prolifically. Peace activism and suffrage were among her favorite topics, all of which centered on the obligation of citizens to redefine government to be more responsive to the needs of the people. Although she occasionally published in scholarly journals, most of her work went into mass-circulation magazines such as Ladies Home Journal and McClure’s. Addams wrote six books during her lifetime, including the best-selling autobiographicy Twenty Years at Hull-House (1910). A self-possessed woman, Addams did not fear to take the side of unpopular causes. Advocacy of a role for women in public life had cost her the goodwill of many conservatives, and in 1901, she spoke out for the civil rights of anarchists arrested by the police in the wake of President William McKinley’s assassination. But she did not expect to be vilified for her pacifist beliefs during World War I. When Addams broke with most Progressives by opposing U.S. entry into the war, she experienced ostracism for the first time. She

39

Jane Addams of Hull-House, Chicago, Illinois, ca. 1913. (Library of Congress)

had once believed that immigration, commerce, the telephone, and the telegraph would establish a truly international culture that would make violence between western European states and the United States virtually unthinkable, but the war crushed these hopes. Addams viewed World War I as a twofold threat because it halted progress toward civilized methods of conflict resolution while diverting resources away from community projects and toward military spending. As a founder of the Woman’s Peace Party, the chair of the Emergency Federation of Peace Forces, and the symbol of feminine conscience in the United States, Addams sought to stop the fighting. Politicians and the public attacked her activities as treasonous and foolish. Unde-

40

ADELSVEREIN

terred, Addams helped create the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom immediately after the war in 1919. Addams did her best to fight the cruelty and self-righteousness shown by the United States in dealing with Germans during and after World War I. The American Protective League, a vigilante organization with quasi-official status from the U.S. government, singled out the city of Chicago as a hotbed of pro-German sympathizers and placed Hull-House under a cloud of suspicion of disloyalty for its work with German Americans. Addams did not attack her attackers. Instead, she responded to verbal assaults by bemoaning the general acceptance of standardization and advocating an America that permitted voluntary assimilation at the immigrant’s pace. As a member of the International Congress of Women, Addams issued a call in 1915 for the lifting of the wartime blockade of Germany so that food could get to noncombatants. During a 1919 fact-finding mission to Germany, she documented widespread starvation among children as a result of the blockade. By the late 1920s, Addams had regained most of her reputation and her place as one of the greatest Americans. The culmination of this restoration came when she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1931. Caryn E. Neumann See also Anarchists; Chicago; International Council of Women References and Further Reading Davis, Allen F. American Heroine: The Life and Legend of Jane Addams. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2000. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Jane Addams and the Dream of American Democracy. New York: Basic Books, 2002. ———. The Jane Addams Reader. New York: Basic Books, 2002.

ADELSVEREIN (SOCIETY FOR THE PROTECTION OF GERMAN IMMIGRANTS IN TEXAS) The Adelsverein was initially organized on April 20, 1842, at Biebrich on the Rhine by twenty-one German noblemen interested in founding a German colony in Texas. The organization was officially dubbed Verein zum Schutze deutscher Einwanderer in Texas (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas). It is varyingly referred to as the Texas-Verein, the Mainzer Verein, and the German Emigration Company. The noblemen who founded the Adelsverein were heavily influenced by positive news about life in Texas spread in Europe by authors such as Carl Postl, who wrote historical novels under the penname Charles Sealsfield. During a prolonged illness, Prince Carl of Leiningen, a leading light in the Adelsverein, read several works expounding the virtues of Texas, serving to shape his favorable opinion of the newly minted republic. Further, early immigrants such as Friedrich Ernst sent glowing reports of Texas back to their friends and families, which received wide circulation. As a result, a limited amount of German immigration was already underway in Texas. In the minds of the noblemen who founded the Adelsverein, Texas presented itself as the perfect laboratory for their colonial experiment. In May 1842 Counts Joseph of BoosWaldeck and Victor August of LeiningenWesterburg-Alt-Leiningen were given the assignment of traveling to Texas, surveying the land firsthand, and purchasing property on which to build a colony. Republic of Texas president Sam Houston had been authorized under a law of February 5,

ADELSVEREIN

1842, to provide generous grants of land to those willing to bring settlers to Texas. The counts entered into negotiations with Houston for a colonization grant but ultimately declined the president’s offer when he refused to provide an exemption from taxation to the colonists. Boos-Waldeck and Alt-Leiningen spent some time exploring Texas. Impressed by the lands in the vicinity of Ernst’s settlement at Industry, in January 1843 Boos-Waldeck purchased a league of land nearby, which he dubbed Nassau Farm in honor of the Adelsverein’s protector, Duke Adolf of Nassau. Alt-Leiningen returned to Europe in May 1843, while Boos-Waldeck remained in Texas to develop his farm. The two men split their decision on whether to recommend a colonization effort in Texas. Alt-Leiningen heartily backed the adventure, whereas Boos-Waldeck, fearing the expense, recommended against it. Although unable to receive official backing from the Prussian government, the Adelsverein was reorganized as a joint-stock company on June 18, 1843, and was capitalized at 200,000 gulden ($80,000) for the purpose of purchasing land in the Republic of Texas. The Adelsverein was approached in September 1843 by Alexander Bourgeois d’Orvanne, a speculator, who along with his partner, Armand Ducos, had received a colonization grant in Texas. The Adelsverein was interested in purchasing the right to settle Bourgeois’s cession, which was situated to the west of San Antonio. The Adelsverein formally organized itself under its official title on March 25, 1844, naming Prince Carl Emich III of Leiningen president and Count Carl of Castell-Castell vice president and secretary, a position that was the equivalent of business manager.

41

Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels was selected as commissioner-general and put in charge of the colonization project, and Bourgeois was named colonial director. These two men arrived in Texas to begin the colonization project on July 1, 1844. Shortly after his arrival in Texas, Prince Carl realized that Bourgeois’s colonial grant was worthless. It had expired, and it quickly became clear that the Republic of Texas would not renew it. However, the Adelsverein had already negotiated a replacement. The Adelsverein had been approached in May by Henry Francis Fisher, who along with his partner Burchard Miller held the right to colonize lands between the Colorado and Llano rivers in what is today known as the Hill Country of Texas. Fisher was himself a German native and had been appointed by Sam Houston to serve as Texas consul at Bremen. On June 26, 1844, the Adelsverein purchased the right to the FisherMiller Colony, and Castell-Castell acted quickly to inform Prince Carl of these changes. On August 28, 1844, Bourgeois resigned as colonial director, with Fisher taking his place. The first colonists began arriving at the port of Carlshafen (later Indianola) in December 1844. Prince Carl had established the port on the Texas coast as a central point of entry for the immigrants. The Fisher-Miller Colony was some 300 miles inland and thus too far for an easy trek by the would-be settlers. As a stopgap measure in order to handle the influx of immigrants, in March 1845 Prince Carl established the hamlet of New Braunfels along the Comal River north of San Antonio to act as a way station. He named this new settlement for his home, Braunfels, on the Lahn River.

42

ADELSVEREIN

Baron Otfried Hans Freiherr von Meusebach succeeded Prince Carl as commissioner-general in May 1845. It quickly became apparent to the new commissioner-general, who took the egalitarian name of John O. Meusebach, that the Adelsverein had deep financial troubles. He was allotted only $5 per person to transport colonists from the coast to the FisherMiller Colony. Nevertheless, Meusebach went to work immediately. In August 1845 he established another village, dubbed Fredericksburg, for Prince Friedrich of Prussia, this time closer to the Adelsverein’s colonial cession. It was under the very capable leadership of Meusebach that the Adelsverein enjoyed its greatest success. During his tenure as commissioner-general (May 1845–July 1847), over 5,000 German immigrants made their way to Texas. Five small settlements (Bettina, Castell, Leiningen, Meerholz, and Schoenburg) were established within the Fisher-Miller cession, and the towns of New Braunfels and Fredericksburg were on their way to great success by the time Meusebach stepped aside. His successor, Hermann Spiess, functioned as little more that a caretaker. By the close of 1847 it was apparent that the Adelsverein was facing financial ruin. Although a special business manager was appointed to deal with the crisis, very little could be done to save the company. Henry Francis Fisher attempted to keep the enterprise going as the German Emigration Company, but in September 1853 it was finally forced to turn all of its assets over to its creditors. As a financial venture, the Adelsverein was a disaster. However, it accomplished its chief goal of inspiring German immigra-

tion to Texas. Germans became the largest European immigrant group to settle in Texas, a process of continual colonization that lasted into the twentieth century. The Adelsverein was built on a foundation of ideals. The noblemen who created it sought to build a satellite state of Germany in Texas that would better the lives of those who chose to settle in the colony and strengthen Germany proper with expanded access to goods and trade. Ultimately, it was the noblemen themselves who undermined the enterprise through simple lack of experience in the complex business matters of building a foreign colony. For the most part, the settlers prospered, building lasting communities in their new homeland. Jerry C. Drake See also Darmstaedters; Ernst, Friedrich; Fredericksburg, Texas; Meusebach, John O.; New Braunfels, Texas; Sealsfield, Charles; Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of References and Further Reading Benjamin, Gilbert Giddings. The Germans in Texas: A Study in Immigration. Austin: Jenkins Publishing, 1974. Biesele, Rudolph Leopold. The History of the German Settlements in Texas, 1831–1861. Austin: Von Boeckman Jones, 1930. Jordan, Terry G. German Seed in Texas Soil: Immigrant Farmers in NineteenthCentury Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1975. King, Irene Marschall. John O. Meusebach: German Colonizer in Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967. Lich, Glen E. The German Texans. San Antonio: Institute of Texan Cultures, 1981. Lich, Glen E., and Dona B. Reeves, eds. German Culture in Texas: A Free Earth; Essays from the 1978 Southwest Symposium. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1980.

ADELUNG, JOHANN CHRISTOPH

ADELUNG, JOHANN CHRISTOPH b. August 8, 1732; Spantekow, Prussia d. September 9, 1806; Dresden, Saxony Eminent German linguist with significant works about the German language and comparative linguistics, including the first comprehensive analysis and reference work of the known American Indian languages (Mithridates, 1806–1817). Work on the Mithridates was continued by Johann Severin Vater (1771–1826). Adelung, chief librarian at the court in Dresden, became widely known for his Versuch eines vollständigen grammatischkritischen Wörterbuches der hochdeutschen Mundart, mit beständiger Vergleichung der übrigen Mundarten, besonders aber der Oberdeutschen (German Dictionary, 1774–1786), which was the most substantial and methodologically most advanced dictionary of the time; he also gained recognition for his other works in German grammar, lexicography, stylistics, and language history. His last project, the Mithridates, is a comparison and classification of all the known languages of the world at the time, mainly by using translations of the Lord’s Prayer. The Mithridates consists of four volumes. Adelung completed volume 1 and parts of volume 2. Vater continued the work by adding the first comprehensive comparison and analysis of American Indian and African languages in volume 3. The fourth volume contains corrections and an article about the Basque language by Wilhelm von Humboldt. Before the Mithridates, Adelung had already published four American Indian poems with translations in 1799, and Vater had pub-

43

lished the first results of his studies about American Indian languages in 1810. In the Mithridates, language samples and their German translations, typological and grammatical information, and ethnographic information about the speakers are given. Adelung’s goal was to find relationships between peoples by finding the relationships between their native languages. The Mithridates was the only widely recognized work by Adelung for several decades but is nevertheless missing in many linguistic bibliographies in Europe during the nineteenth century. Its volume covering the American Indian languages gained recognition from contemporary U.S. linguists, however. Adelung’s ethnographic-historical concept saw language as being closely connected to society, history, and culture. Thus every chapter of the Mithridates starts with ethnographic information about the language users, including the settlement areas of the tribes and possible relationships to each other. Chosen by Adelung to complete the Mithridates, Vater applied Adelung’s language concept to his analysis of American Indian languages and emphasized the influence of historical migration of the tribes on the ethnic and linguistic structure of the Americas. Vater favored the theory of migration movements of Asian tribes from Asia to the Americas, pushing autochthonous American tribes toward South America. Consequently, Vater started his analysis of American Indian languages in South America, where he assumed he would find the oldest American peoples. Influenced by the evolving discipline of comparative anatomy, Vater also integrated anatomical data in his analysis, mainly to clarify the possible genealogical relationship between

44

ADELUNG, JOHANN CHRISTOPH

the North, Central, and South American Indians and between American Indian and Asian peoples. Vater concluded that some anatomical and linguistic similarities pointed to connections between the Americas and Asia, and he emphasized the linguistic diversity of the Americas, caused by communicative isolation in those sparsely populated continents. The core of the Mithridates is the comparison of language samples, mainly versions of the Lord’s Prayer in different languages, but it also includes shorter texts, poems, and word lists. Adelung considered a broad database as crucial and therefore collected as many text samples as possible from earlier language studies and synoptic collections of the Lord’s Prayer, which were already used as sources by other linguists before him. Adelung chose the Lord’s Prayer as the main language sample to have a text long enough to contain grammatical structures that was also available in numerous different languages around the world. Adelung and Vater also compiled all available grammars for American Indian and African languages, which were mostly written by missionaries or explorers, or derived grammars themselves from language samples. One problem for Adelung and Vater was that they did not know most of the languages they analyzed and had never heard those languages spoken. Nevertheless, they tried to give an impression of the phonology of the language with their transcription of the language samples. To provide as much accessible data as possible, Adelung and Vater also included unpublished information from other researchers. (For his study about American Indian languages, for example, Vater used Alexander von Humboldt’s unpublished data about

American Indians.) Nevertheless, few reliable sources were available for most of the languages. Adelung saw this as a basic problem of his study. Vater pointed out that the inconsistent availability of sources made a totally balanced comparison of all languages impossible because the selection of languages depended on the availability of material. Nevertheless, he expressed surprise about the large amount of data he could find about African and American Indian languages. Language classifications in the Mithridates are determined by the restricted database and Adelung’s language concept. Adelung theorized that languages historically evolve from basic words with one syllable to more and more complex structures with multiple syllables and elaborate grammar. Adelung considered such a morphologic and grammar-based language classification as impossible without detailed linguistic information and therefore only classified the Asian languages according to this scheme as monosyllabic or polysyllabic; however, they are subdivided according to geographical distribution, as is typical in other language collections of the eighteenth century. For the European languages, he choose roughly the classification (e.g., Slavic, Romantic, or Germanic language groups, etc.) still used today, even though he did not describe all relationships correctly. Vater did utilize Adelung’s syllabic categorization for African and American Indians languages but classified them according primarily to geographical and historical-genealogical factors. Linguistic similarities were secondary factors. He characterized the American Indian languages as mainly nonelaborate (kunstlos), but he considered some of them to be more developed and linguistically more complex.

ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE

For the American Indian languages, Vater identified several language groups: eleven for South America, four for Central America, and five for North America, including Greenland. However linguistically determined, the language groups are named and organized according to their geographical distribution. Adelung and Vater did not use completely new methodological or theoretical approaches to linguistics but differed from their immediate successors by using social and ethnographical data for their language analysis. The Mithridates is widely recognized for its vast collection of data, typological descriptions, and classifications of languages, especially of the African and American Indian languages. Jörg Meindl See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Humboldt, Wilhelm von; Vater, Johann Severin References and Further Reading Adelung, Johann Christoph. “Proben der Dichtung ungebildeter Völker: Erstes Dutzend.” Erholungen (1799): 194–208. ———. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in bey nahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten. 4 vols. Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung, 1806–1817. Bahner, Werner, ed. Sprache und Kulturentwicklung im Blickfeld der deutschen Spätaufklärung: Der Beitrag Johann Christoph Adelungs. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1984.

Admiral Graf Spee This armor-plated ship, operating as a privateer at the beginning of World War II, was named after Count Maximilian Graf von Spee, the commandant of the German East Asia squadron. After an overwhelming victory over British units in front of Coro-

45

nel (Chile), Spee’s squadron was sunk near the Falkland Islands by an enemy unit of modern battleships in December 1914. The Admiral Graf Spee, commissioned in 1936, was a so-called pocket battleship with a crew of 1,100 sailors. It was of light construction and equipped with modern location devices. From the beginning of the war, it operated very successfully against enemy merchant ships in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean. Severely damaged during a sea battle with three British cruisers off the Rio de la Plata estuary, the Graf Spee succeeded in freeing itself, but it had to dock in the harbor of Montevideo, Chile. Diplomatic pressure from London forced the Admiral Graf Spee to leave the harbor shortly afterward. In view of the ship’s unfitness for battle and his assessment of the situation as hopeless, Commandant Captain Hans Langsdorff decided to scuttle the ship. On December 17, 1939, he permitted the crew to climb into lifeboats and gave the order to blow up the ship. While the Admiral Graf Spee sank, over 1,000 German seamen crossed the Rio de la Plata and landed in Argentina. Langsdorff had arranged this coup jointly with the German naval attaché in Buenos Aires and a friendly shipping company, thus confronting neutral Argentina with a fait accompli. After leading the crew into safe internment, Langsdorff shot himself. The commandant’s suicide greatly affected public opinion at the Rio de la Plata. It simultaneously irritated and impressed the Argentines, caused a wave of admiration even in circles not sympathetic to Germany, and led to the largest funeral since that of deposed President Hipólito Yrigoyen: 100,000 Argentines joined Langsdorff ’s funeral at the German section of Chacarita Cemetery.

46

ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE

Launching of the new German armored ship, Admiral Graf Spee, Wilhelmshaven, Germany, 1939. (Underwood & Underwood/Corbis)

The crew of the Admiral Graf Spee enjoyed extensive liberty, although they were officially interned. Argentina firmly rejected British demands for extradition and even permitted the internees’ wearing of uniforms during liberty. Two hundred and eighty-five Speegrafen (Spee counts) married at the Rio de la Plata. Quite a number of crewmen managed to escape. Some of them reached Germany through the Soviet Union and rejoined the war as marines. In response to Allied pressure, the internees living at the Rio de la Plata were forcefully repatriated to Germany on February 16, 1946. However, as many as 500 returned to Argentina during the Peron era. United in the Kameradenkreis Admiral Graf Spee (Admiral Graf Spee circle of comrades) the former seamen still celebrate the day of their captain’s and savior’s death annually.

The sea battle at the Rio de la Plata and the scuttling of the ship was Argentina’s only direct contact with World War II. This incident caused Argentines to view neutrality more positively than at the beginning of the war. In Germany, the honorable and courteous treatment of the German soldiers raised Argentina’s reputation, so that after World War II, the La Plata Republic became a destination for many refugees. The wreck of the Admiral Graf Spee remained where it had been scuttled. With the goal of establishing an Admiral Graf Spee Museum in Montevideo, the first attempts to raise it were made at the beginning of 2004. Holger M. Meding See also Argentina; Chile; World War I; World War II

ADORNO,THEODOR WIESENGRUND References and Further Reading Lascano, Diego M. Historia en imágenes del acorazado alemán Admiral Graf Spee. Buenos Aires: (Author’s edition) 1998. Laurence, Ricardo E. Operativo Graf Spee: Uruguay, Diciembre 17 de 1939, Argentina, Febrero 16 de 1946. Rosario: (Author’s edition) 1996. Rasenack, Friedrich Wilhelm. Panzerschiff Admiral Graf Spee. Hamburg: Koehler, 1999.

ADORNO,THEODOR WIESENGRUND b. September 11, 1903; Frankfurt am Main, Prussia d. August 6, 1969;Visp,Wallis An eminent member of the Frankfurt School who lived from 1938 to 1953 in the United States, Adorno deeply influenced the intellectual discourse in both Germany and the United States. He coined the phrase that after Auschwitz there can be no poetry. Adorno grew up in Frankfurt, where he studied music and philosophy at university. He studied neo-Kantianism under Hans Cornelius, and while attending his seminars, he met Max Horkheimer. Both men were interested in Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology. Adorno received his doctorate in philosophy in 1924. In 1930 he traveled to Berlin, where he met Ernst Bloch, Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Bertolt Brecht, all of whom were trying to create an aesthetic based on Karl Marx’s critique of capitalist society and the bourgeoise. Adorno became enamored with George Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness (1923). At the beginning of his studies, Adorno gained an interest in expressionism and wrote Ernst Bloch, whom he considered the philoso-

47

pher of expressionism. He found in this philosophy the very real possibility of cultural disintegration. Around this same time, he met Alban Berg, a student of Arnold Schönberg, the creator of atonal music. He soon agreed to go with Berg to Vienna as his student. Adorno’s two years in Vienna had considerable influence on his aesthetic and philosophical pursuits. When he returned from Vienna, Paul Tillich had become chair of philosophy at the University of Frankfurt. Tillich was a good friend of Horkheimer and Friedrich Pollock, the early founders of the Institute for Social Research, which Adorno would later join. Before that, he had already published some of his first essays on music in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (Journal of Social Research), the institute’s journal. Tillich helped Adorno become a lecturer (Privatdozent) while he finished his Habilitationsschrift, a postdoctoral study of Søren Kierkegaard’s aesthetics. When in 1933 Jews were excluded from academic professions, Adorno hoped to find refuge in Vienna but was unable to receive a position at the university. In 1934, he moved to England, where he remained for three and a half years. While there, he continued to publish articles on the aesthetics of music in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, and he also began a thorough study of Husserl. Through his studies over the years, he did not dwell solely on music but turned again to Marx in order to understand the influence of capitalist society on the rational subject. In 1938 he moved to the United States and became an “official” member of the Institute of Social Research in New York. Alienated from American life, he began to investigate the culture industry and mass culture in a capitalist society. While in New York, he

48

AFRICAN AMERICANS

encountered the true nature of the technological and managerial control created by a growing monopolistic capitalism. As he watched the order of capitalist society move more and more toward rationalization and mechanization, Adorno paradoxically claimed it to be even more irrational than bourgeois society. The commodification and homogenization of capitalist society destroyed in his eyes the foundations of bourgeois society and led to the disintegration of the individual. He believed this loss of subjectivity was a major threat to the future of society. During this time he published some of his best known works, Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947), a collaboration with Horkheimer; The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a collaborative project; and Minima Moralia (1951). While in New York, his doubts about capitalism increased, and his ideas made him even more of a cultural elitist. He began his first research project in the United States with Paul Lazarsfeld at the Princeton University Radio Research project. He at once disliked the empirical and quantitative nature of the study and felt the study of audience response to radio programming displayed a form of commercialism in which consumers would eventually dictate radio programming. As a result, real art itself would become a commodity. He saw music within mass culture as a commodity judged more by exchange value than use value. Returning to his belief in the destruction of the individual, he felt the music of mass culture destroyed subjectivity. The mass media was creating a reified culture that destroyed mediation and reconciliation and created instead a passivity that completely eliminated the possibility of a negation. He believed the culture industry merely imitated existing social

patterns, whereas true art went beyond such social arrangements. For Adorno, the power of mass culture was greater than any economic theory in strengthening the success of capitalism. He claimed it did not allow people to question social conditions and instead created for them false needs. After living in California, Adorno returned to Frankfurt in 1953 and became director of the Institute for Social Research in 1959. During this time he wrote as prolifically as before. He engaged in debates with the social positivists and with Martin Heidegger, and he completed his Negative Dialectics (1966). His Aesthetic Theory was published posthumously in 1970. His books and essays greatly influenced postmodernism and poststructuralism. Jim Varn See also Brecht, Bertolt; Frankfurt School; Horkheimer, Max; Intellectual Exile; Kracauer, Siegfried; Schönberg, Arnold References and Further Reading Dallymar, Fred. Between Freiburg and Frankfurt: Toward a Critical Ontology. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1991. Jay, Martin. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. Lunn, Eugene. Marxism and Modernism: An Historical Study of Lukacs, Brecht, Benjamin, and Adorno. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982.

AFRICAN AMERICANS African Americans occupied a noteworthy place in German American relations throughout the twentieth century. For African Americans, Germany could serve as an analogue or counterpoint to white American society as they fought pervasive racial

AFRICAN AMERICANS

discrimination in the United States. Germans could also use developments in African American history to comment on German concerns, but they more frequently articulated critiques (racist or antiracist) of the United States based on the position of African Americans in American society. Consideration of African Americans in Germany can appropriately begin with William Edward Burghardt Du Bois, who pursued graduate study of social science at the Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin from 1892 to 1894. Du Bois’s thought shows influences from his studies in Germany and reading of German writers. More fundamentally, Du Bois’s time in Germany and Europe provided him with a broader perspective on American society and the question of race. His Autobiography describes his feelings of liberation from American racism and parochialism, although Du Bois at times confronted racial prejudice in Germany. African Americans have sometimes significantly shaped German views of the United States and American culture, especially American music. From the 1920s through at least the 1950s Germans typically regarded jazz as both fundamentally black and quintessentially American music, a discomfiting assessment for white and black American opponents of jazz. During the short life of the Weimar Republic, numerous African American entertainers, including most famously Josephine Baker, performed in Germany. A minority of German listeners enthusiastically greeted African American music as a tonic for European culture, which they regarded as increasingly sterile. Ernst Krenek’s successful 1927 opera, Jonny spielt auf (Jonny Strikes Up), whose title character was an African American, exemplified that kind of reading

49

of black music, which would find echoes in the eagerness of postwar German youth for jazz and rock ’n’ roll. Conservative Germans, however, derided jazz. Racist critiques of jazz typically argued that the musical export revealed the essence of uncultured America. Nazi rhetoric decried the threatened “negrification” of German culture, and the printed guide for the Nazis’ 1938 “Degenerate Music” exhibit carried an apelike caricature of a saxophonist. Nazi antipathy toward jazz represented but one aspect of the movement’s thoroughgoing antiblack racism. African Americans appeared as the object of National Socialist racial scorn. Nazi Party organs commented approvingly on white supremacist practices like lynching and segregation in the American South. Jesse Owens’s victories at the 1936 Berlin Olympics and the boxing matches between Joe Louis and Max Schmeling acquired their special charge in both the German and American public imaginations because they publicly refuted Nazism’s insistence on the biological inferiority of African Americans. The establishment of the expressly racist Nazi regime under Hitler had farreaching consequences for the struggles of African Americans for civil rights in the United States. White and black Americans recognized that racism, both antisemitic and antiblack, was a central tenet of Nazism. As the Third Reich carried the logic of racist dogma to its genocidal conclusion, racism generally came under increasing attack. American civil rights rhetoric thus analogized segregationist policies in the United States to Nazi measures against the Jews. During World War II, African American leaders linked American racism to Nazism in calling for a “double victory” against fascism abroad and racism

50

AFRICAN AMERICANS

Spurred by the crowd's cries of “go, go, go” the Lionel Hampton band, and especially its “King” Lionel, played themselves into a sweat for the entertainment of the jazz-hungry audience, Frankfurt, Germany, 1946. (Bettmann/Corbis)

at home. In the 1940s and into the 1950s, the example of Nazi racism served to buttress the critique of racial segregation in the American South. African Americans had been present in Germany since 1945 as members of the U.S. armed forces stationed there. First arriving as part of a segregated army charged with democratizing the Germans, black GIs comprised just below 10 percent of the U.S. forces through the years of the military occupation. The interactions between African American soldiers and the local population produced some conflict, as well as friendships, romantic attachments, and a number of marriages between Germans and African Americans. Relationships be-

tween German women and African American soldiers aroused considerable concern among Germans and white Americans in the 1940s and 1950s. During the 1950s, West Germans publicly debated how to integrate children of African American and German parents into West German society as Germans began to consider in a new way ideas about race and Germanness. In Germany, a tradition of criticizing American racial discrimination against African Americans and of forging a sympathetic affiliation with African Americans continued from the nineteenth into the twentieth centuries. In the interwar years, German Communists protested as unjust the rape convictions of the celebrated

ALTGELD, JOHN PETER

African American “Scottsboro Boys.” In a more attenuated fashion, antiracist allegiances continued during the Third Reich as “swing youth” imitated African American music and styles as a means of signaling their nonconformity. The African American communist Angela Davis has described her feeling of solidarity with members of the German radical student Left during her postgraduate studies in 1960s Frankfurt. After Davis was arrested in the United States on charges of kidnapping and murder, Germans in the Federal Republic and especially in the German Democratic Republic participated actively in the international campaign to free her. Following her acquittal in 1972, she toured a number of Socialist countries, where her case had become a cause célèbre in efforts to expose racism and anticommunism in the United States. She reported receiving an especially enthusiastic reception in East Germany. Timothy Schroer See also American Students at German Universities; Davis, Angela Yvonne; GIs in West Germany; Hindenburg Disaster; Olympic Games; U.S. Bases in West Germany References and Further Reading Fehrenbach, Heide. “Of German Mothers and ‘Negermischlingskinder’: Race, Sex, and the Postwar Nation.” In The Miracle Years: A Cultural History of West Germany, 1949–1968. Ed. Hanna Schissler. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001, 164–186. Lewis, David Levering. W. E. B. Du Bois: Biography of a Race. New York: Henry Holt, 1993. McBride, David, Leroy Hopkins, and C. Aisha Blackshire-Belay, eds. Crosscurrents: African Americans, Africa, and Germany in the Modern World. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1998. Miller, James A., Susan D. Pennybacker, and Eve Rosenhaft. “Mother Ada Wright and the International Campaign to Free the Scottsboro Boys, 1931–1934.” American Historical Review 106 (2001): 387–430.

51

ALTGELD, JOHN PETER b. December 30, 1847; Nieder Selter (Taunus mountain range) d. March 8, 1902; Chicago, Illinois Governor of Illinois from 1892 to 1896, John Peter Altgeld may well be the German American politician who gained the largest amount of national notoriety and fame in the smallest amount of time, addressing the most controversial of issues. Altgeld’s father was a wagon maker by trade, and when his parents decided to emigrate only three months after his birth, they followed Mrs. Altgeld’s brother and took up farming in north-central Ohio, in a township largely settled by Germans and similar in landscape and farming methods to what they had known in their previous home. For the next twenty years John Peter Altgeld was trapped in endless, hard farm labor and a narrow-minded, unsupportive family environment. His desire to receive an education had to be realized against his father’s wishes and without any financial support except John’s ability to sell his labor. In 1864 he briefly escaped home by enlisting in the army, though his experiences on the battlefield remained limited due to illness and the disbanding of his regiment in the same year. In 1868, on the day of his twenty-first birthday, he left his family, embarked on a journey through the Midwest, and finally arrived in Andrew County, Missouri. Here, with the charitable support of influential people, he was able to work and to study law and was admitted to the Andrew County Bar in 1871. He practiced law until 1874, became involved in activities of the farmers’ movement, the Grange, and moved on to Chicago in 1875. Altgeld established a law practice, worked hard and lived frugally, and in

52

ALTGELD, JOHN PETER

1877 married Emma Ford, a woman he had known since childhood. He began to successfully invest in real estate, gained a reputation by publishing in law journals, networked with supportive people in his profession and in politics, and was nominated for the state legislature on the Democratic ticket in 1884. In 1886 he became a judge for the Cook County Supreme Court, from which he retired in 1890, having found the complacency and routine of the court not challenging enough. His professional life in Chicago was marked by a moderately successful practice as a lawyer and by great esteem for his performance as a judge. He had also been able to accumulate great wealth in real estate deals, which he later lost on an ill-conceived financial scheme related to the “United Building,” a project in which he had great financial and emotional interest. When he embarked on his political career in 1892, he was reputed to be an earnest, hardworking, intelligent, socially responsible man, this being noteworthy in a political climate marked by financial depression, industrial disputes, and growing public annoyance over corruption. That he was also able to address issues of concern to the German American citizens of Chicago and Illinois (i.e., the right to be taught in German in school) certainly helped. In 1880 one-third of Chicago’s population was of German descent. When Altgeld won the gubernatorial race, Illinois, for the first time in forty years, had a Democratic governor. Altgeld’s term as governor, though brief and turbulent, was nonetheless effective. Besides the highly controversial pardoning of the Haymarket riot martyrs and the equally publicized conflict over the Pullman strike, he was able to pursue a

number of reform projects related to the penal system, charitable institutions, industrial relations, and education. His most notable accomplishments were the factory reform legislation that brought Florence Kelley, whom he appointed as the first factory inspector, into the national limelight, and the support he was able to muster for the University of Illinois. This support not only helped to turn the university into a first-rate educational institution but also changed the way the legislature and politicians dealt with higher education in Illinois. Upon taking up office, Altgeld was immediately approached by representatives from the amnesty movement asking clemency for Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab, and Oscar Neebe, who were still serving life sentences in prison, allegedly for being involved in the Haymarket square riot of 1886. Today, it is widely understood that had Altgeld issued the pardons on grounds of executive clemency, the move would have found widespread public support. However, after close investigation of the documents, Altgeld came to the conclusion that the prisoners had received gross injustice and that the preceding trail, by all legal standards, had been a scam. So the decision to pardon was not an act of mercy; since the three men had been unjustly convicted, nothing but a full pardon was in order. This critical assessment of the legal procedures of that trial was Altgeld’s downfall. The press accused him of being a foreign agitator, if not an anarchist himself. It is said that he was aware of the political consequences when he delivered the Pardoning Message in June 1893. The controversy over the use of federal troops during the 1894 railroad strike again found Altgeld on the other side of the

AMANA COLONIES

political-capitalist power structure. President Grover Cleveland had readily aligned himself with the railroad magnates when he, upon their request, sent federal troops to Chicago and allowed for local gunmen to be invested with federal authority. This transaction not only disturbed the local peace but effectively broke the strike, rendered the American Railway Union powerless, and completely alienated the working people. Altgeld had refrained from sending in the Illinois National Guard because the strikers, for the most part, had maintained civil order. He had not wanted to forgo the union’s chances to achieve an agreement with the railroad. But President Cleveland had other ideas. He set a precedent by using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as an effective tool against workers’ organizations, which would become a legal device of great consequence in the years to come, putting workers at a great disadvantage in any disputes between capital and labor. When Altgeld protested Cleveland’s actions and demanded a withdrawal of troops, the press once again denounced him as a foreign agitator not in tune with the principles of the U.S. Constitution. It was obvious that Altgeld would have no chance of reelection after these two controversial political affairs. He thus retired from public view in 1896, only to become active in Democratic circles, promoting the “silver issue”; that is demanding the free coinage of silver, and shaping the “Chicago Platform” that became the Democratic credo in the 1896 election. He was arguably the brain behind William Jennings Bryan’s presidential campaign, and had he not been disqualified due to his German birth, he may well have been the presidential candidate himself.. The “Silver Plan” did not materialize, and Altgeld continued

53

to defend workers’ rights as a lawyer in Chicago. Altgeld’s personality defies easy categorization. His political credo, nevertheless, was in accordance with the great reformers of his time: Jane Addams, Henry D. Lloyd, and Clarence Darrow all respected him. He was among the earliest of a generation of reformers whose political influence would shape American urbanism a decade later. Christiane Harzig See also Addams, (Laura) Jane; Anarchists; Chicago; Haymarket; Illinois; Politics and German Americans References and Further Reading Barnard, Harry. Eagle Forgotten: The Life of John P. Altgeld. New York: Bobbs Merill, 1938. Browne, Waldo R. Altgeld of Illinois: A Record of His Life and Work. New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1924. Ginger, Ray. Altgeld’s America: The Lincoln Ideal versus Changing Realities. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1958.

AMANA COLONIES The Amana Colonies are a settlement comprised of seven small villages (Amana, East Amana, Middle Amana, High Amana, West Amana, South Amana, and Homestead) located in the Iowa River valley in Iowa County, in east-central Iowa. They were founded by the Amana Society in Iowa in 1855. The society’s origins date back to an early eighteenth-century religious sect with congregations predominantly in southern and central Germany. The Amana people successfully practiced communal living in Iowa for almost eighty years. Today Amana residents (about 1,650 people), especially the younger generation, embrace a more secular, individualistic lifestyle strongly influenced by

54

AMANA COLONIES

American mainstream culture. Traces of the German culture can still be found in architecture, customs, crafts, and food preparation. Other German traditions, such as the Oktoberfest and Fachwerk (half-timbering construction) architecture, have only recently been introduced. Current membership in the Amana Church is around 400. One of the Sunday church services is still held in German. Over the years, residents’ use of Amana German (Kolonie-Deutsch) has steadily declined. In 1965 the seven villages of Amana were designated a National Historic Landmark. The Amana Heritage Society, founded in 1968, aims at collecting, preserving, and interpreting the heritage of the Amana community. The history of the Amana people is rooted in the Community of True Inspiration (Wahre Inspirations-Gemeinde), a religious movement strongly influenced by German pietism and mysticism. The former Lutheran clergyman Eberhard Ludwig Gruber (1655–1728) and saddle maker Johann Friedrich Rock (1678–1749), both originally from Württemberg, are regarded as the primary founders of this religious society. Like the pietists, the two men and their followers were dissatisfied with the dogmatic practices of the orthodox Lutheran Church. As a result, in 1714 they established their own religious movement in Himbach (Hessen), which had a more liberal government. Although most of the members of the Community of True Inspiration settled in central and southern Germany, a number of smaller communities could also be found in other European countries, such as Holland and Switzerland. Central to the inspirationist’s belief system is the idea that God would reveal

his wishes and guide his people through the divine inspiration of the Bible and through messages transmitted by specially endowed individuals, called Werkzeuge (instruments). During the state of divine inspiration, these instruments or prophets would violently shake while delivering Bezeugungen (testimonies). The Schreiber (scribe) recorded their inspired testimonies to provide guidance for the community on their journey through life in the true spirit of God. Many Bezeugungen have been preserved in collections, such as the Diarium, the Tagebücher of the Congregations of Inspiration, the Sammlungen, and the yearbooks entitled Jahrbücher der Wahren Inspirations-Gemeinden oder Bezeugungen des Geistes des Herrn (Yearbooks of the Community of True Inspiration or Testimonies of the Spirit of God). Rock and Christian Metz (1794–1867) were among the first documented Werkzeuge, and Barbara Heinemann (married name: Landmann), who died in 1883, was the last. Several documents can be considered the foundation for the community’s religious practices: Der Glauben (The Faith), The Twenty-four Rules of True Godliness, The Twenty-one Rules for the Examination of Our Daily Lives, The Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. These materials promote a simple, pietist faith, inward devotion, and avoidance of secular celebrations and amusements. After the death of Gruber in 1728 and Rock in 1749, the membership of the inspirationist communities started to decline drastically, and the movement was on the wane. In 1817, a tailor journeyman from Straßburg, Michael Krausert, a devoted follower of Gruber and Rock’s preachings, declared himself a Werkzeuge and revived

AMANA COLONIES

the movement. As a result, inspirationist communities were established in the German region of Palatinate (Zweibrücken, Edenkoben, Bergzabern, Hambach), in Alsatia (Straßburg, Bischweiler), in Hessen (Lieblos), and in Switzerland (Zurich). Taking advantage of the more liberal political climate in Hessen, Krausert settled with his followers in the Ronneburg Castle (northeast of Hanau, Hessen), which soon became the center of the inspirationist movement. Due to the inspirationists’ continued refusal to perform military duty, take the legal oath, and send their children to public schools grounded in orthodox Lutheranism, they came into conflict with the Lutheran Church and political authorities. Metz, a carpenter from Neuwied, took over leadership of the sect and leased four estates near Ronneburg in Marienborn, Herrnhaag, Arnsburg (called Armenburg by the inspirationists), and Engelthal, where the inspirationists could—at least temporarily—seek refuge from growing government hostility and persecution. When economic conditions became increasingly severe, and following Metz’s inspired testimonies, the community emigrated to the United States to lead their lives in peace and liberty. On October 26, 1842, Christian Metz and three other members of the community reached New York. From the Ogden Land Company they purchased the Seneca Indian Reservation, a tract of 5,000 acres near Buffalo, Erie County, in New York State. By 1845 more than 800 inspirationists, mostly craftsmen and peasants, had come from Germany. The first village they built on Erie County land was named “Ebenezer,” (“Hitherto hath the Lord

55

helped us”), a biblical term that can be found in 1 Samuel 7:12. Within seven years from the founding of Ebenezer (later called Middle Ebenezer), three additional, self-sustaining villages (Upper Ebenezer, Lower Ebenezer, and New Ebenezer) were laid out, each with its own school, store, and church. Later two small outposts, Canada Ebenezer and Kenneberg, were constructed across the Canadian border. The community prospered due to its successful farming practices and its operation of a large woolen mill, saw mills, flour mills, and tanneries, as well as other branches of industry. In 1843 the group legally organized as the Ebenezer Society. The society adopted a constitution that united its members by religion and its communal economic system of property sharing (except for clothing and some household items). The thirteen members of a board of trustees, the Bruderrath (Council of Brethren), took leadership of the society, making all church and secular decisions. The New York State Assembly incorporated the community under the name “Community of True Inspiration” in 1846. Yet in order to find more affordable territory for expansion and to gain greater distance from the secular world, the community decided to leave New York for the Midwest. In 1855 the Ebenezer Society, under Metz’s guidance, purchased a tract of 18,000 acres (later expanded to 26,000 acres) in the Iowa River valley, Iowa County, in the new state of Iowa. At the same time, the group started to sell their land in New York. Over a period of ten years, the entire community (approximately 1,200 people) moved from Ebenezer to Iowa to realize their religious ideals and

56

AMANA COLONIES

goals in greater seclusion and on expanded territory. They built six villages and purchased the already existing town of Homestead to gain access to its railroad station (Mississippi and Missouri Railroad). The settlers named their first village Bleibtreu (remain faithful) but soon changed it to the biblical name “Amana.” Amana (a mountain range in Lebanon), referred to in the Song of Solomon 4:8, signifies “glaub treu” (believe faithfully). In 1859 the group became a legal corporation under the name Amana Society and adopted a new constitution and bylaws. People in the Amana Colonies enjoyed a simple lifestyle filled with communal work, religious activities, and time spent with family. The villages featured churches, schools, general stores, craft shops, bakeries, meat markets, locksmiths, basket makers, cabinet shops, and so on. To this day, outsiders consider Amana craftsmanship (e.g., fine needlework, furniture making) to be quality work. Profits from agricultural and industrial enterprises (such as woolen, calico, and flour mills) were shared to sustain the community. Food was prepared and eaten in communal kitchens. Amana residents also embraced modern technologies, such as electric lights, a society-owned telephone system, and societyowned cars and trucks. Members of the Amana Society attended eleven church services each week. Apart from praying and singing a cappella hymns from the hymn collection PsalterSpiel, worship included readings from the Bible and from the testimonies of the Werkzeuge. One of the most solemn religious ceremonies, which lasted for several days, was the biannual Liebesmahl (Love Feast), or celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

In 1932, strong external influences and internal changes forced the Amana people to reorganize their economic system. The main reasons for the implementation of this “Great Change” are regarded to be the loss of charismatic religious leadership, reduced isolation and increased secularism, a youth revolt against “outdated” Amana traditions, and severe financial problems aggravated by the Great Depression. The Amana Society separated its business interests from religious affairs by establishing two separate bodies, the Amana Society and the Amana Church Society. The Amana Society was transformed into a joint-stock company and introduced profit-seeking business ventures with an increased emphasis on external markets. Residents started to manufacture on a large scale electric appliances such as freezers and air-conditioning systems for homes. After changing hands several times, today Amana Appliances, with headquarters in Middle Amana, is a division of the Maytag Corporation. Next to the successful marketing of agricultural and industrial products, tourism has become a profitable major business enterprise for the people in the Amana Colonies. Siegrun Wildner See also Buffalo; Iowa, German Dialects in; Pietism References and Further Reading Barthel, Diane L. Amana: From Pietist Sect to American Community. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Hoehnle, Peter. The Amana People: The History of a Religious Community. N.p.: Penfield Books, 2003. Shambaugh, Bertha M. Amana That Was and Amana That Is. Iowa City: Torch Press, for the State Historical Society of Iowa, 1932. Webber, Philip E. Kolonie-Deutsch: Life and Language in Amana. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1993.

AMERICAN CHURCHES

AMERICAN CHURCHES GERMANY

IN

Most churches original to Germany have correlate bodies in North America, and many churches original to North America are derived from movements with roots in Europe that have also touched Germany. There are, however, some peculiarly “American” churches in Germany, including the Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA); the Mormon Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS); and the Church of Christ, Scientist (CCS). Each of these groups is based on unique teachings of a particular leader that are given authority tantamount to Holy Scripture. It may thus be argued that they are not technically Christian churches. However, the SDA strove to become a part of the clear mainstream of Christian activity and faith. Stretching the definitions yet further, there is the Church of Scientology, which, aside from its name, makes no pretense of being Christian but is visibly present as an American institution in German cities. Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) are also clearly visible, selling the internationally known publications of the Watchtower Society on German street corners. The LDS was founded by Joseph Smith in New York in 1830 and took its current name in 1838. It counts 36,000 members in 183 congregations in Germany. “Christian Science,” based on Mary Baker Eddy’s book Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1875), is taught in various “churches” in Germany. Like all other congregations of this church, they are directly subordinate to the First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, which Eddy founded in 1895. The church has no ordained ministers, since Eddy in her author-

IN

GERMANY

57

ity “named the Bible and Science and Health as the Pastor for worldwide Churches of Christ, Scientist” (“About the Church of Christ, Scientist” 2004). In a certain parallel to CCS, the Church of Scientology is also centrally administered much like a business enterprise. It, too, is based on the one work of one individual, Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard (1950). Charles Taze Russell started the Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society, which controls the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in 1881 in Allegheny (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania). There are 165,935 “witnesses” in 2,175 congregations in Germany. Aside from the groups above, the success of free church groups in Germany has been based on the vitality and accessibility of the American and British religious experience, which has created an interest among Germans in such American groups. Both those churches rooted in the American tradition that seek to work among people native to Germany and those groups that seek to minister to expatriates can generally be contrasted to traditional German Protestant religious groups on the basis of (1) a lively and family-like fellowship among the faithful, as opposed to an individualistic and often highly intellectual or abstract experience of faith and worship; and (2) the expectation of personal decision and personal involvement on the part of the faithful, which includes voluntary commitment of heart, mind, lifestyle, and financial resources, rather than quiet assent to largely impersonal, often bureaucratic structures of governance, pastoral care, worship, and finances. Church groups that have found their way to Germany from the United States have often come simultaneously or at an

58

AMERICAN CHURCHES

IN

GERMANY

earlier time from Great Britain, where the American and British manifestations had common or similar origins. Methodists, for example, arrived in Germany in at least four different thrusts. The Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society in London acquiesced to pleas from people in Winnenden, Württemberg, for a missionary to revitalize moribund extrachurch pietistic societies there by sending a “native son,” Christoph Gottlob Müller (1785–1858), as missionary in 1832. After Müller’s death, these British efforts moved primarily eastward to Augsburg, Munich, Vienna, Budapest, and beyond. By 1897 longstanding efforts to combine British and American Methodist missionary endeavors in Germany resulted in a unified mission under American leadership, ending a specifically British presence. The wish of immigrants to America to be at work in Germany, explicitly stated by German American publicist Wilhelm Nast after a tour in 1844, was especially encouraged in 1848, after the national-liberal revolution had begun to succeed in overthrowing the princes of the German petty states and replacing their regimes with democratic structures but before the ultimate failure of this effort. Ludwig Sigismund Jacoby, a German of Jewish origin who had converted to Methodism in the United States, returned to Germany as missionary superintendent in 1849, with a base in Bremen, where a book publishing mission began under the banner of the Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC, Bischöfliche Methodistenkirche). Both the MEC, the Evangelical Association (EG, Evangelische Gemeinschaft) and the United Brethren in Christ Church (UB) charged German-born and Germanspeaking Americans to fulfill their strong

calling to bring their respective varieties of Methodism to friends and relatives in Germany. The UB lacked the typically strict structure of other early Methodist bodies. It later united with the Methodists in Germany (MEC) and with the EG in the United States (EUB). The EG found its origins among Methodists in Pennsylvania, when founder Jacob Albright (Jakob Albrecht) lost his membership in the local Methodist society for lack of attendance at meetings. He was spending his time preaching to Germans, while the early Methodists found enough to do working only with English speakers. The first MEC leader, Francis Asbury, turned down Albright’s offer to create a German-speaking branch of that church. Rebuffed but not discouraged, Albright organized the Newly Formed Methodist Connection (AlbrechtsLeute) and translated Methodist foundational documents word-for-word for this German American Methodist church. Methodist efforts met with moderate success, creating strongholds in Saxony and Württemberg and enjoying widespread acceptance in Bremen and Hamburg but facing an uphill struggle in most other parts of the countryside. Their task was made more difficult by the presence of hundreds of different jurisdictions without unity of law or policy—duchies, grand duchies, counties, principalities, electoral principalities, as well as imperial free cities, and free and Hanseatic cities. In 1850 leaders of the EG felt that they were in part answering the call of German church leaders like Johann Hinrich Wichern for spiritual renewal when they established a mission board to send two missionaries, one of them Conrad Link, to Stuttgart. The UB did not establish a German missionary effort until

AMERICAN CHURCHES

1869, when Bavarian-born American Reverend Christian Bischoff went back to his native Naila. The work was turned over to the MEC in 1905. In 1940 a church union in the U.S. changed the name of the German MEC to “The Methodist Church” (MC). A second union in 1968 of the MC and EUB united EG and MC units in Germany in the United Methodist Church (UMC=Evangelisch-methodistische Kirche). In the year 2000, the United Methodist Church in Germany counted about 65,000 members in just over 600 congregations. Baptists had a similar introduction into Germany, but their beginnings were much more of a one-man project. Johann Gerhard Oncken had emigrated to Great Britain in 1814 as teenage apprentice to a Scots tradesman. In a Methodist congregation in London he experienced a personal conversion and became an agent for the Continental Society for the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge over the Continent of Europe. In April 1834, two years after the London Methodists sent Müller to Winnenden, Oncken was ordained elder in the Baptist congregation in Hamburg that he had founded. Oncken then founded a Federation of Baptist Congregations, conceived of as a “great congregation” uniting all German Baptists. By the time of his death, however, the individual congregations had taken upon themselves a much greater autonomy than he had envisioned, as was typical in many other branches of World Baptism. The Baptist call, “we consider every member as a missionary,” became a rallying cry for German Baptists. In response to this call, Gottfried Wilhelm Lehman engaged in missionary activities that led to the honorific title “Father of Baptists in Prussia.” And Julius

IN

GERMANY

59

Köbner, a Dane of Jewish origin, led the Baptist mission in the Rhineland and in Copenhagen. At the time of the 1848 revolutions he published the Manifesto from Free Primal Christianity to the German People, appealing for religious freedom in the new German social order, expected soon to be introduced. English and American Baptists are largely identified in the minds of many as sources of this movement, and although it was not strictly an “American” incursion onto German soil, contacts with Baptists in North America, Great Britain, and Scandinavia were clearly evident. The first director of the Oncken Publishing House in Hamburg was a German American. The European Baptist Federation (EBF) is a body separate from North American Baptist federations and conventions, but it is not aloof from issues known there in recent times. In more recent years, the EBF has included ministry in many languages, including English, throughout Europe. Additionally, the U.S. Southern Baptist Convention has been involved in providing expatriate Americans with congregational ministry in Europe, especially “off-base” from U.S. military units, where only “General Protestant” chaplaincy is available, with all the vicissitudes and compromises such a name implies. As of the year 2000, the German Baptists counted 87,000 members in 900 congregations. After the forging of the German nationstate in 1871, the country’s leaders focused on deciding what was “German” and what was not. Slowly, the sentiment grew that Socialist thinking, Roman Catholicism, and the so-called free churches were “foreign growths” (Dwyer 1978, 27) in the body politic of the German imperial state and were not to be encouraged. This view

60

AMERICAN CHURCHES

IN

GERMANY

did not substantially change even with the Weimar Constitution of 1919, but at least the seeds were sown at that time for a general acknowledgment of the positive contributions of many free churches when National Socialist rule was ended in 1945. Both during and after the Third Reich, some free churches were learning a new degree of cooperation in the Federation of Evangelical Free Churches (Vereinigung Evangelischer Freikirchen, VEF), which continues today alongside the Evangelical Alliance (Evangelische Allianz) as an instrument of free church and evangelical cooperation. These same churches have played a role in the greater ecumenical picture in modern Germany, especially in the local and national councils of churches, normally called “working associations” to avoid conflict with Catholic concepts of conciliarism. The national Association of Christian Churches (Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen, ACK) provides a broad base for consultation and cooperation. Among churches related to one or another of these cooperative efforts, the following can also be named among the “American” churches: The Church of the Nazarene (Kirche der Nazarener), a union of various Wesleyan and holiness groups created in Texas in 1908, formed its first congregation in Germany in 1959. Since 1966 it has maintained a seminary in Büsingen near the Swiss German border. Today it counts 2,300 members in twenty congregations. The Muehlheim Federation of Free Church Protestant Congregations (Mühlheimer Verband Freikirchlicher Evangelischer Gemeinden) grew out of the international Pentecostal awakening at the beginning of the twentieth century. It understands its foundation to have been specifically precipitated by the rejection of

Pentecostal phenomena by the innerchurch societies and other free churches brought to expression in the Berlin Declaration of 1909. The first congregation formed in 1905, and the association came into being between 1911 and 1913. Today it counts 2,900 members in fifty congregations. The Federation of Free Church Pentecost Congregations (Bund Freikirchlicher Pfingstgemeinden), first organized in 1954 but using that name only since 1982, is another of the associations of Pentecostal congregations that grew out of the worldwide Pentecostal awakening that started in Asuza Street in Los Angeles. It currently has 32,000 members in 500 congregations. The Freikirchlicher Bund der Gemeinde Gottes (Church of God, Anderson, Indiana) has been present in Germany since 1901. Founded by D. S. Warner in 1881, the church published its “Gospel Trumpet” in a German edition as early as 1885. It proposes to provide “light and salt” to German society and to contribute to the building of the kingdom of God. It counts 2,500 worshipers in thirty congregations. The Seventh-Day Adventists (Gemeinschaft der Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten) has been present in Germany since 1876. It has 36,000 members in 569 congregations. For the sake of completeness, the Salvation Army (Heilsarmee) should be mentioned. Founded in London in 1878 by Methodists, it is widely known in North America as well and was already present in Germany in 1886. Perhaps because of its military structure, the Salvation Army was banned by the NS regime in 1933 and was not readmitted to the territory of the former German Democratic Republic until 1990. It counts 2,000 “soldiers” (members) in l40 “corps” (congregations). James A. Dwyer

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, FINANCIAL SUPPORT See also Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod; U.S. Bases in West Germany References and Further Reading “About the Church of Christ, Scientist.” Church of Christ, Scientist. http://www.tfccs.com/aboutthechurch/ (cited September 9, 2004). “Bund Evangelisch-Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland: Ein Überblick des Kirchengeschichtlers Günter Balders” (Erscheinungsdatum: 2003-06-01). http://www.baptisten.org/faq/news_show. php?sel=100&select=FAQ&show=9&cat =Eine percent20Freikirche percent20stellt percent20sich percent20vor (cited September 9, 2004). Dwyer, James A. “The Methodist Episcopal Church in Germany, 1933–1945.”PhD diss., Northwestern University, 1978. EKD: Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland— EKD and Kirchen. “Gliedkirchen der EKD.” http://www.ekd.de/ekd_kirchen/3221_gli edkirchen_adressen.html (cited September 9, 2004). Freikirchenhandbuch—Informationen— Anschriften—Berichte. Wuppertal: Borkhaus-Verlag, June 2000. Voigt, Karl Heinz. “Die Methodistenkirche in Deutschland.” Geschichte der Evangelisch-methodistischen Kirche: Weg, Wesen und Auftrag des Methodismus unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschsprachigen Länder Europas. Eds. Karl Steckel and C. Ernst Sommer. Stuttgart: Christliches Verlagshaus, 1982, 85–112. Watchtower: Official Web Site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. “Statistics: 2003 Report of Jehovah’s Witnesses Worldwide.” http://www.watchtower.org/statistics/worl dwide_report.htm (cited September 9, 2004). Wüthrich, Paul. “Die Evangelische Gemeinschaft im deutschsprachigen Europa.” Geschichte der Evangelischmethodistischen Kirche: Weg, Wesen und Auftrag des Methodismus unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschsprachigen Länder Europas. Eds. Karl Steckel and C. Ernst Sommer. Stuttgart: Christliches Verlagshaus, 1982, 149–211.

OF

FRANKFURT BANKERS

FOR

61

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF FRANKFURT BANKERS FOR Frankfurt bankers lent money to the U.S. government in the form of six large war bonds during the American Civil War. Frankfurt was the most powerful banking city in Germany, and in the trading of state bonds it was certainly as important as London, Paris, or Vienna. Its relationship to the American capital market had flourished after the middle of the nineteenth century. For over half a century, the financial relations between Germany and the United States could, with very few exceptions, be identified as those existing between the Frankfurt and the New York money powers. Frankfurt nevertheless managed to bolster its position as the principal German capital market by acquiring a new measure of importance in the 1860s, not only as an underwriting and trading center for German bank and railroad issues but above all as the gateway for Germany’s capital exports, especially to the United States. After its debut on the Frankfurt market in the early 1850s, American debt and equity paper inundated Frankfurt in second and third waves in the early and late 1860s, respectively. The city became, after London, the second-largest outlet for U.S. government and railroad bonds in Europe. Since London sympathized with the South for both practical (cotton supplies) and political (free trade) reasons, it took over the majority of the Confederate issuance of bonds. Frankfurt seems to have placed the overwhelming portion of the Union issues during the American Civil War. By 1864, the bonds of the United States—whose public debt between 1860 and 1865 rose from $90 million to $2.74 billion—had fallen to a low of 38 percent on the Frankfurt market.

62

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, GERMAN PARTICIPANTS

Frankfurt achieved a key position in the financing of the American Civil War for two reasons: the efforts of the U.S. consul general, William Walton Murphy, and the influence of a group of Frankfurt’s top bankers, which, over the years, had established a strong economic relationship with the United States. Murphy became the U.S. consul general in the free city of Frankfurt in 1861. After he arrived on November 7 in Frankfurt, he immediately began to search for support for the Union. His initial attempts were, however, unsuccessful. He never received a reaction to his offer of 50,000 rifles for 12 Taler each, and his suggestion to hire German soldiers was repudiated by the U.S. government, which asked instead for German immigrants to farm the lands. Murphy’s time came when he put his experience as a newspaper publisher and banker into action. He made sure that the press remained supportive and “friendly” toward the affairs of the Union in Frankfurt. This was of great importance at a time when the Confederacy was engaging well-known writers to influence public opinion against the Union. It even publicized a £30-million loan from the Parisian branch of the Frankfurt bank of Raphael Erlanger in Europe in 1863. Murphy personally wrote articles and essays against these activities and discredited the loan to the Confederacy in the Neue Frankfurter Zeitung (New Frankfurt Journal) or the Ober-Post-Amts-Zeitung (MajorPost-Office-Journal). Indeed, the honor of Erlanger’s bank was successfully damaged. In return for this activity, Murphy managed to convince many of the Frankfurt banking houses, including Seligman and Stettheimer, Lazard Speyer-Ellissen, Philipp Nicolaus Schmidt, Karl Pollitz, M. A. Gruenebaum and Ballin, to support six

IN

large war bonds for the Union. At the end of the Civil War their bonds were quoted at an almost dreamlike height and upon redemption brought hundreds of millions in profits to their shareholders. It was especially J. and W. Seligman that harvested most of the wealth. They founded branches in London, Paris, and the business metropolises of the United States. Ralf Roth See also Frankfurt am Main Citizens in the United States References and Further Reading Heyn, Udo. Private Banking and Industrialization: The Case of Frankfurt am Main, 1825–1875. New York: Arno Press, 1981. Roth, Ralf. Stadt und Bürgertum in Frankfurt am Main: Ein besonderer Weg von der ständischen zur modernen Bürgergesellschaft 1760 bis 1914. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996. Sterne, Margaret. “Ein Amateur wird Diplomat: Die politische Karriere von William Walton Murphy, amerikanischer Generalkonsul in Frankfurt am Main 1861–1869.” Archiv für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst 48 (1962): 119–132.

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, GERMAN PARTICIPANTS

IN When Wilhelm Kaufmann claimed, in his 1911 volume Die Deutschen im Amerikanischen Bürgerkriege (The Germans in the American Civil War), that the Union side could not have won the war without the Germans, he was clearly exaggerating. However, at more than 180,000 Germanborn soldiers, the ethnic German element provided a slightly overproportional percentage of the Union force. Most of those soldiers were volunteers who joined up during the first six months of the war.

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, GERMAN PARTICIPANTS

The Northern German Federation strongly supported the Union war effort politically, and the liberal press then described the refugees of the revolutions of 1848–1849 as German heroes. Officially, Union efforts at recruiting German nationals were discouraged, though some 20,000 emigrants went to the war from German states. A few more joined the crews of U.S. warships in European ports. In 1863, the wife of Illinois vice governor Gustav Körner initiated a nationwide series of advertisements in newspapers, addressing particularly relatives of German Union soldiers and offering to transport medical and other supplies to Union hospitals. The public opinion in most of the German states was strongly pro-Union; only some of the Junkers in the Prussian officer corps sympathized with the secessionists. Arguably the most important contribution Germans made to the Union war effort came early on in the war in Missouri, where pro-secessionist governor Claiborne Jackson attempted a coup d’etat. In return, Unionists organized forces in excess of the regiments President Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation had called for and on May 10 marched against the encampment of the state militia. More than 80 percent of the volunteer force that saved the city of St. Louis and the state for the Union were Germans, and throughout the war, they supplied about one-third of the Missouri soldiers fighting for the Union. Most of the officers and men in the Missouri volunteer infantry regiments 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15, 17, and 31 were Germans or of German descent, as were most of the members of several batteries. Other states contributed similar numbers and even entire units: the 9th Ohio; the 32nd Indiana; the 7th, 9th, 20th, 29th, 41st, 43rd, 45th, and 52nd

IN

63

New York; the 27th and 74th Pennsylvania; and the 9th Wisconsin were other famous all-German units, at least during the early stages of the war. After the summer of 1862, few regiments maintained their original ethnic formats, and only two new units—the “2nd Hecker” (named for the commanding officer, 1848 revolutionist Friedrich Hecker) 82nd Illinois and the 26th Wisconsin—were formed as German regiments. The artillery was the one arm of the army where the presence of trained and skilled veterans of the various German armies, including the revolutionary forces of 1848–1849, was most strongly felt. German cannoneers turned the tide at Pea Ridge and helped to save the day on July 2 at Gettysburg. Clemens Landgräber’s Missouri battery was known as the “Flying Dutchmen.” Captain Hubert “Leather Breeches” Dilger won the Congressional Medal of Honor for his retreat-by-recoil support of the remnants of Adolph Buschbeck’s brigade at Chancellorsville (May 1863); among the German soldiers his name was legendary. Particularly this battle and the rout of the 11th Corps by Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson’s veterans were used by newspapers and politicians in the East to denigrate the effort and importance of the “foreign” element, despite the fact that the commander of the ill-fated corps, General Oliver Otis Howard, had been notified repeatedly of ominous movements in front of his badly deployed troops. He tried to exculpate himself by blaming the responsibility for the defeat on the Germans among his soldiers. They were easy targets: exaggerated expectations and incompetence had, by 1863, resulted in a rather checkered record

64

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, GERMAN PARTICIPANTS

for the ethnic German units with the Army of the Potomac, which was eagerly exploited by the nativist press. At First Bull Run, General Ludwig Blenker’s division had covered the retreat to Washington, but the same units had fared badly during John Frémont’s Shenandoah Valley campaign in 1862. Out west, ethnic German units performed well at Pea Ridge, Shiloh, Perryville, Stones River, and Vicksburg and in the Tullahoma campaign, but the public focus was on the eastern theater. The Chancellorsville disaster was followed by similar accusations and blame when the 11th Corps was forced to withdraw again during the first day at Gettysburg. Reorganized as the 20th Corps, many of the German veterans of the Army of the Potomac were sent west after Chickamauga. The German units from East and West more than redeemed themselves when they stormed Missionary Ridge (November 1863). The next year, the same units participated in the advance on Atlanta, where many of the regiments formed early in the war were mustered out after the fall of the city in September 1864. Ethnic Germans account for 5 major generals (August Willich, Franz Sigel, Carl Schurz, Edward S. Salomon, and Peter Osterhaus, all of them Forty-Eighters), about 25 brigadiers, and more than 100 colonels. Since ethnic officers were not as easily promoted as native-borns, let alone graduates of West Point, some of these colonels might have deserved a brigadier’s star—like Adolph Buschbeck of the 27th Pennsylvania, whose brigade covered the retreat at Chancellorsville, or like Bernhard Laiboldt of the 2nd Missouri, who commanded brigades at Perryville and Stones River and successfully defended posts at Wauhatchie, Tennessee, and Dalton, Georgia, in 1863

IN

and 1864. The most successful German Union general, Peter Osterhaus (1824– 1917), fought in thirty-four engagements and lost none of the seventeen, where he was in command of the Union forces he himself led. Of course, not all German officers were paragons of virtue and loved by their men: General Henry Bohlen was shot by his own soldiers, Generals Blenker, Stahel, Schurz, and of course Franz Sigel were all at some point accused of incompetence. Not all German Union soldiers were volunteers; nor did all Germans support the Union effort. There were pockets of archconservative Catholics in Wisconsin who were reluctant to fight and served poorly when they did. Some prewar supporters of the Democrats never switched their allegiance. Poorer immigrants from the most recent waves of immigration often let themselves be hired as substitutes. Cases of “crimping” Germans occurred: in one case some 1,000 immigrants had been promised work contracts by agents operating for the state of Massachusetts but upon arrival found themselves sold to serve in state regiments. Most German immigrants and secondand third-generation Germans in the loyal states, however, supported the idea of the Union, and many were also in favor of abolition. Pronounced the “nigger-loving Dutch,” surrendering German soldiers were sometimes mistreated or murdered because of their supposed or real association with African Americans. Ethnic Germans provided a considerable percentage of the officers in the U.S. Colored Troops. Several German officers, such as General Wilhelm Peter Heine, and Colonels Joseph Weydemeyer and Adolph Dengler, supported the formation of U.S. colored regi-

AMERICAN OCCUPATION ZONE

ments; General Osterhaus’s old German Brigade sponsored the 1st Mississippi (African Descent [A.D.]) in 1863. In the secession states, the situation of the German element was more various and ambiguous. Emigration societies and associations organizing immigration to the states before the war had often screened potential immigrants and directed only those with a positive attitude toward slavery to southern ports. Strong pro-slavery and pro-secession pockets existed in South Carolina, Virginia, and Louisiana, where one of the richest slaveholders was the former Prussian consul in New Orleans. In Texas, the situation was mixed: many Germans tried to evade the draft, hiding or fleeing the country. In 1862, Texas militia overtook a column of refugees trying to escape to Mexico on the Rio Nueces and killed many of the men. An estimated 5,000 to 10,000 nativeborn Germans fought in the Confederate forces, about half of this number volunteers in the early days of the war, often members of all-German militia companies like Company K, 1st Virginia Infantry. There were no ethnic German units larger than company size on the Confederate side. Later in the war, Germans in Confederate units were often draftees, and many soldiers defected to the Union side. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; Forty-Eighters; Hecker, Friedrich; Koerner, Gustave Philipp; Nueces, Battle of the; Osterhaus, Peter J.; Salomon, Edward S.; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz; Willich, August (von) References and Further Reading Kaufmann, Wilhelm. Die Deutschen im amerikanischen Bürgerkriege. München/Berlin: R. Oldenbourg, 1911. Loeffler, Michael. Preußens und Sachsens Beziehungen zu den USA während des

65

Sezessionskrieges, 1860–1865, Münster: LIT, 1999. Lonn, Ella. Foreigners in the Union Army and Navy. New York: Greenwood, 1969. Mehrländer, Andrea. ‘“Ist daß nicht reiner Sclavenhandel?’ Die illegale Rekrutierung deutscher Auswanderer für die Unionsarmee im amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg.” Amerikastudien/American Studies 44, no. 1 (1999) 65–93.

AMERICAN OCCUPATION ZONE The American Occupation Zone was the region of postwar Germany occupied and administered by the United States from 1945 to 1955, the most extensive occupation ever undertaken by U.S. military and civilian authorities. It was administered from 1945 to 1949 by the Office of Military Government, United States (OMGUS), and from 1949 to 1955 by a civilian high commissioner for Germany (HICOG). The American zone encompassed the German states of Bavaria and parts of Württemberg, Baden, the former Prussian province of Hessen, the U.S. enclave in the city of Bremen with Bremen’s port at Bremerhaven, and a sector of western Berlin. It was the second largest (after the Russian) in terms of territory, encompassing 45,047 square miles, and the third largest in terms of population, with approximately 16.7 million inhabitants in 1949 (24 percent of the overall German population). With the influx of millions of ethnic German refugees from Eastern Europe, the American zone’s population grew within the first years of the occupation by about 17 percent to a total of 18.2 million inhabitants. Planning for U.S. worldwide postwar occupation duties was principally the

66

AMERICAN OCCUPATION ZONE

responsibility of the War Department and its Civil Affairs Division (also known as “G-5”), which was created in 1943. In the case of Germany, Civil Affairs Division staff comprised civilian specialists and émigrés from Germany and other European countries. Personnel received training at various military camps and in special civilian programs in the United States and England. Other branches of the government—the State and Treasury departments—competed for influence in shaping occupation policies. In general, the War Department wanted a short occupation that limited the military’s responsibility for civilian affairs. State Department officials believed that occupation policies should be aimed primarily at Germany’s reconstruction based on the transfer of an American model of democratic political practices and liberal capitalist economics. Outside the government, a variety of private associations and informal circles of academics and intellectuals (many of them German refugees) promoted their own occupation policy agenda, one that emphasized extensive political, economic, and social change. Their collective influence on occupation planning and execution was limited, however, even though many refugees served in important positions in the occupation. In the fall of 1944, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau briefly convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany would have to be completely stripped of its industrial infrastructure and effectively “pastoralized.” Though Roosevelt soon backed away from the “Morgenthau Plan,” he avoided reconciling the various conflicting agendas for postwar Germany, thus allowing policy planning to drift. The result of this drift was a belated and vague occupation direc-

tive drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff that offered little by way of constructive policies for occupation officials to follow. The course of the occupation, then, would be shaped largely by a combination of improvisation on the ground in Germany and by wider diplomatic developments among the wartime allies. At the Yalta conference, the United States, the Soviet Union, and Great Britain agreed to establish an Allied Control Council (ACC) comprising the Allied commanders in chief. The ACC would govern the country; make decisions on policies dealing with Germany as a whole; and administer a program of political and economic decentralization, denazification, demilitarization, and democratization (the “Four D Program”). The council had to operate under the proviso of unanimity, a regulation France used to veto decisions successfully to prevent any policies that would have restored a functioning central authority for its old enemy. The Declaration of Potsdam on August 2, 1945, confirmed the decisions taken at Moscow and Yalta, and subsequently Germany was divided into four zones, which were administered by the U.S., British, French, and Soviet military governments. The U.S. Army’s forces in Germany were ordered to implement the “Four D Program” upon cessation of hostilities. In May 1945 at war’s end, combat troops became occupation troops charged with maintaining law and order in the American zone. At the same time, trained military government detachments numbering 13,000 officers and soldiers at the occupation’s peak in September 1945 took over control of particular German cities, counties, districts, and states. To guide its efforts, the army used Joint Chiefs of Staff

AMERICAN OCCUPATION ZONE

Directive 1067 (JCS 1067), drafted in September 1944, and the Handbook for Military Government in Germany, published in December 1944. The occupation itself was initially administered by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces Europe (SHAEF; after July 1945, the U.S. Forces European Theater, which included G-5) and the U.S. Group of the Allied Control Council. In the fall of 1945, OMGUS assumed overall responsibility for the occupation. As Supreme Allied Commander, U.S. Army general Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first military governor of occupied Germany. In April 1945, the Office of Deputy Military Governor was created to represent Eisenhower at the ACC in Berlin. The first deputy military governor was U.S. Army general Lucius D. Clay, who became military governor in March 1947. Clay, a civil engineer by training, took a pragmatic approach toward administering the American zone, emphasizing the rapid restoration of transportation networks and other basic services and the fostering of local democratic self-government. In both endeavors, he was remarkably successful. As U.S. troops entered Germany, they were faced with an enormous array of problems resulting from vast physical destruction, population displacement, and the collapse of political authority. Very often improvising with what material and personnel were available on the spot, troops restored order and oversaw the restoration of many basic services. They contended with thousands of prisoners of war and displaced persons (including concentration camp survivors). They also arrested suspected war criminals and began the process of denazification, which initially required the automatic dismissal of any member of the Nazi

67

Party or individual who had supported the regime in more than a “nominal” manner. Relations between U.S. soldiers and Germans were generally peaceful and cooperative. Attacks on U.S. personnel were rare. An American ban on fraternization was ignored from the outset and quickly abandoned. U.S. soldiers generally treated Germans humanely, and marriages or the formation of long-lasting friendships were common. The pillaging of private property was limited, though several U.S. government agencies netted millions of dollars worth of patents, blueprints, and industrial equipment for U.S. military and commercial purposes. The United States also recruited a number of former Nazi intelligence officers and scientists to secure their expertise in the emerging confrontation with the Soviet Union. Following Germany’s surrender, the Americans banned political activity of any kind. In August 1945, however, OMGUS allowed political parties to reorganize under its supervision. The reestablishment of local and state governments became a priority, and military governors began reviving political life according to democratic principles in preparation for local elections in municipalities as early as September 1945. The effort included the licensing of political parties, registering voters, drafting election laws, formulating balloting procedures, identifying candidates, and other related matters. Elections in villages with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants (Gemeinden) occurred in January 1946, whereas larger villages and counties (Landkreise) elected their new administrations in April. City (Stadt) dwellers chose their representatives in May. As preparations for a return to elected government proceeded, the U.S. military

68

AMERICAN OCCUPATION ZONE

government ordered the four appointed minister-presidents of Bavaria, Hesse, Württemberg-Baden, and Bremen to draft constitutions for their states. The ministerpresidents were supposed to submit the constitutions to popular referendum in order to provide the states with democratic constitutions and democratically elected governments. The minister-presidents finished their work in October 1946, when they submitted their constitutions for final approval to the military government. All were later ratified in popular referenda that also elected state parliaments. All four jurisdictions thus entered 1947 with elected governments subject only to an Allied directive published in September defining the powers of the military government, which included a right to exercise supreme authority on matters involving Allied objectives. The U.S. military government established a Council of States in Stuttgart in October 1945, comprising the lands within the American zone. It dealt with matters of common interest to all states. During its existence, the council took on difficult issues, such as treatment and integration of expellees into society, administration of denazification starting in March 1946, food rationing, providing redress for Nazi wrongs, land resettlement and reform, and revision of civil as well as criminal codes and court procedures. When the United States and Great Britain decided to merge their zones economically, a Bizonal Council continued its work. With relations between the western Allies and the Soviet Union deteriorating, the U.S. Congress passed legislation in 1947 designed to resurrect the shattered German economy through the European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan).

Further, the United States also tried to “reeducate” the German population by overseeing the reopening of schools and universities and attempted reforms of the entire educational system that were generally resisted by the Germans. More successful was a major initiative aimed at facilitating communications between occupation authorities and the German public and restoring a free German media establishment. The Information Control Division (ICD) was created in 1945 to license new newspapers, book publishers, radio stations, film productions, and musical performances with an eye toward eventually returning full control of these media to the Germans. On the diplomatic front, four-power administration collapsed rapidly. The ACC was never effective and broke down completely in January 1948, when the Soviet delegation walked out in protest over American, British, and French moves toward establishing a West German state. Concurrently, the foreign ministers of each Allied nation met in 1946 and 1947 to negotiate a final peace treaty and were unsuccessful. The main problem was that American, British, and French visions of Germany’s future could not be reconciled with those of the Soviet Union. On the U.S. side, the State Department’s position of rehabilitating Germany—if necessary at the expense of division—came to dominate Washington’s actions. In September 1946, U.S. secretary of state James F. Byrnes delivered a speech in Stuttgart in which he gave priority to Germany’s economic reconstruction above all other endeavors. Three months later, the Americans and British agreed to the joint economic administration of their two zones (the French zone was added in 1948). On the Soviet

AMERICAN STUDENTS AT GERMAN UNIVERSITIES

side, Joseph Stalin initially hoped that Germany would remain unified and “neutral” but vulnerable to the Moscow-controlled German Communists. When this outcome appeared increasingly unlikely, he began to plan a separate East German state. American, British, and French moves toward division in late 1947 and early 1948 led Stalin to blockade the land access routes to western Berlin in June 1948 in order to force the Allies back to the negotiating table or out of Berlin or both. The Americans and British responded with an unexpectedly successful airlift, handing the Soviets a humiliating diplomatic defeat and forcing them to lift the blockade in May 1949. Formal division was now a certainty, and in September 1949, the Federal Republic of Germany was created out of the three western occupation zones and western Berlin. A month later, the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was created out of the Soviet zone. In May 1949, the U.S. secretary of state ordered the State Department to assume nonmilitary responsibilities for the occupation under a civilian “high commissioner.” John J. McCloy, a lawyer and former assistant secretary of war and World Bank president, would serve in this position until HICOG was dissolved in 1955 and West Germany gained full sovereignty. Steven Remy and Bianka J. Adams See also Barbie, Klaus; Bremerhaven; Denazification; Halvorsen, Gail S.; Morgenthau Plan; Nuremberg Trials; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany; West Berlin; World War II References and Further Reading Clay, Lucius D. Decision in Germany. Garden City: Doubleday, 1950. Ermarth, Michael, ed. America and the Shaping of German Society, 1945–1955. Providence: Berg, 1993.

69

Höhn, Maria. GIs and Fräuleins: The GermanAmerican Encounter in 1950s West Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Schwartz, Thomas A. America’s Germany: John J. McCloy and the Federal Republic of Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. Standifer, Leon C. Binding up the Wounds: An American Soldier in Occupied Germany, 1945–1946. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1997. Wolfe, Robert, ed. Americans as Proconsuls: United States Military Government in Germany and Japan, 1944–1952. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984. Ziemke, Earl F. The U.S. Army in the Occupation of Germany, 1944–1946. Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1975.

AMERICAN STUDENTS AT GERMAN UNIVERSITIES Throughout the nineteenth century, a large number of American students who aspired to an academic career enrolled at German universities for part of their university training. Before World War I, about 9,000 to 10,000 Americans had traveled to Germany to pursue academic training. The influx of American students began slowly: In 1835–1836, only a handful of American students was enrolled at German institutions of higher learning. Their numbers grew to more than 170 in 1880 and to about 400 each year during the 1890s. After the turn of the century, the number of American students decreased again, and in 1910 only 200 American students were found on the enrollment lists of German universities. World War I virtually ended the American student migration to Germany. American students were the largest contingent of foreign students in Germany

70

AMERICAN STUDENTS AT GERMAN UNIVERSITIES

before 1914. Between 5 and 10 percent of all foreign students in Germany came from the United States. Germany attracted more students from the United States than from neighboring France. Among these students were George Bancroft, George Ticknor, and Nicholas M. Butler, who later became renowned scholars and eminent public figures in their home country. A significant number of nineteenthcentury American university professors had received parts of their academic training at a German university. Two world wars, the state intrusion into academia during the Nazi period, and the success of American universities throughout the twentieth century contributed to the diminishing attraction of German universities for American students. In 2002, only 3,100 American students chose to enroll in a German university, a tiny fraction of the overall number of students in both countries. During the first half of the nineteenth century, small-town universities like those of Göttingen and Halle an der Saale attracted most of the American students; the universities of Leipzig and Berlin became the favored institutions in the second half of the century. However, not only the choice of alma mater but also the motivation for American students to study in Germany underwent changes. The most important reason why Americans choose to cross the Atlantic was undoubtedly the excellent reputation of German universities. In addition, eminent scholars such as Gustav Schmoller, Theodor Mommsen, and Wilhelm Wundt attracted students who wanted to work with them. Furthermore, the highly esteemed training at a German university was a guarantee of a university career in the United States.

However, there were also a couple of much simpler reasons: American universities did not offer the PhD until the 1870s. Therefore, many students went to Germany because they knew that they could acquire this prestigious title in a brief period of time and with a rather small amount of work. Further, living expenses for Americans in German cities were lower than in the United States. In addition, for many American students, studying at a German university was simply part of the traditional Grand Tour, which included travel all over Europe. Sitting in German lecture courses was thus part of the experience of European culture and was not taken as seriously as one would have expected. In other cases, a period of study in Germany was for the purpose of learning German, which was important for future scholars since Germans were leaders in many academic disciplines. Depending on their motivation, American students returned home with different experiences of German academia. Some spent just one or two semesters in Germany and acquired only a fairly superficial impression of German scholarship, whereas others stayed for years and took their studies very seriously. However, especially those who came to Germany during the 1880s and 1890s rarely had contact with their German professors and fellow students because the overall number of students was increasing tremendously, turning them into a more or less anonymous mass. In cities such as Göttingen and Leipzig, American students formed enclaves, thereby avoiding contact with their fellow German students. They lived together in the same student residences, frequented their own gathering places, and spent their free time with each other. This helped to

AMERICANISMS

establish tight networks among the future academic elite of the United States, but it hindered the development of relationships with German academics. Gabriele Lingelbach See also Bancroft, George; German Students at American Universities; Göttingen, University of; Ticknor, George; U.S.German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Diehl, Karl. Americans and German Scholarship, 1770–1870. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978. Drewek, Peter. “‘Die ungastliche deutsche Universität”: Ausländische Studenten an deutschen Hochschulen 1890–1930.” Jahrbuch für Historische Bildungsforschung 5 (1999): 197–224. Jarausch, Konrad H. “American Students in Germany, 1815–1914. The Structure of German and U.S. Matriculants at Göttingen University.” German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917. Ed. Henry Geitz. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 195–211.

AMERICANISMS IN THE GERMAN LANGUAGE An americanism is a word or a linguistic characteristic of American English that has become part of another language. Whereas anglicism refers generally to an exported English word or linguistic characteristic, americanism specifically refers to those anglicisms originating from the United States. Some americanisms have adapted to German spelling, grammatical, and/or pronunciation conventions (e.g., nouns are capitalized); others occur in their original form. Americanisms are found in spoken as well as written German, especially in mass media and specialty fields. The converse phenomena, Germanisms, are readily found in the English language.

IN THE

GERMAN LANGUAGE

71

History German, like all languages, has been and continues to be influenced by other languages. Although French and Latin were the primary influences from the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries, anglicisms have been noted as early as the thirteenth century, mainly in the fields of trade and maritime. Anglicisms comprised less than 1 percent of all foreign words in the seventeenth century but increased to more than 6 percent by the middle of the eighteenth century, in part due to the influence of English literature. There was a notable influx of English words into the German language in the nineteenth century (from 8 percent of all foreign words at the beginning of the century to nearly 36 percent by the end) as England influenced areas such as commerce, travel, journalism, and politics. The portion of anglicisms in the German language was estimated to have been slightly more than 1 percent of the total vocabulary by the end of the nineteenth century. There was a steady increase throughout the twentieth century, so that by 1980, approximately 88 percent of foreign words in German were anglicisms (slightly less than 3.5 percent of the total vocabulary). Although some anglicisms (e.g., Bestseller, Babysitter, and Stress) can be traced to American English, others are of British origin, still others came to German via a third country, and yet others are of ambiguous origin. As the economic and political influence of the United States increased beginning in the early decades of the twentieth century, the portion of anglicisms of American origin became much more significant. And since the mid-twentieth century, the frequency of americanisms has continued to increase consistently. Researchers have

72

AMERICANISMS

IN THE

GERMAN LANGUAGE

identified anywhere from four to nineteen americanisms per newspaper page in the mid-twentieth century, climbing to as many as twenty-four per page in 1974. Americanisms have altered both written and spoken German and both formal and colloquial language. Indeed, some americanisms have become such a standard part of German vocabulary that they may no longer be perceived as foreign words (e.g., Okay, Star, Jeans, Training). Virtually all areas of German life—music, dance, theater, film, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, literature, travel, science, technology, industry, economy, politics, and the military—have witnessed an influx of americanisms. In addition, fashion, food, and tourism have been affected, as have the modern branches of the sciences such as information technology, atomic energy, air travel, and certain sports (e.g., “bowling,” “roller-skating,” “surfing,” and “aerobics”). The use of americanisms is especially noticeable among German youth due to the strong influence of the American music industry and television. There are an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 americanisms in the German language today.

Sources of Americanisms The means of transfer of americanisms into German are manifold. As the political and social contacts between speakers of German and English have grown over the last centuries, most notably since World War II, the influence of American English on the German language has increased as well. Specific sources of americanisms include the translation of many specialized texts into German; the prominence of English in international press agencies as well as in international politics; increasing numbers of exchange students and professors travel-

ing between German-speaking and Englishspeaking countries; the presence of American military service members and their families in the post–World War II years; the popularity of American films, television shows, and hit songs; and the increasing number of native German speakers who study the English language and American culture at German schools and universities. Another important source of increased contact between the cultures is the return to Germany of many German emigrants who lived in the United States. The German press, including newspapers and magazines, has played a key role in facilitating the process of adoption and circulation of americanisms. Although residents of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) did not have this same degree of contact with American English, some americanisms also existed there largely because of the media influence of their western neighbors. The social and political changes of 1989, when the Berlin Wall came down, the subsequent unification with West Germany, and access to a wider variety of media, led to a wave of American influence—and consequently many more americanisms—in that part of the country in the 1990s.

Types of Americanisms Americanisms include English words in their original form that have been incorporated into German, such as Ticket, Party, and Makeup, as well as words that have adapted to German conventions such as Komputer, Musikbox, and Additiv. Other americanisms combine American and German words, as in Twistschritt (twist step), Fußballfan (football fan), and Jetflug (jet flight). Still others are newly constructed words based upon English yet not found in

AMERICANISMS

the English language (e.g., Twen, “someone in his or her twenties”; Dressman, “male model”; Beamer, “data projector”; Handy, “mobile phone”; Happy end, “happy ending”; and Shakehand, “handshake”). Another type of americanism is the translation of an English word into German, such as Beiprodukt from “byproduct,” Herzattacke from “heart attack,” and Fiskaljahr from “fiscal year.” Americanisms also demonstrate the impact of American English on German morphology, semantics, pronunciation, syntax, and writing conventions. For example, some americanisms undergo additions or changes. Imported verbs frequently take on German patterns of conjugation, as with the americanisms campen, joggen, and coachen, although spelling changes are not always consistent (e.g., recyclen and recyceln). Another form of adaptation is the addition of a German prefix to an English root word: aufstylen, “to make more stylish”; and vertrusten, “to form into a trust.” In most cases, the meaning of an americanism is the same or nearly the same as in English. However, the definition of an americanism may differ from the closest corresponding German word, adding to the vocabulary choice of the speaker (e.g., Job, meaning “temporary employment to earn money,” as distinct from the German words Beruf, “career”; and Arbeit, “work”). Or, the connotation may be slightly different from the German equivalent (e.g., Baby as a more affectionate term for the German word Säugling, “infant”). In other cases, the americanism may take on an entirely different meaning (e.g., clever, to mean “cunning” or “crafty,” as compared to the more common English definition of “smart” or “witty,”; and Keks, which came from “cakes,” to mean “biscuit”).

IN THE

GERMAN LANGUAGE

73

Generally, americanisms are pronounced as they are in English; infrequently they are spoken using German conventions or a combination of the two, depending in part upon the speaker’s knowledge of English. Evidence of americanisms in German syntax includes, for example, the phrase in 1980, which imitates English rather than the German im Jahre 1980. English nouns typically are written with a capital letter as soon as they are established in German (e.g., Teenager, Trend, and Test). Other changes in writing conventions are not implemented universally. Some examples are the use of “k” instead of the original “c” in Klown and Kockpit, “sch” instead of “sh” in Schock, and the replacement of a single consonant with a double one in Stopp and Tripp.

Motives for Using Americanisms German speakers may use americanisms to refer to items for which there is no German equivalent, as in the case of the jazz styles Hard Bop and West Coast or the advent of Supermarket and Park and Ride, which came into the German language with the inventions themselves. Americanisms may refer to items that were founded or popularized in the United States (e.g., the verbs snowboarden, skateboarden, mountainbiken), or that specifically designate American cultural features (e.g., Cowboy, Western, High School, Hippie, and Yuppie). Some americanisms, such as Checkpoint and Displaced Persons, come in and out of usage if they are connected with trends or time-sensitive events. In still other cases, americanisms offer synonyms and stylistic variations, may provide an American flavor or color to the topic being discussed, and may be used to create a desired tone or affect.

74

AMERICANISMS

IN THE

GERMAN LANGUAGE

Americanisms can allow German speakers to be more precise or brief since the German equivalent may be longer than the americanism; many americanisms are one syllable (e.g., Snob, Box, Quiz, and the adjective fair). Americanisms may be required for communication in specialty areas where the terminology dictates it. Germans may also use americanisms out of a desire to imitate the publicity styles used in the United States; some believe that the use of americanisms, especially in advertising, can add an air of modernity and prestige to the speaker or writer. Youth subculture and the entertainment industry have contributed to the popularity of americanisms, as have political organizations, making their use not solely connected to pro-Americanism. Indeed, the use of americanisms can also be found among members of alternative political movements and those espousing antiAmericanism.

Reception of Americanisms The existence of americanisms and their increasing number have brought both positive and negative reactions from German speakers. Enthusiasm for and openness to americanisms are common, given their prevalence and popularity and the recognition that they are continuing to increase over time. Moreover, the advent of thousands of americanisms in the German language can be viewed not so much as an Americanization of German as an internationalization of the language, not unlike what has occurred in other countries. However, already in the late nineteenth century, there was a movement against the rising tide of anglicisms and other foreign words in the German language that mirrored the nationalist sentiment of that time.

The language purists campaigned to encourage German speakers to use their mother tongue as opposed to foreign words whenever possible. During the National Socialist era, americanisms and other foreign expressions were discouraged as a more pure German language was linked to intense nationalist sentiments. Official campaigns against English words in the GDR focused selectively on americanisms as a representation of U.S. imperialism. Nowadays, some native German speakers feel that the use of americanisms, and anglicisms in general, devalues the language, especially where there are equivalent German terms, as with the popular words cool, Kids, and happy. Debates on this topic and organizations that encourage the use of German words in place of English imports are not uncommon. Some who fear degradation of German have dubbed the mixture of the two languages Denglisch or Engleutsch. It is true, on occasion, that many americanisms are not fully understood by the German listener or reader and that their use can create communication problems. Nonetheless, researchers have found very little structural change in the German language due to the influx of americanisms, and americanisms are widely viewed as an enrichment of the German language.

Germanisms in the English Language The German language has also influenced the English language. As early as 1520, there is evidence that the Reformation left its mark on English vocabulary from newly created German words (e.g., Protestant, and papist) as well as from new Bible translations (e.g., weakling and mercy seat). In the seventeenth century, German scientific

AMERICANIZATION

and technical terms, including some in the field of mining, were added to the English vocabulary (e.g., satellite, inertia, focus, and cobalt). The number of germanisms increased in the second half of the eighteenth century with an influx of mineralogical, chemical, and geological terms such as quartz and graphite. Even more germanisms entered the English language in the second half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century from fields including biology and psychology. An estimated 3,000 germanisms in English fall into the following main categories: geology, chemistry, physics, medicine, and other sciences. Some better known germanisms are kindergarten, glockenspiel, leitmotiv, ersatz, lieder, U-boat, Nazi, kitsch, wunderkind, blitzkrieg, achtung, gesundheit, and angst. Few germanisms have replaced English words; most have expanded the English vocabulary and continue to be extremely useful in a variety of fields. Diane Guido See also American Occupation Zone; U.S. Bases in West Germany References and Further Reading Carstensen, Broder, and Hans Galinsky. Amerikanismen der Deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1975. Carstensen, Broder, Ulrich Busse, and Regina Schmude. Anglizismen-Wörterbuch: Der Einfluss des Englischen auf den Deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001. Fink, Hermann, Liane Fijas, and Danielle Schons. Anglizismen in der Sprache der Neuen Bundesländer: Eine Analyse zur Verwendung und Rezeption. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. Galinsky, Hans. Amerikanisch-deutsche Sprachund Literaturbeziehungen: Systematische Übersicht und Forschungsbericht, 1945–1970. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum Verlag, 1972.

75

Pfeffer, J. Alan, and Garland Cannon. German Loanwords in English: An Historical Dictionary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Polenz, Peter von. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. 3 vols. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991–1999.

AMERICANIZATION Americanization refers to a process by which ideas, practices, and patterns of behavior that were developed and widely spread in the United States first aroused the interest of some Germans. They studied them and introduced them into public discussion in their country, raising the question of transferability and applicability. Those who were convinced that what they saw and scrutinized was transferable began to import these ideas and practices. Not the United States as a whole, but selected aspects of American society, became to them a model to be emulated. They were helped in this transaction by Americans who not only believed that their model was superior to existing alternatives (e.g., the British one) but who also had a vested interest in exporting the American model. These two groups are Americanizers. Americanization, seen as a process in which elements and practices first developed in the United States were introduced into Germany, invariably met with resistance from those who rejected these elements as alien and unsuitable to German society and its economic, political, and cultural traditions. What emerged from the Americanization process was not a simple replica of conditions in the United States but a blending of both those imports that came

76

AMERICANIZATION

to be accepted and indigenous traditions. They formed a peculiar mixture, the specific American content of which varied from issue to issue, from social group to social group, and from region to region. This is illustrated by the large, impersonal, profit-driven multinational corporation, McDonald’s, which imposes its alien, uniform, and low standards on a helpless world. Though McDonald’s has a standardized menu, featuring hamburgers, Big Macs, shakes, and fries, the chain does not impose a worldwide model. If you have ever had a cup of coffee in a French McDonald’s, you know you are not in the United States. In India, McDonald’s serves lamb burgers; in southern France, they substitute aubergine for pickles; in Germany, there is beer. Instead of insisting on doing things its own way, it adapts to local tastes. The process that Americanizers, both foreign and indigenous, set in motion resulted in a stance that became known as Americanism, which had a flip side: it extolled the need to uphold German traditions that the American imports were thought to undermine. Over the past fifty years, anti-Americanism has evolved in fits and starts and experienced both ups and downs. In the 1950s and 1970s, for example, anti-Americanism was at a low point; more recently, it has been on the rise. The progression of Americanization depends not just on the relative balances of power between Americanizers and their indigenous critics but is also related to the hegemonic pressure that the United States is willing and able to exert upon a foreign society. This pressure can take a variety of forms: political, economic, and cultural. It could be quite direct or it could be indirect, subtle, and covert.

U.S. hegemonic pressure may be said to have been very weak before 1914. It became stronger during and immediately after World War I, before it weakened again as a consequence of U.S. isolationism. It partially revived in the mid-1920s, when American industry became a model for Germany and American investments propelled a rise in commercial mass culture. German entrepreneurs and trade unionists went to the industrial centers of Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to study the transferability, to their country, of what they saw. During the 1920s, Germany imported jazz, Hollywood, and the Tilly sisters. There was both acceptance and integration of these imports and resistance to them. With the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, the United States retreated into isolationism. However, American cultural offerings continued to intrigue the Germans. Joseph Goebbels was mesmerized by American film and thought of a “counter-Hollywood”; Albert Speer built scale models of assembly halls, railroad stations, and bridges for Adolf Hitler’s proposed urban reconstruction program, and time and again American architecture provided the models; and Ferdinand Porsche inspected Henry Ford’s factories before he began to construct what came to be called the Volkswagen Works at Wolfsburg. Of course, Hitler’s societal utopia, driven as it was by racism, military conquest, and mass murder, was fundamentally different from the “American dream.” Yet even for Hitler, who began to establish an exclusive Germanic folk community, the United States never completely disappeared from his ideological radar screen. However fierce the regime’s anti-Americanism may have been, even then the penetration of ideas, prac-

AMERICANIZATION

tices, and patterns of behavior from the United States did not stop completely. In 1945, U.S. hegemonic pressure on Germany was greater than ever before because of the occupying forces in the American zone. The mistakes of the interwar period had made the U.S. political, economic, military, and cultural elites absolutely determined, from 1941–1942 onward, to shape the structures and mentalities of the Europeans and of the Germans in particular in their own image. The process of Americanization affected West Germany’s political, economic, and cultural system after 1945 in several ways. Although the reshaping of the political system began in 1949, first at the local and regional levels and later at the interzonal level, West Germany did not import the U.S. Constitution en bloc. What the Basic Law therefore reflects is a mix of American and indigenous traditions and principles. General Lucius D. Clay exerted direct pressure, but he left it to the Germans to design a constitution that broadly fitted the principles of parliamentaryrepresentative government, a division of powers, democratic elections, and basic rights. In a very broad sense it might be said that the German political system was westernized in that it was wrenched away from its authoritarian traditions and practices that had spelled the end of Weimar democracy. But the specific forms that this transformation took were British or French at best in a marginal sense. The blending occurred between what the American hegemon and the West German constitutional experts envisioned. The Americanization of West Germany is perhaps even more striking when Germany’s economic system is considered. The economy that had emerged in Ger-

77

many by the late 1930s was fundamentally different from the liberal, multilateral, competitive, open-door world system that the Americans wanted to reestablish after the war. The Nazi economy was still capitalist, at least for the time being, in the sense that in general it upheld the principle of private ownership. It was also industrial and, within limits, wedded to constant technological innovation. But beyond this there was little left to compare. It was totally cartelized. The market and competition had been virtually abolished. Collective bargaining, workers’ rights, and trade unions had been proscribed. It had been largely decoupled from the world economy and aimed at the creation of an autocratic system within which the economies of Germany’s neighbors would be blatantly exploited and geared exclusively to the needs of the German economy and financial system. It was a system of trade based on barter and bilateralism. The Nazis spoke of the creation of a consumer society, but it was one based on the idea of ethnic exclusion and the murder of “undesirables.” American planners were determined to decartelize the Nazi economy and to establish, at the earliest opportunity, competitive market conditions. They also wanted to deconcentrate some of the virtual monopolies, such as IG Farben and Vereinigte Stahlwerke, but did not envisage a total breakup. Rather they envisaged the creation of units of production that were large enough to act as engines of growth in the European reconstruction effort and to be able to compete in the open-door world trading system. In using their hegemonic clout, the Americans could rely on a number of German businesspeople and politicians as their Americanizing allies.

78

AMERICANIZATION

There was considerable opposition to the introduction of American-style antitrust law and decartelization, mainly from heavy industry in the Ruhr. This legislation, which was finally ratified in 1957, was not a mirror of the American antitrust laws preventing businesses from engaging in practices, such as forming anticompetitive agreements, that would allow them to dominate the market. Instead, German antitrust legislation blended German and American tradition. It pushed German business away from their ancient cartels and syndicates in the direction of a competitive oligopolistic capitalism very similar to the American version. U.S. hegemonic pressures also brought social and cultural changes in West Germany during the postwar period. German Americanizers, it seems, were very much young people who responded positively, indeed enthusiastically, to what arrived from the United States. The resistance to these imports came from an older generation who rejected rock and jazz, James Dean and Coca-Cola as products of an Unkultur. For a while they thought that West Germany’s youth was immune to American youth culture, and they were shocked when riots broke out at the end of rock concerts. The arguments that could be heard were the familiar ones dating back to the 1920s. But the attractiveness of this culture to the young was something that intellectuals, academics, parents, clergy, and politicians could not contain. There was something inexorable about the way American mass culture began to blend into West German society. This wave of acculturation was inseparably connected with something that West German business had embraced as part of

the recasting of the country’s industrial system: Fordism. In the 1920s, German industry had begun to experiment with rationalized production. It sought to gain the economic benefits of modern technology and factory organization without any of the leveling effects of Americanism. They wanted higher productivity without mass production, greater exports without mass consumption, and higher profits without higher wages. In other words, German business refused to accept the other side of Ford’s equation; that is, that the transition to mass production would be incomplete if it did not result in a lowering of prices, thus making products that were hitherto reserved for the few within the budget of the many. It was with this principle that Ford had initiated the motorization of the United States in the 1920s. The German car industry refused to adopt Fordism in this sense, with the exception of Opel Cars, acquired in 1927 by General Motors, which began to produce the Laubfrosch, the first popular German motorized vehicle manufactured on an assembly line. After World War II, confronted with the need to adapt to an American-dominated, competitively organized, multilateral economy, the German economy made the transition to mass production and embraced the idea of mass consumption. The marketing of mass-produced consumer goods may not immediately have led to levels of consumption comparable to the United States in the 1950s. Many Germans could not yet afford a car, a refrigerator, or a washing machine and invested their rising wages in the replacement of essential household items. However, all this does not mean that the introduction of Fordism—defined here not just as mass

AMERIKA INSTITUT

production but also as the initiation of mass consumption—did not arouse consumerist desires and dreams of a better life. Michael McGregor See also American Occupation Zone; CocaCola; Ford, Henry; Fordism; Hollywood; McDonald’s Restaurant; Volkswagen Company and Its VW Beetle References and Further Reading Berghahn, Volker. The Americanization of West German Industry. Leamington Spa: Berg, 1986. Diner, Dan. America in the Eyes of the Germans: An Essay on Anti-Americanism. Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1996. Kroes, Rob. If You’ve Seen One, You’ve Seen the Mall: Europeans and American Mass Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996. Nolan, Mary. Visions of Modernity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Willett, Ralph. The Americanization of Germany, 1945–1949. New York: Routledge, 1989.

AMERIKADEUTSCHER VOLKSBUND see German American Bund

AMERIKA INSTITUT The Amerika Institut was founded in 1910 in Berlin and took responsibility for maintaining and furthering academic relations and cooperation in the intellectual sphere between Germany and the United States. Its creation is to be seen in the context of the societal discourse in the United States on what constitutes an American identity. Figuring prominently in the discourse was the perceived antagonism between German and Anglo-Saxon culture. The debate thus reflected not only the numerical predomi-

79

nance of British and German immigrants, or rather their descendants, among the population of the United States but also political and ideological developments in Europe. The Amerika Institut concerned itself with matters that were considered traditionally and generally to be German success stories: scientific thoroughness and higher education. The institute thus aimed at those sections of American society that could be expected to be German-friendly; that is, academics and the educated elites. Almost 10,000 U.S. citizens had received an education at German universities in the nineteenth century, and the German system of higher education was recognized by many among the U.S. academic elite to be exemplary. There was, however, an increasing chorus of voices pointing to the authoritarian, grandiose, elitist, and inflexible character of German scholarship and its incompatibility with the American ideal of a democratic educational system. The Amerika Institut therefore may have served to counter those tendencies that threatened to undermine German exemplariness in the one field where it had hitherto gone virtually unchallenged. The importance of the founding of the institute among German Americans was shown by the fact that financial contributions were sent to Berlin even before the institute was set up. The Prussian Education Department received a check for 100,000 Reichsmark from the New York banker Jakob Henry Schiff, co-owner of the banking house Loeb and Co. The New York German American James von Speyer sent $200,000 to Germany as a contribution toward the institute’s library.

80

AMISH

The institute’s founder-president was Hugo Münsterberg; he was succeeded by Karl O. Bertling, who headed the institute until his death in 1945. During World War I, the Amerika Institut and its connections in the United States became part of the propaganda efforts of the German government; the institute continued to serve as a covert propaganda tool during the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich, establishing a working relationship with the German intelligence community. The Allies closed the Amerika Institut after World War II. Joachim Lerchenmüller See also American Students at German Universities; Johns Hopkins University; Münsterberg, Hugo; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Lerchenmüller, Joachim. Keltischer Sprengstoff: Eine wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studie über die deutsche Keltologie von 1900 bis 1945. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1997.

AMISH The Amish are a Christian nonstate church community whose members live today in twenty-two states of the United States (Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, and others) and in Ontario, Canada. All Amish groups together probably number about 100,000 members. The center of Amish life is Ohio, where about 45,000 Amish live. Amish culture is rooted in Swiss German religious beliefs dating back to the sixteenth century. Any discussion of the Amish has first of all to take into account their religious practice of “Anabaptism,” or adult baptism, as practiced also by today’s Mennonites. The Anabaptists’ movement originated in Switzer-

land and Germany at a time when Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther proclaimed their new understanding of the Christian faith. The Anabaptists, however, were even more radical in their reformatory thinking and soon became visible in the whole of central western Europe. As a result of their beliefs, which stress voluntary entry into the church, the separation of church and state, the idea of individual priesthood, and the dominance of faith over good deeds, they were persecuted by both Catholic and Protestant state churches. The climax of the Anabaptist movement came in 1535, with the creation of a kingdom in Münster, North-Rhine Westphalia. After the military defeat of the Anabaptists in that city at the end of June 1535, the leaders of the Baptists were captured, tortured, and put into cages hanging from the top of the Lambertus Church. The survivors of the massacre fled to the Netherlands, where they found refuge with the former Catholic priest Menno Simons (1496–1561). He reorganized the movement whose members were known thereafter as Mennonites. Attracted by the prospect of religious freedom, many fled to the United States during the first half of the eighteenth century. The Amish are a splinter group named after their founder, the Swiss-born Jakob Ammann, who disagreed with more liberal Mennonites in 1693 over the issue of whether or not to shun baptized members who had subsequently left the church. Amish links with Germany are still clearly evident today on all cultural levels, particularly on the linguistic one. Pennsylvania Dutch is their first language, despite the fact that English is taught at schools, which are usually Amish operated. Early modern High German, the language of the

ANARCHISTS

Luther translation of the Bible and other scriptures like the Ausbund, a hymnal of lyrics and verse, is used during worship. Members that sin severely against the Ordnung (order, or church discipline) might be temporarily banned from the community (Meidung), and after a life spent in Gelassenheit (spiritual comfort resulting from trust in God’s will), Amish couples usually retire to so-called Grossdadi (grandpa) houses. The most traditional group, the “Old Order Amish,” interpret the pursuit of happiness in a way different not only from other Christian churches but even more so from capitalist America. The Amish believe with Luther that being a Christian is a gift of God and therefore requires a special frame of mind and form of conduct. However, there is no missionary activity on their part, although the church is open to anyone willing to accept the lifestyle that comes with being Amish. Due to the practice of adult baptism, the young are allowed to test the water before joining the church, but commitment is then usually for life. Surrounded by a nation that propagates a belief in the latest technological equipment and progress in general, the Amish deliberately prefer tilling their soil with archaic equipment. On their highly productive farms, there is yet no electricity, and there are no cars, only horse-driven buggies. At a time when lifelong learning has become so commonplace that knowledge has been reduced to a marketable commodity, the Amish object to higher education in the sense of refusing the acquisition of what they perceive as “worldly” knowledge. However, they have sound expertise in farming: like their forefathers, most Amish still work in agriculture or related professions.

81

If individuality and freedom can be seen as the main characteristics of modernity, the Amish live a communitarian life, curbing what they interpret as the excessive and disruptive freedom of the individual. Against the sense of depression and isolation that often strike modern individuals, the Amish maintain the value of a protective community based on and revolving around intact three-generational families. Although careers for women have become a regular feature of modern life, the Amish share jobs according to gender. They preach and practice a frugal life in the way that Luther and Ammann had advertised. Throughout life (and beyond), discipline, submission to the will of God, and modesty are of essential importance to the Amish and become manifest, for example, in their austere outfit made according to the traditional German fashion, as well as in the graveyard monuments that do not single out any individual. In times of war the Amish remain pacifist to the level of suffering hostility and punishment up to imprisonment. Markus Oliver Spitz See also Iowa, German Dialects in; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language References and Further Reading Hostetler, John A. Amish Life. Scottdale: Herald Press, 1983. ———. Amish Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. Nolt, Steven. A History of the Amish. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 1992.

ANARCHISTS For the Anarchist, freedom is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the

82

ANARCHISTS vital concrete possibility for every human being to bring to full development all capacities and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to social account. —Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism

In the United States, with its at least theoretically uninhibited possibility to exercise one’s rights and freedoms, anarchist idealism—the idea that, as Immanuel Kant has it, “freedom and order” are possible “without the use of force”—found enough ground to flourish on in the midto late nineteenth century. In reality— other than in nationalist fiction and myth—the United States never were a “melting pot” but rather a heterogeneous conglomerate of groups and class fragments, immigrant associations, and upwardly mobile individuals. This left spaces for local (mostly rural) utopian projects, as well as for urban associations and cooperative projects. Consequently, almost all known variants of anarchist beliefs found a following in North America, ranging from religiously inspired sectarians to freemarket extremists. Due to the background of anarchism in the ideals of the Enlightenment, many of the early anarchists were German and French immigrants. Among their representatives were such diverse activists as Wilhelm (Christian) Weitling (1808–1871), August Becker (1813– 1871), and Karl Heinzen (1809–1880). Important figures later in the century were August Willich (1810–1878), the apostate priest Robert Reitzel (editor of Der Arme Teufel [The Poor Devil], 1849–1898), August Spies (1855–1887), and Johann Most (1846– 1906), ranging in their ideologies from syndicalism to radical action and utopian terrorism.

To draw a clear line between the various forms of anarchist idealism is almost impossible. To simplify, three main brands of anarchist thinking can be distinguished: one syndicalist, trade union, and cooperative-based form of leftist socialism that tries to overcome hierarchical order and oppression by establishing a grassroots form of counterhegemony and one radical and often militant form that believes in the necessity of destroying existing order before anything new can be erected, are usually (over-)identified with two theorists of anarchism, Petr Krapotkin (1842–1921) and Mihail Bakunin (1814–1876). The third direction is indebted to Max Stirner’s (1806–1856) radical individualism. His belief in the absolute independence and therefore irresponsibility of the individual toward any form of society, however, has been less influential in anarchist circles than among free-market capitalists and the followers of Ayn Rand. Among the unifying principles of all subforms of anarchism are the following: (1) anarchism is different from communism in that it rejects party control; (2) the ultimate goal is liberty from any form of institutionalized power; (3) and anarchism is based on the individual’s free choice of association, thus also transcending the (artificial) borderlines of nation, race, class, creed, and even gender. The sexual libertinage in some anarchist theories (viz. the campaign in Der Arme Teufel) met with fierce opposition from Puritan quarters in the United States; many of the demands have since been adopted by feminism. Anarchist freedom naturally came into confrontation with the interests of invested capital and the political power system in the United States. Notably, those anarchist

ANARCHISTS

groups whose ideals included social responsibility and opposed the established form of government-supported and profitoriented market economy soon became the objects of misrepresentation in the media and worse. From the beginning in the late eighteenth century (The Anarchiad, 1787) to the stage melodrama of the late nineteenth century, anarchism had usually been identified with chaos and terror. On this pretext, persecution by state and federal agencies as well as by private security companies like the Pinkerton Agency was made to appear necessary. Measures against anarchists ranged from intimidation and physical violence to assassinations and, as in the case of the Haymarket anarchists in 1886, the International Workers of the World (IWW) spokesman Joe Hill in 1915, and the famous case of Nicola Sacco (1891– 1927) and Bartolomeo Vanzetti (1888– 1927) in the 1920s, to judicial murder. Individual militant anarchists and anarchist groups contributed their share to this confrontation. The Arbeiter Lehr- und Wehrvereine (Workingmens’ Education and Defense Associations) stood in the tradition of the prewar socialist Turner Societies and rejected violence. The 1886 Haymarket incident changed the situation. Not only was it the first challenge to representatives of state order (in this case police trying to disperse a crowd of striking workers), but it also signaled a new quality in the fight. Though anarchist operations in the United States never reached the level or the impact they had in czarist Russia, for example, the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901 is usually attributed to a selfstyled anarchist, Leon Czolgosz (1873– 1901). His actual connections with anarchism are, however, doubtful.

83

After 1886, the anarchist movement in the United States lacked theoreticians and intellectual figureheads, with August Spies and Albert Parsons (1848–1887) dead, and Johann Most, the Russian immigrant Emma Goldman (1869–1940), and others like Reitzel constantly under surveillance and repeatedly imprisoned. The practical side and value of anarchism, however, remained visible in and behind many strikes for better working and living conditions and in countless acts of solidarity among miners, sailors, and transportation and steelworkers, notably in the eastern states and in the Great Lakes region. Out of this practical anarchism rose the anarcho-syndicalist IWW in the early 1900s, which again met with stiff resistance and relentless persecution, including a court decision to have the IWW archives destroyed. As a consequence, and also because of IWW opposition to the Communist Party, anarchist groups dwindled in size and effectivity. After the demise of figures like the syndicalist theorist Rudolf Rocker (1873– 1958), who escaped Nazi Germany to the United States, or Sam Dolgoff (1902– 1990), the various anarchisms are now mainly clandestine theoretical ideologies, advanced by intellectuals like Murray Bookchin (1921–) and Noam Chomsky (1928–). The notable exception is the Stirnerian form of anarcho-capitalism, first introduced in the Reagan era and advanced by the George W. Bush administration. The heyday of the German anarchists, however, had ended already before World War I. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Haymarket; Most, Johann; Schwab, Justus H.; Turner Societies; Weitling, Wilhelm

84

ANNEKE, MATHILDE FRANZISKA References and Further Reading Diefenbacher, Hans, ed. Anarchismus: Zu Geschichte und Idee der herrschaftsfreien Gesellschaft. Darmstadt: Primus, 1996. Foner, Philip Sheldon. History of the Labor Movement in the United States. Vol. 2. New York: International Publisher, 1977. Most, Johann. Revolutionäre Kriegswissenschaft. Millwood: Kraus Reprint, 1983.

ANNEKE, MATHILDE FRANZISKA b. April 3, 1817; Leveringhausen, Westphalia d. November 25, 1884; Milwaukee, Wisconsin The most important German American social activist, feminist, educator, and writer of the second half of the nineteenth century. Moderately successful as a journalist and dramatist before her political career, Anneke was one of the prominent women among the Forty-Eighters. She married the former artillery lieutenant Fritz Anneke in 1847 and through him came in contact with the Cologne Socialist circle. With him and all by herself while he was in prison, she wrote, edited, and printed the Neue Kölnische Zeitung (New Cologne Newspaper), a working-class daily. When the censors closed down the paper, she reopened it as the Frauen-Zeitung (Women’s Journal), only to see it closed down again. The Annekes escaped from Germany in 1849 and eventually arrived in Milwaukee, where in 1852 Mathilde Anneke started editing the Deutsche Frauen-Zeitung (German Women’s Newsletter), the first feminist U.S. periodical. She also published the diary she had kept during the 1849 campaign as Memoiren einer Frau aus dem badisch-pfälzischen Feldzüge (A Woman’s Memoir of the Cam-

paign in Baden and the Palatinate), wrote short stories and essays for newspapers, and saw her pre-1848 stage success, Oithono oder die Tempelweihe (O., or the Dedication) produced in Milwaukee. Of major importance were her contact and cooperation with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, which led to her appearance as speaker at the 1853 Seneca Falls Conference of women’s rights activists. The outbreak of the American Civil War found Anneke and her family in Switzerland en route to Italy, where her notoriously improvident husband had hoped to join Giuseppe Garibaldi. He returned to the United States immediately for a tumultuous career during the war. Mathilde Anneke remained in Switzerland and supported her family by writing correspondence and reports for German newspapers like the liberal Augsburger Allgemeine (Augsburger Gazette), based on letters she received from the United States. She also wrote and published magazine stories. These stories often contained interesting heroines, some of them slave women. Doubly enslaved as African Americans and as women, they actively fought for their own freedom, transgressing the borderlines set by, for example, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s female characters in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. After the close of the war, Anneke returned to Milwaukee with her three surviving children, where she started her last major project, a women’s academy. She had realized that women could only hope for equality in their lives and workplaces if their level of education and their training compared favorably to that of men. She directed this academy and spoke and wrote on behalf of women’s rights and emancipation until her death. Wolfgang Hochbruck

ANTISEMITISM See also Forty-Eighters; Milwaukee; Slavery in German American and German Texts References and Further Reading Gebhardt, Manfred. Mathilde Franziska Anneke. Berlin: Neues Leben, 1988. Steucher, Dorothea Diver. “Double Jeopardy: Nineteenth Century German-American Woman Writers.” PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 1981. Wagner, Maria. “Mathilde Anneke’s Stories of Slavery in the German-American Press.” MELUS 6, no. 4 (1979): 9–21.

ANTISEMITISM Antisemitism, discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group, has been an important factor in German American relations, particularly since 1933. In the nineteenth century, antisemitism, along with economic factors, spurred emigration of German Jews to the United States. With the rise of National Socialism, the American Jewish community worked to call attention to German antisemitism and to make it a central issue in German American political relations. This effort, impacted by the legacy of the Holocaust, continued after 1945, and in recent years Jewish-related issues, including antisemitism and Holocaust memorialization, have had a prominent place on the agenda of German American political and cultural relations. Despite the large wave of German Jewish immigration to the United States in the nineteenth century, antisemitism was seldom the primary motivating factor for leaving Germany. A sclerotic economy induced millions of Germans of all faiths to emigrate to the United States during the course of the 1800s, and likewise, German Jews most frequently emigrated for economic reasons, particularly beginning in

85

the 1840s. After the defeat of Napoleon by the German states in the Wars of Liberation (1813), Jewish emancipation was partially or totally repealed by restoration governments throughout Germany. German Jews lost most of the political and economic rights granted to them by liberalizing governments in the early nineteenth century, and societal antisemitism manifested itself in more hostile forms, most notably the Hep-Hep riots of 1819. However, most German Jews sought to acclimate to the altered situation through acculturation or assimilation during the course of the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century, German Jewry dominated American Jewish life, and German Jews soon formed a majority of the Jewish community in many midwestern and southern cities. Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cincinnati were centers for German Jewish life well into the twentieth century. In the antebellum United States, Jews were not subject to nativist discrimination specifically as Jews, and Catholic Irish and German immigrants were more frequent targets of xenophobic prejudice. German Jewish immigrants also participated in German American organizations on an equal or near-equal basis in the early to mid-1800s. In Chicago, four of the five founders of the Republican Party’s German-language wing were Jews, and the abolitionist movement numbered German Jews among its members. However, Jews faced rising societal antisemitism at the time of the Civil War, and they responded with increased patriotism. Although German Jews fought for both the Union and the Confederacy, antisemitism and economic hardship in the post–Civil War South persuaded many to migrate to the Northeast.

86

ANTISEMITISM

German Jews in the United States established B’nai B’rith, a Jewish fraternal society, in 1843, and this organization founded the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in 1913 to fight antisemitism. However, German Jews in the United States did not always respond to antisemitism in such a proactive and insistent manner. Many German Jews perceived the rise in American antisemitism in the late nineteenth century to be a direct response to the increased numbers of eastern European Jewish immigrants entering the country and not a reaction to their own conspicuous success. They established schools to Americanize the recent arrivals, teaching them English and vocational skills. Others attempted to shunt new immigrants into the less densely populated and less Jewish American West. Some German Jews in the United States denied the existence of pervasive antisemitism in their new homeland. Antisemitism was clearly on the rise in Germany in the late nineteenth century. Liberal German American circles deplored this trend as reported by German-language newspapers in the United States. German American political leader Carl Schurz frequently attacked German antisemitism in the New York Evening Post. He also criticized German chancellor Otto von Bismarck for refusing to accept official condolences from the U.S. Congress on the death of Jewish German politician Eduard Lasker. Lasker, a rival of Bismarck and a leader of the National Liberal Party, died while visiting New York in 1884. In the early years of World War I, many American Jews sympathized with the Central Powers rather than the Allies. For some it was a matter of residual sympathy for their erstwhile homelands, Germany and Austria-Hungary. Others fervently

supported the Central Powers’ struggle against antisemitic, czarist Russia. Regardless, this support evaporated with U.S. entry into the war in 1917. After the war, American Jewish groups, fearing for the position of Jews in the new Polish republic, exercised great pressure on the Allied governments to induce the Polish government to sign a treaty protecting the rights of non-Polish minorities. The provisions of the treaty applied both to Jews and to Germans, and until 1933 there was a joint German Jewish interest in protecting the rights of minorities in Poland. The rise of National Socialism in Germany placed antisemitism at the forefront of German American relations. American discontent did not immediately lead to a policy of overt confrontation, but rather a slow atrophy of German American relations. Soon after the Nazi seizure of power, the U.S. embassy in Berlin reported to Washington on regular acts of violence directed against Jews, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt received frequent briefings on the situation. The president expressed his distress to Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht, visiting the United States in May 1933, but Roosevelt repeatedly declined to make any public statement about the Jews’ plight in Germany. According to William E. Dodd, U.S. ambassador to Germany from 1933 to 1937, Roosevelt was fully aware of the persecution of the German Jews and regretted it, but noted that it was “not a governmental affair. We can do nothing except for American citizens.” Roosevelt felt that only personal influence and unofficial channels should be used. Secretary of State Cordell Hull was equally reluctant to condemn German antisemitism. During his tenure in office, Ambassador Dodd struggled to formulate an

ANTISEMITISM

adequate response to German aggression, including German policy toward the Jews. Dodd was personally critical of Nazi policy and helped many Germans of Jewish descent to emigrate; however, his public statements on the issue were seldom forceful. Moreover, Dodd, a history professor, not a career diplomat, failed to receive support from the State Department for more vigorous action. Ineffective against the implementation of antisemitic policy in Germany and isolated within the State Department, Dodd was recalled from his position in 1937. His successor, career Foreign Service officer Hugh R. Wilson, felt that a less confrontational course of action would be more effective. He disapproved of attacks on Germany in the American press. After the pogrom of November 9–10, 1938, known as Reichskristallnacht, Roosevelt, acting upon the recommendation of Assistant Secretary of State and former Consul General in Berlin George Messersmith, recalled Wilson to Washington for consultations, and Wilson did not return to Germany. Seeing the reluctance of their government, American Jewish groups and their non-Jewish allies pursued their own course of action in response to increasingly virulent German antisemitism. They staged rallies, most notably a giant protest assembly at Madison Square Garden in New York on March 27, 1933. Speakers included New York mayor John O’Brien, German-born U.S. senator Robert F. Wagner, and Episcopal bishop William T. Manning. Jewish groups also organized a boycott of German products. Although it had some success in New York City, it ultimately proved ineffectual. The U.S. government maintained a neutral position on the boycott. German officials, meanwhile,

87

complained about the boycott to Secretary Hull, who refused to place pressure on Jewish groups to end the action. The government also refused to squash a mock trial of Adolf Hitler held by the American Federation of Labor and the American Jewish Congress in 1934, despite official German protests. Antisemitism also shaped official German perceptions of the United States. Although Adolf Hitler spoke of the United States’ supposed Nordic racial core and Anglo-Saxon settlers who had colonized an entire continent, he also viewed the United States as a land where Jewry had flourished. For propagandistic purposes the Nazis continually overstated and exaggerated the influence of American Jews over their government’s policies. Hitler, who neither spoke English nor had been to an Englishspeaking country, considered Anglo-American democracy a Jewish invention, and he blamed the Jews for U.S. participation in World War I. He considered Roosevelt to be the pawn of an international Jewish cabal. Moreover, cultural antimodernism accompanied antisemitism in Nazi perceptions of the United States as an increasingly degenerate land of racial mixing. Some Americans of German descent supported the policies of the Nazi regime, including antisemitism. The most infamous of these groups was the Friends of the New Germany, later renamed the German American Bund, which gathered 20,000 for a rally at Madison Square Garden in February 1939. It activities fell under the scrutiny of an investigation launched by Jewish congressman Samuel Dickstein into Nazi propaganda activities in the United States. His inquiry gave rise to the House Un-American Activities Committee. Meanwhile, as Bund leader Fritz Kuhn was prosecuted for

88

ANTISEMITISM

embezzlement, the group lost any prestige it had and eventually dissolved. Many Americans perceived the 1936 summer Olympic Games, hosted by Germany, to be a propaganda show for Hitler’s Germany, and negative press reports colored their impressions. However, German officials, aware of the potential for negative publicity, removed anti-Jewish signs from public view for the duration of the games. Prior to the Olympics, U.S. Olympic officials were divided over whether to boycott the games. Ernest Lee Jahnke, a German American and member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), encouraged a boycott, for which he was expelled from the IOC. He was replaced by Avery Brundage, who opposed any boycott. At the Berlin games, some Jewish American athletes were not allowed by their coaches to compete in their events. It remains a topic of controversy whether this was in deference to German wishes or for competitive reasons. As virulent antisemitism persuaded German Jews to emigrate, it was very difficult for them to seek refuge in the United States. Fears of economic competition and xenophobia had led in 1924 to the establishment of a quota system to limit immigration. Under popular pressure, these quotas were not relaxed in the 1930s to admit Jewish refugees facing Nazi persecution. In 1938, Roosevelt responded to the mounting refugee crisis by calling for an international conference, which was held in Evian, France, that summer. Thirty-two countries, including the United States, sent delegates; however, the United States was represented not by any State Department official but by Myron Taylor, an American industrialist and friend of the president. Despite universal regret ex-

pressed for the refugees’ plight, only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept more immigrants. Nazi officials considered it astounding that the United States, Britain, and others criticized Germany for its treatment of the Jews but refused to admit them as immigrants. The late 1930s marked a high point in American antisemitism, and many U.S. State Department officials, themselves antisemitic, refused to make full use of the quota allotments available to Germans. Notable among these antisemitic officials was Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge Long, who ordered U.S. consulates to hinder Jewish immigration as far as possible and who personally acted illegally to do so. Nonetheless, between January 1933 and September 1939, approximately 95,000 German Jews did emigrate to the United States, where they made important contributions to American public and academic life, notably at the New School in New York, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, and historically black colleges in the American South. Most notable among them were Albert Einstein, Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse. The U.S. Army was also not immune to antisemitism, and many important officers held the Jews collectively accountable for the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Xenophobia was rife in the officer corps. Although completely committed to the military defeat of Nazi Germany, many officers hoped for a postwar alliance of the United States and Germany against the Soviet Union. During the war, army officials did not press for the bombing of rail lines to concentration camps or the camps themselves, and some officers and War Department officials openly opposed such

ANTISEMITISM

bombings, claiming them to be a diversion from tactical objectives. In the American Occupation Zone of Germany, some senior officers, most notably George S. Patton, did not hide their anti-Jewish prejudice. The physical appearance and general attitude of Jewish Holocaust survivors, compared to the healthy appearance, cleanliness, and deferential attitude of German civilians, repelled many U.S. soldiers and disposed them against the Jews. Others continued to support a U.S.-German alliance against the Soviets, whom they regarded in overtly racist terms. Since 1945, fears of renewed antisemitism have affected German American relations. In the immediate postwar years, U.S. occupation officials considered antisemitism and Germany’s position on the Jews to be a barometer of German democratization. Despite their policy, U.S. officials were loathe to interfere in the affairs of West Germany regarding the Jews or manifestations of antisemitism, including a wave of cemetery desecrations in the 1950s and a riot in Munich in 1952 in response to an antisemitic letter published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung (South German News). The U.S. government approved of West German reparations to Israel and to Jewish Holocaust survivors, initiated in the early 1950s, but it placed no pressure on Konrad Adenauer’s government to conclude an agreement for restitution. Jewish groups in the United States, including the American Jewish Committee (AJC) and B’nai B’rith, maintained a skeptical attitude regarding West German efforts to combat reappearances of antisemitism. The participation of former Nazis and fellow travelers in public life exacerbated their fears, and they lobbied for a more critical and reserved embrace of West Germany as a U.S. ally.

89

These sentiments found little support within the U.S. government as increasing cold war tensions induced U.S. officials to overlook sensitive issues that had the potential to alienate support within the West German government or public. In the 1950s, German antisemitism frequently accompanied nationalism, but after 1968, anti-Jewish sentiments became more frequent on the political Left. Anticapitalism, anti-Americanism, and support for so-called Third World liberation movements often merged with antisemitism. Israel’s strongest public detractors in Germany were members of the political New Left. Frequently their anticapitalist and anti-Zionist rhetoric merged and strayed into the realm of antisemitism. Israel’s strongest supporters in West Germany were political conservatives who embraced U.S. foreign policy marked by global anticommunism and support for Israel. In the 1980s, the seeming irrelevance of antisemitism to German American diplomatic relations forced Jewish groups to reconsider their earlier agendas. In 1985, U.S. president Ronald Reagan visited Bitburg cemetery accompanied by West German chancellor Helmut Kohl, to the dismay and outrage of Jewish groups. In response to Jewish censure, Reagan also visited Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, but criticism did not abate. The following year, the so-called Historikerstreit (historians’ debate) over the uniqueness and relative significance of the Holocaust raged within German and German American intellectual circles. Surprised at the general reaction to both events, American Jewish groups established permanent ties to German nongovernmental organizations, and the German embassy in Washington engaged more actively with Jewish issues.

90

ANTISEMITISM

East Germany, which had been seen by many Jews as having the potential to be a genuinely anti-Fascist Germany, embarked on an official campaign of antisemitism in 1952. Moreover, the new state rejected calls for reparations to Holocaust survivors and denied any responsibility for the actions of the Nazis. East German Jews fleeing renewed persecution received aid from Jewish charitable organizations, including the American Joint Distribution Committee. After Joseph Stalin’s death in 1953, antisemitism abated, but throughout its existence, East Germany maintained an antiZionist position that negatively affected its relations with Jews in the United States. Nonetheless, Jewish groups hoped that East Germany would change its position, and the Conference on Material Claims against Germany, which had negotiated a reparations agreement with West Germany in 1952, continued to maintain loose ties to East German front organizations. Only in the 1980s, as the East German regime faced financial catastrophe, did relations improve. Erich Honecker’s government, seeking most-favored-nation trade status and guarantees for foreign loans, approached American Jewish groups and initiated discussions regarding Holocaust reparations. The East German government believed that if it curried favor with American and world Jewry, Jews might use their supposed influence with the U.S. government on behalf of East Germany. This seemingly pro-Jewish attitude was based on older, antisemitic stereotypes of Jews exercising great power over policy formation, including in the United States. East Germany’s only democratically elected government continued these efforts in 1990, but no conclusive agreement was reached, and the German Democratic Re-

public soon ceased to exist as a separate state. Meanwhile, many American Jews initially opposed German reunification or were ambivalent to it, primarily out of fear of a resurgent Germany. By the 1990s, Jewish groups had evolved from a reactive stance regarding antisemitism and German American relations to an active one in which they pursued specific agendas. As a result, Jewish issues, including the memory of the Holocaust, have become major factors in German American relations. In the late 1990s, Undersecretary of State Stuart Eizenstat negotiated Holocaust reparations agreements with representatives of German government and industry. The ADL regularly reports on German neo-Nazism, and in 1998 the American Jewish Congress opened an office in Berlin. Its representatives frequently meet with German cabinet officials to discuss their concerns. In 1999 the German Bundestag voted to erect a giant Holocaust memorial designed by American Jewish architect Peter Eisenman. In 2001, after decades of discussions and planning, the city of Berlin opened a Jewish museum designed by Polish-born, American Jewish architect Daniel Libeskind. Despite these German efforts to memorialize the German Jewish experience and the Holocaust, the actualization of these efforts has been largely a reactive process. Beginning in the late 1970s, the United States made plans for a Holocaust memorial in Washington, D.C., and that proposal led to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which opened in 1993. Since that time, the Washington museum has become an international focal point for Holocaust research and has contributed significantly to an “Americaniza-

ANTISEMITISM

tion” of Holocaust memorialization. Similarly, the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles has served as one of the world’s leading institutions devoted to researching and combating antisemitism. Despite its strong presence in Europe, the center does not maintain an office in Germany or Austria, where Wiesenthal operates his own research and documentation center on crimes against the Jews. In the years since 1945, antisemitism has also had influence on a more nefarious variant of German American relations. Because Mein Kampf (My Battle) and other antisemitic propaganda are banned in the Federal Republic of Germany, many American neo-Nazis and white supremacists have reimported Nazi antisemitism to Germany. German right-wing extremists and Holocaust deniers or minimizers have come to rely on foreign groups to supply them with propaganda materials, including reprints of Mein Kampf. The United States, whose Constitution guarantees free speech and whose courts have overturned public censorship of neo-Nazi groups, has been home to many individuals assisting German groups. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the most infamous of these was Gary Lauck, who led the so-called National Socialist German Worker’s Party/Overseas Organization (NSDAP/AO). Lauck, the most important importer of neo-Nazi propaganda to Germany during that time, was arrested in Denmark and extradited to Germany in 1995. Since the late 1990s, right-wing American Internet sites have superseded earlier patrons of the movement. The United States has also been the source of much white power or skinhead rock music imported to Germany. Jay Howard Geller

91

See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Bitburg; B’nai B’rith; Chicago; Cincinnati; Einstein, Albert; Frankfurt School; Friends of the New Germany; German American Bund; Horkheimer, Max; Kuhn, Fritz Julius; German-Jewish Migration to the U.S.; Marcuse, Herbert; Milwaukee; Morgenthau Plan; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Barkai, Avraham. Branching Out: German Jewish Immigration to the United States, 1820–1914. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1994. Bendersky, Joseph W. The “Jewish Threat”: Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army. New York: Basic Books, 2000. Gassert, Philipp. Amerika im Dritten Reich: Ideologie, Propaganda und Volksmeinung, 1933–1945. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1997. Geller, Jay Howard. “Das Bild Konrad Adenauers vom Judentum und seine Beziehungen zu Vertretern jüdischer Organisationen nach 1945.” Adenauer, Israel, und das Judentum. Ed. Hanns Jürgen Küsters. Bonn: Bouvier, 2004, 137–155. Junker, Detlef. “The Continuity of Ambivalence: German Views of America, 1933–1945.” Transatlantic Images and Perceptions: Germany and America since 1776. Eds. David E. Barclay and Elisabeth Glaser-Schmidt. Cambridge and Washington: Cambridge University Press and German Historical Institute, 1997. Mauch, Christof, and Joseph Salmons. German-Jewish Identities in America. Madison: Max Kade Institute for German American Studies, 2003. Offner, Arnold A. American Appeasement: United States Foreign Policy and Germany, 1933–1938. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969. Shafir, Shlomo. Ambiguous Relations: The American Jewish Community and Germany since 1945. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999. Wyman, David S. Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938–1941. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1968.

92

ANZEIGER

DES WESTENS

ANZEIGER DES WESTENS (WESTERN INFORMER) The Anzeiger des Westens, established in St. Louis, Missouri, in 1835, was the first German-language newspaper to be published west of the Mississippi River. During its lifetime it served many German immigrants as an introduction to American politics, and was especially active in the decade before the Civil War, when the newly arrived refugees of the 1848 revolutions sought a new role for the Germans in a period of political flux. The Anzeiger was a strong force in rallying the Germans of Missouri to support the Union cause in the opening stages of the Civil War. Until its merger with another paper in 1898, it remained a widely read political and social force in the Midwest. The first issue of the Anzeiger came off the press October 21, 1835; it remained a weekly until 1842, then became a triweekly, and was published daily from 1846 until the end of its life. The founder and first editor of the paper was Heinrich Bimpage, but the dominant editor from 1836 to 1850 was William Weber, a former law student from Jena who had taken part in the revolutions of 1830. Weber enlisted the help of prominent German leaders such as Friedrich Münch of rural Missouri and Gustave Philipp Koerner of nearby Illinois. The paper was known for its liberal antislavery position, a bold stance for a publication in a slave state. In 1851 Heinrich Börnstein took over as editor and later publisher of the Anzeiger. In 1854 Börnstein, a fiery, radical Forty-Eighter, employed as an editor Carl Dänzer, another Forty-Eighter. Börnstein also hired as editor in chief Karl L. Bernays, who had previously been associated with him in the publication of the radical Vor-

wärts (Forwards) in Paris. Börnstein spread his liberal opinions across the pages of the Anzeiger; his outspokenness aroused controversy, especially because of his strident anticlericalism, which raised antagonisms among religious elements and became a source of division in St. Louis’s German community. Börnstein also was a strong promoter of German culture, publishing a literary supplement to the newspaper and promoting the German theater, which he managed for a time. After the passage of the KansasNebraska Act of 1854, the paper threw its support to the free-soil section of the Missouri Democratic Party, led by Francis Preston Blair Jr., and ultimately, after 1856, supported the new Republican Party. When the southern states began to secede in 1860–1861, the St. Louis Germans were a strong element in keeping Missouri in the Union and remained as defenders of the Union after the outbreak of the Civil War. In 1857 Dänzer, after some differences with Börnstein, left the Anzeiger and founded the Westliche Post (Western Post), which became the strongest rival to the Anzeiger for the rest of the century. After the outbreak of the war, Börnstein served as a Union army officer, then accepted an appointment as U.S. consul at Bremen. He never returned to the United States. The Anzeiger languished during Börnstein’s absence and suspended publication in early 1863. Several months later, Dänzer left the Westliche Post and revived the Anzeiger. He remained as editor until 1898. In the post–Civil War era, the Anzeiger des Westens and the Westliche Post competed to be the principal German newspaper in St. Louis. Both circulated through the expanding West, especially into Illinois and westward into Missouri, Iowa, and Kansas.

ARGENTINA

Both published weekly and Sunday editions and generally followed liberal Republican politics. The Anzeiger had the steady editorship of Dänzer, while the Westliche Post had at various times associations with Emil Preetorius, Carl Schurz, and Joseph Pulitzer. The circulation figures of the two newspapers were about the same, each approaching 30,000 in the late 1890s. In 1898 the Anzeiger des Westens merged with the Westliche Post; the Anzeiger then was issued as the evening edition of the merged papers, under the title Abend-Anzeiger (Evening Informer). It ceased publication on April 30, 1912. The Westliche Post continued publication until 1938. James M. Bergquist See also Forty-Eighters; Koerner, Gustave Philipp; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl J. R., and May E. Olson. GermanAmerican Newspapers and Periodicals, 1732–1955: History and Bibliography. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1961. Bergquist, James M. “The German-American Press.” The Ethnic Press in the United States: A Historical Analysis and Handbook. Ed. Sally M. Miller. New York: Greenwood, 1987. Geitz, Henry, ed. The German-American Press. Madison, WI: Max Kade Institute, 1992. Rowan, Steven, ed. and trans. Germans for a Free Missouri: Translations from the St. Louis Radical Press, 1857–1862. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1983. Wittke, Carl. The German Language Press in America. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1957.

ARGENTINA Although several Germans participated in Ferdinand Magellan’s expedition, spending the winter of 1520 in Patagonia, the earliest documented German interest in the La

93

Plata region was connected with trade. Once Emperor Charles V granted overseas travel and trade privileges to his subjects in Spain and the Holy Roman Empire, two large German companies, Fugger and Welser, established trade routes to the new Spanish colonies in South America. One of the fourteen ships commanded by Pedro de Mendoza in 1534 had been outfitted by the Augsburg trading company of Welser and other German businessmen. Among the 150 German and Dutch crewmen was Ulrich (Utz) Schmidel from Straubing. In 1567, he published a description of this trip and his twenty-year sojourn in Wahrhafftige Historien einer Wunderbaren Schiffart (True Stories from a Marvelous Journey). This book included an account of the founding of the fortress Puerto de Nuestra Señora Santa María del Buen Aire. Thus Schmidel became the first historian of Argentina. In the colonial era, following the abdication of Charles V and the partition of his empire, few Germans except for Jesuit missionaries arrived in the region. From 1616, 117 German Jesuit padres arrived, leaving a lasting impact on the Indian missions of the Upper Paraná and the Rio Paraguay. The first important missionary was Tyrolean Anton Klemens Sepp von Seppenburg (1655–1733), who brought a variety of musical instruments to South America and for forty-three years gained high renown teaching music in several Indian mission communities. His Reissbeschreibung (Description of his Journey, 1696) and mission reports are valuable sources for historians. The missionaries Florian Baucke (Paucke) and Martin Dobrizhoffer served among the Mokobian and Abipone tribes in the Chaco for many years. Baucke, a Silesian, became a teacher and modern-

94

ARGENTINA

izer. He introduced the nomadic people to the advantages of: a settled lifestyle, stone houses, planted fields, and cultivated yerba maté (the special herb tea of that region). A careful observer, he wrote an illustrated report—first published in 1829 as Reise in die Missionen (Journey to the Missions)—a humorous description full of anecdotal material and ethnographic details. Dobrizhoffer’s Historia de Abiponibus (History of the Abipones, 1784) is another valuable ethnological description. The Styrian Matthias Strobel (1696–1769) became the highest-ranking German Jesuit and superior of the entire Guaraní missions. Denounced as the “viceroy of the missions” by the opposition to the Jesuits, he, Baucke, and Dobrizhoffer were expelled along with their order after 1767. With Ibero-American independence after 1810, more Germans arrived, especially businesspeople, but the antirevolutionist policy of the major European countries united in the the Holy Alliance prevented diplomatic recognition of Argentina by the German states. This delayed the development of profitable relations, while an Argentine government commission actively recruited immigrants in central Europe. In 1826, the first major contingent of 200 Germans arrived after great difficulties. They were assigned to settle Chacarita de los Colegiales, where they founded the first colony at the Rio de la Plata. Caudillo Juan Manuel de Rosas (1829–1832, 1835–1852) discouraged immigration until he was removed from power by a coalition force of Argentine unitarians and federalist dissidents with the help of Brazil, Uruguay, and Paraguay. The Brazilian contingent of the coalition included 250 German veterans of the War of Schleswig-Holstein (referred to as “Brum-

mers”). At times, their military efforts were decisive. Afterward, Argentina opened its doors to European immigration. Considering Germans model immigrants, Argentina’s future president, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, personally promoted emigration in Germany. After some hesitation, German and Austrian immigration resumed, leaving a lasting impact on Argentine society. However, Argentina attracted immigrants along with natural scientists who explored the flora, fauna, and geography of the country. Naturalist Hermann Burmeister, a disciple of Alexander von Humboldt, traveled through Brazil and Argentina in the 1850s and produced a large number of zoological, paleontological, and botanical studies. During the 1860s, he reorganized the Museo Público in Buenos Aires and established the School of Natural Sciences at the University of Córdoba, for which he recruited many German scholars (e.g., the mineralogist Adolf Stelzner from the famous Freiberg mining academy and the chemist Max Siewert from the University of Halle). Starting in the 1870s, several waves of immigrants from German-speaking countries arrived in Argentina. They escaped crises in Europe, including the Anti-Socialist Laws, the German Empire’s authoritarianism, the results of the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, and the Great Depression. They included Germans, Austrians, ethnic Germans from the Balkans and eastern Europe, and citizens from the former German colonies in Africa and the Pacific Islands. Among the immigrants were significant numbers of Teuto-Brazilians who, since the mid-nineteenth century, had been moving westward in search of land. The numerically largest group con-

ARGENTINA

sisted of Volga Germans, who arrived by way of Brazil. In 1940, about 130,000 Volga Germans lived in the country. Currently, the estimate is 300,000 to 350,000, with 40 percent still speaking German. During the 1860s and 1870s, the first German newspapers were founded in Buenos Aires. German associations and clubs dominated the social, economic, and religious life in the small German colony of Argentina’s capital. Germans founded mutual aid societies, sickness-insurance funds, a hospital, and an orphanage. German schools, singing societies (Gesangvereine), gymnastic groups (Turnvereine), and cooperatives were established. In 1869, Leopold Böhm founded Argentina’s first kindergarten according to the ideas of Friedrich Fröebel. The Socialist association Vorwärts (Progress) was created in 1882. German businesses became interested in economic contacts with Argentina in the last third of the nineteenth century. Siemens and Allgemeine ElektricitätsGesellschaft (AEG, General Electricity Company) invested into the electronic industry and quickly occupied a leading position in this sector. The Argentine army restructured itself to model the Prussian German army. German military instructors taught at the War Academy of Argentina. German armaments (Krupp cannons, Mauser rifles, etc.) were imported by the Buenos Aires government. Germany and Argentina entered into a close cooperation in the development of an air force, which continues even today. Under the presidency of Hipólito Yrigoyen (1916–1922, 1928–1930), who was largely influenced by the Saxon philosopher Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781–1832), Argentina remained neutral during World War I. Nevertheless, the

95

British naval blockade prevented trade between Argentina and Germany. After Germany’s defeat and because of restrictions imposed on immigration to the United States, Argentina became a preferred country for Germans who wanted to escape the economic and political chaos at home. About 30,000 Germans left for Argentina during the 1920s. They settled mostly in Buenos Aires and the region of Misiones. In 1937 about 10,000 Germans lived in Misiones; by 1941 about 39,000 German-speaking settlers were living in the territory (about 20 percent of the population). After Germany lost World War I, the German Argentine community was as polarized as the population of the Weimar Republic. The two German newspapers, the liberal Argentinisches Tageblatt (Argentine Daily News) and the conservative Deutsche La Plata Zeitung (German La Plata Newspaper), were forums for heated debates between left- and right-wing Germans. The Socialist association Vorwärts turned even more Marxist, favoring world revolution. Long before 1933, National Socialism divided and polarized the German population of Argentina. While a large number of Germans joined the National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community), a smaller segment was rigorously excluded from this new German community. The immigration of about 30,000 to 40,000 German Jews to Argentina from 1933 to 1939 increased tensions between both camps. In relation to its overall population (13 million in 1931), Argentina accepted per capita more Jewish refugees than any other country in the world besides Palestine. Among the Jewish refugees were many intellectuals, scientists, entrepreneurs, and artists who quickly found places in Argentina’s economy and

96

ARGENTINA

culture. Jewish émigrés aligned themselves with Socialist and liberal Germans to attack the conservative and National Socialist German majority in Argentina. They supported the Argentinisches Tageblatt and created new weekly and monthly publications such as Das andere Deutschland (The Other Germany) and Die Jüdische Wochenschau (The Jewish Weekly). However, the Argentine branch of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) foreign organization possessed, with its 2,000 members, an enormous influence among the German population in the country. It dominated nearly all of the German social, cultural, and religious associations and clubs. The outbreak of World War II reduced contacts between Argentina and Germany to an absolute minimum. Buenos Aires became the hub of German espionage activities in South America. Several Germans volunteered to be spies for their former home country. Throughout the war, Argentina remained neutral. Argentina was the last country in the world that declared war against Germany on March 27, 1945, after the United States threatened Argentina’s exclusion from the United Nations. Afterward, all property of Germans and German organizations in 1945–1946 was confiscated. While the Argentine Germans reorganized their lives after the end of the war, Argentina experienced an enormous influx of German refugees from central Europe. Despite the ban on German emigration imposed by the Allies, about 30,000 to 40,000 German refugees came to Argentina during the presidency of Juan D. Perón (1946–1955). Some of the German scientists, technicians, and armament experts were brought into the country in secret. They quickly found employment in

Argentina’s armaments industry, where they developed rockets and a jet fighter. At the University of Tucumán alone about thirty German professors were hired during the 1950s. Others found employment in Mendoza, La Plata, and Buenos Aires. The German migration largely contributed to the modernization of Argentina’s economy, as well as its sciences. Post–World War II German migration changed the structure of Argentina’s German society tremendously. Among the refugees were about 50 to 100 internationally warranted war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann, Josef Mengele, and Josef Schwammberger. They were in hiding from jurists, journalists, and secret services. Further, Argentina attracted many Germans who wanted to escape the reeducation system in occupied Germany and continued to believe in National Socialism. They founded extreme right-wing journals such as Der Weg (The Path) and La Plata Ruf (La Plata Call). In 1952 Argentina reestablished diplomatic relations with West Germany, and Perón supported the process by returning confiscated German property. Relations between both countries remained strong despite fallouts over violations of basic human rights during the military dictatorship between 1976 and 1983 and especially during the Falklands War with Great Britain in 1982. On the level of cultural relations, the Institución Cultural Argentino-Germana (German-Argentine Cultural Institution) (founded in 1922) and the Goethe Institut Buenos Aires (founded in 1966) support and further cultural exchange and mutual understanding. Today, there are about eighteen German schools in Argentina. The oldest German school is the Goethe school, which has been in existence for more than 100 years.

ASSIMILATION

After immigration came to an end in the 1950s, assimilation increased. Today, there are still about 250,000 German-speaking people in Argentina. Holger M. Meding See also Brummer; Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad; Dobrizhoffer, Martin; Eichmann, Karl Adolf; Humboldt, Alexander von; Latin America, German Military Advisers in; Latin America, Nazis in; Schmidel, Ulrich References and Further Reading Hoffmann, Werner. “Die Deutschen in Argentinien.” Die Deutschen in Lateinamerika: Schicksal und Leistung. Ed. Hartmut Fröschle. Tübingen/Basel: Erdmann, 1979, 40–145. Lütge, Wilhelm, Werner Hoffmann, Karl Wilhelm Körner, and Karl Klingenfuß. Deutsche in Argentinien, 1520–1980. Buenos Aires: Alemann SRL, 1981. Meding, Holger M. Flucht vor Nürnberg? Deutsche und österreichische Einwanderung in Argentinien, 1945–1955. Cologne: Böhlau, 1992. Newton, Ronald C. The “Nazi Menace” in Argentina, 1931–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992. Saint Sauveur-Henn, Anne. Un siècle d’émigration allemande vers l’Argentine, 1853–1945. Cologne: Böhlau, 1995. Zago, Manrique, ed. Presencia alemana en la Argentina—Deutsche Präsenz in Argentinien. Buenos Aires: Zago, 1992.

ASSIMILATION OF GERMANS IN THE UNITED STATES During their 300-year history in the United States, Germans were often regarded by other Americans as especially resistant to assimilation, mostly because they maintained separate social enclaves with a visibly different culture. The large complex of institutions of “German America” made them appear clannish and averse to “Americanization.” These appearances, however, were deceiving. German Americans were

OF

GERMANS

IN THE

UNITED STATES

97

assimilating consistently throughout their history, probably at a rate faster than that of most other immigrant groups. Factors facilitating their assimilation included their frequent upward social mobility, the compatibility of their predominantly middleclass culture with mainstream American life, and their high literacy rate and educational level. The U.S. Census for the year 2000 revealed that nearly 43 million people, about 15 percent of the total population, acknowledged some German ancestry. Only about 700,000 of them were born in Germany. About 1.4 million people said they spoke the German language. Most of the rest of those claiming German ancestry had little except perhaps a German surname to distinguish them from the rest of American society. The numerous ethnic neighborhoods, clubs, taverns, newspapers, and other institutions that once supported a separate ethnicity had almost entirely disappeared. Save for the most recent immigrants, German Americans as a group had almost completely assimilated. “Assimilation” may be defined as a process involving interaction between two cultures, wherein the adherents of a minority culture take on the cultural attributes of a mainstream or “host” society and are eventually absorbed into the dominant culture. In the process, distinguishing elements between the two cultures gradually disappear. The process is not a sudden transformation but a gradual passage through a series of stages, with individuals undergoing these changes at differing rates. Seen from the perspective of an immigrant group, the process usually occurs across several generations, with the first generation holding more closely to the culture of the mother country, while their children

98

ASSIMILATION

OF

GERMANS

IN THE

UNITED STATES

and subsequent generations move more rapidly toward the dominant culture. The interaction of the two cultures operate both ways; the process of assimilation leaves its mark on the dominant society and culture, which acquire some characteristics of the immigrant culture. Both cultures are transformed, even as one is slowly submerged into the other. Not long after the eighteenth-century migrations of Germans and soon after the American Revolution, some signs of the processes of assimilation could be discerned. Life in the Pennsylvania German region, with its dense concentrations of Germans and the reinforcing influence of conservative pietistic religions, seemed secure against the forces of cultural change. Nevertheless, another kind of cultural change was taking place: the formation of a distinct Pennsylvania German culture, which continued to evolve and increasingly seemed strange to newcomers from Germany. However, out on the frontiers of the Pennsylvania German region, there were signs as early as 1800 of assimilation into the English-speaking American community. In places like the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, Germans formed their own close-knit communities in close contact with neighboring English and Scots-Irish settlements. The rise of a commercial agricultural economy in such regions drew all groups into an interdependent economic network, tied to markets as far away as Philadelphia. The diminishing use of the German language in favor of English is one clear sign of the acculturation process. The German-language newspapers in the region were mostly defunct by 1815. About the same time, tensions began to appear over the language used in the German churches. Historians of the Virginia Germans see the

period 1820–1840 as one of transition of Germans to the primary use of English. In the Virginia example, there were few newcomers after 1815 arriving in the community to revive German customs and language. As the second and third generations came to dominate, integration into the larger American society speeded up. In Philadelphia, the city that had the largest urban concentration of Germans at the beginning of the nineteenth century, conflicts arose in the first two decades of the 1800s over the use of the English language in the German churches. The proponents favoring English-language services were typically American-born Germans who had attained some status in the larger community and were comfortable with their acculturation. The opponents tended to be older, first-generation Germans who feared not just the loss of the familiar language but the further acculturation that they believed would follow. By the 1820s the arguments were largely settled, and the growing influence of the younger generations easily prevailed, with the use of German considerably reduced. The decline of German churches and other social and cultural institutions was partly restrained by the revival of new immigration from the German states beginning in the 1820s. By the 1830s new German societies and churches began to appear in cities along the East Coast and the newly established cities in the Ohio Valley, the Great Lakes, and along the Mississippi. In other places along the eastern seaboard that did not receive as many of the new immigrants, German organizations stagnated or declined as the younger generations became more assimilated. The assimilation process was facilitated in the growing urban industrial areas where inter-

ASSIMILATION

action among diverse social groups was necessary. Germans were brought more frequently into closer contact with other social groups in their workplaces, their marketplaces, and the political arena. Their affinity to the Democratic Party brought them into an uneasy relationship with the Irish, the other major immigrant group of the day. Political activity at any level outside the immediate ethnic neighborhood became an influence toward acculturation. When second-generation immigrants moved partway through the process of assimilation, their offspring were almost certain to move further. The 1850s were a period of expansion and change in German America (a term first used during this decade). The massive upsurge in new German immigrants (1848–1853) brought fresh additions of the unassimilated first generation into the major cities and spread them across the plains of the Midwest, now being opened up by the railroads. The decade saw an impressive growth of German institutions of all sorts. The visibility of the Germans and their social organizations, churches, and newspapers inspired fear in some nativeborn Americans and helped to build a nativist movement to one of its highest levels. Nativists tended to argue that the immigrants, both Irish and German, were too numerous and too resistant to American social and political values to ever become a part of American society. Such perceptions have led some later historians to argue that the anti-immigrant attack did forge a tighter, more resistant German American social structure as a defensive reaction to nativism. A conclusion drawn from this was that Germans in the United States resisted assimilation and huddled within the fortresses of their

OF

GERMANS

IN THE

UNITED STATES

99

churches, clubs, mutual aid societies, and rural communities. This German resistance to acculturation and involvement in the larger society, some historians said, would persist for over half a century, until another anti-German attack at the time of World War I would leave the whole edifice of German America in ruins. Such interpretations, as many more recent historians have argued, are oversimplifications of the complex workings of the German American community and those within it. The decade that saw the nativist attack also saw the Germans drawn increasingly into the political process, partly of course to combat the nativist-organized American or “Know-Nothing” Party. As in earlier times, the move into active participation in the heterogeneous American political parties was a major step toward assimilation. With the coming of the Civil War, many German young men were drawn into the combat, mostly within the Union army. Although a minority of these served in ethnic militia units, as the war went on Germans found themselves increasingly mixed into units with Americans of other backgrounds. The Civil War on both the military and the home front had a considerable influence upon the assimilation of all immigrants. The great array of German organizations that flourished during the second half of the nineteenth century also fostered a misconception that they constituted a structure designed to prevent assimilation. It is true that many such organizations presented themselves as havens of German ethnicity, where immigrants could find a comfortable replica of traditions from the old country. Their stated objectives were often those of ethnic preservation and the celebration of German culture. Yet, inevitably,

100

ASSIMILATION

OF

GERMANS

IN THE

as they welcomed new German immigrants, the German societies also had to assist them in their introduction into American society as a whole. Their efforts to aid the immigrants included helping them to find employment, advising them about issues of naturalization, introducing them to American politics, and, in many cases, giving them instruction in the English language. Thus, while fostering ethnicity, the German organizations also had the necessary alternative purpose of facilitating assimilation. The structures of German America in its heyday can thus be seen as temporary way stations for the thousands of immigrants who entered the country and passed through in the process of assimilation. German America, its neighborhoods, its rural communities, its churches, and its social organizations appeared to external observers to be unchanging and persistent. They might then conclude that all the people within those structures were steadfastly resisting change. In reality, people moved out of the structures in the assimilation process even as new Germans arrived. The first generation might stay close to their ethnic roots; the second generation might then begin to find the larger society more attractive and move into it; the subsequent generations might have little connection to the visible organizational structures of German America. The constant erosion of the German population became more noticeable as the formal structures reached their peak and then began to decline. This phenomenon clearly was happening in the 1890s. The numbers of German-born counted in the decennial census rose from 1850 to 1890 and then declined in 1900 and thereafter. In the 1890s, those numbers contained

UNITED STATES

both the wave of the immigrants from the 1850s and the wave of the 1880s. As new immigration from Germany fell off sharply, there were no longer replacements for the first-generation Germans who were passing away. At the same time, the growing numbers of the younger generations continued assimilating and leaving the comfortable confines of the German ethnic world. During the 1890s German ethnic leaders began to voice concern about the endurance of the German structures. Controversy arose over efforts in some states to limit German-language schools. German newspaper editors, who saw language maintenance as absolutely necessary to preserve their own readership, implored the younger generation to learn German. Some German organizations like the Turner gymnastic societies and mutual savings associations began to open their memberships to non-Germans and to use English as their common language. Both the number of German societies and their individual membership rolls began to decline. The 1890s are a crucial period in the story of German assimilation, not because the process was being accelerated, but because the decline in new immigrants revealed that Germans had been steadily assimilating for most of the century. Around the turn of the twentieth century, many Germans were already finding their work within the larger community rather than in the German ethnic network. This was in part the result of the large corporations and industries that increasingly dominated the American economy. An even more powerful influence was the rise of mass-market consumerism and a mass popular culture. Advertisers displayed the attractions of the general popular culture, even in the German newspapers. The

ASSIMILATION

younger generations particularly felt no guilt about deserting the German theater and riding a streetcar to the popular music halls and vaudeville houses downtown. Increasingly, they spent their Sundays at the amusement park at the end of the trolley line, rather than with their elders in the German beer gardens. Department stores, professional baseball, motion pictures, and eventually the radio were attractive forces of acculturation that the most fervent appeals of German leaders could not overcome. German organizations themselves began to appeal to the mass consumer culture and became “acculturated” themselves. German restaurants and taverns, some becoming tourist attractions, opened their conviviality to all. German neighborhood societies downplayed their Germanness and opened their doors to newer immigrant groups who lived there. In rural areas, factors at work might delay the assimilation process somewhat, largely due to the relative isolation of Germans there from other cultural groups. Pastors of German churches and other ethnic spokesmen argued for German ethnicity against the inroads of American material culture and the American educational system. Small towns and rural communities might retain their ethnic characters longer; but as the land filled up and opportunities for farms or employment for the younger generation decreased, assimilation was often a by-product of the migration of younger members out of the community. Some might go to a nearby county seat; others found their way to the larger cities. The growing movement of population from the countryside to the cities, a phenomenon of American life generally during the years around the turn of the twentieth century, brought Germans into increasing

OF

GERMANS

IN THE

UNITED STATES

101

contact with other ethnic groups and with the new mass culture. In the first two decades of the twentieth century, there were strong efforts to rally Germans around their institutions and their culture. The best-known representative of this effort was the National German American Alliance, which attempted to gather all German societies under one umbrella organization. The traditional divisions among German Americans prevented the alliance from achieving its goal of full unification of German America. For most of its brief history, it stressed the one element upon which nearly all Germans might agree: opposition to Prohibition, which, it was argued, threatened the very basis of German American social life. The processes of assimilation and the consequent dwindling of traditional German America were well under way in the period before World War I. While the identification of some with the German Empire may have caused a revival of German ethnicity, the attacks upon German American culture after the United States entered the war dealt an additional blow to the surviving institutions, as well as to all public expressions of German ethnicity. The passage of Prohibition laws dealt another blow to the German social organizations, for which beer was a vital element. Suspicions of the use of the German language led to restrictions on the Germanlanguage newspapers and prohibitions on the teaching of German in some places. Overwhelming pressures on all things German doubtless caused many to abandon their already tenuous ties to German ethnicity and hastened their assimilation. An unusual drop in the number of Germanborn recorded in the census of 1920 sug-

102

ASSIMILATION

OF

GERMANS

IN THE

gests that many may have been concealing their German birth from the census taker. But regardless of the events of the wartime crisis, the demographic factors hastening Germans’ assimilation continued relentlessly. Immigration from Germany never again attained the level of the boom of the 1880s. The first-generation immigrants from that era now were being replaced by more numerous second and third generations, who were less eager to assert their German heritage. In the new nativist environment of the 1920s, many Germans hastened to identify themselves as members of the “Nordic” race of northwestern Europeans, praised by the immigration restrictionists as superior to other Europeans. But that position, of course, meant that they had to stress their similarities with the Scandinavians, English, and Irish rather than their own distinctive culture. Given the various attractions of mass popular culture and entertainment that appeared in the Roaring Twenties, Germans saw little reason to spend their leisure time within the old German enclave. Fewer remained in the churches and institutions of the old German neighborhoods as upward social mobility led to geographic mobility, and the younger generations were dispersed more often into neighborhoods of mixed social groups. World War II did not bring any strong pressures on the German Americans as a group, perhaps a sign that the general society did not perceive any strong ethnic loyalties among them. Some German American leaders hoped that new immigration might revive after the war, but the facts did not fulfill their hopes. The new first-generation immigrants of the postwar era included many women who had married U.S. soldiers in Germany, who were subject to many influences to quickly assimi-

UNITED STATES

late, and who raised a second generation with little sense of German ethnicity. Increasingly, many “immigrants” coming to America from Germany were transients representing German businesses or governments. By the end of the twentieth century, the once-impressive German network of ethnic institutions had dwindled to a few vestiges of their former selves, with few others remaining to care about them. But the two-way process of assimilation also left American culture changed. German Americans influenced American life in many ways, even as they were changed by the United States. The most obvious examples are their foodways and the German words (kindergarten, sauerkraut) that became part of the English vocabulary. Many American churches bear the marks of their German foundations. The Germans, followed by other immigrants, helped Americans to change from the somber “Puritan” Sunday observance to the more festive European model. Americans adopted the Christmas holiday (complete with Christmas tree) as it was celebrated among the Germans. Public festivities and observances followed the German model, with family celebrations involving both sexes. German music, both classical and popular, transformed American artistic expression. German gymnastics became the model for American physical culture. Professions such as engineering, pharmacy, and chemistry were influenced by German models. The American educational system was formed in many ways by German influences. And not least, lager beer, so much a part of German life, became a part of American life as well. Much of German culture was now preserved in the context of general American life. James M. Bergquist

ASSING, OTTILIE See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Americanisms in the German Language; Beer; Music (U.S.), German Influence on; National GermanAmerican Alliance; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Pennsylvania; Turner Societies; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Bergquist, James M. “German Americans.” Multiculturalism in the United States: A Comparative Guide to Acculturation and Ethnicity. Eds. John D. Buenker and Lorman A. Ratner. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992. Conzen, Kathleen Neils. “Patterns of German-American History.” Germans in America, Retrospect and Prospect: Tricentennial Lectures Delivered at the German Society of Pennsylvania in 1983. Ed. Randall M. Miller. Philadelphia: German Society of Pennsylvania, 1984. ———. “German-Americans and the Invention of Ethnicity.” America and the Germans: An Assessment of a ThreeHundred-Year History. Eds. Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh. 2 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985, vol. 1: 131–147. Dobbert, Guido A. The Disintegration of an Immigrant Community: The Cincinnati Germans, 1870–1920. New York: Arno Press, 1980. Gjerde, Jon. The Minds of the West: Ethnocultural Evolution in the Rural Middle West, 1830–1917. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origin. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Kazal, Russell M. “Revisiting Assimilation: The Rise, Fall, and Reappraisal of a Concept in American Ethnic History.” American Historical Review 100, no. 2 (April 1995): 437–471. ———. Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

103

ASSING, OTTILIE b. February 11, 1811; Hamburg d. August 12, 1884; Paris, France German journalist who reported about the United States. Ottilie Assing was a mistress and helpmate to Frederick Douglass and a fiercely independent woman. Her mother Rosa Maria Assing (née Varnhagen) was an educated woman of respectable middleclass background, a teacher, and a poet; her father came from a well-to-do Jewish family. When he took up practice as a physician, he preferred to be baptized as a Lutheran. The two sisters Ottilie and Ludmilla (born 1821) received an excellent education from their mother. Ottilie, an exceptionally intelligent child, grew up in a domestic environment marked by unconventionality, liberal ideas, extensive traveling, and the Jewish culture of her grandparents. When the mother died in 1839 and the father in 1842, the two sisters had to fend for themselves. They moved to Berlin to live with their famous uncle, Karl August Varnhagen von Ense. Ottilie, though enjoying the cultural excitement of the big city, soon clashed with her uncle and her sister, and after an attempted suicide in 1843 moved back to Hamburg. Despite having a small independent income, she was determined to work, earn a livelihood, and experience life to the fullest. She learned to paint and began to publish reviews of literature and the arts. She moved in intellectually interesting circles, expressed her radical ideas freely, and scandalized almost everybody by moving in with a prominent, married Hamburg actor, Jean Baptiste Baison, first as a governess to his children and then as his lover. After he died of typhoid fever in 1848, Assing continued to have an amiable and trusting relationship with his wife. In

104

ASSING, OTTILIE

1851 she published her first article (on emigration) in the distinguished journal Morgenblatt für gebildete Leser (Morning News for Educated Readers). In August 1852 she left Hamburg for the United States. She carried with her the verbal agreement to become the Morgenblatt’s American correspondent. Over the course of 14 years, until 1865, she wrote 125 articles, explaining and interpreting the United States to her German readers, presenting her own view on politics, the arts, and most importantly, on the “Negro question” and race relations. During her stay in the United States, Assing wanted to investigate the life of African Americans, having but a vague understanding of race through literature, particularly through Carla Mundt’s novel Aphra Behn. Assing gave an informative account of her crossing in a column entitled “Transatlantische Briefe” (Transatlantic Letters), published in Jahreszeiten (Seasons, November 1852). Upon her arrival in New York, she was guided by the information networks catering to immigrants, stayed in a boarding house suggested to her by a friend, and settled into life in New York City. Since she wanted to report truthfully about the United States, she traveled extensively through New England and upstate New York, avoiding “the West,” which she found lacking in culture and refinement, and all the while reporting to the Morgenblatt about what she experienced. In the United States of the mid-1850s, she could not help but get immersed in the debate over slavery and abolition. Having decided to learn more about the individual experiences of African American slaves, in the summer of 1856 she met Frederick Douglass. He agreed to let her translate his second autobiography, My Bondage and My

Freedom, which was then published in 1860 in Germany as Sklaverei und Freiheit: Autobiographie von Frederick Douglass (Slavery and Freedom: The Autobiography of Frederick Douglass). Working together on this translation project established a relationship that lasted almost thirty years. Assing moved to Hoboken, New Jersey, in the winter of 1856–1857 and rented rooms that could accommodate Douglass’s frequent visits, where she lived in a circle of like-minded Freethinkers, Forty-Eighters, and Socialists. Her relationship with Douglass developed amid activities related to the abolitionist and women’s rights movement and the household routine of the Douglass family. The children made emotional space for the white woman, but Assing condescendingly ignored Mrs. Douglass, Anna Murray. Ottilie continued to work as translator and teacher and became the authoritative voice on all things “Negroe” for the Morgenblatt and her German readers. During the Harper’s Ferry raid in October 1859, Assing and her German American friends proved their loyalty by helping Douglass to escape, first to Canada and then to England, from which he returned in March 1860. During the Civil War, Assing continued to report on the plight of African Americans, and, together with Douglass, analyzed the war from an African American perspective as a struggle of black selfliberation. The political issues that dominated the Reconstruction years affected their relationship but never disrupted it. Assing supported the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment with a vengeance, infuriated by the reluctance of the women’s movement, but she was rather dismissive about the Republican maneuverings regarding the end of Reconstruction and the

ASTOR, JOHN JACOB

lack of equality and support for the African American population. Meanwhile, Douglass had relocated his household to Washington, D.C., enjoying moderate political recognition for his service to the Republican Party. Assing continued to visit over extensive periods of time and supported him publishing a journal, The New National Era, for which she wrote many articles. In July 1876 Assing returned to Europe: she visited her literary and financially successful sister in Florence, traveled extensively in Italy, and went to see friends in Germany. In September 1877 she returned to a rather unstable personal and emotional situation. Helen Pitts had entered the Douglass household. When Assing’s sister died in March 1880, leaving her personal estate in disarray, another trip to Europe was inevitable. Assing departed again in the summer of 1881, unknowingly for the last time. Throughout the following years she lived in Italy. In 1882 Anna Murray died, and in 1884 Douglass married Helen Pitts. Six month later, on August 12, 1884, Assing was found dead in Paris; she had poisoned herself. It was said that she had been diagnosed with incurable cancer. Douglass, who was bequeathed a monthly income during his lifetime, did not seem to reflect on whether her suicide had anything to do with him. Christiane Harzig

See also Forty-Eighters; Slavery in German American and German Texts References and Further Reading Diedrich, Maria. Love across Color Lines: Ottilie Assing and Frederick Douglass. New York: Hill and Wang, 1999. Lohmann, Christoph. Radical Passion: Ottilie Assing’s Reports from America and Letters to Frederick Douglass. New York: Peter Lang, 1999.

105

ASTOR, JOHN JACOB b. July 17, 1763;Walldorf, Palatinate d. March 29, 1848; New York, New York German American fur trader, merchant, and real estate owner in New York City who, in the early nineteenth century, accumulated fabulous wealth and became the first U.S. multimillionaire. John Jacob Astor was the fifth child of a poor butcher who was also named John Jacob Astor and his first wife Maria Magdalena vom Berg in the small village of Walldorf, near Heidelberg. At an early age, he saw no other chance but emigrating to the United States in order to climb up the social ladder. He followed in the footsteps of his two older brothers, George and Henry. First, he made his way to London, where he and his brother George founded a store for selling and constructing musical instruments. Right after the Treaty of Paris (1783) between the United States and Great Britain that ended the American Revolution, he moved on to New York City. As the legend goes, Astor received the idea to trade furs onboard the North Carolina during the time the ship lay frozen in Chesapeake Bay, near Baltimore, from a mysterious fur trader of German descent. On March 24 or 25, 1784, Astor arrived in Baltimore. Finally he made his way to New York City in the spring of 1784. There, he met his brother Henry, who had come to North America as a Hessian soldier during the American Revolution. His brother helped him to find a job in the New World. At first, Astor served as a delivery boy for a German baker. After a while he had earned enough money to found his own store. He traded in German toys, wooden flutes, and other instruments imported

106

ASTOR, JOHN JACOB

John Astor’s first trip for furs. The begining of a great fortune—John Jacob Astor buying furs in western New York. Undated illustration. (Bettmann/Corbis)

from his brother in London. However, his biggest business was the fur trade. As a young immigrant, he walked through the rough wilderness of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania and along the Hudson River valley to Canada to trade furs, following old Native American trails. He bought the furs from Indians, trappers, and Canadian fur traders and on the biggest fur market on the American continent of that time, Montreal. Since he was not allowed to import his furs directly to the United States due to British law, he had to send them to London and from there to New York. The Jay Treaty of 1794 facilitated Astor’s import business. As a result of this treaty, it became possible for Astor to import furs directly from Montreal to New York. This improved his business as well as his profits. Although Astor became a famous fur trader around the turn of the nineteenth century, the major fur trade remained in the hands of two mighty Canadian fur

companies: the North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company. With the encouragement of President Thomas Jefferson and Albert Gallatin, the secretary of the treasury, Astor founded the American Fur Company in 1808 to harness control of the fur trade within the U.S. territory. He established trading outposts from St. Louis to the Rocky Mountains. In 1810 Astor engaged in some new endeavors. He dispatched two expeditions to the Pacific Ocean, one of which was to go overland, winning the confidence of the Indians and exploring locations for new trading posts, while the other was to go by sea around Cape Horn with a full cargo of all supplies needed for the establishment of the settlement on the Columbia River, later known as Astoria. But Astor’s plans failed, and he lost his outpost in the War of 1812 to England. Nevertheless, he continued his businesses in fur trade and real estate, as well as in other fields. He bought low-priced farmland outside of New York City, which

ASTOR, JOHN JACOB

increased greatly in value and became part of the city of New York during Astor’s lifetime, making it expensive real estate. This business became the source of most of his wealth. After three long voyages to Europe, Astor retired from the fur trade in 1834. After his last trip to Europe and the death of his wife Sarah, he tore down his former residence on Broadway to build a hotel. This building, named the Astor House, opened in 1836 as the finest hotel in the United States. Many statesmen and famous people stayed in the Astor House during their sojourn in New York. At the end of the nineteenth century, two of Astor’s descendents used the popularity of the early Astor hotels to build the famous Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Astor became an important economic factor for the young republic because he engaged in many fields of business. As the director of the Hudson & Mohawk Railroad Company, he was involved in establishing the New York State railroad; he owned the Park Theater on Broadway—one of the leading theaters of New York; he lent money to important politicians as well as to other citizens of New York; and he was one of the driving powers behind the upcoming China trade following the example of the American trading vessel, The Empress of China, in 1784. Furthermore, Astor was one of the financial investors of the War of 1812. Together with other businessmen he persuaded the government to establish the Second Bank of the United States. Astor’s funds not only provided the financial foundation of the bank, but Astor himself was appointed by the James Madison administration to be one of the bank’s directors. In his last years Astor lived the life of a patron of culture. He encouraged Washington Ir-

107

ving to write his novel Astoria based on the events that happened to the outpost on the Columbia River during the years 1808–1814. He hired the well-known poet Fitz-Greene Halleck, who lived with the multimillionaire on Astor’s domicile Hell Gate, as his personal secretary. Furthermore, he supported the famous ornithologist John James Audubon, the well-known writer Edgar Allan Poe, and the political career of Henry Clay. During the years 1837–1840 he was the president of the German Society of New York City and donated a large sum to it every year to facilitate the adjustment of German immigrants to life in New York City. When he died, Astor left a fortune of $20 million. In his last will he gave orders to build the Astor Library, which at the end of the nineteenth century was combined with two other libraries to form the New York Public Library. Furthermore, he reserved $50,000 to build a poorhouse in his home village, Walldorf. Astor was the first to live the American dream and to advance from a dishwasher to a millionaire. Alexander Emmerich See also German Society of the City of New York; Hessians; New York City References and Further Reading Emmerich, Alexander W. The American Dream Made in Germany: The Life of John Jacob Astor. Forthcoming, 2005. Haeger, John D. John Jacob Astor: Business and Finance in the Early Republic. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1991. Horn, Wilhelm O. von. Johann Jakob Astor: Ein Lebensbild aus dem Volke für das Volk und seine Jugend. Wiesbaden: Verlag von Kreisel und Riedner, 1854. Parton, James. Famous Americans of Recent Times. Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1867. Porter, Kenneth W. John Jacob Astor: Business Man. 2 vols. New York: Harvard University Press, 1931.

108

AUFBAU

AUFBAU (CONSTRUCTION) A German Jewish periodical published in New York City that gained considerable influence and standing in the years before and after World War II. The Aufbau was founded in New York in 1934 by the German Jewish Club, an association that was soon renamed New World Club. In the first years of its existence the Aufbau was merely the club’s monthly newsletter; its primary purpose was to provide valuable information and tips to the growing community of Jewish refugees (some 85,000 German Jews immigrated to the United States from 1933 onward). Manfred George’s nomination as the new editor in early 1939 revolutionized the Aufbau and turned it into one of the leading anti-Nazi publications of the German press in exile (Exilpresse). George—a well-known left-wing journalist in the Weimar Republic—turned the monthly into a weekly and managed, within the first five years, to increase its circulation from 8,000 to 40,000. This new Aufbau was not exclusively Jewish: quite a few of its contributors were not Jewish, and so was also approximately a fourth of the readership. It became a mouthpiece of the central European émigrés, “the diary of us all,” as exiled author Hans Habe put it. During World War II the Aufbau enjoyed the regular contributions of the brightest exiled intellectuals, including Hanna Arendt, Siegfried Aufhäuser, Julius Bab, Kurt Kersten, Kurt Pinthus, Heinz Pol, and Alfred Polgar. Occasional contributors in those years included novelists Thomas Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Fritz von Unruh, Oskar Maria Graf, Franz Werfel, and Carl Zuckmayer. Some of them also served on the Aufbau’s advisory board, which was founded in 1941.

Exiled intellectuals from the Third Reich conducted ongoing debates about the German past, present, and future and about the nature of Adolf Hitler’s Germany. In these debates between German exiles scattered all over the world—from Moscow to London and from Palestine to Argentina—the New York Aufbau was a key participant. And yet the Aufbau differed from most publications in two regards: first, it never conceived of itself as the periodical of transient exiles but rather of new Americans and thus was categorical in endorsing thorough Americanization. Second, it remained an essentially Jewish publication and dealt extensively with Jewish matters. Confronting the Nazi persecution of Jews in their old homeland, the Aufbau contributors reevaluated not only German history but also the traditional integrationist (or rather assimilatory) path of central European Jewry. The Aufbau (whose contributors were originally non-Zionist for the most part) developed an undeviating proIsraeli standpoint following the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. The Aufbau, however, expressed not only an unequivocal Jewish identity and a deep responsibility for the Jewish cause but also a distinct German cultural identity. One of the most remarkable aspects of its story is the fact that it did not perish with the generation of its founders but continues to this very day (2003). Nowadays it is written for and by the post–World War II generation. It focuses on five major topics—politics, Jewish life, Jewish history, culture, and the German Jewish heritage—and its content appears half in English, half in German. Adi Gordon

AVÉ-LALLEMANT, ROBERT CHRISTIAN BERTHOLD See also Americanization; Ben W. Huebsch et al. and the Viking Press Imprint; Council for a Democratic Germany; Intellectual Exile; Mann, Thomas; Zuckmayer, Carl References and Further Reading Bauer-Hack, Susanne. Die jüdische Wochenzeitung Aufbau und die Wiedergutmachung. Düsseldorf: Droste, 1994. Schaber, Will, and Gert Niers. Aufbau 50 Years, 1934–1984: Eine Ausstellung des Aufbau unter Mitwirkung des Instituts für Zeitungsforschung der Stadt Dortmund. New York: Verlag des Aufbau, 1984. Steinitz, Hans. Der Aufbau: Eine Berliner Zeitung für Deutsche in den USA. Berlin: Presse- und Informationsdienst des Landes Berlin, 1989.

AVÉ-LALLEMANT, ROBERT CHRISTIAN BERTHOLD b. July 25, 1812; Lübeck, Holstein d. October 10, 1884; Lübeck German physician who spent extensive time in Brazil as a doctor and an explorer. Having graduated from medical school at the University of Kiel in 1837, Robert Avé-Lallemant immigrated to Brazil, where he worked as a doctor for nearly seventeen years. During this time, he quickly advanced to becoming the head of the Yellow Fever Hospital and later was appointed a member of the Highest Health Council of the country. In 1855, AvéLallemant returned to Kiel, where he applied for the position of ship’s doctor aboard the Austrian vessel Novara, which was scheduled to embark on the circumnavigation of the globe. Since Alexander von Humboldt supported his application, Avé-Lallemant was chosen as a member of the crew, which left Kiel on April 30,

109

1857. This expedition was under the command of Bernhard Freiherr von Wüllerstorf-Urbair and included such eminent explorers as the natural scientist Karl Ritter von Scherzer and the geologist Ferdinand von Hochstetter. The scientific goal of this expedition was the exploration of the islands in the Pacific and in the Indian Ocean. However, the Austrian team’s circumnavigation of the world was also to serve their home country’s ambitions to be regarded as a world power. Initially enthusiastic about this endeavor, Avé-Lallemant soon had doubts about his decision to join the Novara. When the ship arrived at Madeira, he filed his request to be relieved. After successfully crossing the Atlantic, Avé-Lallemant left the expedition and returned to Brazil. Early in 1858 he embarked on a research voyage to the southern provinces of Brazil Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catharina, Paraná, and São Paulo, where he visited the German settlements and observed the social and economic hardships suffered by its colonists. It was on this trip that he found Aimé Bonpland, the French botanist and long-lost traveling companion of Alexander von Humboldt, in a primitive shack in Corrientes at the Rio Uruguay. Bonpland died shortly after on May 4, 1858. After Avé-Lallemant returned to Rio de Janeiro, he turned his attention toward the northeastern portion of the country. He went on to explore the coastal provinces of Bahia, Pernambuco, Alagoas, and Sergipe as well as the Amazon to Tabatinga. In October 1859 he returned to Lübeck, where, in addition to working as a doctor, he began writing. In his twovolume Reise durch Süd-Brasilien im Jahre 1858 (Travels through South Brazil in

110

AVÉ-LALLEMANT, ROBERT CHRISTIAN BERTHOLD

1858, published in 1859) and his twovolume Reise durch Nord-Brasilien im Jahre 1859 (Travels through North Brazil in 1859, published in 1860), Avé-Lallemant descried his exhausting and sometimes lifethreatening explorations in detail. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Von-derHeydt’sches Reskript

References and Further Reading Ahlers, Olof. “Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1953, 1: 465–466. Hantzsch, Viktor. “Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold.” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1902, 46: 144–146. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1978, 1: 116.

B BAEGERT, CHRISTOPH JOHANNES JAKOB b. December 22, 1717; Schlettstadt, Alsace d. September 29, 1772; Neustadt an der Weinstraße, Palatinate German Jesuit who traveled to lower California and studied the lives of the native tribes. Jakob Baegert became a member of the Societas Jesu (Jesuits) in 1736, studied theology, and entered the priesthood. In 1751, he traveled to lower California in order to work as a missionary in San Luis Gonzaga. During the years of his missionary work, Baegert engaged in cultural, ethnographic, and linguistic studies of the native societies in North and Central America. When the Jesuits were forced to leave Mexico in 1767, Baegert returned to his home via Spain. Summarizing his American experiences, Baegert published anonymously in 1772 his Nachrichten von der amerikanischen Halbinsel Californien mit einem zweyfachen Anhang falscher Nachrichten (the English translation was published under the title Observations in Lower California in 1863–1864). In this book, Baegert analyzed and criticized the writings of other

authors, especially the work of his fellow Jesuit Miguel Venegas, who had published his account on California in 1757 in Spanish. The Nachrichten was divided into three parts: in part 1, Baegert described the natural conditions of the peninsula; part 2 was dedicated to the living conditions and customs of the native people; and part 3 dealt with the history of the Jesuit mission in this area. In the appendix, Baegert refuted the wrong assumptions of other authors. He presented California as a land lacking sufficient precipitation or vegetation and considered the landscape to be entirely worthless in economic terms. In the second part, Baegert described with open sympathy and envy the simple and uncivilized lifestyle of the natives: their nomadic lifestyle, small and dispersed tribes, customs and traditions, family structures, and language (Guaicura), which he was the first to put into writing. In his concluding part, Baegert detailed the hard life, full of deprivation and sacrifices, of the Jesuits. This part was clearly intended to diminish any prejudgments and stereotypes about the Jesuits. With his Nachrichten, Baegert provided the first scholarly introduction to lower California’s culture and people. Heinz Peter Brogiato

111

112

BANANAS AND PINEAPPLES See also Mexico, German Jesuits in References and Further Reading Dunne, Peter Masten. “Baegert Pictures a Lower California Mission.” Mid-America: An Historical Review 30 (1948): 44–65. Oehme, Ruthardt. “Baegert (Begert), Christoph Johannes Jakob.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1953, 1: 517. Schaefer, Ursula. “Father Baegert and His Nachrichten.” Mid-America: An Historical Review 20 (1938): 151–163.

BANANAS AND PINEAPPLES Nowadays fruits from the Americas are part of the daily diet in Germany. Explorers such as Christopher Columbus brought home descriptions and drawings of an until then unknown variety of edible and colorful fruits. Although the most popular of them, pineapples and bananas, do not have their botanical origin in the New World, it was American enterprises that made them affordable and available in Germany by commercializing and industrializing production in their homelands. Today more bananas are eaten in Germany than in any other European country. Nearly a fourth of all European banana imports go from Central and South America via U.S. enterprises to Germany. Though bananas have been known in Europe since the late fifteenth century, it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that fresh bananas from the Americas were regularly imported. The precondition for this change was the development of new cooling technologies, which made it possible to transport the delicate fruit over long distances. Beginning in the 1950s, bananas became one of the most important fruits in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), but,

their import to the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was limited. There the banana became a symbol for material wellbeing. The same was true for pineapples, which had been an element of conspicuous consumption since the late eighteenth century. In contrast to bananas, nobles and the wealthy grew pineapples in hothouses or bought the expensive fruit from gardeners. Fresh pineapples had been imported since the beginning of the twentieth century, but they gained popularity only after World War II, when large quantities of canned fruit appeared on the market for modest prices. Bananas are one of the oldest cultivated plants on earth. Since they are very fertile and grow fast in tropical climates, they spread rapidly throughout the New World—so rapidly that European explorers and chroniclers thought that they were an American fruit. Originally bananas came from Southeast Asia and were brought to the Canary Islands in 1402. The Portuguese missionary and later bishop Tomás de Berlanga planned to make them the people’s food, so he took some plants with him on his travels to the Caribbean Islands in 1512. From there bananas were transplanted to Central America. Alexander von Humboldt saw banana trees on his journeys to the New World and calculated that it would be possible to nourish twenty times as many people with bananas grown on a given piece of land than with wheat. Thus, he prophesied that bananas would gain great importance. He marveled at the enormous fertility of the plant and its sweet fruit; though he was not the first to do so, as the Koran speaks of the “paradise tree.” The famous botanist Carl von Linné thus classified the plant as Musa paradisi-

BANANAS AND PINEAPPLES

aca, and during the nineteenth century Germans spoke of “Paradiesfeigen” (paradise figs) instead of bananas. German botanists were familiar with banana plants, their numerous varieties, and different purposes as early as 1850. They had grown numerous varieties in botanical gardens. But due to the cold climate of Germany, the plants never produced fruit, and so bananas were almost unknown before being imported. Throughout the nineteenth century, English merchants imported smaller quantities of bananas from the Canary Islands to Germany through the large harbors in Bremen and Hamburg. However, around 1900 bananas were still so uncommon that they rotted on the docks because nobody was interested in buying them. Nevertheless, regular imports began around that time, and in 1907 official statistics on the import of bananas began. They show that the import of the fruit to Hamburg was already at 7 million kilograms (15,400,000 lbs) in 1907 and multiplied to 45 million kilograms in 1913. Most of these bananas came, however, from the Canary Islands. Over the years the market share of the United Fruit Company increased, and Germans bought more and more bananas from Central and South America. The invention of cooling techniques and the discovery of methods to control the ripening process were preconditions for long-distance mass transport. The first modern cooling ship, named “Venus,” was launched in 1903. From 1910 to 1913 the imports of bananas to Germany nearly doubled, while bananas and banana products were heavily promoted as health foods, especially for children. Pediatricians were eager to advertise their high nutrition content, digestibility,

113

Bananas ripen in a radio tower, West Berlin, 1956. Today more bananas are eaten in Germany than in any other European country. Nearly a fourth of all European banana imports go from Central and South America via U.S. enterprises to Germany. (Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin)

and sweet taste. Since vitamins had become the new food paradigm in the 1920s, the banana’s content of Vitamins C and D helped to make it even more popular. During the 1920s German imports of bananas from Spain and the Canary Islands fell from 24 percent to 9 percent (1927), whereas the share of imports from Cuba, Jamaica, Honduras, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Panama increased to over 75 percent. With the Nazi seizure of power, imports of bananas decreased tremendously. Advertisement for bananas was forbidden, and doctors were asked not to promote them anymore. This policy was backed by the nutritional advice that bananas were not as healthy as previously thought. Nevertheless, 146,800 tons were still imported in 1937. World War II brought further restrictions, and bananas disappeared from the German

114

BANANAS AND PINEAPPLES

market. But after the end of the war, Germans longed for bananas and welcomed the first import of 900 tons of bananas in 1949 with great enthusiasm. In 1949 around 50,000 tons were imported, and it is worth noting that the relatively modest price of bananas (1.20 to 0.80 DM per kilogram) was part of their success. Bananas became a symbol of West Germany’s new economic power and the first postwar chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, took care that they remained affordable. In 1957 he pushed through a law negating the European Economic Community (EWG) policy that required Germany, like the other European countries, to pay a 20 percent import tax on bananas. During the 1970s the consumption of bananas was at 10 kilograms per person, the highest consumption rate worldwide. Most of these bananas arrived from South and Central America. The year 1993 marked a milestone in German banana consumption, when the tax exception established under Adenauer was abolished. Since then the European Community has limited the imports of bananas and has subsidized imports from countries bound to the European Community, mostly former colonies of France and Great Britain. Another landmark in the recent German history of banana consumption is the year 1989. Bananas had been rare in the GDR because the imports, coming mainly from Ecuador, were limited due to lack of convertible currency. Before Christmas and Easter extra contingents were sold, and kindergartens and hospitals were given preference. But per capita consumption amounted to only 3.9 kilograms in 1989, whereas West Germans consumed 13.5 kilograms. Indeed, bananas were a rarity in

the former GDR and were sought after as a symbol of economic well-being. In fact, bananas were sold out for months after the fall of the Berlin Wall. East Germans came to West Germany and bought whole boxes because they did not believe that they would be on sale the next day. Consumption rose to 27 kilograms per person in the East immediately after November 1989, whereas West Germans ate only 16 kilograms per person that year. Today the consumption of bananas in East Germany is 20 percent higher than in West Germany. The pineapple is another fruit that has a special place in the history of the agricultural exchange between the Americas and Germany. According to the diary of Christopher Columbus, pineapples were grown in Guadelupe, on the coast of Panama, and in the delta of the Amazonas River. They were used to provision ships. The Spaniards spread their cultivation across the Pacific to the Philippines and from there to China and the Portuguese from Brazil to Africa and India. Pineapples became rather well known in Europe and were esteemed as the queen of fruit. Unlike bananas, pineapples were often depicted in paintings, and there was a tradition of sculpting goblets in the shape of pineapples from the seventeenth century onward. In 1711 gardeners supposedly managed to grow the first pineapple in the hothouse of the botanical garden in Leipzig, and in 1715 a doctor from Breslau reportedly harvested a fully mature fruit, which he then sent to the emperor’s court as a present. Like bananas, pineapples are available in numerous botanic variations, but the consumer receives only those that are suited for transport and storage and have certain qualities of taste. Since about

BANCROFT, GEORGE

1850, pineapples grown for sale have come from Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Malaysia, Honduras, Costa Rica, and the British Indies. There have been attempts to grow them in nontropical areas, such as Florida. Transportation was hazardous because unlike bananas, pineapples do not ripen after harvesting. Before World War II, fresh pineapples were imported only from Portugal. Thus, the widespread consumption of pineapples in modern-day Germany is linked to the improvement of transportation and to the invention of industrial canning, which started around the 1890s. Two U.S. enterprises, Dole and Del Monte (California Packing Corporation), built a pineapple empire with their own plantations and their own canning factories. Before World War II, the canning of pineapples was restricted to the colonies. Hawaii served the needs of the United States; Formosa the needs of Japan; and Malaysia the needs of England. But still, pineapples were a luxury, although a fashionable one. In 1911–1913, Germany imported 280,000 kilograms of (fresh) pineapples (in contrast to 37 million kilograms of bananas). By 1928, that number had increased to 9.8 million kilograms, but by 1930, it went down to 6.5 million kilograms. The Nazis abandoned pineapples for the same reasons they reduced the import of bananas. Directly after World War II the quantity increased again, mainly due to an intensification of commercial relations with the United States and to the improvement of canning. German writers have often described the arrival of the tinned pineapple as a sign of the German Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), marking the shift toward exotic food,

115

dishes, and preparations, like Toast Hawaii and pineapple Bowle. Ulrike Thoms See also Americanization; Humboldt, Alexander von; McDonald’s Restaurant References and Further Reading Brunner, Ursula, and Rudi Pfeifer. Zum Beispiel Bananen. Göttingen: Lamuv, 1993. Cadot, Olivier Emmanuel, and Douglas Webber. Banana Splits and Slipping over Banana Skins: The European and Transatlantic Politics of Bananas. San Domenico, FI: European University Institut, 2001. Reichart, Thomas. Die Ananas: Ein neues Wirtschaftsgut? Nürnberg: Wirtschafts- u. Sozialgeographisches Institut der FriedrichAlexander-Universität, 1982. Ritter, Kurt, and Martin Guttfeld. Weltproduktion und Welthandel an frischen Südfrüchten. Berlin: Parey, 1933. Toppel, Johannes. Die Banane: Eine wirtschaftsgeographische Monographie, ihre Geschichte, Anbaubedingungen und Verwertung sowie der Produktionsländer, des Imports, Handels und Verbrauches. BerlinSteglitz: Bodenbender, 1934. Tschoeke, Jutta. “Die Banane—ein neues Volksnahrungsmittel im 20. Jahrhundert.” Industriekultur: Expeditionen ins Alltägliche: Begleitheft zur Ausstellung. Nürnberg, 1982, 98–102.

BANCROFT, GEORGE b. October 3, 1800;Worcester, Massachusetts d. January 17, 1891;Washington, D.C. Father of American history who received his university education at the University of Göttingen and who was appointed minister to the Kingdom of Prussia/German Empire from 1867 to 1874. His father, Aaron Bancroft, a Unitarian minister, had fought in the Revolutionary War and later wrote a popular and

116

BANCROFT, GEORGE

often reprinted Life of Washington (1807). His mother, Lucretia Chandler, was born on Gardiner’s Island, across from New London, Connecticut. This family could trace their ancestry back to Puritans who had come to New England in 1652. Bancroft initially embraced this heritage by “prepping” at Phillips Exeter Academy, and entering Harvard at age thirteen. After graduating from Harvard in 1817, he went on to study for a divinity degree, and money was raised to send him to the University of Göttingen, where he studied theology, languages (Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic Greek), the antiquities of Greece and Rome, and a survey of Greek philosophy from 1818 to 1820. He took an MA and earned a PhD. This was the start of his lifelong dedication to academic work. He selected history as a special area for study under August Heeren, his philosophy professor, and learned the idea of scientific history, based upon primary sources and unified in focus. Although his university training was not different from that of the handful of earlier American students, Bancroft distinguished his education in that he created a context by visiting leading European intellectuals. From 1821 to 1822 he toured Europe and met Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher and Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel in Berlin; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in Weimar; Alexander von Humboldt, Marquis de Lafayette, Albert Gallatin, and Washington Irving in Paris; and Lord Byron in Italy. Upon his return to Worcester, Bancroft experimented in applying this training to a career. He spent a year tutoring students at Harvard, presenting guest sermons and exploring the life of a minister. In the end, he decided against becoming a

minister and shifted over to a teaching career. Bancroft took over a private school but eventually gave up teaching. His translation of Heeren’s The Politics of Ancient Greece (1824) into English indicated his high level of proficiency in German. In 1827, he married Sarah Dwight in Boston (she died in 1837; Elizabeth Bliss was his second wife, from 1838 to 1886) and became involved in politics. In 1830, he was elected to the Massachusetts General Court (the legislature), but he refused to serve. About this time he began researching the colonial period and frequently published historically oriented but politically focused articles in the North American Review. He received popular success and critical acclaim with the 1834 publication of the first volume of his History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent. Using abundant footnotes and foreign sources, he perfected a polished style of narrative synthesis, which soon won him the title of Father of American History. He succeeded in applying the German idea of scientific history and combined it with the “hidden” influence of Teutonic folkways on the English settlement of the eastern coast of North America. He created elaborate vignettes of individuals that showed their own viewpoint but also incorporated moral judgments from the enlightened view of the 1830s. Bancroft placed a highly normative value upon the “progress” of colonization while dealing with slavery as part of Western civilization. His working assumption was that the importance of an individual’s character, for both villains and heroes, rested upon free will, responsibility, and culpability. Bancroft utilized the New England clerical tradition by always looking for the

BANCROFT, GEORGE

role of Providence in causing historical change. From his German university training, Bancroft believed that history was an empirical science because it was based upon exact observation of facts. These “facts” created an explanation of causation, and since general laws were assumed to exist, history was based upon truth that was harmonious, just, and permanent. Bancroft fused this historical understanding with the Transcendental belief in God’s Providence overruling individual mistakes. Moreover, events were organically connected to earlier decisions so the proto-democratic institutions of colonial America resembled the earlier Teutonic folkways and included personal freedom, a free press, and popular sovereignty. American independence from the British Empire followed the ultimate criteria: acceptance of the “common mind,” moderation, activity, and lack of ambition. It is not surprising that Leopold von Ranke praised Bancroft’s work as the best history ever written from the democratic point of view. Bancroft financed his multivolume series of books (10 volumes, 1834–1874) through his career as a politician. He was named to the lucrative patronage post of collector of the Port of Boston for the years 1838 to 1840. The writing of his major work therefore paralleled his political career—there was a twelve-year hiatus, from 1840 to 1852, before other volumes appeared. During this time he was defeated as the Democratic candidate for the governor of Massachusetts in 1844 but was named secretary of the navy (1845–1846) and helped to establish the Naval Academy. When he was named U. S. minister to Great Britain (1846–1849), Bancroft spent

117

this time assiduously collecting primary documents not only in London but also in Paris and Madrid. This research appeared in volumes 4, 5, and 6 in the decade of the 1850s, but volume 7 (1858) contained no citations at all! Volume 8 came out just before the beginning of the Civil War. Bancroft became a War Democrat who abhorred slavery but still remained true to the party of Andrew Jackson. After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, Bancroft wrote the speech that Vice President Andrew Johnson delivered, and Bancroft was eventually appointed U.S. minister to the Kingdom of Prussia in 1867. The next seven years that he spent in Berlin were the happiest of his entire career. His early friendship with German scholars provided a sense of homecoming to his appointment, and he was received like an honorary German American. He became intimate friends with German politicians such as Otto von Bismark and Helmut von Moltke; at the same time he was on equal footing with the historians Theodor Mommsen and Leopold von Ranke. He celebrated his fiftieth anniversary of receiving his doctorate from the University of Göttingen at an impressive Jubilaeum at the university and received an honorary LLD. Bancroft also was accepted into the Mittwochs-Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Unterhaltung, which was limited to sixteen living intellectuals. In 1868 he received diplomatic status by the North German Confederation, and became involved in the issue of naturalization. He negotiated treaties with the kingdoms, duchies, and free cities of the confederation. This led to the first international recognition of the principle of the right of expatriation for emigrants (Bancroft Treaty).

118

BARBIE, KLAUS

Upon returning to the United States in 1874, he retired from public life to devote himself to historical research. He had scoured the Prussian archives and used his ambassador post as a basis for securing primary documents from throughout Europe. He busied himself with using primary documents to complete volume 10, the final one in the set, and then revising the ten into six volumes for a Centennial Edition in 1876, “The Author’s Last Revision.” In this edition he corrected mistakes, added new information, and made stylistic elisions. Bancroft accepted the presidency of the fledgling American Historical Association in 1886 and remained active up to the few months preceding his death. With his death, most academics felt that the last truly national figure had died. William Roba See also American Students at German Universities; Encyclopaedia Americana; Everett, Edward; German Unification (1871); Göttingen, University of; Humboldt, Alexander von; Transcendentalism References and Further Reading Howe, M. A. de Wolfe. The Life and Letters of George Bancroft. 2 vols. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1908. Nye, Russell B. George Bancroft: Brahmin Rebel. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1944.

BARBIE, KLAUS b. October 25, 1913; Bad Godesberg (Rhineland), Prussia d. September 25, 1991; Lyon, France Klaus Barbie was instrumental in the torture and deaths of thousands of French Resistance members and the deportation of thousands of Jews during World War II.

After the end of the war, he was protected by the British and American occupiers. He escaped later to South America. After he had attended the Friedrich Wilhelm Institute, Barbie joined the Schutzstaffel (SS) in 1933 and became a member of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) in 1937. His sadistic personality reveled in his power as a Gestapo agent. Barbie served as an intelligence officer for Jewish affairs. In May 1941 Barbie was posted to Amsterdam, where he took charge of putting down the February strike in 1941 by sealing off the Jewish quarter. He is responsible for the deportation of hundreds of Jewish children who were sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp and later transferred to Mauthausen, where they were worked to death in its stone quarry. Barbie was transferred to Lyon in May 1942 and became head of the local Gestapo, where his role was to extinguish the Resistance. He personally tortured men, women, and children—whoever was deemed an enemy of the Reich. Barbie was responsible for the death of Jean Moulin, a leading member of the French Resistance, whom he personally tortured. For his brutality Barbie became quickly known as the Butcher of Lyon. He was involved directly and indirectly in the deportation of over 7,000 people, more than 400 murders, and the arrests of over 14,000 Resistance fighters in Lyon. After World War II ended, Barbie returned to Germany. The English employed him as an expert in police matters until 1947. He then enjoyed protection and employment from the U.S. Army’s Counter Intelligence Corps. He was useful because he could easily penetrate the

BARTZ, FRITZ

Communist Party cells springing up throughout Germany. The U.S. government protected Barbie until 1955, despite the fact that the Military Tribunal of Lyon sentenced Barbie to death in absentia in 1952 and 1954 for war crimes. The Americans refused to extradite him to France and instead created a false identity for him using the name of Klaus Altmann. They sent Barbie and his family to Bolivia, where he became a citizen in 1957. Barbie became a businessman who moonlighted in police investigations for Bolivia’s dictators. In 1971 the Nazi hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfeld found Barbie in La Paz using the name of Klaus Altmann. However, the Bolivian government would not allow Barbie’s deportation. He moved to Peru to hide from the Klarsfelds, but in doing so he lost his protection and was extradited to France on January 18, 1983. It took four years of preparation to amass the witnesses, affidavits, and other materials. Barbie stood trial in the Rhône Court of Assizes on May 11, 1987, for crimes against humanity. He did not recognize the court or the proceedings and scarcely attended sessions. Overwhelming evidence led to the jury finding him guilty with no extenuating circumstances. Barbie was sentenced to life imprisonment. Annette Richardson See also Argentina; Braun, Wernher von; Latin America, Nazis in References and Further Reading Finkielkraut, Alain. Remembering in Vain: The Klaus Barbie Trial and Crimes against Humanity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. Murphy, Brendan. The Butcher of Lyon: The Story of Infamous Nazi Klaus Barbie. New York: Empire Books, 1983.

119

Paris, Erna. Unhealed Wounds: France and the Klaus Barbie Affair. New York: First Grove Press, 1985.

BARTZ, FRITZ b. April 8, 1908;Themar,Thuringia d. June 21, 1970; Spreitenbach, Switzerland German geographer and professor who became famous for his work on the North American fishing industry. Fritz Bartz studied geography, biology, and Volkswirtschaftslehre (political economy) at the universities of Berlin, Vienna, Kiel, and Bonn. Fascinated by the travels of Sven Hedin, Bartz decided to write his dissertation on the fauna of Tibet and the Himalayan region. He received his doctoral degree for his thesis Das Tierleben Tibets und des Himalaya-Gebirges (The Animal Life of Tibet and the Himalaya Mountains) in 1935. Afterward, Bartz went to the United States, first as a scholarship recipient and then as an instructor of geography. He taught from 1935 to 1939 at Stanford University in Palo Alto, at Reed College in Portland, and at the University of California at Berkeley. When World War II broke out in 1939, Bartz was on a trip through East Asia (Japan, Korea, Manchuria, and northern China). He returned to Germany via Siberia. On extensive travels along the western coast of North America between Mexico and the Bering Strait, including long stays in Alaska and British Columbia, Bartz gathered the material for his Habilitationsschrift (postdoctoral degree). This thesis was published in 1942 under the title Fischgründe und Fischereiwirtschaft an der West-

120

BAUDISSIN, ADELBERT HEINRICH, COUNT

küste Nordamerikas (Fishing Grounds and the Fishing Industry of the West Coast of North America). In the following years, Bartz published several books and articles on the fishing trade in the Pacific and on the geography and culture of North America. In 1949 he received an honorary professorship of economic geography at the University of Bonn, though he took a guest professorship in 1950–1951 at Berkeley and also taught at the University of Minnesota. In 1959 he was appointed chair of geography at the University of Freiburg, where he taught until he died. Bartz traveled repeatedly to the Americas: in 1953 he embarked on a journey from Florida to eastern Canada; in 1966 he traveled to South America; in 1967 he visited the United States again; and in 1969 he toured Central America, Mexico, and Canada. In addition, research led him to the Orient, East Asia, South Africa, and Oceania. He reflected upon his worldwide travels in the three-volume handbook Die großen Fischereiräume der Welt (The Great Fishing Areas of the World, 1964–1965). Volume 3 is dedicated to the Americas. Besides his main field of research, the fishing industry, Bartz also dedicated himself to other topics, such as agrarian and economic geography and the research of cultural landscapes, in which the North American subcontinent stood again and again at the center of his interests. He published a geographical introduction on Alaska in 1950 and an urban-geographical study of the settlement density in the San Francisco Bay region in 1954. Heinz Peter Brogiato References and Further Reading Bartz, Fritz. San Francisco–Oakland Metropolitan Area. Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown, 1968. Schott, Carl. “Fritz Bartz.” Geographische Zeitschrift 58 (1970): 241–250.

BAUDISSIN, ADELBERT HEINRICH, COUNT b. January 25, 1820; Hovegaard, Denmark d. March 26, 1871;Wiesbaden, Prussia German American author who wrote An den Ansiedler im Missouri-Staat: Den deutschen Auswanderen gewidmet (The Settler in Missouri: Dedicated to the German Immigrants) to give potential German migrants a better description of the Missouri River valley. Baudissin, a Forty-Eighter, a journalist, an author, and a member of prominent noble family in SchleswigHolstein, was the son of Christian Carl Count Baudissin, who had been forced into Danish exile from his northern German estate after an affair with a married woman, Henriette Kungler, Adelbert’s mother. Growing up in Denmark and Schleswig, Adelbert experienced the political turbulence surrounding the duchy of SchleswigHolstein and its principal antagonists, Denmark, Prussia, and Austria. After studying mining in Saxony, he became a civil servant in 1843 for the Habsburg monarchy. Despite their religious differences, he married the Catholic Pauline von Gersdorff in 1844 but divorced her within a year. When Schleswig-Holstein revolted against Danish rule and oppression, he volunteered for the Schleswig-Holstein militia and later rose to the rank of lieutenant in the duchy’s army. After the revolt was suppressed, he emigrated to the United States in 1852. With his brother Julius, Adelbert arrived in New York City in June 1852 on route to settle in Missouri, where two older brothers had settled years earlier; Waldemar in 1840 and Felix in 1847. While in New York City he married Luisa del Strother and arrived with her in the autumn of 1852 in Portland, Missouri, a small town

BAUDISSIN, ADELBERT HEINRICH, COUNT

located in central Missouri along the Missouri River, approximately 100 miles from St. Louis. Though he lived in the United States only for another ten years, his time in Missouri is characterized by intensive work on behalf of German immigration, his republican ideals of freedom and liberty, and a commitment to public life. After two years in Portland, in 1854 Adelbert published An den Ansiedler im Missouri-Staat, one of the best examples of immigration literature. In the wake of Gottfried Duden’s seminal work Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten Nordamerikas (Report on a Journey to the Western States of America, 1829), German immigration to the United States exploded in the late 1840s and continued through the early 1850s, but many of the publications on the United States were general or academic in nature. Baudissin desired to correct misconceptions about life in the United States and offered a detailed account of what awaited German immigrants in one localized area, namely the Missouri River valley. The work reads like a cultural document, outlining social and natural conditions in the state. More than anything, it is a “survival manual” that offers pragmatic suggestions to the potential immigrant; warns him of dangers and pitfalls; and then gives specific advice on how to start a new life, such as purchasing property, clearing land, building a farmhouse, farming, and all other aspects related to life on the farm. Baudissin stresses that a successful German immigrant should have financial means; be knowledgeable about the area where he wishes to settle; and realize that everything, from farming, business, money, and personal relationships to politics is different in the United States and that former experiences in Germany will be

121

useless in the new homeland. Baudissin reveals himself as a master observer and writes candidly about the horrors of the seven-week voyage to the United States and the dangerous trek across the country and then insightfully portrays the culture of the United States, including the concept of democracy, representative government and its institutions, American attitudes toward Germans, nativism, and the problem of slavery. Der Ansiedler serves as one of the first and arguably most thorough cultural and natural histories of Missouri whose format sets the standard for subsequent state histories. Seeking a more prominent role in public life in the rapidly developing West, Adelbert moved with his family to Washington, Missouri, located approximately 40 miles from St. Louis, in 1854. Washington was a bustling town known for its German immigrant community. Civic minded and dedicated to the advancement of the arts, Adelbert founded the German-language newspaper, Der Courier (The Courier), and became active in local politics. He became a successful businessman, owning a drugstore, and farmer. Like the overwhelming majority of Forty-Eighters, Adelbert opposed slavery and welcomed the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861. Missouri was a slave state, though the population was evenly divided between Unionists and Confederates. This division soon engulfed the state, especially the Missouri River valley, where most German immigrants lived, in a fierce struggle. Disillusioned with initial southern victories, Adelbert returned to Germany with his family in 1862, settled in Hamburg, and resumed his life as a civil servant and author. Ironically, he returned to Germany just when Otto von Bismarck began to unify Germany through a series of

122

BAUHAUS

wars, culminating with the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871, during which Adelbert served as a war correspondent. He became sick in 1870 and died in the next year. After his return to Germany, Adelbert published considerably on the SchleswigHolstein wars of 1848–1851 and other political matters but could not forget the United States. In 1866 he published Peter Tütt: Zustände in Amerika (Peter Tütt: Conditions in America), in which he attempted to reveal everyday life in the United States to the Germans. His belief in representational government and personal freedoms is still apparent in sections on politics, voting, and July Fourth, but an undercurrent of disappointment in the United States caused by slavery, deception, and greed gives the publication a bitter tone. Unlike in Der Ansiedler, he no longer enthusiastically championed German immigration to the United States. Gregory H. Wolf See also Forty-Eighters References and Further Reading Baudissin, Adelbert Heinrich. An den Ansiedler im Missouri-Staat: Den deutschen Auswanderen gewidmet. Iserlohn, Germany: Bädecker, 1854. Greely, Ralph. “Count Baudissin on Missouri Towns.” The Bulletin [of the] Missouri Historical Society (January 1971): 111–124. Wilkey, Stanley. Washington, Missouri: Yesterday through Tomorrow. Washington, MO: Bicentennial Commission of Washington, MO, 1975.

BAUHAUS For many Americans the International Style in modern architecture is synonymous with the Bauhaus (building house),

the influential German school of art, architecture, and design. This is true in large part because faculty and alumni of the institute, not least its charismatic founding director Walter Gropius, brought many of the forms and methodologies of modernism with them to the United States as refugees from the Third Reich. Although other German-speaking architects and designers contributed to American modernism, nearly all crucial episodes of German American relations in modern design can be traced to the Bauhaus, in the fields of commercial graphics, furniture design, and design education, as well as architecture. Walter Gropius’s refusal to limit his school’s mission to the teaching of architecture, his insistence that every field of practical design could be an outlet for creativity as well as social betterment, is the key to the Bauhaus’s worldwide influence. The Bauhaus’s roots can be traced to currents in design during the German Empire (1871–1918) and the young architect Walter Gropius’s concern for design’s fate in an industrial mass society. A member of the German Werkbund, an organization of designers, industrialists, and educators founded in 1908, Gropius shared its concern with the inadequacy for modern needs of traditional fine arts training of artists and architects, as well as the apprenticeship and trade school systems in the applied arts. Inspired by fellow Werkbund member Henry van de Velde, who in turn based his ideas on the arts and crafts philosophy of William Morris, Gropius began to plan a school curriculum that erased distinctions between “fine” and “applied” art. It was based on a philosophy of design education that would identify basic laws of form and fitness for use. The resulting products,

BAUHAUS

Gropius believed, would meet modern needs both practically and spiritually, as they healed the schism between the artist and the ordinary citizen. By the time he founded the Staatliches Bauhaus (supported by the state of Thuringia) in Weimar in 1919, Gropius, shocked by his experience in World War I, had retreated from his prewar embrace of industrial civilization. He established the school on a handicraft- rather than an industrial-training basis, and its dominant mood was that of a utopian colony divorced from the world. The institute’s Vorkurs (Basic Course) was taught at first by painters identified with the antimodern Expressionist movement, with the Swiss Johannes Itten as the leading figure and Wassily Kandinsky, a founder of abstract painting, among the staff. (The German American painter Lyonel Feininger, although always essentially detached from the school’s practical education, was part of this initial cadre.) Gropius hoped that the investigations into pure form pursued by radical painters would lead to a new basis for design thinking in architecture and applied design, replacing the imitation of classical or Gothic prototypes. The idea of a new beginning in society as well as art was paramount. It has been suggested that Itten’s philosophy of creating form out of the tasks and inspirations of the moment borrowed from American pragmatist John Dewey’s philosophy of education as learning through experience instead of memorizing a “correct” curriculum. Itten encouraged students to find laws of basic design, formal and practical, through free experiment with scrap material and exercises with colors and patterns. Itten’s Expressionist antimodernism and mysticism pushed the

123

school’s meager output toward a rough, heavy, vaguely cubist-influenced style. The Bauhaus took its mature direction in 1922–1923. Many students, and then Gropius himself, were swayed by the promachine arguments, backed up by striking designs, of the Dutch De Stijl movement and the Russian constructivists. Deciding that only by embracing the machine and the forms most in tune with its processes could the school help society, Gropius proclaimed, “Art and Technology—A New Unity.” The Hungarian-born constructivist painter Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, an unabashed enthusiast for the machine, replaced Itten in 1923 as director of the Vorkurs. He and his pupil, painter Josef Albers, became the bulwarks of Gropius’s curriculum. Keeping Itten’s Vorkurs intact, Moholy-Nagy and Albers encouraged play with smooth surfaces, simple geometric shapes, serene yet dynamic formal compositions, and industrial materials. Under Moholy’s direction of the metals workshop, the school created the first mass-production modernist lighting fixtures and pioneered chromed-steel furniture. Gropius’s stirring rhetoric and personal charisma quickly made Bauhaus a shorthand term for avant-garde functionalist design throughout Germany. In the process he awakened the enmity of the political and cultural Right, which would dog the school for the rest of its existence. During the Bauhaus’s peak period of 1925–1928, when the school relocated to Gropius’s striking white-cubic building complex in Dessau—with its soon-to-befamous glass-walled workshop wing—the school’s credo was a creative process without preconceptions. However, the Bauhaus quickly became identified (not entirely

124

BAUHAUS

unfairly, since Gropius had pushed the school to find a universal grammar of design) with a style of smooth horizontals, white or glass cubistic forms accented with primary colors, clean sans-serif or lowercase graphics, and the air of machine functionality. In addition, for many students and some faculty, Americanization was a powerfully attractive ideal that steered them away from art and toward bold practicality. As an architect, Gropius thought of himself as a creative experimenter with standardized industrial modules, like Henry Ford with the Model T, and is alleged to have solicited Ford (unsuccessfully) for support. More generally, if nebulously, America’s supposed spirit of engagement with the present, its bold embrace of the machine age and spurning of the past, inspired many at the school. American-style jazz was popular among students, and one student declared in the school magazine that Ford and Edison were honorary Bauhausler (along with Pablo Picasso and Albert Einstein). Gropius himself toured the United States in 1928 and became preoccupied both with issues of mass production and the technologies of skyscraper construction. By this time, however, Gropius had stepped down as the Bauhaus’s director. Under his successor, Hannes Meyer, the politically engaged functionalist who had headed the school’s architecture department, the school’s americanism intensified. However, the school’s pursuit of free creativity waned, a consequence of Meyer’s insistence on practical design that would serve the industrial masses. Student spirit for engaging with society ran high, but dissatisfaction among those who still valued the fine arts and a fear that the school’s po-

litical engagement endangered it led to Meyer’s replacement by the apolitical, magisterial Ludwig Mies van der Rohe in 1930. Mies ran the school as an architectural atelier, with only Kandinsky and Albers remaining from the Gropius era, until Nazi elements in the Dessau city government forced the school’s closure in early 1932. Mies reopened it in Berlin as a private school, but the Nazis sealed its building under suspicion of Communist activities soon after Adolf Hitler’s seizure of power. Rather than accept Nazi demands to alter the curriculum, Mies chose to disband the institution in the summer of 1933. The Bauhaus had attracted a few American students, beginning with artist Florence Henri in the late 1920s, but for the most part the American presence was limited to male architecture students in the final years under Mies. American avantgarde “little magazines” occasionally spotlighted Bauhaus architectural designs along with other European modernist manifestations, and architectural journals described the “extreme functionalism” of Gropius’s architecture, ignoring the rest of the curriculum. Significant American attention to the school began in 1927, when the young Harvard-trained art historian Alfred Barr toured the school and met Gropius. Barr’s preoccupation with finding a unified style for all the arts in the machine age seemed to him to have been triumphantly met in Gropius’s school. As director of the new Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), Barr exhibited architecture, painting, photography, and typography from the school. Although it featured Gropius only as one of many architects in a worldwide “International Style,” MoMA’s 1932 “Modern Architecture: International Exhibition”

BAUHAUS

brought the Bauhaus’s founder to the attention of American design schools desperate for reform. After Hitler’s seizure of power, Barr’s efforts and those of MOMA’s architecture curator Philip Cortelyou Johnson (a devotee of Mies) secured teaching positions for Bauhaus alumni in the United States. Albers found a position teaching art at the experimental Black Mountain College (1933). Chicago industrialists brought over Moholy-Nagy as head of a New Bauhaus in Chicago (1937), soon reorganized as the School of Design. Barr and architectural educator Joseph Hudnut secured Gropius’s appointment as director of the architecture curriculum at Harvard University (1936– 1937). Alumni designers Marcel Breuer, Herbert Bayer, Alexander (Xanti) Schawinsky, Herbert Matter, and Mies soon followed. Even though MOMA’s 1938 show on the Gropius years of the Bauhaus was a critical and popular failure, it helped cement a growing idea that functionalist architecture, modernist commercial design, and geometric abstract art were all synonymous with the Bauhaus. Renewed contact between the former Bauhausler in optimistic circumstances led to new creativity for many, notably in Breuer’s imaginative output of small country houses (in practice with Gropius) and Bayer’s exhibition designs for MOMA and advertisements for the Container Corporation of America (CCA). The Swiss art historian Sigfried Giedion’s book Space, Time, and Architecture (1941), based on lectures he had given at Harvard at Gropius’s invitation, was influential in cementing the Bauhaus approach as the cornerstone of modern architecture. (Mies and his most loyal Bauhaus faculty, especially Walter Pe-

125

Chicago Bauhaus School—in the former home of Marshall Field. Dr. Walter Gropius (lt) and Laszlo Moholy-Nagy on the famous circular staircase with students, 1938. (Bettmann/Corbis)

terhans and planner-architect Ludwig Hilberseimer, tended not to associate with the Gropius group.) The post–World War II years saw both triumph for and growing criticism of the Bauhaus influence in the United States. Gropius uprooted the Beaux-Arts curriculum from Harvard but was unable to introduce the complete Bauhaus Vorkurs curriculum. His approach, which influenced all departments of the Graduate School of Design, stressed an unprejudiced approach to problems of architecture as a social environment. In practice, this meant planning exercises that stressed urban decentralization and an approach to building design that turned functional elements into bold formal patterns. Marcel Breuer emerged as the dominant teacher of architecture in the school. Although graduates like I. M. Pei

126

BAUHAUS

and the Australian Harry Seidler adopted much from his form language, Paul Rudolph and Philip Cortelyou Johnson (who had chosen architectural practice over historical scholarship) increasingly took their own paths. So did Mies, directing the architecture program at the Illinois Institute of Technology and becoming increasingly preoccupied with the steel industrial frame. Moholy-Nagy proved more successful as an inspiring spirit than director of a school, although his impact on younger designers like Charles Eames and Paul Rand was considerable. The élan of the Bauhaus years survived most undiluted at Black Mountain College, where Gropius, Moholy, and other alumni were frequent visitors to Albers’s courses and to the school’s famous Summer Institute. The school had no architecture or design curriculum, however, and by the late 1940s was increasingly under the influence of writers and teachers of literature. Albers became head of Yale’s fine art curriculum in 1950 and successfully directed its path toward abstract art until 1970. His wife Anni, an important member of the Bauhaus community, gained respect as a leading textile artist. Throughout this period an American Bauhaus style of lightweight planes in bright, simple, primary-colored forms, playful yet machined, could be felt in the best American commercial design until the 1970s, epitomized by Herbert Bayer’s work for CCA and Atlantic Richfield. Unfortunately, Americans who picked up Bauhaus forms and methods often ignored the idealism (social and philosophical) behind them and began to equate Bauhaus style with either blank utility or a formalism of abstract geometry. It might be said that Gropius’s decision in the early

Weimar days to drop the study of past design, as a drag on individual creativity and an irrelevance to modern conditions, encouraged a reaction toward a more historically rooted (or at least more familiarlooking) forms. The use of apparently Bauhaus-influenced forms in the muchreviled megaprojects of late modernism, such as Wallace Harrison’s New York State governmental complex in Albany, discredited (however unfairly and uncomprehendingly) Gropius’s philosophy of “total design.” By the time Gropius and Mies died in 1969, a looser, more ironic, and historicist pluralism, often casting the Bauhaus as its enemy, had begun to push aside the Bauhaus ideals of learning through doing and exploring the fundamentals of design. Miles David Samson See also Americanization; Einstein, Albert; Ford, Henry; Gropius, Walter Adolph; Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig References and Further Reading Allen, James Sloan. The Romance of Commerce and Culture: Capitalism, Modernism, and the Chicago-Aspen Crusade for Cultural Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Alofsin, Anthony. The Struggle for Modernism: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and City Planning at Harvard. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002. Harris, Mary Emma. The Arts at Black Mountain College. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987. Kentgens-Craig, Margret. The Bauhaus and America: First Contacts, 1919–1936. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. Naylor, Gillian. The Bauhaus Reassessed: Sources and Design Theory. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1985. Wingler, Hans M. Bauhaus in Amerika: Resonanz und Weiterentwicklung. Berlin: Bauhaus-Archiv, 1972. Wingler, Hans M., ed. The Bauhaus: Weimar, Dessau, Berlin, Chicago. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986.

BECKER, PHILIP

BECKER, JOÃO b. February 24, 1870; Sankt Wendel, Rhineland d. June 15, 1946; Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil Son of Catholic southern German emigrants who was ordained archbishop of Porto Alegre in 1912 and became famous for his public anti-German sentiments. João Becker’s parents left for Brazil in 1878. Raised a Catholic, Becker was ordained in 1897 and served as a priest in Porto Alegre, the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, until he was appointed bishop of Florianópolis, the capital of Santa Catarina, in 1908 and archbishop of Porto Alegre in 1912. Becker was one of the leading representatives of political Catholicism in Brazil. Closely connected to the central government, Becker had far-reaching political ambitions. He tried vehemently to get loyal priests elected to parliament and hoped for a political career for himself. In 1923, Becker acted as a negotiator between the two parties of the so-called Revolution of 1923, between the government of Borges de Medeiros, from the Republic Party of Rio Grande do Sul, and the followers of Francisco de Assis Brasil, from the Federalist Party. He attempted to present himself as a suitable candidate for the Senate. In spite of his German origin, Becker belonged to the so-called ethnic renegades. During World War I, Becker closed the German-speaking Saint Josephs Community in Porto Alegre and agreed to be appointed as the leader of the nationalistic Liga de Defesa Nacional (Association for National Defense). According to contemporaries, Becker is said to have stated that the German immigration to Brazil was no

127

good for the country and that the Germans had polluted Brazil with their Kantian thoughts, Protestantism, and beer breweries. He even came into conflict with German Jesuits in Rio Grande do Sul. To avoid any conflict with the governing authorities, Becker supported LusoBrazilian politicians who were backed by Getúlio Vargas but branded by the Catholic Church as enemies of the Catholic faith. During the 1930s, Becker fully supported the nationalist policy of the central government and approved of the closing of all schools that offered education in non-Portuguese languages (in 1938). In line with Vargas’s initial support and admiration for the Fascist and National Socialist regimes in Europe, Becker held a very positive view of Adolf Hitler’s and Benito Mussolini’s dictatorships. However, when Vargas joined the Allies in 1942, Becker abandoned his earlier opinions and supported the fight against Nazi Germany. René Gertz See also Brazil References and Further Reading Isaia, Artur Cesar. Catolicismo e autoritarismo no Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 1998.

BECKER, PHILIP b. April 25, 1830; Oberotterbach on the Rhine d. July 4, 1898; Buffalo, New York Philip Becker and Henry Overstolz of St. Louis, both elected in 1875, were the first German immigrants to serve as mayors of major American cities. Becker was a merchant and Republican mayor (1876–1877, 1886–1889) of Buffalo, New York. He was

128

BECKER, PHILIP

a committed member and virtual leader of Buffalo’s German American community, socially, financially, and politically. His status as the “Uncle Philip” of the German community lasted from his effort to ensure the presence of German instruction in the schools in 1873 to his leadership of local German American opposition to William Jennings Bryan in 1896. Becker came directly to the emergent “Queen City of the Great Lakes” in 1847. Securing supervisory positions in Buffalo stores, he worked seven years before opening up his own Main Street grocery business. Over the next forty years, Becker became known as the “Merchant Prince.” His store was the leading wholesale grocery business of western New York during the last third of the century. One of his two other major concerns, the Buffalo German Insurance Company, also enjoyed remarkable success, erecting a massive building with soaring tent roofs that occupied the prestigious downtown corner of Lafayette Square. Becker’s local fame rose quickly after the Civil War, during a period when he was thought to have become the city’s third millionaire. In the early 1870s he was the dominant force in a committee that built Buffalo’s City Hall, which remains one of the landmarks of nineteenth-century Buffalo, as the Erie County Hall. Becker became an activist in German circles. As an organizer of those who favored Germanlanguage courses on the Anglo-dominated west side of the city in 1873, he played a key role in the successful struggle to maintain German instruction in public schools. This success, his mayoral victory in 1875, and his role as president of the German Insurance Company from 1869 to 1893

made him a central philanthropist and political representative of German American societies. As the very nature of the cultural associations known as Vereine moved away from purely cultural pursuits to a stronger business orientation, Becker became a leading voice in the key Verein of Buffalo. In 1883 he was elected president of the Sängerfest (Singer’s Festival) in Buffalo, which drew choirs from around the country. Becker contributed much to making the event memorable, including raising funds for the city’s first Music Hall and a triumphal arch over Main Street. He also intervened musically, helping to decide which singing societies would be most prominently displayed and eventually helping to oust a director of only local fame from his position. When a gas chandelier set the first Music Hall ablaze in 1885, Becker led the effort that resulted in the construction of a second one. Becker showed that a thick German accent and a willingness to promote German causes were not necessarily liabilities in the 1870s and 1880s. Had Buffalo attained the dominant influence in its state, as did St. Louis and Milwaukee, it is conceivable that Becker could have attained higher offices. In an age noted for the scale of civic corruption, Becker, with a youthful countenance and distinctive chin beard, haggled to reduce costs. His approach set a precedent for Grover Cleveland, a rival and later president, whose one-year stint as Buffalo’s mayor came after Becker’s first administration. Like Cleveland, Becker also convinced opponents of his integrity and gained local support for a gubernatorial bid. In 1891, a large delegation left Buffalo to ramrod Becker through as the Republican choice for New York’s governor. Boss

BECKMANN, MAX

Thomas Platt, however, opposed the scheme, and despite the near unanimity of Buffalo’s Republicans and a two-day effort to out-shout downstate opponents, Becker’s allies were unable to secure his nomination. Andrew Yox See also Buffalo References and Further Reading Holli, Melvin G., and Peter Jones, eds. Biographical Dictionary of American Mayors, 1820–1980. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1981, 21. Yox, Andrew P. “Decline of the GermanAmerican Community in Buffalo, 1855–1925.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1983, 144–240.

BECKMANN, MAX b. February 12, 1884; Leipzig, Saxony d. December 27, 1950; New York, New York One of the most important painters of the twentieth century, who fled Nazi Germany and after World War II emigrated to the United States. His paintings were included in the infamous Nazi art exhibition “Degenerate Art.” Beckmann studied from 1900 to 1903 at the art academy in Weimar and made study trips to Paris, where he was impressed in particular by the art of Paul Cezanne and Vincent Van Gogh. In Germany, the works of Edvard Munch but also paintings by the masters Pieter Brueghel the Elder and Matthias Grünewald (the Isenheim Altarpiece) had an influence on Beckmann. He moved to Berlin in 1905 and joined the avant-garde Secession movement, which counted leading German impressionist painters such as Max

129

Liebermann and Lovis Corinth among its members. In 1906 Beckmann won the Villa-Romana-Price, which paid for a study trip to Florence. In the same year he married Minna Tube, like him a promising painter who had also trained in Weimar and became later known as an opera singer. In 1913 the famous art dealer Paul Cassirer organized the first major exhibition of Beckmann’s works in Berlin. Beckmann volunteered for World War I in August 1914. He spent several months as a medical orderly in Belgium, producing a number of drawings and etchings that reflect his war experience on the western front. In 1915 he was released from the army after suffering a nervous breakdown. World War I constituted a decisive turning point in Beckmann’s life and exerted a major impact on his art. His style became rougher and more expressive. By the mid1920s, he emerged as one of the leading avant-garde artists in Germany. Beckmann’s broadly realistic paintings display circus subjects, cripples, brutal violence, and suffering but also colorful social scenes and still lifes. His art betrays a complex symbolism that in part remains enigmatic to this day. Beckmann did not identify with a movement or group. Art historians debate whether his paintings relate to the Neue Sachlichkeit (new objectivity) and expressionism. Although influences are clearly visible, Beckmann transcends such categorizations. His art is characterized by an intense reflection of his own personality, which is illustrated most strikingly by the numerous self-portraits Beckmann painted. He also produced a number of bronze sculptures. In 1925 Beckmann divorced Minna Tube and married the much younger Mathilde (“Quappi”) von Kaulbach, who

130

BEER

would appear in many of his paintings. From 1925 to 1933 Beckmann taught as a professor at the renowned Städel Institute in Frankfurt am Main. In 1932 he began work on the first of his nine monumental Triptychons. In the same year the National Gallery in Berlin devoted a whole room to his paintings. The Nazis, however, despised his paintings and expelled him from the Städel Institute in 1933. They regarded him as one of the leading representatives of “Degenerate Art” and included twenty-four of his paintings in the 1937 exhibition by that name. Shortly after the opening of the exhibition, Beckmann and his wife left Germany, moving to Paris and later to Amsterdam. When German troops marched into the Netherlands in 1940, Beckmann burned his diaries. During the occupation he was not harmed physically but suffered from the oppressive atmosphere, as his deeply pessimistic dark paintings from this period illustrate. In 1947 Beckmann emigrated to the United States. He taught and lectured as a guest professor at several universities in the Midwest, notably at Washington University in St. Louis, and also at the Brooklyn Museum Art School in New York. As a consequence of the Nazi purge of German art museums, many of his most famous paintings are today owned by leading art museums in the United States. His famous Self Portrait in Tuxedo (1927), exhibited in the Berlin National Gallery Beckmann Room in the Kronprinzenpalais before 1933, can be viewed today at Harvard University’s BuschReisinger Museum in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The St. Louis Art Museum also owns a large collection of his works. Tobias Brinkmann References and Further Reading Rainbird, Sean. Max Beckmann. New York: Distributed Art Publishers, 2003.

BEER Beer became the drink of choice for Americans as the result of German influence. An inexpensive, grain-based drink with lowalcohol content, beer has historically come in many varieties, including ale and porter, but it has only been a popular American beverage since the mid-nineteenth century. The German immigrants who flooded into the United States at that time demanded beer and brought the skills to produce a high-quality, light-bodied beer that appealed to a wider market. German Americans with such names as Eberhard Anheuser, Adolphus E. Busch, Frederick Miller, Joseph Schlitz, and Frederick Pabst have dominated the beer industry ever since. Beer probably originated in southern Europe, both as a way to use grain before it spoiled and as a healthier drink than other available choices. For much of recorded history, water has been a source of such killer illnesses as dysentery. Milk, with pasteurization unknown until the mid-nineteenth century, did not have a noticeably better safety record. Therefore most people, including infants and nursing mothers, drank ale in the morning, noon, and night. The boiling necessary to make beer neutralized most of tainted water’s ill effects, although no one realized this for centuries, and the grains added some protein to the diet. The Romans brought beer to northern Europe around 55 BCE, and the popularity of the beverage gradually spread. The English word beer comes from the German word bier, a term that originated in the breweries of German monasteries in the eighth century. Beer of this early period would not be recognizable to modern connoisseurs of the drink. Hops were not used, and as a result, the beer appeared very dark

BEER

with a strong flavor. It also spoiled easily because the active ingredient in hops, lupulin, inhibits the growth of certain types of fungi and bacteria. Sometime around the early sixteenth century, breweries in Germany began adding malt to beer production. Hops were added to the mix about the seventeenth century to produce a light, clear, somewhat bitter, and long-lasting product. The German process of making beer would become the world standard by the nineteenth century, and despite changes in technology, it remains the essential process employed today by American brewers. Barley kernels are allowed to germinate by immersing them in water until as much as 45 percent of the water is absorbed. After this steeping is completed, the barley is spread out on a stone floor to a depth of 2 feet and constantly turned with a shovel. This fiveto seven-day process of germination causes the natural enzyme systems within the barley to begin breaking down the membranes of starch cells so that the starch can be more easily converted into sugars during the brewing process. When the barley is properly germinated to a sprout length of three-fourths of the size of the kernel, the grains are transferred to a kiln and heated to 140° Fahrenheit (60° Celsius). The temperature is raised depending upon the type of malt desired. A lower temperature in the malting process results in a paler malt and a lighter-colored beer. Ground malted barley is mashed with hot water. The liquor, known as wort, is then extracted. A portion of hops is added, and the whole mass is boiled until the aroma of hops is obtained. It is then allowed to cool before being fermented with yeast, which produces a small amount of alcohol. Different brews require different types of yeast.

131

American brewers in the colonial era used barley to make beer, but the quality of the product may have been poor. Most American brewers had little training, and it was fairly easy to misjudge steeping to produce unevenly germinated barley. Additionally, they did not employ hops and often blended herbs such as rosemary and yarrow together to produce gruit beer. These early brewers produced only enough ale, porter, or stout to meet the needs of their families. Wealthy Americans would purchase beer imported from England. Cider, an alcoholic drink that anyone with an apple tree and a press could easily make, proved a much more popular beverage. Still, home-brewed beer could commonly be found in colonial homes as a drink used from infancy. During the first half of the nineteenth century, immigrants from northern Europe poured into the United States. Many of the immigrants came from the German states of Bavaria and Württemberg, the biggest beer-producing areas per capita in the world, bringing both a love of beer and excellent beer-making skills. Although many of these immigrants stayed in New York City, over 1,000 Germans per week in the 1840s came through Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This city would soon emerge as the brewing center of the United States because of these immigrants. Milwaukee’s substantial German population provided not only a huge base of customers but also a source of experienced brewers. The influx of German immigrants changed every aspect of American beer from ingredients to manufacturing to marketing. The first German-influenced development came with the introduction of lager beer. This type of beer, a beverage with a 3.5 percent alcohol content that is

132

BEER

difficult and time consuming to make, constituted the most popular German variety. First produced in Bavaria sometime prior to 1420 and named after the German word meaning “to store,” lager beer develops a tangy, effervescent taste from being properly aged. It is made only with bottom-fermenting yeast that had been unknown in the Americas. Philadelphia brewer John Wagner, a former Bavarian brewmaster, brought the first lager yeast into the United States in 1842 and revolutionized the American beer industry. Five years later, two Germans, John A. Huck and John Schneider, opened the first lager brewery in Chicago. In city after city, Germans became the first to brew lager. In 1850, there were 431 active breweries in the United States, and home brewing had died out. By the time of the Civil War, lager beer constituted the favorite drink of white American males, but lager required hops. A perennial that grows on vines and a cousin of hemp, hops did not become a commercially important crop in the United States until the nineteenth century, when demand for beer made from hops skyrocketed largely because of German influence. Coincidentally, with the nation’s demand for staples being met by farmers in the Ohio Valley, growers in other areas needed a profitable cash crop to stay in business. They seized upon hops. Massachusetts thus became a major hops-growing state, even exporting some of its crop to France and Germany. New York at midcentury became the leading hops grower in the nation, producing 11 million pounds annually and representing 88 percent of the total crop grown in the country. By 1850, hops were produced in thirty-three states. By the time of the millennium, hops had achieved the

rank of seventy-second in a listing of the most important American crops, with the hops industry now centered in Idaho, Washington, and Oregon. Lager beer standardized the brewing industry. It offered a moderately priced beer of sparkling appearance, great stability, light body, and lighter alcohol content than the old-style ales and porters. The popularity of lager allowed Germans to dominate the brewing industry to the point that the U.S. Brewmaster’s Association titled its journal Der Braumeister (The Brewmaster), and German remained the official language of the U.S. Brewer’s Association until 1873. The German origins of American beer can be seen everywhere beer is sold in the German names of the brewing companies. All the major breweries began operation in the nineteenth century, switched to other products such as cereal during Prohibition, and restored themselves to full strength after repeal through skillful marketing. The Pabst Brewing Company produces Pabst Blue Ribbon, Old Milwaukee, Colt 45, and Lone Star among its twentynine brands. The company started up in 1844, when Jacob Best left Mettenheim, Hesse-Darmstadt, and began brewing lager beer in Milwaukee. Frederick Pabst, sonin-law of Best’s son Philip, took over the company and gave it his name in 1864 when the firm produced 5,000 barrels annually. Nine years later, Pabst turned out 100,000 barrels of beer per year. In 1951, it became the first brewer to participate in color television by sponsoring a program. In the twentieth century, it has taken over the brands of failed breweries, including Schlitz. The Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, founded by an immigrant from Mainz who

BERGER,VICTOR L.

took over another German-owned brewery, began operation in 1858. By 1870, the brewery was producing more than 12,000 barrels per year. By 1947, Schlitz sold over a million barrels annually as the leading beer producer in the world. Schlitz introduced the pop-top can in 1963, and this innovation considerably boosted sales of such brands as Schlitz and Schlitz Malt Liquor. A change in its beer recipe combined with failed advertising campaigns sent Schlitz into bankruptcy in 1981. Stroh Brewing Company of Detroit, founded by German brewer Bernard Stroh in 1850, purchased the assets of the company before it was in turn taken over by Pabst. Frederick E. Miller, born in Riedlingen, Württemberg, arrived in the United States in 1855 after serving as brewmaster at Hohenzollern Castle in Sigmaringen, Hohenzollern. He bought a brewery in Milwaukee. In 1883, Miller’s brewery became one of the first to establish a bottling plant, and it bottled 5,000 barrels annually within three years. Beers like Miller High Life and slogans such as “It’s Miller Time” have made the brewery into the second largest in the United States. Anheuser-Busch is the largest American brewer. The firm traces its roots to a brewery begun in St. Louis in 1864 under the direction of soap manufacturer Eberhard Anheuser and brewer’s supply store owner Adolphus Busch, both originally from Germany. Anheuser-Busch produces thirty brands of beer, including Budweiser. Known to viewers of television commercials as the “King of Beers,” Budweiser has been brewed since 1876. It has been the world’s best-selling beer since 1957, and at the millennium it was distributed in more than 70 countries. One in almost every five beers sold in the United States is a Budweiser.

133

Americans consume millions of barrels of beer a year because Germans brought their favorite drink to the New World along with the skills to make it. Although the rise of microbreweries in the 1980s has cut into the sales of the major breweries, particularly among female consumers, most beer sold in the United States today is still made by companies founded by Germans. Of all the contributions made by German Americans to the United States, beer may be the most appreciated. Caryn E. Neumann See also Chicago; Milwaukee; New York City References and Further Reading Anderson, Will. Beer, USA. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Morgan and Morgan, 1986. Apps, Jerry. Breweries of Wisconsin. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Goldammer, Ted. The Brewer’s Handbook: The Complete Book to Brewing Beer. Clifton, VA: KVP, 2000. Salem, Frederick William. Beer: Its History and Economic Value as a National Beverage. New York: Arno Press, 1972.

BERGER,VICTOR L. b. February 28, 1860; Nieder-Rehbach, Transylvania d. August 7, 1929; Milwaukee,Wisconsin The recognized leader of the Milwaukee Socialist movement from 1895 to 1928, Berger was the first member of his party elected to the U.S. Congress (1910). He emigrated to Milwaukee from AustroHungarian Transylvania after attending universities in the Habsburg Empire. Berger established himself as a leading figure in the Wisconsin city’s German community as a German-language teacher, an officer in the Milwaukee Turners, and a participant in Socialist discussion groups.

134

BERGER,VICTOR L.

Victor Louis Berger, Socialist, representative of Wisconsin. (Library of Congress)

After joining the fledgling party, Berger edited several Socialist newspapers. In 1898 he cofounded the Social Democratic Party of the United States, Branch 1, and was soon recognized as the unchallenged leader of the Socialist movement in the most German city in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century. Often accused of “bossism” at the local level, Berger was active in national party politics and served as a delegate to the Second International Socialist Congress in Amsterdam in 1909. He maintained contact with leading German Socialists and spoke to party assemblies in Berlin and Vienna. Once elected to Congress, Berger changed his political focus from running the local party apparatus to operating more vigorously at the national level. However, he lost his run for reelection in 1912. Berger returned to Milwau-

kee after his defeat, but he rose again as a national figure leading the antiwar faction of his party between 1914 and 1917 and ultimately facing prosecution under the Alien and Sedition Act because of his editorials opposing U.S. involvement in World War I, calling for draft resistance, and favoring peace. Shortly after standing trial in a Chicago federal court for treason, Berger ran for the U.S. Senate in Wisconsin’s special election in the spring of 1918, and captured 111,000 votes in a losing cause against Progressive Party candidate Irvine Lenroot. That November, Berger scored a solid victory to win back his Milwaukee congressional seat. However, his colleagues in the House of Representatives refused to seat him by a 307 to 1 vote. Congress forced him to stand for special election, but Berger confounded his opposition in the House and won again at home in 1919. But he was again denied his House seat, gaining only seven more votes from his colleagues. Berger finally lost the regular 1920 election, yet he returned to Washington after winning in 1922 and served two more terms thanks to the easing of the “red scare” and more moderate views from his colleagues in the House. A major force in Milwaukee political affairs for thirty-five years and an active figure in the national party, Berger retired from politics in 1928. Gareth A. Shellman See also Espionage and Sedition Act; Milwaukee; Milwaukee Socialists; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Gavett, Thomas W. The Development of the Labor Movement in Milwaukee. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1965. Miller, Sally M. Victor L. Berger and the Promise of Constructive Socialism. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1973.

BERLIN WALL

BERLIN WALL On November 11, 1958, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev declared the 1944 London Protocol invalid. The Western powers of France, Great Britain, and the United States had forfeited their rights to stay in West Berlin, he said, and the latter should become an “independent political unit, a free city.” Khrushchev issued an ultimatum: if Western powers would not comply with his proposal, then Moscow would sign a separate peace treaty with the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and pursue the eviction of any Allied presence from West Berlin. Ensuing diplomatic contacts (a foreign minister conference in Geneva in 1959, U.S.-Soviet summits in 1959 and 1960) partly defused the imminence of the “Berlin crisis,” but tensions and military contingency preparations continued at a high level. Mainly due to U.S. initiative, in May 1961 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) defined three nonnegotiable “essentials” from the Western perspective: the freedom of West Berlin’s people to choose their own political system; an Allied military presence in the Western sectors; and unrestrained access to West Berlin through the GDR by air, by land, and on water. During this period, the GDR’s implementation of socialism at various levels of East German society, peaking between the years of 1958 and 1960, had led to a constant flow of refugees to West Berlin and West Germany through open borders in Berlin. Between 1955 and 1961, more than 200,000 East Germans annually had left the GDR, among them many skilled workers and professionals in high demand. It became clear that the GDR might not survive as a state with open borders to West Berlin. Starting in the fall of 1960, GDR pressure

135

on the Soviet Union to guarantee the ongoing existence of the East German “Socialist state” by closing the borders to West Berlin became ever more persistent. It eventually met Nikita Khrushchev’s approval in early July 1961 when the Soviet leader had felt the time for such a measure was ripe. On August 7, 1961, GDR leader Walter Ulbricht informed the Politbüro of the Socialist Unity Party (SED) on the forthcoming implementation of long-prepared measures along the sectoral border around West Berlin. During the night of August 12–13, 1961, GDR police and Kampfgruppen units (worker militias) began to set up barbed wire on East German territory and surrounded the entire city of West Berlin along an approximate length of 155 kilometers (97 miles). Over the next few weeks, those provisional devices were to be replaced with walls made of brick and concrete. Of formerly eighty-one street border crossings between East and West Berlin, just seven heavily guarded ones remained. Public transportation between both halves of the city was cut off permanently. GDR propaganda praised the sealed border as an “antifaschistischer Schutzwall” (anti-Fascist protection wall) against Western aggressiveness, thereby willfully ignoring how the wall’s fortifications were directed against the East German people to prevent them from leaving the GDR. The three Western Allied powers issued a note of protest to the Soviets but otherwise saw to the upholding of the “three essentials.” In fact, the erection of the wall seemed to have concluded a dangerously lingering crisis and diminished the possibility of a nuclear war over Berlin. John F. Kennedy was relieved that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war” (Beschloss 1991, 278). Nonetheless, the situation in

136

BERLIN WALL

A woman stands at the Berlin Wall in west sector, after waiting three hours to see her East Berlin friends and relatives, 1961. (Library of Congress)

Berlin became extremely tense in late October 1961, when Soviet and U.S. tanks confronted each other across the Allied “Checkpoint Charlie.” Soviet nuclear forces had been put on high alert, and the Kennedy administration pondered nuclear war scenarios as well. Eventually the GDR stopped its violations of Berlin’s fourpower status, and efforts to prevent Western allies from entering East Berlin ceased. After his initial disappointment and irritation about Washington’s lackluster reaction in August 1961, West Berlin mayor Willy Brandt finally fell in line with Kennedy and Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had been sent to West Berlin to assure its population of continued U.S. support. Later Brandt would note how the brutal reality of the cold war, manifested in August 1961, inspired him to move ahead

with an Ostpolitik of reconciliation and accommodation with the East. Cold war confrontation had only deepened German division. The best way to overcome it was to accept realities first and work toward changing them later. Starting with the intra-German Pass Agreements from 1963 to 1966 and continuing with the GDR visa for Western citizens and tourists later on, the Berlin border became permeable at least from West to East. The Berlin Wall itself and its vast and various hinterland fortifications became an almost insurmountable obstacle for attempts to flee into West Berlin. Only in the years immediately after 1961 did a significant number of escapes succeed, among them many attempts through underground tunnels and with the support of organized rings of Fluchthelfer (flight helpers). The

BERLINER JOURNAL

GDR border guard’s shoot to kill order against refugees resulted in about 250–300 deaths between August 24, 1961, and February 2, 1989. In October 1989, the GDR regime gave in to massive demonstrations in all major East German cities and frantically started various kinds of late reforms to consolidate its crumbling power. When SED Politbüro member Günter Schabowski announced a revised version of the GDR’s Travel Law during an international press conference on November 9, 1989, thousands of East Germans streamed to Berlin border crossings and forced their opening. Within days, amid scenes of jubilation, people took hammers and chisled away the wall piece by piece. City contractors began to remove large segments. Visa requirements to enter West and East Berlin were waived on December 22, 1989. Farcically, passport checks remained in place until June 30, 1990. Remnants of the Berlin Wall ended up as souvenirs all over the world. Larger chunks were shredded and utilized for road construction in Germany. Bernd Schaefer See also German Unification (1990); Halvorsen, Gail S.; West Berlin References and Further Reading Beschloss, Michael R. The Crisis Years: Kennedy and Khrushchev, 1960–1963. New York: HarperCollins, 1991. Harrison, Hope M. Driving the Soviets Up the Wall. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003. Hertle, Hans-Hermann, Konrad Jarausch, and Christoph Klessmann, eds. Mauerbau und Mauerfall: Ursachen, Verlauf, Auswirkungen. Berlin: Christoph Links, 2002. Lapp, Peter Joachim. Gefechtsdienst im Frieden: Das Grenzregime der DDR, 1945–1990. Koblenz: Bernard and Graefe, 1999. Uhl, Matthias, and Armin Wagner, eds. Ulbricht, Chruschtschow und die Mauer. Muenchen: Oldenbourg, 2003.

137

BERLINER JOURNAL A weekly German-language newspaper published every Thursday, without interruption, from 1859 to 1918 in Berlin (Kitchener), Ontario. Founded by German-born immigrants Friedrich Rittinger and John Motz, the latter serving as the paper’s editor for forty years, the Journal saw a steady increase in circulation figures from its inception until 1909, when its readership reached a peak of over 5,000. The Journal was read far beyond the borders of Waterloo County; copies of the paper were distributed to major Canadian cities as well as to former inhabitants of Berlin, Ontario, who had settled in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. The Journal’s aim was to provide its readers with an overview of events in Europe, particularly in Germany, as well as to report on local and regional happenings. However, in its latter years, as the Journal’s readers became increasingly established in Canada, local news outweighed foreign reports. The Berliner Journal absorbed three other newspapers between 1904 and 1909, and by 1916 it was the only Germanlanguage newspaper in Ontario. The Journal was suddenly forced to cease publication after the government of Canada issued an Order in Council on October 2, 1918, which prohibited the publishing of German-language newspapers. More than a mere chronicle of events, the Berliner Journal was a key instrument in allowing German settlers to acclimatize to their new home. While maintaining a bond with the Old World by printing national and local news from Germany, the Journal also introduced its readers to the customs, laws, and opportunities of the New World; proceedings of the Parliament of Canada, the Canadian constitution, and

138

BERLIN/KITCHENER, ONTARIO

detailed reports of the Canadian political scene were all relayed in German to the paper’s readership. The reporting of local news and gossip, as well as the advertising of local German cultural events such as concerts, theater performances, and church gatherings, although seemingly provincial, served the important purpose of building community. Articles and editorials advocated not only pride in German language and culture but also local pride in the city of Berlin. In his first editorial, Motz, himself an active member of the Reform Party, made a claim of the Berliner Journal’s intended neutrality in reference to religion and politics, with slight leanings toward the Reform Party in regard to the latter. In fact, the Journal proved to be a staunch supporter of the policies of the Liberal Party (which had absorbed Reform Party remnants) up to 1904, when it merged with the Ontario Glocke (Ontario Bell) and became more independent politically. In respect to the political situation in Germany, the Berliner Journal had a rather critical stance toward the German Empire and its restrictive policies. The proGerman stance of the Journal’s competitors, notably the Freie Presse (Free Press) and the Deutsche Zeitung (German Newspaper), was not well received by the public; younger German generations did not want to be set apart on the basis of their cultural origins. On this matter, as on many others, the Berliner Journal proved to be a German Canadian newspaper, as opposed to merely being a German-language newspaper in Canada. Agata Monkiewicz and James M. Skidmore See also Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Ontario; Rittinger, John Adam

References and Further Reading Frisse, Ulrich. Berlin, Ontario (1800–1916). New Dundee, Ontario: Trans-Atlantic Publishing, 2003, 251–254. Kalbfleisch, Herbert Karl. The History of the Pioneer German Language Press of Ontario, 1835–1918. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1968. Richardson, Lynn Elizabeth. “A Facile Pen: John Motz and the Berliner Journal, 1859–1911.” MA thesis, University of Waterloo, 1991.

BERLIN/KITCHENER, ONTARIO Kitchener, named Berlin prior to 1916, is located some 100 kilometers (62 miles) west of Toronto in the center of Ontario’s main German settlement area. Founded by Pennsylvania German Mennonites at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Waterloo County with its center Berlin attracted many German immigrants. As one of the main recipients of German immigrants from Europe, Berlin developed into the cultural, economic, and administrative center of the German settlement area, proudly promoting itself as “Canada’s German capital.” Prior to World War I, German immigrants and their descendants never accounted for less than 70 percent of the local population. Facing strong antiGerman feelings and actions, the community was renamed Kitchener during World War I, and by the end of the war its unique German identity had been destroyed. Kitchener’s strong German ties were reinforced after World War II, when large numbers of ethnic German immigrants who had been expelled from their homelands in Eastern Europe as well as former residents of Germany proper arrived in the community. As a result, the German pres-

BERLIN/KITCHENER, ONTARIO

ence has remained strong in Kitchener to the present day. According to the census of 2001, 47,380 out of a total population of 188,160, or 25 percent of Kitchener residents, consider themselves belonging to the German ethnic group (Statistics Canada, Census of 2001). The village, town, and then city of Berlin grew out of a little hamlet founded by Pennsylvania German pioneers at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Pennsylvania German leaders such as Mennonite bishop Benjamin Eby defined the parameters of community life during the early pioneer period, which came to an end shortly after the arrival of the first European Germans during the 1830s. The coming of the European Germans corresponded with the end of Mennonite immigration from Pennsylvania. German immigrants brought with them to the community their highly diversified trades, which formed the basis for a strong local economy during the second half of the century. They also brought with them their Lutheran faith, the German language, traditions and customs, and forms of organizations. They founded German churches and congregations, choirs, a Turnverein (gymnastics association), a musical society, and theater and drama groups. By 1850 the European German presence was so predominant in Berlin that the community’s earlier Pennsylvania German identity was entirely replaced by a dominating European German character. Only very few Pennsylvania Germans contributed to Berlin’s developing urban lifestyle as entrepreneurs, administrators, merchants, or artisans; most chose to maintain their traditional religiously defined lifestyle instead. Berlin’s development into the urban center of Waterloo County,

139

perpetuated by becoming the seat of that newly founded county in 1852 and its connection to the Grand Trunk Railway only four years later, contributed to the growing lack of understanding for the Mennonites’ traditional agricultural and isolated way of life among Berlin’s mostly European German population. Berlin’s new European German character manifested itself in local festivities such as a celebration of Alexander von Humboldt’s one hundredth birthday in 1869 and the Friedensfest (Peace Festival) on May 2, 1871. According to contemporary sources, 10,000 Germans and nonGermans from Canada and the northern United States came together in Berlin to celebrate the end of the Franco-Prussian War and the founding of the German Empire. During the second half of the nineteenth century Berlin also hosted several Saengerfests, large-scale choir festivals with visiting choirs from as far away as Montreal and Detroit. Berlin’s constructed European German identity culminated in 1897 with the erection of a monument to the late Emperor Wilhelm I in Victoria Park, the town’s public park, making Berlin the only community in Canada honoring a foreign monarch with a monument in a public park. Under reference to Emperor Wilhelm I’s bust in their park, proponents of the community’s strong “German” identity usually referred to Berlin as Kaiserstadt (imperial city). The “nationalization” of the community’s cultural life was also expressed in the founding of a Schuetzenverein (hunting club) and two veterans societies in which former soldiers from the German armies performed marches and public drills on official occasions. As late as January 1914, a group of about 100 Berliners, both immigrants and members of the

140

BERLIN/KITCHENER, ONTARIO

Canadian-born generations, celebrated the German emperor Wilhelm II’s birthday in one of the local German clubs. Despite the official image of Berlin as “Canada’s German capital” and “Kaiserstadt Berlin,” local society underwent significant changes during the second half of the nineteenth century as the forces of acculturation went to work in Berlin, just as in other German ethnic neighborhoods. While old immigrants and community leaders held on to their German heritage and perpetuated the community’s official German image, members of the younger generations became more and more Canadian as the century progressed. They started to define themselves not as Germans living in Canada, as their parents and grandparents did, but as Canadians of German heritage. English-language services were introduced in most of Berlin’s churches from the 1890s onward. Although they did not replace German as the main language, these services clearly reflected changing demographics and the processes of acculturation, separating the old immigrants from their Canadian-born children and grandchildren. Regardless of such concessions, ethnic hardliners among the community leaders (pastors, mayors, and industrialists in particular) continued to represent Berlin to the anglophone Canadian community as exclusively German, overemphasizing the links between Berlin, Ontario, and Berlin, Germany, thereby creating the false image that Berlin’s Germans identified with imperial Germany rather than with their adopted homeland, Canada. During the challenging years of World War I, Berlin was faced with the effects of this false constructed image as well as the

consequences of growing anti-German sentiment and action in Canada. Despite the fact that most Berlin factories were relentlessly contributing to the war effort by producing boots, textiles, and other products for the Canadian and the Allied armies, Berlin, as Canada’s most German community, even bearing the name of the enemy’s capital, was at the center of anti-German feelings in Canada. A loyalty crisis developed that originated both within and outside the community. It was spurred by widespread anti-German hysteria, the presence of military recruits, and local industrialists’ fear that products bearing the label “Made in Berlin” would not be able to sell anymore. Such fears were not entirely unfounded, as Berlin products were boycotted in communities such as Toronto, where signs advertising German beer brewed in Berlin, Ontario, were prohibited. Faced with growing propaganda not just against Germany but against German Canadians and Germanness as such, Berliners tried to express their loyalty to Canada and the cause of the war by any means possible: German-language education in schools, as well as German-language services in local churches, were terminated during the war. Berlin’s previously German-speaking congregations hosted smokers and dinners for the soldiers of the 118th Battalion, which was garrisoned in the community and was responsible for violent attacks on Canadians of German origin not willing to fight against the land of their parents and grandparents. The local German Concordia club closed its doors in 1915 but was nevertheless ransacked and its inventory destroyed by soldiers of the 118th Battalion. As an act of demonstrated loyalty, Berlin and neighboring Waterloo became the two commu-

BERLIN/KITCHENER, ONTARIO

nities in Canada with the highest per capita contributions to the Canadian Patriotic Fund. After a bitter campaign the community changed its name from Berlin to Kitchener in 1916, after the late British minister of war, Lord Horatio Herbert Kitchener. Although Berlin passed this loyalty test, it failed in many other regards. As was the case in other Ontario regions, Waterloo County with its center, Berlin, was not able to meet overambitious recruitment numbers for Canada’s overseas forces. Members of the community openly rejected conscription, and when Prime Minister Robert Borden visited Berlin in November 1917 to rally for conscription and his unionist government, he was shouted down by members of the local audience. By electing William D. Euler in the federal elections of December 17, 1917, Berlin and the riding of Waterloo North sent a declared anticonscriptionist to Ottawa, thereby reinforcing the public perception that the community’s disloyal German spirit had survived the name change. After the experience of World War I, Kitchener developed into a more mainstream Canadian city. In the interwar years German cultural life was revitalized by the founding of new organizations, but German culture did not become predominant again in the life of the community. Attempts by a recent immigrant from Germany to establish a local National Socialist group in 1933 did not meet with wide support in the community. The Deutscher Bund, a militant pro-Nazi group, was established in Kitchener in 1934, but lacking response from within the community, moved its headquarters to Montreal shortly thereafter. The local chapter nevertheless organized a “German reunion” in

141

September 1934 in which the British Union Jack and the swastika were hoisted side by side. Such expressions of loyalty to Nazi Germany were, however, not representative of the community at large. By the outbreak of World War II, most Germans had been assimilated, and Kitchener was spared a repetition of the loyalty crisis that had split the community during World War I. When Canada opened its doors again to German immigrants after the war, thousands of ethnic Germans who had been expelled from their homelands in Eastern Europe made Kitchener their new home and reinforced the German presence in the community. They came from Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Poland, the Soviet Union, the Baltics, and elsewhere. Together with post–World War II immigrants from Germany, they continue to contribute greatly to Kitchener’s rich cultural and economic life. At present, Kitchener is home to an annual Christkindl market, German Pioneers day, several German-speaking clubs, and North America’s largest Oktoberfest, attracting hundreds of thousands of visitors annually. Successful entrepreneurs and professionals have organized themselves in the German Canadian Business and Professional Organization. Due to a changed immigration pattern since the 1980s, German Canadians have developed into one of many, albeit highly visible, groups within the local ethnic mosaic of Kitchener, Ontario. Ulrich Frisse See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Ontario; Turner Societies; Waterloo, Ontario; Waterloo County, Ontario References and Further Reading English, John, and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener: An Illustrated History. 2nd ed. Toronto: Robin Brass, 1996.

142

BERNOULLI, CARL GUSTAV Frisse, Ulrich. “Through German-Canadian Eyes: A Revisionist Approach to the Historical Identity of Berlin, Ontario.” Waterloo Historical Society 91 (2003): 54–81. ———. Berlin, Ontario (1800-1916): Historische Identitaeten von “Kanadas Deutscher Hauptstadt.” Ein Beitrag zur Deutsch-Kanadischen Migrations-, Akkulturations- und Perzeptionsgeschichte des 19. und fruehen 20. Jahrhunderts. Kitchener, ON: Transatlantic Publishing, 2003. Uttley, W. V. (Ben). A History of Kitchener, Ontario. Waterloo, ON: The Chronicle Press, 1937.

BERNOULLI, CARL GUSTAV b. January 24, 1834; Basel, Switzerland d. May 18, 1878; San Francisco, California Scion of a prominent family from Basel who emigrated to Guatemala in 1858, Carl Gustav Bernoulli was a doctor, pharmacist, coffee planter, explorer, and amateur archaeologist of ancient Maya sites. He was responsible for the transfer of the worldfamous carved wooden panels from temple ceilings in the ancient Mayan city of Tikal to his native city of Basel, where they are exhibited in the Museum of Cultures. Bernoulli, the son of a pharmacist, studied medicine in Würzburg, Berlin, and Paris and received his doctorate at the University of Basel in 1857. After visiting the explorer and scholar Alexander von Humboldt, then in the eighty-ninth year of his life, he traveled to Guatemala in 1858. For ten years he practiced medicine in the capital. In addition, he opened pharmacies in the provincial towns of Mazatenango and Retalhuleu and acquired a coffee plantation in the province of Suchitepequez. In 1868 he removed to Retalhuleu. Bernoulli

was a passionate botanist who classified the varieties of the cocoa plant in Central America, collected numerous plants in herbariums (which are still preserved in Göttingen and Basel), and carried on an extensive correspondence with natural scientists in Germany and the United States. He published articles on his travels through Guatemala as well as on medical, geographical, and botanical subjects in German journals and regularly sent Indian antiquities, ethnographic objects, and zoological species to Basel, where his friend Fritz Müller was director of the city’s natural history collections. In 1877 Bernoulli undertook a voyage to the ancient Mayan ruins of Tikal in the company of O. R. Cario, a young botanist and geographer who had been sent to Guatemala by the director of the botanical collections in Göttingen. Bernoulli and Cario assembled extensive herbariums, which formed the basis for Cario’s Göttingen dissertation, and discovered the carved wooden panels in the temple ruins. With the permission of the Guatemalan government, they instructed Franz Sarg, a German planter and businessman in the Alta Verapaz region, to ship the panels to Basel via Hamburg. The full significance of these rare wooden panels has been appreciated only in recent years, when scholars succeeded in deciphering the ancient Mayan hieroglyphs and found that they contain important information on the Mayas’ knowledge of astronomy. Bernoulli was a member of the Swiss Reformed Church who openly criticized the role of the Catholic Church in Central America. The image of the Guatamalan Indians that Bernoulli drew in his letters and articles was highly negative and reveals the influences of social Darwinism and racism.

BERNSTORFF, JOHANN HEINRICH VON

He claimed that the Indian population could only be governed by fear and attributed the chronic labor shortage on the coffee plantations to the natives’ alleged natural laziness. In several petitions to the Guatemalan government, he demanded the systematic registration and surveillance of Indian laborers for the benefit of the agricultural export economy. Each laborer was to carry a passport in which his work performance was to be meticulously recorded. Sadly enough, the government of Justo Rufino Barrios took up this idea and initiated the forced recruitment and control of the Indian workforce in the 1870s. In the twentieth century, the infamous passport laws of the South African apartheid regime followed a similar rationale. Bernoulli planned to return to Basel in 1878 but fell ill during the voyage and died in San Francisco. In recognition of his botanical work, two plants were named for him. The Bernoullia helvetica is a fossil plant that Bernoulli himself discovered in stone sediments near Basel, and the Bernoullia flammea Oliver is an orangeblossomed tree that was found in Tikal and first described in 1936. Michaela Schmölz-Häberlein See also Humboldt, Alexander von References and Further Reading Castellanos Cambranes, Julio. Coffee and Peasants: The Origins of the Modern Plantation Economy in Guatemala, 1853–1897. Stockholm: Cirma, 1985. Mayer-Holdampf, Valerie. Ein Basler unterwegs im Dschungel von Guatemala: Carl Gustav Bernoulli (1834–1878): Arzt, Botaniker und Entdecker der Tikal-Platten. Basel: GSVerlag, 1997. Schmölz-Häberlein, Michaela. Die Grenzen des Caudillismo. Die Modernisierung des guatemaltekischen Staates unter Jorge Ubico, 1931–1944. Eine regionalgeschichtliche Studie am Beispiel der Alta Verapaz. Frankfurt am Main et al.: Peter Lang, 1993.

143

BERNSTORFF, JOHANN HEINRICH ANDREAS HERMANN ALBRECHT, COUNT VON b. November 11, 1862; London, England d. October 6, 1939; Geneva, Switzerland Imperial Germany’s ambassador to the United States during World War I. After the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914, Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff found himself at the center of a diplomatic firestorm in the ensuing months. His profound knowledge of the political landscape in the United States and its economic potential, together with his conviction that President Woodrow Wilson was genuinely trying to keep his country out of the European war, led to Bernstorff ’s desperate but unsuccessful campaign to avert a German American break. Although a skilled and eloquent diplomat and a popular person in Washington’s most influential circles, he fought from a position of weakness. His own government in Berlin regularly ignored his advice, believing him to be too liberal and too pro-Western. His urgent warnings not to underestimate U.S. determination were considered to be exaggerations by his superiors in the Foreign Office. When the naval and military high commands in Berlin decided to resume submarine warfare at the end of 1916, there was nothing left Bernstorff could do to prevent U.S. entry into the war against Germany in 1917. Bernstorff was born in London, where his father Albrecht was ambassador to the Court of St. James. Growing up in Britain, he became bilingual. When his father died in 1873, his mother returned to the family estate in northern Germany. When a family quarrel with the influential

144

BERNSTORFF, JOHANN HEINRICH VON

Bismarcks kept him from pursuing a diplomatic career in his father’s footsteps, he spent eight years in the military as a lieutenant, which introduced him to the social circles at the court and to Berlin salons. In 1887, he married Jeanne Luckemeyer, a German American. A year later, the restored esteem of Herbert von Bismarck made it possible for him to be stationed with the embassy in Constantinople. In 1890, Bernstorff was sent to the Foreign Office in Berlin in order to take the twoyear course prior to the diplomatic examination, which he passed in February 1892. Soon after, he was assigned to the embassy in Belgrade, where he served as legation secretary; in the summer of 1894, he was transferred to Dresden, where he remained as legation secretary until the end of 1895. Bernstorff spent the next one-and-a-half years as second secretary at the embassy in St. Petersburg. In October 1897, he was named legation secretary at the Prussian legation in Munich, where he stayed for five years. In the autumn of 1902, Bernstorff received his first noteworthy post when he was appointed counselor of the embassy in London. In Ambassador Paul Count von Wolff-Metternich zur Gracht, he found a kindred spirit who believed that it was in Germany’s best interest to pursue a conciliatory policy toward its western neighbors. This view was not shared by circles around the Berlin court and the navy, but it lead to Bernstorff ’s being supported by liberalminded politicians and economists back home. In the spring of 1906, Bernstorff was named consul general in Cairo. When Hermann Speck Baron von Sternburg, the German ambassador in Washington, died in 1908, Bernstorff was appointed his successor. His ceaseless efforts between 1914

and 1917 to avoid a break between the two countries, supported by President Wilson yet so thoroughly sabotaged by Berlin, destroyed his energetic optimism and left him humiliated and broken. He was forced to return to Germany in February 1917, when diplomatic relations between the two countries were severed due to the resumed submarine warfare and the Zimmermann telegram, which had been sent to Mexico by the German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmermann. The telegram’s content revealed that Germany had offered the Mexican government the lost territories of the American southwest in return for an alliance in the event of an American declaration of war. The public reacted with indignation and outrage, and on April 6, 1917, the United States declared war on Germany. In the last year of the war, Bernstorff accepted the post of ambassador to Constantinople. In October 1918, when it could no longer be denied that Germany was losing the war, he was asked to succeed Paul von Hintze as foreign secretary, but he refused the offer. In anticipation of negotiations with President Wilson, Bernstorff was ordered back to Berlin in order to share his intimate knowledge of the United States. He was appointed head of the preparatory Commission for the Peace Negotiations, and advocated acceptance of the unpopular Treaty of Versailles. After the war, Bernstorff became an unfaltering supporter of the Weimar Republic and helped to organize the Deutsche Demokratische Partei (German Democratic Party) in 1919. He represented his party in the Reichstag from 1921 to 1928. On the international level, Bernstorff cofounded the Deutsche Liga für den Völkerbund (German Association for the

BISMARCK’S ANTI-SOCIALIST LAW

League of Nations), and served as its president for ten years. In addition, he was elected president of the World Federation of Associations for the League of Nations. From 1926 to 1933, he headed the German delegation to the Preparatory Conference for Disarmament in Geneva. As a diplomat, Bernstorff was convinced that only a policy based on mutual respect and international negotiations would prevent future wars. When several of his friends were assassinated by radicals despising the republic in the 1920s, Bernstorff began to fear for his life, as he was soon viewed as a traitor because of his ideals. After the National Socialist German Worker’s Party’s (NSDAP) electoral success in 1933, he went into exile in Geneva in order to escape persecution. Katja Wuestenbecker See also Sternburg, Hermann Speck von; Treaty of Versailles; World War I References and Further Reading Bernstorff, Johann H. von. My Three Years in America. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920. Doerries, Reinhard R. Imperial Challenge: Ambassador Count Bernstorff and German American Relations, 1908–1917. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989. Tinnemann, Ethel Mary. “Count Johann von Bernstorff and German-American Relations, 1908–1817.” PhD diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1960.

BISMARCK’S ANTI-SOCIALIST LAW (1878–1890) Concerned with the growth of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the 1870s, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck sponsored passage in the German Reichstag of the Ausnahmegesetz zur Abwehr sozialdemokratischer Ausschreitungen (Ex-

145

ceptional Law for Vigilance against Social Democratic Activities, or the Anti-Socialist Law) on October 19, 1878. This law suppressed Socialist publications, issued arrest warrants for party leaders, outlawed trade unions, and suppressed public demonstrations. Its passage damaged the SPD, which rallied during the 1880s and grew to become the largest faction in the Reichstag by 1912. A state-of-siege aspect of this law enabled the police to expel persons who were considered “dangerous to public security and order.” These laws forced many Socialists and skilled workers to leave Germany for other places in Europe and North America. German immigrants swelled the ranks of American labor organizations. Waves of machinists and toolmakers, artisans and craftspeople were hired in factories in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. These workers reached the New World with memories of a hostile central government, experience with a political party, and an awareness of the value of organizing labor. The most noteworthy refugees from Bismarckian repression to surface on the landscape of American socialism were the radical Johann Most and the Lassallean Paul Grottkau. Once established in the United States, the Socialist émigrés from Germany tended to be drawn to the radical fringe of labor politics. Anarchists and Socialists, most of the accused “Haymarket bombers” in Chicago were German immigrants who had left their homeland in the wake of the anti-Socialist law. An arch-foe of SPD leader Wilhelm Liebknecht, Johann Most wrote a manual on bomb making and spent much of his New York residency in Blackwell Island prison. He was arrested first in connection with the Haymarket Square bombing and

146

BITBURG

stayed on the radical fringe of the workingclass movement, writing in German only until his death in 1906. Labor politics in the United States gravitated toward trade union sponsorship. Socialists scored electoral triumphs in a number of U.S. cities (Milwaukee in 1910 was their most striking victory), but the Germans fleeing from Bismarckian oppression never found a strong party base. American socialism evolved as a marginal political movement, but it was articulated with a strong German accent. Socialist newspapers were published in German by the end of the nineteenth century in New York, Chicago, and most major cities. German working-class immigrants contributed organization and ideology to American labor politics leading up to World War I. Gareth A. Shellman See also Anarchists; Chicago; Haymarket; Liebknecht, Wilhelm; Milwaukee; Most, Johann; New York City; Socialist Labor Party References and Further Reading Dominick, Raymond H. Wilhelm Liebknecht and the Founding of the German Social Democratic Party. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982. Lidtke, Vernon L. The Outlawed Party: Social Democracy in Germany, 1978–1890. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Überhorst, Horst. The German Element in the U.S. Labor Movement. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, 1983.

BITBURG President Ronald Reagan and federal chancellor Helmut Kohl made a highly controversial visit on May 5, 1985, to the Bitburg war cemetery to honor German soldiers who had died in World War II. In-

tended as a symbolic act of German American reconciliation, the ceremony provoked strong protests from U.S. veterans of World War II and the American Jewish community after approximately fortyeight graves of Waffen-SS were discovered and Reagan equated victims of the concentration camps with fallen German soldiers. German American relations suffered a temporary setback when Kohl insisted on the visit in the face of U.S. demands to release Reagan from his commitments to the chancellor. Kohl, chairman of the Christlich Demokratische Union (Christian Democratic Party, or CDU), who had been excluded from the Western Allies’ commemoration of the fortiethth anniversary of D-Day in June 1984, desired a symbolic gesture of reconciliation and friendship between the former enemies of World War II. French president François Mitterand obliged by meeting Kohl at the battlefield of Verdun. During a visit to the White House in November 1984, the chancellor proposed a similar event to Reagan, to be scheduled during the upcoming economic summit in Bonn in early May 1985. Michael Deaver, the White House chief of staff, developed the program in cooperation with the federal chancellory. The original plan called for honoring both U.S. and German graves. Since no U.S. soldiers are buried in Germany, the German war cemetery in Bitburg was chosen, mostly for its logistically convenient proximity to a U.S. Air Force base. The planners remained unaware of the presence of Waffen-SS graves. Kohl had also suggested an additional visit to the concentration camp Dachau. The White House mistakenly believed that the chancellor would

BITBURG

prefer not to be embarrassed by being reminded of Nazi crimes, however, and removed the visit from the program. The scandal broke when journalists discovered Waffen-SS graves at the cemetery only a few days after the Bitburg visit was announced on April 11, 1985. The Waffen-SS had been instrumental in the implementation of the Holocaust and had committed war crimes throughout Europe, including a massacre of U.S. prisoners of war (POWs) at Malmedy. By going to Bitburg, not only did the U.S. president honor the perpetrators, but also he ignored their victims by refusing to visit a concentration camp. Even worse, during a press conference Reagan equated murderers and victims when he maintained that German soldiers were victims of Nazism “as surely as the victims of the concentration camps” (New York Times, April 19, 1985). For a month Bitburg remained on the front pages of newspapers and was the top news item in TV news and political talk shows in the United States. As the various fortieth anniversaries of World War II events had passed, the media had regularly published documentary accounts of the fighting and the atrocities. On prime-time TV, graphic historical footage of the liberation of concentration camps ran next to the latest on the Bitburg scandal. Published opinion was almost unanimous in its condemnation of the visit; editorials called for cancelling the ceremony or at least changing the itinerary to include a concentration camp. Instead of Reagan, an inept White House staff and a stubborn Kohl were blamed for the fiasco. Passionate opposition to the visit was widespread. Veterans’ groups charged Reagan with dishonoring the sacrifices of U.S. soldiers. All major

147

churches condemned the visit as an insult to the victims. Both houses of Congress passed resolutions urging Kohl to rescind his invitation to Bitburg. The strongest protest came from the American Jewish community. Jewish leaders lobbied Congress and the White House, organized protests, and spoke publicly against the visit. By honoring the perpetrators, they said, the U.S. government appeared to dismiss the suffering of millions, causing deep hurt to Holocaust survivors and descendents of victims. Outrage and deep disappointment found their expression in public remembrances of the Shoa that turned into manifestations against the Bitburg visit. The most poignant event occurred during a White House ceremony in honor of Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel’s reception of the Congressional Gold Medal. On live TV he addressed the president directly and implored him to cancel the cemetery visit: “That place, Mr. President, is not your place. Your place is with the victims of the SS” (New York Times, April 20, 1985). Opinion polls showed that the American public was not quite as adamantly opposed. Only a slight majority of Americans opposed the visit, whereas a strong minority approved of the effort of German American reconciliation. In Germany, Bitburg was only one issue in a larger debate about the meaning of May 8, 1945, as defeat versus liberation. Kohl, although sincere in his many statements on German historic responsibilities for Nazi crimes, adhered to the conservative predilection of stressing German victimhood. His government falsely claimed that the Waffen-SS graves only contained young draftees who could not have been involved in atrocities

148

BITBURG

and maintained the popular myth that the Waffen-SS had merely been troops of honorable elite soldiers. The chancellory also feared that a retreat from the visit would benefit Soviet attempts at dividing the Western allies over their past enmity. Kohl received support from about 70 percent of the German public, from expellee organizations, the conservative media, and his party’s nationalist wing. Sharp criticism of the visit came mainly from the leftist opposition, public intellectuals, and the liberal media, who denounced Kohl’s Vergangenheitspolitik (coming to terms with the past policy), alleging that he was attempting to rewrite history in a conservative mode. The White House staff, unable to dissuade Reagan or the Germans from the visit, tried to minimize the scandal’s outfall by adding a stopover at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp to the program. The visits to Bergen-Belsen and Bitburg on May 5 passed without any problems. Kohl and Reagan gave long, well-received speeches at the camp, while the Bitburg event was reduced to a very short wreath-laying ceremony with White House officials doing their best to limit TV coverage. Immediately following the ceremony, Kohl and Reagan visited with jubilant U.S. soldiers and Bitburg citizens at the Bitburg Air Force base, celebrating German American friendship. Live TV coverage in the United States and Germany was extensive and mildly critical. Overall, Deaver’s damage control was fairly successful. After the event U.S. opinion polls showed a slight majority approving the visit. Deaver left the White House as he had planned before Bitburg and loyally carried all responsibility for the scandal with him, leaving the president untar-

nished. The painful and embarrassing issue quickly disappeared from media attention. American Jewish leaders realized that ironically Bitburg, notwithstanding the severe trauma it had caused, had helped more to raise American consciousness of the Holocaust than any educational program could have achieved. In Germany the debate over the past took a decisive turn through the memorial speech of federal president Richard von Weizsäcker (CDU) in the Bundestag only three days after Bitburg. He insisted that May 8, 1945, could not be separated from January 30, 1933, the ascendancy of Hitler to power. In what later became the consensus interpretation, he acknowledged the suffering of many Germans, but insisted that overall May 8 meant the liberation of Germany and turned out to be for the good of all. “Die Rede” (The Speech), as it came to be known, is arguably one of the most important speeches in postwar German history and became required reading in German high schools. Weizsäcker’s eloquence quickly overshadowed Kohl’s Bitburg mess and smoothed the waves of a bitter debate. Raimund Lammersdorf See also World War II References and Further Reading Funke, Hajo. “Bitburg, Jews, and Germans: A Case Study of Anti-Jewish Sentiment in Germany during May 1985.” New German Critique, no. 38 (1986): 57–72. Hartman, Geoffrey H., ed. Bitburg in Moral and Political Perspective. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986. Levkov, Ilya, ed. Bitburg and Beyond: Encounters in American, German, and Jewish History. New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1987. Lipstadt, Deborah E. “The Bitburg Controversy.” American Jewish Yearbook 87 (1987): 21–37.

BLOCH, FELIX

BLOCH, FELIX b. October 23, 1905; Zurich, Switzerland d. September 10, 1983; Zurich, Switzerland A Swiss physicist who left Germany for the United States in the early 1930s and participated in the Manhattan Project, Felix Bloch was a pioneer of solid-state physics and was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research on magnetic nuclear resonance. Bloch studied engineering at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (Federal Institute of Technology, ETH) in Zurich. Impressed by Peter Debye’s lectures, he decided to switch from engineering to physics and mathematics. After he received his diploma in 1926, Bloch became the first doctoral student of Werner Heisenberg at the University of Leipzig. In his dissertation (1928), Bloch investigated the conductivity of metals by applying the new methods of quantum theory. He constructed Eigenfunctions of electrons in the periodic lattice potential that became fundamental to the theory of solid-state physics, later known as “Bloch Waves.” After some time as an assistant to Wolfgang Pauli in Zurich, where supraconductivity had been his research topic, and a fellowship at the University of Utrecht, Bloch returned to Leipzig in 1930. Two years later, he defended his second doctoral dissertation (Habilitation). During this time, Bloch collaborated with Niels Bohr in Copenhagen and worked on the theory of ferromagnetica, as well as on metallic conductivity. When the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) came to power in Germany, he resigned voluntarily from his teaching position at the University of Leipzig.

149

Financed by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation, Bloch continued his research in Rome and Cambridge. A recommendation from Bohr got Bloch a two-year appointment at Stanford University. When he turned down an offer to join the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1936, Bloch was made full professor at Stanford. He thus became the first professor of theoretical physics at that university. Yet Bloch did not remain a classical theoretical physicist. He favored a close connection between theoretical and experimental physics. Bloch performed experiments using an X-ray tube to produce neutrons and developed a theory of magnetic neutron scattering. From 1938 onward, he collaborated with Luis Alvarez from the University of California at Berkeley, where he had access to a cyclotron. Using this apparatus, Bloch and Alvarez determined the magnetic moment of the neutron. Bloch managed to convince Stanford to acquire a cyclotron. It was constructed from 1939 to 1941, mainly for the purpose of providing neutrons for magnetic investigations. For the Manhattan Project, Bloch determined the energy spectrum of those neutrons that were set free in the process of nuclear fission. For a few months in 1943, he worked on the implosion problem in Los Alamos. Afterward he joined the Radio Research Laboratory at Harvard University, where he worked on technologies that could prevent detection of any military objects like ships or airplanes by radar. After the end of World War II, Bloch returned to Stanford University. Through his research on ferromagnetism and magnetic moments, he became interested in nuclear induction. Bloch was able to determine the nuclear moments of solid bodies,

150

B’NAI B’RITH

fluids, and gases by measuring the “Larmor frequency” of an external alternating magnetic field. The method was called nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) and became important in chemistry, biology, and medicine. Bloch, together with Edward Purcell, was awarded the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1952. From 1954 to 1955 Bloch served as the general manager of the newly founded Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire in Geneva. Back at Stanford University, he devoted much of his time to the construction of a large linear accelerator. Continuing his research on nuclear induction, he focused on the microscopic interpretation of phenomenological parameters. During the 1960s, Bloch returned to the topic of supraconductivity. He found a comparatively simple explanation for the “Josephson effect” (a flow of electric current between two pieces of superconducting material separated by a thin layer of insulating material). Bloch continued his research until his death during a visit in Zurich. Stefan L. Wolff See also U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Chodorow, Marvin, ed. Felix Bloch and Twentieth-Century Physics. Houston: William Marsh Rice University, 1980. Hofstadter, Robert. Felix Bloch: Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 64 (1994): 34–71.

B’NAI B’RITH (SONS COVENANT)

OF THE

The Independent Order of B’nai B’rith is the oldest and largest Jewish fraternal order. B’nai B’rith was founded on October 13, 1843, in New York City by eleven Ger-

man Jews (Henry Jones, Isaac Rosenbourgh, Isaac Dittenhoefer, Joseph Seligman, William Renau, Michael Schwab, Ruben M. Rodacher, Henry Kling, Valentine Koon, Samuel Schafer, and Jonas Hecht). Most of them were immigrants and belonged to the traditional German Jewish congregation Anshe Chesed. Following the foundation of the order, the majority of this group broke away from the congregation and founded a Kultusverein (religious association). This association formed the basis for the Reform congregation Emanu-El of New York City. The latter became a symbol of the German Jewish desire to add decorum, worship, and respectability to traditional Jewish religiosity. In the United States the majority of the founders were active members of American lodges, such as the Masons and the Odd Fellows. Although several Jews were rejected by American fraternal orders, Henry Jones, the president of the congregation and a high-ranking member of the Odd Fellows, argued that not antisemitism but the lack of American religious forms and middle-class respectability of those applicants was the cause of their rejection. To remedy this problem and to improve the image of Jews and Judaism in the United States, he suggested the founding of a Jewish fraternal order, where the growing number of immigrant Jews could improve each other and practice a sense of community while developing a respectable American civic identity. Indeed, the founding of a Jewish fraternal order served several needs of the quickly growing American Jewish community. First, it provided a modern platform for Jews of different backgrounds who missed a sense of social community in the American synagogue, which was a spiritual rather

B’NAI B’RITH

than a social center. Second, the founding of the order was closely connected with the introduction of the German Reform movement in the United States, which triggered increased factionalism in American Jewish congregational life and thus threatened the ethnic unity Israel was commanded by the Covenant to observe. Third, the order actively tried to familiarize immigrant Jews with the challenges of American modernity by bridging the division between community and society through its organizational setup and teachings; it actively promoted integration and the rejection of religious particularism in favor of a new civic American and Jewish identity. The idea of the B’nai B’rith, its “civic Judaism” and construction of an American Jewish civil religion, was closely linked to the Reform movement in Judaism. Both placed Judaism in the middle of the human family and stressed the brotherly nature of human relationships, helping Jews in modern times seek universalism, take on an active role in society, and overcome traditional particularism. Nevertheless, B’nai B’rith strictly guarded its organizational and religious independence from the Reform movement, its congregations and ecclesiastic life to be able to serve as a platform to unite all Jews, no matter their religious affiliation. The order’s commitment to secrecy was subject to continuous criticism from inside and outside, especially since it did not seem in line with the universalist mission of the organization. In fact, however, its secrecy protected mainly the details surrounding the order’s charitable support. This charitable engagement followed the tradition of Jewish chevrot (communal mutual aid societies). Although the fraternal ritual was also kept secret, as in other fra-

151

ternal orders, proceedings and reports of annual meetings were regularly published. Soon after its founding, the order rapidly grew into a national organization, long before a national religious platform could be established. Therefore, the order had a tremendous impact on the shaping of an American Jewish identity and on the founding and support of the first Jewish charitable and communal institutions. These hospitals, orphanages, and manual training schools could not have been established by individual congregations given their size. Among the best know of these institutions are the Cleveland Orphan Asylum; the Philadelphia Jewish Hospital; the Chicago Jewish Hospital; the Touro Hospital in New Orleans; the National Jewish Hospital for Jewish Consumptives; the Leo N. Levi Hospital in Hot Springs, Arkansas; the Philadelphia Jewish Orphan Asylum; the Atlanta Jewish Orphan Asylum; the Jewish Orphan Asylum in New Orleans; the Manual Training School in Philadelphia; and the Jewish Home for the Aged in Yonkers, New York. The organization was a strictly male order until 1895, when the men’s organization started offering membership in women’s auxiliaries. However, between 1874 and 1895 the B’nai B’rith officially recognized the Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern (United Order of True Sisters) as its sister organization. In 1882, B’nai B’rith’s success in the United States and the service of former B’nai B’rith president Benjamin Peixotto as U.S. consul in Romania (1870–1873) prompted the organization to create a network for international Jewish solidarity. Demonstrating its close relationship to German Jewry, its first lodge abroad was founded as Deutsche Reichsloge (German

152

BODMER, KARL

Imperial Lodge) in Berlin in 1882. The German lodges served as a European stronghold and organizational center for the spreading network of lodges across Europe and the Orient, such as Cairo (1886), Jerusalem (1888), and Romania (1889). By the 1930s B’nai B’rith had grown to be the single most important international Jewish organization, providing with its “civic Judaism” a transnational network of Jewish solidarity in modernity. After the Nazis took power in Germany, B’nai B’rith was forced to close its lodges in 1937. Because of the Holocaust the order was almost extinguished in Europe. After the Holocaust the order changed its focus to Zionism and became a staunch supporter of the newly founded state of Israel, where it established a strong foothold. During the 1960s, the order slowly started rebuilding lodges in Germany and is currently present in fifty-seven countries throughout the world. Today the organization has its headquarters at B’nai B’rith International in Washington, D.C. In the twentieth century B’nai B’rith played a major role in American Jewish social and political life through the founding of several suborganizations, which reflect its core values of civic service and commitment. Among them are the AntiDefamation League of B’nai B’rith (1913); the Hillel Organization of B’nai B’rith (Jewish campus organization, 1923); and the youth organizations Ahava, Zedakah, Achdut (Love, Justice, and Unity, 1924), and B’nai B’rith Youth Organization (1948). B’nai B’rith Women was established in 1909 but remained an auxiliary until 1947, when it finally gained equal membership status. In 1995 it had changed its name to Jewish Women International. Cornelia Wilhelm

See also Antisemitism; German Jewish Migration to the United States; Judaism, Reform (North America); Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern References and Further Reading Moore, Deborah D. B’nai B’rith and the Challenge of Ethnic Leadership. Albany: SUNY Press, 1981. Wilhelm, Cornelia. “Community in Modernity: Finding Jewish Solidarity within the Independent Order B’nai B’rith.” Jahrbuch des Simon-DubnowInstitut für jüdische Geschichte und Kultur 1 (2001): 297–319. ———. “Shaping American Jewish Identity: The Independent Order B’nai B’rith.” German-Jewish Identities in America: From the Civil War to the Present. Ed. Christof Mauch and Joe Salmons. Madison: Max Kade Institute, 2003, 64–87.

BODMER, KARL b. February 11, 1809; Zurich, Switzerland d. October 30, 1893; Paris, France Best known for the depictions he created of native peoples and lands while accompanying Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied (1782–1867) on an expedition along the upper Missouri frontier in the early nineteenth century. The artist rendered Native Americans, flora, fauna, settlements, and topography with a wealth of realistic detail unprecedented prior to the invention of the camera, thus transforming images into “exquisite representations of life and landscape” (Wood, Porter, and Hunt 2002, 14). Historians and anthropologists value Bodmer’s drawings, paintings, and prints as a visual documentary of a rapidly changing young country experiencing the emergence of an industrial society and the destruction of its natural resources and Indian cultures. Bodmer also portrayed towns such as Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Gnadenhutten,

BODMER, KARL

153

Mouth of the Fox River (Indiana), painting by Karl Bodmer, ca. 1834. Bodmer is best known for the depictions he created of native peoples and lands while accompanying Prince Maximilian of Wied-Neuwied (1782–1867) on an expedition along the upper Missouri frontier in the early nineteenth century. (New York Public Library)

Ohio, which had been founded by German Moravians; Prince Maximilian visited these places to learn the fate of Germans who had fled persecution in their native country. After the expedition, Bodmer supervised the production of eighty-one aquatints (prints made from etched or engraved images on a metal plate) for an atlas published with the German, French, and English editions of Travels in the Interior of North America, 1832–1834. This twovolume work contained Maximilian’s scientific observations and travel notes on topics such as slavery, politics, the environment, and the frontier. At age thirteen, Bodmer began receiving instruction in watercolor, sketching, and engraving from his uncle, the painter

Johann Jakob Meier (1787–1858). He moved to Koblenz, at the confluence of the Rhine and Moselle rivers, in 1828. His drawings and watercolors of this region, which were published in scenic folios popular with tourists, caught the attention of Prince Maximilian; the German aristocrat, who had studied the natural sciences, needed an artist to illustrate his exploration of the American frontier. A Prussian officer recommending the young Swiss artist for the adventure found him to be healthy, aptly talented, enthusiastic about the journey, and undemanding; he had only to hone his hunting skills. Bodmer’s contract with Maximilian provided for a modest salary, expenses, paper, and art materials; the artist would supply his own drawing

154

BODMER, KARL

instruments. In preparation for the journey, both Bodmer and his patron examined expeditionary and ethnographic art available at that time, including the works of American artist George Catlin. Prince Maximilian and Bodmer left Rotterdam on May 17, 1832, arriving in Boston on July 4. En route to the Missouri River, they spent the winter at New Harmony, Indiana, a town founded in 1814 by the German religious leader Georg Rapp. While staying in this frontier scientific community, Bodmer and Maximilian used the extensive library of natural history and discussed Native Americans with eminent scientists. Bodmer also completed a large series on the town’s environs. The documentary value of his work is evident in Confluence of the Fox River and the Wabash. Depicted in the watercolor are several Carolina parakeets; the only parrot native to the United States, this species is now extinct. In January 1833 Bodmer traveled alone to New Orleans, where he made his first drawings of Native Americans— Choctaws, Cherokees, and Chickasaws. The actual expedition, which was fraught with the perils and hardships of frontier life, began in early April 1833, when Maximilian and Bodmer departed from St. Louis on a steamboat. Their journey extended to Fort McKenzie in Great Falls, Montana, and took them into territories that had hardly been explored. When Assiniboines and Crees attacked the Piegans outside Fort McKenzie on August 28, 1833, Maximilian and Bodmer grabbed their weapons and joined the battle. Bodmer’s later sketch of the event and Maximilian’s notes are considered among the most exceptional non-Indian eyewitness accounts of intertribal warfare. Afterward, armed guards often accompanied Bodmer

when he left the fort to paint. The five winter months spent at Fort Clark (Bismarck, North Dakota) proved to be the most significant and productive phase of the expedition for both Maximilian and Bodmer, in part due to their contact with the Mandan and Hidatsa tribes. Bodmer spent time with Mandan warrior friends, and his portraits of Four Bears, a prominent Mandan chief, and Two Ravens, a warrior from the Hidatsa tribe, are among his best-known works. Once again, his renderings proved to be timely historical documents. Less than one month after they left Fort Clark, two of three Hidatsa villages were destroyed by Lakotas, and in 1837 a smallpox epidemic killed all but about 120 Mandans, including Four Bears. Although Maximilian often mentions in his journals a painting that his Swiss companion had made, no record exists of how the artist went about his work or selected particular subjects or scenes. Bodmer probably worked independently, choosing his subject matter from his own field studies and, in some cases, from Maximilian’s sketches; in New Harmony and at Fort McKenzie and Fort Clark he was able to set up studios. The Native Americans he portrayed often spent hours dressing themselves for sittings, in order to show their family position or wealth. Depicting his subjects as strong and dignified, Bodmer focused on the details of their physiognomy, clothing, weapons, and decoration. He strove to produce the visual representation for his employer’s scientific observations; absent in his portraits are the sentimental exaggerations often found in nineteenth-century paintings of Native Americans or the nationalist motives apparent in works of his contemporary, Thomas Cole. Bodmer did

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH

employ European conventions for his landscapes, however; romantic elements can be found in his paintings of the eastern woodlands or geological formations on the upper Missouri. After returning to Europe in late August 1834, Bodmer established a studio in Paris in 1836 and spent nearly ten years supervising the production of the copperplate and steel engravings to illustrate Prince Maximilian’s text. Both the text and the plates used for the atlas were sold by subscription; the date given in the German edition was 1839–1841, although the final installments did not appear until 1843. The prints were issued on at least three different weights and finishes of paper, in colored and also black-and-white editions (or combinations thereof ). After completion of the atlas, Bodmer ended his business relationship with Maximilian, although they maintained their friendship and continued to correspond. Before relinquishing most of his American art to his employer, as stipulated in his contract, Bodmer exhibited his works in 1845. He married, became a French citizen, and in 1849 moved to Barbizon, where he associated with French landscape artists such as Jean Baptiste Camille Corot and Jean François Millet. He collaborated with Millet on an American commission for a series of lithographs of early frontier life; the project was discontinued, but four prints entitled Annals of the United States Illustrated: The Pioneers did appear. Bodmer won the third-prize medal at the Universal Exposition in Paris in 1855 and received honorable mention at the Salon of 1863. Lorie A. Vanchena See also Indians in German Literature; Pietism; Wied-Neuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu

155

References and Further Reading Gallagher, Marsha V., and John F. Sears. Karl Bodmer’s Eastern Views: A Journey in North America. Omaha: Joslyn Art Museum, 1996. Hunt, David C., and Marsha V. Gallagher, eds. Karl Bodmer’s America. Omaha: Joslyn Art Museum and University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Wood, W. Raymond, Joseph C. Porter, and David C. Hunt. Karl Bodmer’s Studio Art: The Newberry Library Bodmer Collection. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002.

BONHOEFFER, DIETRICH b. February 4, 1906; Breslau (Silesia), Prussia d. April 9, 1945; Flossenbürg, Bavaria German Lutheran pastor and theologian who was a Sloane Fellow at Union Theological Seminary in New York from 1930 to 1931. Bonhoeffer was at first not impressed with the state of theology at Union, confiding in a letter about the dismal state of theology in U.S. seminaries. This negative assessment of American theology was soon countered by his admiration for the manner in which some American Christians wrestled with troubling social ills and especially racial prejudice. During his year at Union, he took Reinhold Niebuhr’s course in applied theology and regularly visited black Baptist churches in Harlem, especially Abyssinian Baptist Church, pastored by Adam Clayton Powell Sr. Bonhoeffer was deeply grieved by the plight of African Americans in the United States, and it is probable that his months visiting Harlem were formative in setting the terms by which he would oppose the Third Reich.

156

BOSSE, GEORG VON

In 1931 he returned to Europe, first taking a pastorate and a university lectureship in Berlin (officially revoked in 1936), but also for brief periods serving congregations in and around London and, after 1935, teaching at illegal German seminaries. An increasingly outspoken critic of the Nazis, Bonhoeffer initially joined the ranks of the Confessing Church and was a signer of the Barmen Declaration (1934), which outlined the spiritual mission of the church in contrast to the views of the Nazisupporting “German Christians.” As his political safety withered in the tense years of late-1930s Germany, Bonhoeffer considered exile and his American friends encouraged it. Yet after traveling to New York in summer 1939 with teaching positions arranged, he changed his mind and returned to Germany with the intention of living through a difficult period of German history with the Christians of Germany. He would famously insist that “Only he who cries out for the Jews may sing Gregorian chants!” Upon his return, he became a civilian member of the Abwehr, a secret service of the German Army. Bonhoeffer conspired with a select group in the Abwehr to remove Adolf Hitler from power. His English and American theological connections made him a valuable asset in the resistance movement. His arrest in 1943 and execution on April 9, 1945, in Flossenbürg shortly before the war’s end have earned him a prominent place in most accounts of twentieth-century Christian martyrs. During his visits to the United States and through later correspondence, Bonhoeffer grew close to Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Lehmann, the Swiss theologian Erwin Sutz, the French Reformed pastor and pacifist Jean Lasserre, and the

African American student from Alabama, Franklin Fisher. Despite his affinities with American neo-orthodox and liberal theology, Bonhoeffer’s writings have appealed to a wide spectrum of American Christian readers. R. Bryan Bademan See also Germans Students at American Universities; Harnack, Mildred Fish References and Further Reading Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography. Rev. and ed. Victoria J. Barnett. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000. Holland, Scott. “First We Take Manhattan, Then We Take Berlin: Bonhoeffer’s New York.” Cross Currents (Fall 2000). Zerner, Ruth. “Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s American Experiences: People, Letters, and Papers from Union Seminary.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review (Summer 1976).

BOSSE, GEORG VON b. November 3, 1862; Helmstedt, Duchy of Brunswick d. April 21, 1943; Rahns, Pennsylvania A leader of German Americans committed to the notion that German immigrants and their progeny should steadfastly retain their ethnic heritage. Essential to this endeavor for Lutheran pastor Georg von Bosse was maintenance of German language, culture, and religious practices. Von Bosse wrote books, essays, and poems on the experiences of Germans in the United States. He believed that it was possible for German Americans to live in a dual world: a German sphere of culture, religious piety, and joy in life and an American sphere that included civil and religious liberties. His beautifully written history of Germans in the United States, Das

BOSSE, GEORG VON

deutsche Element in den Vereinigten Staaten (The German Element in the United States, 1908), remains a standard work. Like most of his writings, this prizewinning book was addressed not only to Germans and others in the United States but also to Germans in Europe. He was pastor of several German Lutheran churches in the mid-Atlantic region before accepting a call in 1906 from St. Paul’s German Lutheran Church in Philadelphia, where he remained until his retirement in 1930. Von Bosse was deeply committed to the struggle to maintain U.S. neutrality during World War I. In 1917 his likeminded son, Pastor Sigmund G. von Bosse, became president of the National GermanAmerican Alliance, devoted to keeping the United States out of war with Germany and to the struggle against Prohibition. Von Bosse’s early education was dominated by his highly cultivated, cosmopolitan aunt, Auguste von Bosse, a writer then well known under her pseudonym, H. Schönau. He rebelled against her by entering a special Lutheran seminary in Kropp/Schleswig, which from the 1880s to 1931 produced over 200 pastors to meet the shortage of Lutheran clerics in the United States. Central themes of this training included the need to ensure that Germans abroad maintained their language as well as loyalty to the Lutheran faith and the land of their birth. Von Bosse arrived in the United States in 1889, served in Philadelphia for a year as assistant pastor of St. Paul’s, married a young parishioner, and accepted a call from a Lutheran church in the German American town of Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, in 1891. Establishing a household that, he hoped, would be a model for German

157

Americans, he obtained his wife’s agreement that German would be the language of their home. When he first met his future wife during a pastoral call, she, like many children of immigrants, spoke to her parents in English. The two years that von Bosse spent as the head of a German orphanage near Buffalo at the beginning of the twentieth century gave him the opportunity to test on a large scale his theories of language retention. He ascertained that the major reason children were reluctant to speak German was that they felt ashamed to display the poor German learned from their parents. Von Bosse found the key to the retention of German in providing bilingual education aimed at complete fluency in both languages. Despite von Bosse’s sophistication, he saw the world in simplistic terms. Throughout the earth, he intoned in 1909, a great struggle was under way between two weltanschauungen: one Germanic, one English. He perceived the conflict in the United States as one in which “the English”—his term for monolingual speakers of English—were attempting to assimilate newcomers. Religion played a major role among the issues he addressed: English religion was, he complained, superficial, as were the English in general. Also on his list of grievances were English churches (largely secularized), English worship (too emotional), and English preaching (sensationalistic). For von Bosse, the English perceived of religion as a social force, whereas the Germans looked upon it as a matter of individual piety. He complained bitterly about the Puritans, whom he identified as the source of much fanaticism and hypocrisy, as in the temperance and Prohibition movements

158

BOVERI, MARGARET

Von Bosse was a German chauvinist, not inclined to compromise as had German Americans like Carl Schurz, who was involved far more deeply in American politics. Curiously, von Bosse wrote very favorable biographies of both Schurz and Charles J. Hexamer. One of two mottos von Bosse placed at the head of his history of German Americans is a version of a couplet by a nineteenth-century German poet often cited after Emperor Wilhelm II made it famous: “Und es mag am deutschen Wesen/Noch einmal die Welt genesen” (And the world may once again be saved by German virtue). Von Bosse proudly announced in 1909 that he had joined the Pan-German League. Walter Struve See also Egg Harbor City, New Jersey; Hexamer, Charles J.; National GermanAmerican Alliance; Schurz, Carl; World War I References and Further Reading Bosse, Georg von. “Die deutsche Kirche und Gemeindeschule in Amerika.” In Das Buch der Deutschen in Amerika. Ed. Max Heinrici. Hrsg. unter den Auspicien des Deutsch-Amerikanischen National-Bundes. Philadelphia: Walther’s Buchdruckerei, 1909. ———. Ein Kampf um Glauben und Volkstum: Das Streben während meines 25jährigen Amtslebens als deutschlutherischer Geistlicher in Amerika. Stuttgart: Chr. Belsersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920. Kloss, Heinz. “German-American Language Maintenance Efforts.” In Language Loyalty in the United States: The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues by American Ethnic and Religious Groups. Ed. Joshua Fishman. The Hague: Mouton, 1966. Luebke, Frederick G. Bonds of Loyalty: German Americans and World War I. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974.

BOVERI, MARGARET b. August 14, 1900;Würzburg, Bavaria d. July 6, 1975;West Berlin Prominent German political journalist and expert on the United States from the 1940s through the 1960s. Boveri wrote for the Berliner Tageblatt (Berlin Daily), the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt News), and the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (Frankfurt General News, or FAZ), as well as for cultural reviews (magazines) and Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels’s highbrow newspaper, Das Reich (The Empire). Boveri published several books on her extensive travels around the Mediterranean, the Middle East, and India and on political topics: the postwar trials of the German Nazi Foreign Ministry, an analysis of journalism in the Third Reich, and a four-volume study of treason in the twentieth century. Her ties to the United States were twofold, private as well as professional. Her mother was a successful, Harvard-educated American academic who took Boveri for extended stays to the United States and provided extensive personal contacts. The United States became the main topic of her journalistic work during World War II when Boveri was a foreign correspondent in Sweden and the United States (1941–1942). She was briefly interned as an enemy alien after the attack on Pearl Harbor but then returned to her fatherland. During the war, Boveri’s nationalistic leanings led her to reject emphatically the idea of emigration, to comply with Nazi regulations on journalism, and to contemplate a position at the Third Reich’s embassy in Madrid. After the war, Boveri continued to write on political and foreign policy topics relating to the United

BRACKEBUSCH, LUDWIG

States for the FAZ, where she was increasingly marginalized because of her strong opposition to Konrad Adenauer’s integration of the Federal Republic of Germany into the West, which in her view intensified a cold war driven by U.S. motives and solidified German division. Boveri wrote her Amerikafibel in the fall and winter of 1945. Published in 1946 and soon censored in the American Occupation Zone, its full title read: America Primer for Grown-up Germans: An Attempt to Explain What Has Not Been Understood. And indeed, the contemporary German reviewers of the widely read America Primer overwhelmingly praised her contribution to German American understanding and reconciliation. The future president of West Germany, Theodor Heuss, lauded in particular her explanation of the questionnaire that Americans used for denazification as “pacifying the German soul.” One lonely contemporary American reviewer recognized the primer for what it was: an anti-American treatise. Under the guise of a value-free presentation, her German readers easily recognized the entire panorama of familiar anti-American clichés. Although the ostensible purpose of Boveri’s Primer was to facilitate understanding between the defeated Germans and their occupiers, her true intent was to help her compatriots to resist any attempts of “Americanization” by strengthening the homegrown and long-standing tradition of superiority to and contempt for American civilization. Her book thus fit into the early postwar literature, together with Ernst von Salomon’s Fragebogen (The Questionnaire) and Caspar von Schrenk-Notzing’s Charakterwäsche (Character-washing), denouncing American denazification efforts,

159

although Boveri went about it in a seemingly nonantagonistic manner and, more importantly, as a recognized authority on the United States. Michaela Hoenicke Moore See also American Occupation Zone; Denazification References and Further Reading Boveri, Margret. Amerikafibel für Erwarchsene Deutsche: Ein Versuch Unverstandenes Zu Erklären. Berlin: Minerva-Verlag, 1946. ———. Verzweigungen: Eine Autobiographie. Ed. Uwe Johnson. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1996. Görtemaker, Heike B. Ein deutsches Leben. Die Geschichte der Margret Boveri 1900–1975. Munich: C. H. Beck, 2005. Streim, Gregor. “Berichterstatterin in den ‘Landschaften des Verrats.’ Margret Boveris Amerika-Darstellung aus der Kriegs- und Nachkriegszeit. Mit dem Briefwechsel zwischen Margret Boveri und Carl Zuckmayer.” Zuckmayer-Jahrbuch 5 (2002): 475–510.

BRACKEBUSCH, LUDWIG b. March 4, 1849; Northeim, Prussia d. June 2, 1906; Hanover German geographer and cartographer of Argentina. Brackebusch studied geology at the University of Göttingen, where he received his doctorate in 1874. Shortly after, Hermann Burmeister, who was in charge of establishing the new natural science department at the University of Córdoba, offered him a professorship. In 1875, Brackebusch began teaching mineralogy and geology at this Argentinean university, where he remained for sixteen years. Together with Arthur Seelstrang, Brackebusch explored the Sierra de Córdoba and produced the

160

BRANDT,WILLY

first map of this mountain range. In addition, he drew maps of the Sierra de San Luis and the Sierra de Ambato in the province of Catamarca. Financed by the Argentinean state, Brackebusch began the systematic exploration of the Cordilleras on the Chilean border (Sierra de Valasco) in 1880. On the request of the government, he went on to explore the northern province of Jujuy, where he focused on the oil fields and gold mines. In 1883, Brackebusch traveled for the third time into the mountainous province of Salta in northwestern Argentina. When he returned to Germany for a visit, he used his time home to design a topographical map of Argentina on a scale of 1 to 1 million (Mapa del Interior de la República Argentina, 1885). In 1887, the Argentinean government asked him to produce a relief map of the country on a scale of 1 to 500,000 for the World Exhibition in Paris in 1889. To fulfill this request, Brackebusch went on a new expedition in the Cordilleras from Mendoza to Salta in order to measure the region trigonometrically and searched for selenium, oil, coal, and copper. His Mapa de la República Argentina y de los Paises limitrofes was 8 meters (8.7 yards) long, about 5 meters (5.5 yards) wide, and 70 mm (2.75 inches) high. It was awarded a gold medal at the World Exhibition in Paris. This map was printed for the first time in 1891 in two sheets and reduced to a scale of 1 to 1 million. Brackebusch was the first geographer to explore the geology and minerals of the Argentinean Cordilleras systematically, as well as the first to produce topographical and geological maps of those mountains. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Argentina; Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad

References and Further Reading “Dr. Ludwig Brackebusch.” Deutsche Rundschau für Geographie und Statistik. Vol. 17 (1895): 39–41. Hantzsch, Viktor. “Ludwig Brackebusch.” Biographisches Jahrbuch und Deutscher Nekrolog. Vol. 11 (1908): 161–165. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1978, 1:335–336.

BRANDT,WILLY b. December 18, 1913; Lübeck d. October 8, 1992; Unkel, North Rhine Westfalia Mayor of West Berlin (1957–1966), foreign secretary of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, 1966–1969), chancellor of the FRG (1969–1974), chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD, 1964–1987), and chairman of the Socialist International (SI, 1976–1992). Willy Brandt was born Herbert Karl Frahm. As long as he lived, Brandt consistently held transatlantic relations to be indispensable. He never questioned the cardinal importance of the United States or of the transatlantic alliance, holding fast to this belief, which he had adopted during World War II. Nonetheless, changes in Brandt’s attitude toward the United States occured between the 1950s and 1970s, with his coming into power marking a turning point. Over these decades, he metamorphosed from an enthusiastic to a self-confident, pragmatic champion of transatlantic relations. Already during World War II, Brandt was convinced that reconstructing a democratic Germany and

BRANDT,WILLY

integrating it into Europe would be impossible without American support. In the 1950s, he was among a small contingent of politicians within the SPD who, in opposition to Kurt Schumacher and the party majority, supported the FRG’s integration into the Western bloc, as well as a strong orientation toward the United States. In the early 1960s, the SPD came round to adopting this policy, ending the dissension between the party and Brandt, at that point the party’s candidate for the chancellorship. Initially, Berlin and its overriding importance in the cold war proved to be pivotal for Brandt’s relations with the United States. Having been elected mayor of West Berlin in October 1957, Brandt used this opportunity to consolidate ties with the United States, thus furthering his ambitions in domestic politics. In his capacity of mayor of Berlin, Brandt visited the United States in February 1958, February 1959, March 1961, October 1962, November 1963, May 1964, and April 1965. As a rule, the United States accorded him the courtesies reserved for prominent statesmen, and he met with the presidents of the time and other leading politicians. John F. Kennedy and Brandt shared a particularly close relationship. When the Berlin Wall went up on August 13, 1961, Brandt, like so many others in West Berlin and West Germany, was disappointed by the muted U.S. response. Nonetheless, and unlike the Adenauer administration, he avoided any kind of open confrontation with the Americans, except for a letter to President Kennedy of August 16, 1961, in which he urged the president to take some action. In any case, Brandt was able to turn this situation to his advan-

161

tage by presenting himself as the guarantor of stability and continuity in friendly German American relations. At the time, he knew well that his policy of détente with the Eastern bloc depended on American support. By the time Brandt was elected the first Social Democratic chancellor of the FRG on October 21, 1969, the focus of U.S. foreign policy had already shifted from Germany and Europe to Asia. Nevertheless, the Nixon administration agreed with Germany’s new Ostpolitik in principle while harboring some reservations about its possible long-term consequences, such as the loosening of the Atlantic pact, which might compromise U.S. influence in Europe. Consequently, German initiatives were initially met with some reservation, which diminished as Germany’s negotiations proved increasingly successful and did not lead to any blocking of political activity in the East. Yet under Brandt’s chancellorship, German American relations underwent a fundamental change, which had set in during the time of the Big Coalition (1966–1969). This process aimed at political emancipation from the United States. The FRG wanted to advance from junior partner to meeting the United States on an equal footing. Thus, while U.S. officials and political departments were regularly kept informed about the progress of West German negotiations with the Soviet Union, Poland, and so on, no details were discussed in advance. The Brandt government was in no doubt that Ostpolitik could not succeed without U.S. approval, which was especially true with regard to the status of Berlin. Friendly German American relations were thus not questioned, were praised, indeed reaffirmed in public

162

BRANDT,WILLY

President John F. Kennedy and Mayor Willy Brandt of West Berlin at the White House, March 13, 1961. (Library of Congress)

speeches, and effectively stage-managed for the media, particularly during bilateral state visits. What counted were the effects: the support of the superpower United States strengthened the hand of the FRG in its dealings with the Eastern bloc, and domestically solid ties with the United States proved a boon for Brandt and his government. As long as Brandt was chancellor, he never publicly criticized nor distanced himself from the United States. On the contrary, he lost no opportunity to emphasize the overriding importance of German American relations and close ties with the United States. Daniela Münkel

See also Berlin Wall; West Berlin References and Further Reading Merseburger, Peter. Willy Brandt, 1913–1992: Visionär und Realist. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2002. Münkel, Daniel. “Als ‘deutscher Kennedy’ zum Sieg? Willy Brandt, Amerika, und die Medien.” Zeithistorische Forschungen 1 (2004), Heft 2. ———. Willy Brandt und die “Vierte Gewalt.” Politik und Massenmedien in den 50er bis 70er Jahren. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus Verlag, 2005. Orlow, Dietrich. “Ambivalence and Attraction: The German Social Democrats and the United States.” In The American Impact on Postwar Germany. Ed. Reiner Pommerin. Providence: Berghahn Books, 1997, 35–51.

BRAUN,WERNHER VON

BRAUN,WERNHER VON b. March 23, 1912;Wirsitz (Posen), Prussia d. June 16, 1977; Alexandria,Virginia Rocket engineer who was of use to both Nazi Germany and the United States. Wernher von Braun’s influential aristocratic family had the resources to send him to such prestigious private schools as the French Gymnasium in Berlin from 1920 to 1925 and the Herman Lietz Schools in Ettersburg and Spiekero. He studied mechanical engineering and physics at the Technical University of Berlin and the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (1930–1932). Interest in space travel consumed his spare time; as a student he was a member of the Verein für Raumschiffahrt (Society for Space Travel), experimenting with rockets. Braun received a doctorate in physics from the University of Berlin in 1934 with a classified thesis about rocketry, “About Combustion Tests.” From 1930 to 1932, he was employed as an assistant at the Rocket Field Reinickendorf, and in 1934 he became the chief of the Rocket Experiment Station at Kummersdorf. When the Army Rocket Center in Peenemünde opened in 1937, he was appointed its technical director devoted to developing liquid-fueled missiles. Besides the technological innovations, Braun learned to sell his ideas to the leadership of the Third Reich. He was a member of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) since 1937 and was also admitted to its elite wing, the SS, in which he rose from the rank of second lieutenant to major during the years 1940–1943. His work was essential in developing the A1 to

163

A4 rockets. The A4 Rocket was renamed V2 (Vergeltungswaffe, or vengeance weapon) by Minister of Propaganda Joseph Göbbels. During the half year the V2 rocket was in active use, London was the prime target of the 1,027 missiles launched. The success of Braun’s work can easily be quantified: 2,511 people were killed and 5,869 seriously injured. Braun was arrested by the Gestapo on March 21, 1944, for what he later alleged were “anti-Nazi remarks.” After two weeks, however, he was released from custody. As Soviet troops closed in on Peenemünde, Braun successfully evacuated the research and production facilities to locations in southern Germany. In the Mittelwerk, an underground factory used by the war industry, slave laborers assembled V2 missiles and other weapons under terrible conditions. More than a third of the 60,000 laborers, supplied by the nearby concentration camp Dora, died of starvation and disease. As the defeat of Nazi Germany became inevitable, Braun and his team of rocket scientists turned into last-minute renegades. On May 2, 1945, after Braun’s brother had negotiated the conditions, Braun surrendered to U.S. troops. After four months at the U.S. Army Interrogation Camp in Garmisch-Partenkirchen in 1945, Braun, together with the core of his Peenemünde team, was transferred to the United States in a move codenamed Operation Paperclip. Initially the project was to be limited to a few months. Efforts were made to cover up the team’s past. These included sealing incriminating evidence of Nazi affiliation and altering conclusions of interrogations. The U.S. Army denied demands for Braun’s return to Germany as a witness in trials

164

BRAUN,WERNHER VON

against accused war criminals from the Mittelwerk-Dora complex. He did, however, visit Germany in the winter of 1947 to marry Maria von Quistorp, his first cousin. Braun was project director at the army’s Research and Development Division at Fort Bliss, Texas, from 1945 to 1950. Using parts salvaged from the Mittelwerk, the team continued to assemble and launch V2 rockets under U.S. Army supervision. Braun was never accused of any war crimes but was repeatedly under surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was feared that his skills could be of interest to a remilitarized Germany. The cold war triggered a space race in which Braun played a decisive role. In 1950, the research was moved to the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, where Braun was named technical director at the Guided Missile Development Group. In 1955, Braun and his team of German scientists were granted U.S. citizenship. He was director of the Army Ballistic Missile Agency from 1956 to 1960. Braun led the development of new generations of missiles, named Redstone, Jupiter, and Pershing, with both military and civilian potential. The cold war space race started when the Soviet Union successfully launched the satellite Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957. U.S. military leaders increasingly understood the potential of Braun’s team, which long had wished to show their technological advantage to the world. The Redstone carried the first American into space on May 5, 1961. Most importantly, Braun’s team improved the U.S. capability of launching a massive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Braun actively educated the American public about space exploration. Parallel to

his work for the army, Braun established himself as a leading visionary for space exploration and popularized the subject in books and articles. One of his mentors was Walt Disney, who engaged the German scientist as a consultant and narrator for a series of films in the 1950s: Man in Space, Man and the Moon, and Mars and Beyond. His exceptional ability to explain the complex details of borderline science in accurate and engaging terms won him the attention and trust of President John F. Kennedy and leading military officials. In 1960, he became director at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, a part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). His most important project was the development of the Saturn rockets. The Saturn V was used in the Apollo program and successfully launched astronauts to the moon. For his work he was honored with more than twenty honorary doctorates, and two American orders, military and civilian decorations. After retiring from NASA in 1971, Braun accepted the position of corporate vice president at Fairchild Corporation. In 1975, he entered German service again, as a member of the board of directors at Daimler Benz Company. Tommy Tobiassen See also Latin America, Nazis in References and Further Reading Lampton, Christopher. Wernher von Braun. New York: Franklin Watts, 1988. Piszkiewicz, Dennis. Wernher von Braun: The Man Who Sold the Moon. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1998. Simpson, Christopher. Blowback: America’s Recruitment of Nazis and Its Effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1988. Stuhlinger, Ernst. Wernher von Braun, Crusader for Space: A Biographical Memoir. Malabar: Krieger, 1994.

BRAZIL

BRAZIL Before Brazil gained independence, Germans played only a marginal role (as merchants, soldiers, and technicians) in the history of this Portuguese colony. The bestknown German explorer of this early period is Hans Staden. Larger groups of Germans came to Brazil only during the colonization attempt undertaken by Dutchmen in the northeast (1630–1654) and in the process of an accelerated occupation of the Amazon region in the second half of the eighteenth century. German monks, such as Samuel Fritz, SJ (1654–

Major German Settlement Areas in Brazil

165

1725), Johann Philipp Bettendorff, SJ (1627–1698), Jodokus Perret, SJ (1663– 1707), Aloys Konrad Pfeil, SJ (1638–1701), Hans Xaver Treyer, SJ (1668–1737), Anton Sepp von und zu Rechegg, SJ (1655–1733), and Richard von Pilar, OSB (1635–1700), were instrumental in spreading the Catholic faith among the native population. Johann Heinrich Böhm (1708–1783) created the first Brazilian army. After the construction of several fortresses in the Amazon basin, José Sebatião de Carvalho e Melo, Marquis de Pombal, prime minister of Portugal,

166

BRAZIL

ordered that settlements should be established near Macapá and the village of Viçosa da Madre de Deus. For these colonies, Azoreans and ninety-one German soldiers and settlers, including two women, were recruited. In October 1807 the Portuguese court fled to Brazil because of the advance of Napoleon’s troops. The colony became the new center of the empire, and projects for its development were started. In December 1815 the United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil, and Algarve was created. The entourage of John VI included several German scientists, engineers, and officials, who were entrusted with fostering the development of the new kingdom. The king also issued the first instructions to increase the country’s population. Thus, in 1818 the first settlements of German immigrants were established in Southern Bahia and Nova Friburgo in the state of Rio de Janeiro. In the wake of the return of John VI to Portugal in 1821, Brazil became independent on September 7, 1822. Spontaneous emigration to Brazil was practically impossible because it could not compete with the brevity of crossing from Europe to North America. The fact that a sizable migratory flow to Brazil did occur is due to the Brazilian government’s directionist attitude. After Empress Leopoldine, the daughter of the emperor of Austria, Francis I, encouraged German immigration, the Brazilian government sent agents to Germany to recruit immigrants. One of these agents was Major Anton Aloys von Schaeffer. Schaeffer and other agents made promises, such as freedom of religion, full civil liberties, and equal rights, as well as a ten-year tax exemption, that did not have the approval of the Brazilian government and were partly in conflict with the Brazil-

ian constitution. Conservatives and plantation owners, however, opposed further European immigration and succeded in passing a law that stripped the government of all financing for the promotion of immigration in December 1830. The government reacted by deferring the issue of immigration to the provinces. Thus colonial legislation was passed in the province of Santa Catarina in 1836 and in Rio Grande do Sul in 1845, which was amended in 1854. In spite of that, gaps in the legislation (particularly regarding the legal status of Protestant immigrants) and other inconveniences led the Prussian state to promulgate, from 1853 onward, laws such as the von-der-Heydt’sches Reskript (Heydt Edict) of 1859, that protected its emigrants and also restricted emigration to Brazil. The Prussian law forced the Brazilian government to regulate the legal status of Protestant immigrants. Lured by the propaganda of emigration agents and letters written by emigrants to their relatives and friends, many Germans were attracted to Brazil. The failure of the 1848 revolution forced many to leave Germany. After World War I, members of the middle class who had been ruined by inflation and unemployment emigrated to Brazil. When the Social Democrats came to power in 1919, members of the right-wing parties as well as Communist activists, members of the “Spartacus,” emigrated. Among the immigrants were smaller groups that, although not having come from German territory, help to complete the panorama of German immigration in Brazil. In three different periods (1877–1879, 1890–1891, and immediately prior to World War I) many Germans from the region of the Volga River and from Volinia left their home.

BRAZIL

167

German Settlements in Brazil Locality

Foundation

Origin

Rio Grande do Sul São Leopoldo Santa Cruz Agudo Nova Petrópolis Teutônia São Lourenço

1824 1849 1857 1859 1868 1857

Hunsrück, Saxony,Württemberg, Saxony-Coburg Rhineland, Pomerania, Silesia Rhineland, Saxony, Pomerania Pomerania, Saxony, Bohemia Westphalia Pomerania, Rhineland

Santa Catarina Blumenau Brusque

1850 1860

Pomerania, Holstein, Hanover, Braunschweig, Saxony Baden, Oldenburg, Rhineland, Pomerania, Schleswig-Holstein, Braunschweig Prussia, Oldenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Hanover, Switzerland

Joinville

1851

Praná Several settlements around Ponta Grossa 1877/1879

Germans from the Volga River

Espírito Sanot Santa Izabel Santa Leopoldina

1847 1857

Hunsrück, Hesse Pomerania

Rio de Janeiro Nova Friburgo Petrópolis

1819 1845

Switzerland; from 1824 onward: Hesse Palatinate,Westphalia, Nassau, Moselle, Rhineland

Minas Gerais Teófilo Otoni Juiz de for a

1847 1852

Hesse,Tyrol, Holstein, Baden, Schleswig, Bavaria, Nassau, Braunschweig, Mecklenburg, Saxony

After World War II a group of Swabians from the Danube went to Brazil to start a new life. The immigrants’ place of origin shows that they constituted a rather heterogeneous group. Their total number must not have been higher than 300,000. In Brazilian society German immigrants were marginalized from the very beginning. The German settlements were usually located in scarcely populated areas, and for this reason their contact with already established populations in the country was minimal. Elements of Brazilian culture were only adopted when they seemed

to offer some kind of advantage. Ethnically homogeneous settlements emerged, where the German language and traditions were preserved. Over time, however, they went through such profound changes that a German culture of peculiar characteristics emerged. The fact that the white immigrants worked on their property and tilled the land with their own hands—until then a task regarded as slave work—was incompatible with the Brazilian mentality. Up to that time the prevailing opinion in Brazil was that manual labor was unworthy of a white man. Thus it is easy to infer that the older inhabitants of the country saw the

168

BRAZIL

immigrants as second-class people. The religion of many immigrants also seemed strange. The difference in religious beliefs did not make the incorporation of Protestant immigrants into society easier; this difference was precisely one of the factors of marginalization. In 1889 Brazil became a republic. This political change brought two significant advantages for German immigrants: the “great naturalization,” that is, the generalized granting of the Brazilian citizenship, and the separation of church and state. Immigrants hoped that these changes would allow for easier integration into Brazilian society. However, the opposite happened. In Brazil most descendants of German immigrants supported the Liberal Party and, additionally, were loyal supporters of the monarchy. When the republic was proclaimed, most supporters of the Conservative Party oddly moved to the Republican camp. In this way a doubly unpleasant and curious situation was created for Germans. As supporters of the monarchy, they might have expected the support of the Conservatives. But since the Liberal Party had provided the last ministers of the empire and since most Germans had been supporters of this party, that support earned them the enmity of the conservative forces, which also represented the large estate owners. With the proclamation of the republic, Brazilian Germans were once again marginalized. The situation in Rio Grande do Sul was characteristic. When in 1893 the Federalist Revolution broke out, most Germans sympathized with the leader of the former Liberal Party, Gaspar Silveira Martins, who was at the same time the intellectual leader of the Federalists. The revolution ended with the victory of the

Republican Party and the indirect defeat of the Brazilian Germans. Their political involvement, which had started with Koseritz and others, was ended. They completely withdrew from politics. In the end, a tacit agreement with the winners was reached: the descendants of German origin were allowed to preserve their German heritage in exchange for their votes. Furthermore, under the hegemony of the Republican Party, Rio Grande do Sul adopted a positivist constitution, which fully corresponded to the ideas of the French philosopher Auguste Comte and was guided by his Système de politique positive, according to which the state should not intervene in the intellectual life of a people. Science, art, and religion must develop independently from the state. By following the positivist motto, “Those who want may learn and those who can may teach,” an enormous development of the German community schools was made possible. From 1889 to 1930 became a golden age of German culture in Brazil. The greatest progress in the struggle for the preservation of the German heritage was achieved precisely in these years. This philosophical and political change, however, turned out to be a trap. They created a cultural German ghetto for themselves and thus furthered their marginalization. After the end of the so-called Old Republic (1930) that resulted in the end of the domination of positivism in Brazil, this German marginalization was overcome violently. Until the foundation of the German Empire in 1871, Germany had no great interest for the citizens of the various German states. Until the middle of the nineteenth century, Germans knew almost nothing about the “Germans” in Brazil. Although the Hanseatic cities did have some

BRAZIL

economic interest in the colonists, it was only in the middle of the nineteenth century that private Protestant associations became concerned with emigrants’ living conditions. Even after 1871, Brazil did not matter in the foreign policy of Germany. With regard to Germans abroad, Otto von Bismarck remarked: “Germans who take off their fatherland like an old jacket are no longer Germans for me, and I no longer have any interest as a compatriot in them” (Brunn 1971, 127). However, some politicians and public opinion did not agree. Many people expected a separation of a German state from the Brazilian territory and believed that the proclamation of the Brazilian Republic would fulfill their dream of a surrogate for the colonies that Germany did not have. The revolutions that occurred in the beginning of the Republican era seemed to give them reasons for such hope. It was expected, for instance, that Brazilian Germans actively participated in the revolution and that after the separation of the southern provinces from the rest of Brazil, a German supremacy would be established there. But these hopes ignored the political position of Brazilian Germans. After Bismarck’s fall from power, the German Foreign Relations Ministry showed a greater interest in the fate of Brazilian Germans. The representatives of the German Empire were instructed to visit the German colonies and to participate more actively in public life. These measures were guided by economic interests. There was also an attempt to divert German emigration to Brazil. Only after this policy failed did the German Empire develop a more active policy regarding German colonists in Brazil. It was designed to preserve German culture in Brazil to guaran-

169

tee a market for German industry. German politicians encouraged Brazilian Germans to withstand assimilation. They were ready to employ the German press, German schools, German-speaking congregations and churches, and the German navy to this end. Attempts to exert influence on the German-speaking schools through teachers, printed materials, and financial support were very successful. Several civil and ecclesiastic organizations participated in this project and received financial support from the School Fund of the Foreign Relations Ministry of Germany. In 1906 the same ministry funded the publication of a German reading-book for schools in Brazil that had a print run of 10,000 copies. By 1914 this book had already reached its fifth edition. The policy for the preservation of German culture that was developed by the German navy should not be minimized. By the turn of the century, the visits of German ships to Brazil became routine. They were seen as an evident means of preserving contacts between Germany and Brazil’s German enclaves. The crews visited German settlements in order to arouse the pride of the descendants of Germans for Germany. The results of this policy were counterproductive, however, and contributed to the emerging fear in Brazil of a “German danger.” When Germany declared war on France in 1914, Brazilian Germans enthusiastically celebrated the news. But this support was mainly a consequence of the political marginalization to which most of the Brazilian Germans were submitted in the first years of the Brazilian Republic rather than a sign of admiration for Germany’s war goals. Reservists presented themselves at the consulates and attempted

170

BRAZIL

to reach Germany. The course of events in Europe led to public demonstrations in favor of the entente (the military alliance between France, Russia, and Great Britain) in Brazil, which in turn provoked plunders and led to outrages and abuses of Brazilian Germans. Only the intervention of Brazilian authorities put an end to it. The torpedoing of the Brazilian ship Paraná on April 4, 1917, led to the rupture of diplomatic relations between Brazil and Germany. After the torpedoing of two more ships on October 25, Brazil declared war on Germany. Two days later the Brazilian Ministry of the Interior sent a decree to the governors of the states with German populations. The instructions prohibited the circulation of German newspapers and ordered the closing of German schools. Finally, after the torpedoing of additional Brazilian ships, a state of siege was declared on November 17 in the states of Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná, São Paulo, and the Federal District. After the end of the war and the defeat of the Germany in 1918, the idea of a strong German state that could interfere into Brazilian domestic policy had been shattered, and it was expected that Brazilian Germans would distance themselves from the “old fatherland.” However, the prohibition of German-language newspapers and the closing of schools had unexpected consequences. Even though the ban on the German language was lifted after the end of war, Brazilian Germans retreated into their ethnic enclaves. During the 1920s and 1930s, they faced a new challenge with the advent of modernism and the new state policy of “Brazility,” which mandated the integration of all ethnic groups into mainstream Brazilian society.

This new movement had its first great expression in the “Week of Modern Art” that took place in São Paulo in 1922. During the government of Getúlio Vargas, Brazil’s ruler from 1930 to 1945, the integration of the various immigrant groups was declared the center of his social policy. Initially, a system of quotas was introduced, in which immigration was reduced to 2 percent of the total number of immigrants of each nationality that had arrived in the previous fifty years. Measures were adopted to create mixed settlements to prevent the emergence of ethnically homogeneous units. Vargas made the development of a national educational system a priority of his government. In addition, schools that were considered “foreign schools” were requested to conform to state requirements. First the government demanded the teaching of all disciplines in the national language, and later the teaching of any foreign language to students below the age of twelve was prohibited. These measures were particularly significant for Brazilians of German descent because of the network of schools in which German was the first language of instruction in all subjects. After 1933, Brazilian Germans became the target of Nazi propaganda. National Socialist (NS) organizations were created in the towns, and agents infiltrated the Brazilian German associations. The state of Rio Grande do Sul, for instance, was organized as a Kreis (district) of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) with a Kreisleiter (district leader). Brazilian German companies that did not sympathize with the National Socialist movement were boycotted, fund-raising campaigns for the Winterhilfswerk (Winter Aid Organization) were organized, and conferences and public

BRAZIL

demonstrations on the major National Socialist holidays were promoted. The NS movement showed a particular interest in the Brazilian German associations. The NSDAP attempted to infiltrate and influence these societies by paying the fees of its members. As soon as a majority of members favored National Socialism, an assembly was called together. This assembly decided then to affiliate the association to the NSDAP and to the Verband Deutscher Vereine (Federation of German Associations), which in turn was affiliated to the Verband Deutscher Vereine im Ausland (Federation of Foreign German Associations). The Brazilian Constitution of November 10, 1937, prohibited all political activities and, in the beginning of 1938, banned all foreign political parties. Since the NSDAP could no longer work officially in Brazil, it went through the German consulates. But the intervention of the police reduced all activities to a minimum. These measures were followed by the deportation of some Germans and the imprisonment of Brazilian German leaders. Although until 1939 the nationalization measures implemented by Brazilian authorities were moderate, during World War II repressive measures were taken, and some government officials went too far. The publication of German newspapers was prohibited. It was forbidden to speak German in public. German books and documents were confiscated from the homes of Brazilian Germans. German libraries were destroyed, weapons were confiscated from shooting societies, and Germans were imprisoned and put in confinement. The torpedoing of ships and Brazil’s declaration of war on Germany led to outrages and abuses of the German population. Practically all Brazil-

171

ian Germans became the target of antiGerman excesses. The experience of World War II, a time that was seen as a period of persecution, continued to have consequences after the war. The Brazilian Germans felt that they were second- or third-class citizens, even after the ban on the German language was lifted, and the German press resumed its publishing activities in 1946. Only the passing of time changed this perception. Animosities decreased, and the mobility of society, the emergence of a modern media complex, and other factors led the Brazilian Germans to increasingly feel like an integral part of Brazilian society. Martin Norberto Dreher See also Brazil, German Exile in; Brazil, Religion in; Brummer; Forty-Eighters; Fritz, Samuel; German Migration to Latin America (1918–1933); German-Speaking Migration to the Americas; Koseritz, Karl von; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Markgraf, Georg; Volga Germans in the United States; Von-Der-Heydt’sches Rescript References and Further Reading Brunn, Gerhard. Deutschland und Brasilien (1889–1914). Cologne: Böhlau, 1971. Dietschi, Theophil. “Vom Werden und Wachsen der Riograndenser Synode.” Estudos Teológicos 1956: 6–20, 32–50; 1957: 13–32. Dreher, Martin. Igreja e Germanidade. São Leopoldo: Ed. Sinodal, 2003. Iotti, Luiza Horn, ed. Imigração e Colonização: Legislação, 1747–1915. Caxias do Sul: EDUCS, 2001. Müller, Jürgen. Nationalsozialiamus in Lateinamerika: Die Auslandsorganisation der NSDAP in Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile, und Mexiko, 1931–1945. Stuttgart: Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz, 1997. Oberacker, Carlos Henrique. A Contribuição Teuta à Formação da Nação Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Presença, 1968. Schröder, Ferdinand. A Imigração Alemã para o Sul do Brasil até 1859. São Leopoldo: Ed. UNISINOS, 2003.

172

BRAZIL, GERMAN EXILE

IN

BRAZIL, GERMAN EXILE

IN Although Brazil is the largest country in Latin America and is built upon emigration, it took in only a small number of the Germans (about 16,000 people) who had to leave Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945. In 1930, when Getúlio Vargas became president and after the suppression of a Communist insurgency in 1935, he established an authoritarian government. On November 10, 1937, Vargas declared the creation of the “Estado Novo,” dissolved parliament, banned all political parties, and abolished basic civil rights. In his foreign policy, the new dictator initially moved closer to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy but abandoned this strategy by 1942. Brazil even declared war against the Axis powers and sent troops to participate in Italy’s liberation in 1944. With the exception of Mexico, most Latin American countries, including Brazil, treated German refugees as normal immigrants who had to fulfill certain criteria set by the immigration authorities. Welleducated engineers, scientists, and wealthy people were preferred over those without such qualifications. Beginning in 1937, racist and antisemitic motives influenced immigration policies as much as a general suspicion that German immigrants could include spies. However, in spite of these hurdles, many German Jews were able to enter the country, in most cases with tourist visas. Furthermore, Jews used falsified documents such as faked baptism certificates to circumvent the racist restrictions of Brazilian immigration law. However, deep antisemitic feelings prevented the Brazilian government, when asked by the Pope, to issue 3,000 visas for non-Aryan Catholics. With 16,000 German and Austrian immigrants, Brazil was

second to Argentina and closely followed by Chile. The majority of German refugees settled down in Brazil’s urban centers—in its capital Rio de Janeiro, in the emerging industrial center São Paulo, and in the cities of Curitiba and Porto Alegre. The agricultural settlements in Resenda, 320 kilometers south of São Paulo, and Rolândia were an exception to this pattern. Rolândia was founded well before 1933 in the middle of the jungle in the state of Paraná. It became a haven for anti-Fascist Catholics and Jews and has become over time a model community for the successful economic and social integration of refugees. About one-third of all German refugees came from white-collar and trading professions, and a further 20 percent belonged to the academic, administrative, and service sectors. Since there was no need for these professional qualifications in Brazil, about two-thirds of all immigrants had to find employment in a new profession. Many immigrants took two or three jobs to survive. There was no financial help from the Brazilian government, and only Jewish support organizations granted material or financial help. German refugees had founded 187 small and medium-size enterprises, restaurants, bed and breakfasts, auto garages, workshops, and factories by 1940. These enterprises employed about 6,000 people, most of them refugees themselves. Physicians, lawyers, and professors had a much harder time adjusting since there were restrictions on practicing these professions, and the different legal, cultural, and intellectual climate prevented quick integration of newcomers. The language barrier was also a factor for these professionals. In spite of a latent official antisemitism that limited the immigration and integra-

BRAZIL, GERMAN EXILE

tion of Jewish refugees, the social, charitable, and cultural activities of Jewish communities and of Jewish charitable organizations prevented the isolation and social degradation of German Jewish refugees. Some of these organizations were the Congregação Israelita Paulista (Jewish Community of São Paulo, or CIP) in São Paulo, the Associação Religiosa Israelita (Association of Jewish Religion, or ARI) in Rio de Janeiro, and the Sociedade Israelita Brasileira de Cultura e Beneficência (Cultural and Social Society of Brazilian Jews, or SIBRA) in Porto Alegre. Since the government had outlawed the use of languages other than Portuguese in religious ceremonies, synagogue services had to be in Portuguese only. Although this requirement suggested a swift assimilation into Brazilian culture, the religious service still followed German and Austrian traditions very closely. German-speaking immigrants did not integrate into the existing Sephardim and Ashkenazi communities but established their own communities with their own German traditions. These Jewish communities became the center of an extensive network of organizations for women, youth, culture, and sports, as well as charitable organizations to help the poor and old. This network has survived in part to the present day. Besides the local charitable associations, a few national relief organizations for Jewish refugees also sprang up. The most important one was the Comissão de Assistência aos Refugiados Israelitas da Alemanha (Committee for the Support of German Jewish Refugees, or CARIA), which handed out financial assistance to newly arrived immigrants. About 50–60 percent of its budget came from other Jewish relief organizations such as the Ameri-

IN

173

can Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), and about 40–50 percent of the remaining funds were collected among Brazilian Jews. Political activities of German refugees were very limited but were permitted throughout the 1930s. Financial difficulties posed the strongest obstacles to political organization and the distribution of information. The anti-Fascist newspapers Tribüne (Tribune) and Freie Presse (Free Press), both printed in São Paulo, did not survive beyond their debuts. Fritz Heller, a former editor of the Leipziger Zeitung (Leipzig Newspaper), who attempted to found Gegenwart (Today), also failed. The Friends of the Gegenwart dissolved quickly. The only successful paper was a newsletter edited by the Liga für Menschenrechte (League for Civil Rights). This organization, founded by Fritz Kniestedt, published the newsletter under various names until both the organization and the paper were outlawed in 1937. Political organizations offered a home for political refugees, ethnic Germans who lived abroad and despised the Nazi dictatorship, and German Jewish refugees who still hung on to their homeland. In 1935, the Notgemeinschaft Deutscher Antifaschisten (Emergency Organization of German Anti-Fascists) was founded with groups in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Curitiba, Rio Negro, and Pelotas. In 1942, it became part of the Movimento dos Alemães Antinazis (Movement of German Anti-Fascists). This movement had much in common with the committee Das Andere Deutschland (The Other Germany), which brought together German Social Democrats. Competing with this organization was the Movimento dos Alemães Livres (Movement for a Free Germany), which

174

BRAZIL, GERMAN EXILE

IN

was related to the Communist Bewegung Freies Deutschland (Movement for a Free Germany) in Mexico. However, all these organizations together had no more than a few hundred members. After the ban on all political parties and the enforced prohibition of political activities by foreigners in 1943, these organizations ceased all their activities. Only after the end of the war and the end of the Vargas dictatorship in 1945 did these organizations engage once again in politics. The Freie Deutschland was reinstated and the Vereinigung deutscher Sozialdemokraten in Brasilien (Association of German Social Democrats in Brazil) was formed. The latter group engaged in collecting donations for the starving German population and sending care packages to their former homeland. Besides these left-wing organizations, there were also bourgeois, Christian, conservative, and even right-wing circles active in Brazil’s German refugee community. The former vice chancellor, minister of justice, and minister of the interior Erich Koch-Weser worked on a constitution for postwar Germany from exile in Brazil. The members of the former Zentrum (Center Party), Hermann Matthias Görgen, Johannes Schauff, and Johannes Hoffmann, kept political Catholicism alive. Since Brazil was one of the few Catholic countries to which German refugees could escape, it was especially attractive to Catholic priests who had to leave Germany and the occupied parts of Europe—among them Father Paulus Gordan, the Benedictine monk Desiderius Schmitz, the Jesuits Walter Mariaux and Walter Lutterbeck, and the Austrian Cistercian monk Alois Wiesinger. Brazil also provided a new home for the followers of Otto Strasser’s dissident

Nazi organization, Schwarze Front (Black Front). They remained, however, very limited in their political activities and did not achieve any significant influence among German refugees. Among Austrian exiles who began to distance themselves from German refugees’ organizations after 1943, Christian conservative circles and even monarchists had some influence. Cultural activities engaged in by German refugees were limited because of political restrictions and because the use of the German language had been banned in public. Vargas hoped that outlawing German speaking in public would accelerate the integration into Brazilian society of Germans, both new refugees and older German settlers who had come to the country before World War I. Furthermore, forced integration would allow for better control of this part of the population. Since most refugees were busy simply surviving, there was little time left over for cultural activities. The social and cultural network of associations, clubs, restaurants, orchestras, theaters, cabarets, newspapers, and cultural performances, so typical of the other exile and immigration centers in Latin America, did therefore not exist in Brazil. Nevertheless, many Germans and Austrians left their imprints on Brazilian society. Some writers and journalists successfully published their work in Portuguese. The journalists Fritz Heller, Ernst Feder, Anatol Rosenfeld, and Otto Maria Carpeaux (Karpfen) worked as columnists, literary critics, and experts on economic questions for Brazilian newspapers. Frank Arnauwrote poetry and detective novels in Portuguese. However, outside the world of newspapers and journals, German writers remained nearly unknown. Leopold

BRAZIL, GERMAN EXILE

Andrian-Werburg, Paula Ludwig, Richard Katz, Fritz Oliven, Ulrich Becker, and others were not even recognized by the Brazilian public. The only exception was Stefan Zweig. After he had to leave Germany in 1934, Zweig went to Great Britain. In 1936, he embarked on a lecture tour through Latin America, participated at the PEN Congress in Buenos Aires, and visited Brazil, where he was surprisingly welcomed as a guest of the state by Vargas. After some time in the United States and a second lecture tour through Argentina and Uruguay in 1940–1941, Zweig decided to settle down in Petrópolis, near Rio de Janeiro, in September 1941. Vargas transformed Zweig’s tourist visa into a permanent visa— a rare gesture for an immigrant of Jewish origin at that time. In exchange and as a sign of his appreciation, Zweig published his book Brasilien: Ein Land der Zukunft (Brazil: A Land of the Future, 1941), which praised and romanticized Brazil. The book is seen as an homage to Getúlio Vargas and even considered to be commissioned by him. However, Zweig could not feel at home in Brazil. The social and cultural isolation, the lack of intellectual communication, the loss of “the world of yesterday” in Europe, and other motives caused him and his wife to commit suicide on February 23, 1942. Zweig’s exceptional position in Brazil was based on political protection, not on literary success. The pompous state funeral organized by the Vargas regime proved that point impressively. German painters and actors were somewhat more successful than their fellow poets and journalists. The painter Eleonore Koch became famous in artists’ circles, and the Austrian Axel von Leskoschek influenced generations of Brazilian wood carving artists. The actors Wolfgang

IN

175

Hoffmann-Harnisch, Werner Hammer, and Willy Keller became important directors at Brazilian theaters. A small number of psychoanalysts, biochemists, social scientists, and economists received positions at Brazilian universities and introduced new academic disciplines. There are no statistics available about how many Germans returned to Germany from Brazil and how many remained in that country. Furthermore, many German refugees migrated from poorer and politically unstable countries, such as Bolivia and Paraguay, to the prosperous southern part of Brazil. Many Jewish families went to the United States, Australia, and South Africa and, after 1948, to the newly established state of Israel. The few Germans who returned to Germany after 1945 were mostly political refugees without a Jewish background. Among them were Johannes Hoffmann, who became prime minister of the Saar territory, and Hermann Matthias Goergen, who served in the West German parliament from 1957 to 1961. Johannes Schauff traveled back and forth between West Germany, Brazil, and South Tyrol and occupied an important role as intermediary between the governments of different countries. Wolfgang HoffmannHarnisch published several books about Brazil. Some refugees who remained in Brazil became correspondents for German newspapers and used their knowledge about the country and its people to report about their new home. Patrik von zur Mühlen See also Brazil; Huebsch, Ben W et al., and Viking Press; Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Carneiro, Maria Luíza Tucci. O anti-semitismo na era Vargas: Fantasmas de uma geração (1930–1945). São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1988.

176

BRAZIL, RELIGION

IN

Furtado Kestler, Izabela. Die Exilliteratur und das Exil der deutschsprachigen Schriftsteller und Publizisten in Brasilien. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1992. Hirschberg, Alfred. “The Exonomic Adjustment of Jewish Refugees in São Paulo.” Jewish Social Studies 7 (1945): 31–40. Lesser, Jeff. Welcoming the Undesirables: Brazil and the Jewish Question. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Levine, Robert. “Brazil’s Jews during the Vargas Era and After.” Luso-Brazilian Review 1 (1968): 45–58. Pinkuss, Fritz. “Um ensaio acerca da imigração judaica no Brazil após o cataclisma de 1933 e da Segunda Guerra Mundial.” Revista de História 50 (1974): 579–607. Reutter, Lutz Egon. Katholische Kirche als Fluchthelfer im Dritten Reich: Die Betreuung von Auswanderern durch den St. Raphaelsverein. Recklinghausen: Paulus Verlag, 1971. von zur Mühlen, Patrik. Fluchtziel Lateinamerika: Die deutsche Emigration 1933–1945: Politische Aktivitäten und soziokulturelle Integration. Bonn: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1988.

BRAZIL, RELIGION

IN German immigration challenged Brazil’s established Catholic religion. Until 1808 the country had been closed to foreigners, all European people with the exception of Portugues people. Portuguese were considered indigenous people. The arrival of European immigrants resulted in a discussion about the status of the Catholic religion as the state religion. Article 5 of the 1824 Constitution established that “the Roman Apostolic Catholic religion will continue to be the Empire’s religion. All other religions will be allowed with their domestic or private worship service, in houses designed for this purpose, without any appearance of a temple.” Congressmen, senators, and public servants had to swear an oath to defend the state religion.

The advent of the republic in 1889 resulted in the separation of church and state. This represented a profound change for the Catholic Church: its issues would no longer be settled by the state but in civil society and mainly within the religious community itself. After the proclamation of the republic and the influx of nonCatholic immigrants from Europe, the Catholic Church needed to learn how to coexist with other religions, since there was at least theoretically equality and freedom for all cults. However, there were more changes. Under slavery, the catechesis and baptism of slaves had been entrusted to slave owners. Religion was a matter of tutelage. The arrival of immigrants fostered resistance to this tutelage, particularly where the immigrants replaced slave labor: these immigrants did not accept the religion of the planters. In Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, the Catholic Church was forced to accept that small farmers could establish their own religious organization by choosing their own religious leaders and religious calendar. Immigration and new political conditions forced the Catholic Church in Brazil to choose new forms of action. Immigration ended religious exclusiveness. Although Brazil in 1808 had opened its ports to “friendly nations,” religion was not influenced by this economic move. When in 1819 King João VI invited Swiss settlers to come to Nova Friburgo, he limited his invitation to Catholics. However, some of the Catholic immigrants had been Protestants who, immediately after the arrival of the first Protestant minister in 1824, returned to the Protestant congregation. In the constituent assembly of 1823, some of its members proposed the separation of church and state and freedom of religion. It

BRAZIL, RELIGION

certainly was on the basis of this trend that the Brazilian government’s agent promised full freedom of religion to Germans who were willing to emigrate to Brazil. After the constituent assembly was dissolved, Emperor Pedro I promulgated the constitution, which stated in article 5 that the Roman Apostolic Catholic Church would remain the state religion. Thus, Protestants were tolerated but could not be elected to public office and were subject to imprisonment if they attempted to propagate their beliefs. As such, they faced a situation in which they were actually second-class citizens. How could they obtain an identity card if only Catholicism was an official religion and only baptisms performed by a Catholic priest were recognized? Often the simplest solution was for the government to pressure them to convert. When larger groups of Protestant settlers were concentrated in the same area, however, the imperial government provided pastors for them, although in insufficient numbers. Nonetheless, there were problems. In 1864 Pastor Hermann Georg Borchard was arrested in São Leopoldo because he had led a funeral procession wearing his clerical robe. According to the government official in charge of the case, he was trying to propagate his Protestant religion and thus violated the constitution. The situation of Protestant marriages was even worse since there was no registry office for them. The only valid marriage was a Catholic one. Those who did not want a Catholic ceremony lived in concubinage and had illegitimate children, who were not allowed to inherit the property of their non-Catholic parents. When the marriage of Protestants was at last legally regulated, a decree dated October 21, 1865, demanded that the children of mixed marriages be bap-

IN

177

tized in the Catholic Church. Nonetheless, this decree was a step forward, since it allowed non-Catholics to legally marry in the presence of a pastor and ensured that their marriage had the same legal standing as a Catholic marriage. Other problems remained, however. For example, all cemeteries belonged to the Catholic Church. Dissident Christians could not be buried in them. Only the first republican constitution of 1891 changed this situation by declaring the cemeteries to be public. For this reason, Rio Grande do Sul created cemeteries next to chapels, and in São Paulo field cemeteries were established. The immigrants profoundly altered the physiognomy of religion in Brazil. Aside from the Protestant episodes that occurred in the sixteenth century (in Rio de Janeiro) and the seventeenth century (Dutchmen in the northeast), the nineteenth century brought to Brazil for the first time on a permanent basis Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Presbyterians, Muslims, Buddhists, and social and political dissidents such as Carbonari, Liberals, Socialists, Anarchists. Catholics who came from Switzerland, Bavaria, the Palatinate, Veneto, Tyrol, or Poland barely acknowledged Brazilian Catholics as their equals in faith. The church they found in Brazil had been formed in the struggles with the Moors. It was a church of tournaments, in which Iberian, Azorean, and Jewish Christian traditions had been mixed with African and indigenous traditions. The mass of the Catholic population was made up of slaves, who, as such, had never had the right to legitimately constitute a family. The only sacrament they knew was baptism. Because they could not form families, they also did not see the family as the place

178

BRAZIL, RELIGION

IN

where religion is conveyed and prayers and devotions are practiced. This Catholicism knew another kind of family, which emerged on the basis of the baptism of infants. The unwed mother who brought the child to baptism was the “co-mother” of her master, if he had fathered the child, or other slaves. The godfather and godmother replaced the nonexistent family or, rather, constituted a new family. A spiritual kinship was created. Thus, the “co-father” did not marry the “co-mother.” To become the “co-father” of a former enemy was a way of sealing the reconciliation. Such an alliance and reconciliation was sealed and ratified by the church. To German Catholic and non-Catholic immigrants, these customs seem mysterious. Throughout the first four decades of the nineteenth century, none of the German territorial churches showed any concern for German immigrants in Brazil. It was only in the wake of Prussian economic expansion—the search for markets—that such concern emerged, although it was motivated by economic interests and not by religious concern. In the 1860s German missionary societies sent pastors and missionaries not only to preach the gospel to the immigrants but also to preserve their German character. In this respect the intervention of consular authorities, particularly of Prussia and Switzerland, was important. The Holy See and the Brazilian episcopate hoped to use German and Italian Roman Catholic immigrants to reform Brazilian Catholicism according to the restoration model by subjecting it to a romanization process. This project was challenged by the parishes that were already occupied, it failed to obtain the resources to maintain the priests involved in it, and in-

dividual foreign priests were entering the settlements, partly as immigrants. The solution was to completely entrust the parishes in colonization areas to missionaries (German Jesuits and Franciscans). Although the settlers welcomed the clergy, conflicts emerged quickly. How should the self-organization be combined with the instructions given by the parson or bishop? What should be done about the ecclesial practices that often were unorthodox in the eyes of the priest who had an absolutely clerical view of the church? What about the “lay priests”? Soon repression set in, and the original church experience was destroyed. Lutheran immigrants had similar experiences. When ordained pastors arrived from Germany, the people who had led the congregations were dismissed as “pseudo-pastors.” The immigrants, both Lutherans and Catholics, experienced simultaneously the Europeanizing of their religious beliefs and ways of worship. Among the Lutherans there was also an effort at “Germanizing” the immigrant population. Pseudo-pastors and pseudo-priests were dismissed. In the case of Catholics, the “empires of the divine,” which were places of worship associated with the Feast of the Eternal Divine Father of Jewish-Christian origin, were transformed into parsonages or schools. All property was registered as belonging to the parish and later the curia. The new congregations and apostolates began to shape the new form of the church: a sacramental one. The process of romanization and reform of Catholicism and the struggle for equal rights started with the arrival of German immigrants. It resulted in a significant change in the physiognomy of Brazilian Catholicism. Martin Noberto Dreher

BRECHT, BERTOLT See also Brazil References and Further Reading Davatz, Thomas. Memórias de um Colono no Brasil 1850, tradução, prefácio e notas de Sérgio Buarque de Hollanda. São Paulo: Livr. Martins. Diel, Paulo Fernando. “Ein katholisches Volk, aber ein Herde ohne Hirte”: Der Anteil der deutschen Orden und Kongregationen an der Bewahrung deutscher Kultur und an der Erneuerung der katholischen Kirche in Süd-Brasilien (1824–1935/38). Sankt Augustin: Gardez! Verlag, 2001. Dreher, Martin N., ed. Imigrações e História da Igreja no Brasil. Aparecida: Ed. Santuário, 1993. ———, ed. Populações Rio-Grandenses e Modelos de Igreja. São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 1998. ———, ed. 500 anos de Brasil e Igreja na América Meridional. Porto Alegre: Edições EST, 2002. Prien, Hans-Jürgen. Evangelische Kirchwerdung in Brasilien. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1989.

BRECHT, BERTOLT b. February 10, 1898; Augsburg, Bavaria d. August 14, 1956; East Berlin Eminent German left-leaning playwright who became famous for his creation of the epic theater and who was exiled to the United States during World War II. Born Eugen Berthold Friedrich Brecht, he was the son of Berthold and Sophie Brecht. In 1914, his first poems appeared in the Augsburger Neusten Nachrichten (Augsburg Newest News) under the pseudonym Berthold Eugen. After graduation in 1917, Brecht began to study medicine in Munich, where he attended Arthur Kutschers’s seminars on theater. However, Brecht was forced by World War I to interrupt his studies. For a short time, he served as a medical orderly in

179

Augsburg (1918). In the same year, Brecht wrote his first theatrical work, Baal. Shortly thereafter, Brecht began writing drama reviews for the Volkswillen in Munich. Altogether, twenty-seven reviews and polemics would appear between 1919 and 1921. Brecht also began work on the play Trommeln in der Nacht (Drums in the Night), for which he won the Kleist Prize. The play, produced in 1922, explores class conflict in the form of the Spartan Revolution. On November 4, Brecht married the opera singer Marianne Zoff and moved with her to Berlin. In 1923 Brecht’s play Im Dickicht der Städte (In the Jungle of the Cities) opened in Munich. While in Berlin, Brecht worked with Carl Zuckmeyer as a dramaturge under Max Reinhardt in the Deutscher Theater. In December 1924, Brecht began writing the play Mann ist Mann (Man Equals Man). During this time, he also met and began to work together with Elisabeth Hauptmann. On September 25, 1926, Mann ist Mann premiered both in Darmstadt and Düsseldorf. Shortly thereafter, Brecht divorced Marianne Zoff. In 1927, Hauspostille (Manual of Piety), a collection of Brecht’s poems from the years 1915–1926, was published. In 1928, Brecht began working with the composer Kurt Weill on the rewriting of John Gay’s play, Beggar’s Opera. Die Dreigroschenoper (The Threepenny Opera), which opened on August 31 and was considered to be Brecht’s first major success. In the play, Brecht makes use of epic theater, which does not strive to make the audience identify with the characters. Instead, the play attempts to establish critical distance through a process of alienation. Through this alienation effect (Verfremdungseffekt), the audience awakens to

180

BRECHT, BERTOLT

a critical consciousness of society’s structures and the need for social change. On April 10, 1929, Brecht married Helene Weigel. In that same year, he began work on Das Badener Lehrstück vom Einverständnis (The Baden Cantata of Consent), which premiered July 28 in Baden-Baden. The first concert production of Lindbergflug (The Flight of Lindberg) took place in Berlin. Brecht’s opera, Aufstieg und Fall der Stadt Mahagonny (Rise and Fall of the City Mahagonny) premiered in Leipzig in 1930. During this time, Brecht began filming Kuhle Wampe. After the Nazis came to power in 1933, Brecht and his family fled from Germany to Denmark. During his exile, Brecht began writing poetry that is almost exclusively antiFascist in tone. He also worked on various emigrant newspapers. In 1934, he began writing the Dreigroschenroman (Three Penny Novel). Two years later, Brecht was stripped of his German citizenship. In June 1935 he took part in the First International Writer’s Congress in Paris. At this time, he began working with Ruth Berlau. In 1937, Brecht wrote Furcht und Elend des Dritten Reiches (Fear and Misery of the Third Reich). On October 16, Die Gewehre der Frau Carrar (Seqora Carrar’s Rifles) premiered in Paris. Brecht also took part in the Second International Writer’s Congress. In 1938, Brecht finished Das Leben des Galilei (The Life of Galileo). He moved to Sweden in May 1939. A month later, a collection of Brecht’s poems, the Svendborger Gedichte (Svendborg Poems), was published. Brecht also began work on Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder (Mother Courage and Her Children) and Das Verhör des Lukullus (The Trial of Lucullus). After the march of the Nazis into Denmark and Norway, Brecht fled to Finland in 1940, where he finished

most of the work on Der guter Menschen von Sezuan (The Good Person of Szechwan). From there, Brecht finally moved to the United States. In 1941, Brecht began work on Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui (The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui). While in the United States, Brecht met many other German exiles living in Los Angeles, among them Thomas Mann and Theodor Adorno. He also met many Hollywood stars, such as Charles Chaplin and Fritz Lang, and wrote screenplays, including the Fritz Lang production, Hangmen Also Die (1943). Brecht also wrote Der kaukasische Kreidekreis (1944, The Caucasian Chalk Circle) and Schweyk im Zweiten Weltkrieg (1943, Schweyk in the Second World War). After Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed on August 6, 1945, Brecht altered the play Das Leben des Galilei. When the play first appeared in Denmark, Brecht presented Galileo as an independent scientist. However, in the American version, Galileo Galilei, Galileo’s scientific work appears as an instrument that serves only the government. In 1947, Brecht was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in Washington. The next day, Brecht flew to Switzerland. In 1948, Brecht settled in East Berlin, where his first postwar publication, Kalendergeschichten (Tales from the Calender), appeared. In 1949, Brecht and his wife established the Berliner Ensemble. Four years later, he was elected president of the German PEN Center. In the same year, his poetry cycle, Buckower Elegien (Buckow Elegies), appeared. Together with other intellectuals, Brecht helped found the Deutsche Akademie der Künste (German Academy of the Arts). In May 1953, Brecht was elected president of the PEN

BREMERHAVEN

Center East and West. Two years later, he was awarded the Stalin Prize in Moscow. Kerri Pierce See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Intellectual Exile; Lang, Fritz; Mann, Thomas; Reinhardt, Max; Zuckmayer, Carl References and Further Reading Brecht, Bertolt. Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic. Trans. John Willet. New York: Hill and Wang, 1964. Ewen, Frederic. Bertolt Brecht: His Life, His Art, and His Times. New York: Citadel Trade, 1967. Fuegi, John. Bertolt Brecht: Chaos, According to Plan. Ed. Christopher Innes. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

BREMERHAVEN Founded in 1827, Bremerhaven is a port city (it gained “city” status in 1851) lying on the right bank and estuary of the Weser River in northern Germany. The port is a part of the German state of Bremen. Along with the free Hanseatic city of Bremen, Bremerhaven became the largest port for European emigration during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. From 1830 until 1960, more than 7 million European emigrants traveled through Bremen and Bremerhaven. At the dawn of the nineteenth century, the Bremen economy had declined from its Hanseatic glory days. The city suffered from an unfavorable balance of trade with the United States. Ships from the United States brought tobacco and cotton to Bremen, but because of Bremen’s lack of exportable goods, these ships left the port carrying ballast. This arrangement changed drastically after the poor harvests of 1816–1817 triggered the first major emigration wave of the nineteenth century. As emigrants traveled to the port in increasing

181

numbers, ship captains realized that they could increase revenue by substituting emigrants for the ballast. With this, the emigrant trade had begun. The rapid growth of emigration posed many social problems for the various German states. It was far from certain that cities would allow (let alone encourage) emigration through their gates. Many state governments denounced the new phenomenon for fear that the emigration would promote the influx of noncitizen paupers who would become charges of the state. The Bremen Senate, however, recognized the economic potential of the emigration trade and acted early. By passing such legislation as the groundbreaking Emigration Act of 1832, the Senate took an active role in regulating the quality of emigrant conditions. Bremen’s longtime rival upon the Elbe River, Hamburg, would eventually follow Bremen’s example but would never approach Bremen’s dominance. The clearest example of Bremen’s proactive enhancement of the emigrant trade was the purchase and development of what would become Bremerhaven. At the very onset of the emigration boom, Bremen had had a serious problem. The Weser River was rapidly silting up. Bremen was in jeopardy of losing its famed key to the world because large ships no longer could reach its docks. The Bremen Senate initially responded by negotiating with the Oldenburg port town of Brake to ship Bremen goods, but the Oldenburg government soon stepped in and banned the practice. Realizing that a more stable and permanent solution was necessary, the Bremen Senate, under the direction of Mayor Johann Smidt, purchased land from the Kingdom of Hanover. After the transaction was completed in 1827, construction

182

BREMERHAVEN

began on the new Bremerhaven (or “Bremen port”) located approximately 40 miles down the Weser from the mother city. On September 12, 1830, the first ship arrived in the new port. The development of Bremerhaven became inextricably linked with European emigration. The city swelled with ship merchants, dockworkers, shipbuilders, sailors, emigration agents, and of course, emigrants. Many of the emigrants had used up all their money in their journey to the port and simply drifted because they could not afford a spot on board the ships. Moreover, even the emigrants who had their tickets were often forced to wait in the city, sometimes for months, before embarking on the transatlantic journey. In order to house these emigrants more efficiently, the Senate, in conjunction with the Bremerhaven merchant Johann Georg Claussen, opened the Emigrant House in 1849 (the establishment closed due to financial troubles in 1865). The docks were constantly transformed in order to cater to the needs of new ships—especially with the arrival of the steamship. During the 1850s, a new harbor was constructed in order to accommodate the new, larger ships. Within the next few decades, the steamers from the North German Lloyd shipping line established a dominance that would last well into the twentieth century. By 1855 Bremen (with Bremerhaven) surpassed the French port of Le Havre as the leading emigration port for Germans. After the mid-1890s, the socioeconomic climate improved in Germany, and the number of German emigrants declined considerably. However, Bremerhaven continued to draw a multitude of emigrants. From the 1880s until World War I, emi-

grants from eastern and southeastern Europe moved through the port in increasing numbers. Emigrant accommodations within the city improved with the opening of the Emigrant Halls in 1907. The flow of emigrants slowed to a trickle during World War I but quickly regained its former volume after the restoration of peace. The interwar years witnessed not only the continued emigration from eastern and southeastern Europe but also a resurgence of German emigration. During the Nazi era, the port became the exit point for thousands of Jews, who by 1939 accounted for 90 percent of the total emigration stream. During World War II, much of Bremen and Bremerhaven was destroyed. After the conclusion of the war, most of the emigrants who moved through Bremen and Bremerhaven were European refugees or displaced persons. This emigration was conducted primarily through the actions of international organizations with the use of foreign ships, not as a part of German trade. By the 1960s, this emigration ceased. Emigration no longer plays a significant role in the Bremerhaven economy. The city continues to serve as a major German trading port, however, and also specializes in shipbuilding and the fishing industry. . Kevin Ostoyich See also German-Speaking Migration to the Americas; Hamburg; Norddeutscher Lloyd References and Further Reading Armgort, Arno. Bremen—Bremerhaven—New York: Geschichte der Auswanderung über die Bremischen Häfen. Bremen: Steintor, 1991. Engelsing, Rolf. Bremen als Auswandererhafen, 1683–1880. Bremen: Carl Schünemann Verlag, 1961.

BRUMMER Historisches Museum Bremerhaven. http://www.historisches-museumbremerhaven.de. Scheper, Burchard. Die Jüngere Geschichte der Stadt Bremerhaven. Bremen: J. H. Schmalfeldt, 1977. Walker, Mack. Germany and the Emigration, 1816–1885. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.

BRUMMER German mercenary group in Brazil during the 1850s. After Manoel Ortiz Rosas took power in Argentina and embraced an aggressive foreign policy that included wars against its neighboring countries Uruguay, Paraguay, and Brazil, the government in Rio de Janeiro decided to seek the help of mercenary troops from Europe. At the end of the 1840s, the government sent a representative to Hamburg, where a large number of volunteers from SchleswigHolstein, who had fought for the independence of these two duchies from the Danish king in the 1848–1849 revolution, had just been discharged. These volunteers were liberal in their political views and had hoped for the creation of a union of all Germans. The Brazilian government offered these disgruntled volunteers the opportunity to leave Germany for Brazil, where they would serve in the army in exchange for land to be given to them upon completion of four years of military service. Based on this agreement, approximately 1,800 volunteers and 50 officers left for Brazil in 1851. These Germans were subsequently called “Brummer.” This name derived from the German word for the noise copper coins made

183

when they were thrown to the ground. These copper coins were used to pay these German mercenaries. After the military campaign against Argentina in the La Plata area, these German mercenaries were discharged and received land grants in the province of Rio Grande do Sul. Unlike the German settlers who had emigrated to Brazil before 1840 and who were mostly of peasant background, this second wave of German immigration to Brazil included people with a high level of education who were politically liberal and Protestant. Most of them became leading figures representing the Brazilian Germans. These military volunteers were the social basis for the political, economic, cultural, and religious elite within the Brazilian German subculture. The Brummer worked as teachers, pastors, and journalists and started enterprises that would dominate economic life in Brazil. More important, they encouraged the Brazilian Germans to form their own political organizations. Some of them were elected to the state legislature during the 1880s. However, their influence was not limited to the Brazilian German subculture; they brought with them new political, religious, and philosophical ideas, which influenced and transformed the entire Brazilian society. During the time of the Brazilian Empire (1822–1889), Catholicism was the state religion, and the Catholic faith influenced and dominated intellectual life. By bringing laicism, liberalism, evolution, and freemasonry to Brazil, the Brummer provided the intellectual basis for the modern state in Brazil. Karl von Koseritz is regarded as the foremost member of this group. René Gertz

184

BRÜNING, HEINRICH See also Argentina; Brazil; Koseritz, Karl von References and Further Reading Schmid, Albert. Die “Brummer.” Porto Alegre: A Nação, 1949.

BRÜNING, HEINRICH b. November 26, 1895; Münster (Westfalen), Prussia d. March 30, 1970; Norwich,Vermont German chancellor from 1930 to 1932 who was exiled to the United States after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. Historians disagree greatly on the role he played in the downfall of the first German democracy between 1930 and 1933. His tenure as chancellor in depressionridden Germany has been interpreted in drastically different ways. Some historians consider it the last attempt to save the Weimar Republic, whereas others see it as the first step in the dissolution of the first German republic. After he had graduated from the Paulinum Gymnasium in Münster, Brüning entered law school at the University of Munich. After one semester he transferred to the University of Strasbourg to study philosophy, history, German literature and language, and political science. During his time in Straßburg, Brüning supported the cooperation between Protestants and Catholics and, influenced by the historian Martin Spahn, adopted a strongly proPrussian nationalist political position. From 1911 to 1913, Brüning studied in London and Manchester, where he was introduced to the British parliamentary system and Toryism. In 1914 he finished his dissertation on the economic and legal conditions of the English private railway

companies with a discussion of the question of their nationalization. One year later, he was awarded a doctorate from the University of Bonn. Although he was considered unfit for active duty because of his nearsightedness, Brüning volunteered in 1914. During his three and a half years of service on the western front, he was wounded twice and received the Eisernes Kreuz (Iron Cross), second and first class. Germany’s military defeat destroyed Brüning’s world. Since he had trusted in the abilities of the German High Command, defeat and revolution came as a great surprise to him. Disliking the new republican system, Brüning decided not to pursue an academic career but instead became active in the Catholic Center Party. His involvement on behalf of former frontline soldiers provided a base for his successful political career. In early 1919 he received a post in the newly created Prussian Social Welfare Ministry. Brüning, together with Adam Stegerwald, organized the melding of all non-Socialist trade unions into the Christian National Trade Union. In 1921 he became the leader of this trade union organization and edited its newspaper, Der Deutsche (The German). During the French occupation of the Rhineland in 1923, Brüning organized the passive resistance of the German population. The experience of hyperinflation, which was accelerated by their passive resistance, traumatized him. In 1924 he was elected to the German parliament and quickly earned a reputation as expert on finance and tax issues. In December 1929, he was chosen as leader of the Center Party faction in parliament. On March 30, 1930, Reich President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Heinrich Brüning as chancellor of a cabinet that was

BRÜNING, HEINRICH

based on Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This marked a turning point in German history and a break with parliamentary custom. The new Brüning cabinet operated independently of the German parliament, relying entirely on the emergency powers of the president. Brüning used his extraordinary powers to introduce a draconian policy of deflation. Facing one of the greatest economic crises in German history, Brüning insisted on cutting spending and increasing taxation. To get rid of the reparation payments imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles was his highest priority. By fulfilling the demands of the Allies to the letter, Brüning intended to show that Germany was incapable of meeting their demands. Accepting a much higher degree of unemployment and impoverishment of the German population than necessary, Brüning was not interested in policies to ameliorate crises, since economic betterment would have prevented him from convincing the United States, Great Britain, and France that Germany could no longer pay reparations. Brüning’s policy led to a much deeper economic crisis and the disillusionment of large parts of the German populace with democracy. In his memoirs, published in 1970, Heinrich Brüning stated that his goal of abolishing Germany’s obligation to pay reparations was only the first step in his larger political program, which included a general reform of Germany’s constitution and the restoration of the Hohenzollern monarchy. The economic collapse in summer of 1931 and Brüning’s deflationary policy made him one of the most hated politicians in Germany. After he lost his support among German industrialists, and his plans for a customs union with Austria

185

failed, Hindenburg began to search for a replacement for Brüning. After Brüning banned the paramilitary organizations of the Nazi movement, Sturmabateilung (SA, Stormtroopers) and Schutzstaffel (SS, Elite Nazi organization) on April 13, 1932, and after he clashed with Hindenburg over the issue of aid for eastern Prussian estate owners, General Kurt von Schleicher convinced Hindenburg to dismiss Brüning. The efficacy of Heinrich Brüning’s chancellorship has been hotly debated among historians. For some it was the end of the Weimar Republic; for others it was the last attempt to preserve the republic. However, Brüning’s economic policy contributed to an enormous increase in support for the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP). It was during his tenure that Adolf Hitler’s party became a mass party, which slowly but surely dominated German political life. Brüning’s attitude toward the Nazi movement was ambivalent and contradictory. Before 1933 he supported the idea of inviting the NSDAP into a coalition government. After Hitler was made chancellor at the end of January 1933, Brüning opposed the Enabling Act but voted in its favor on March 23, 1933. On May 6, 1933, he took over the leadership of the Center Party. Two months later, he was forced to dissolve his party in order to prevent its banning. In May 1934 Brüning left Germany because he feared for his life. He arrived in the United States in 1937 via Holland and Switzerland. There he accepted a professorship in political science at Harvard University. He had to endure the criticism of leftwing émigrés since Brüning had refused to speak out publicly against the Hitler dictatorship and since he did not participate in

186

BUFFALO

any exile organization. However, he unsuccessfully tried to warn European governments of the danger of German expansionism. Brüning accurately predicted the course of German aggression and warned the British government that appeasement would not satisfy Hitler. After the outbreak of World War II, Brüning, frightened by the discussion of retribution against Germany and especially the Morgenthau Plan, lobbied U.S. politicians in an attempt to convince them that reconstruction of Germany was needed. After the end of the war, Brüning traveled back to Germany twice, in 1948 and 1950. He was pleased to see the political unification of Catholics and nationalist Protestants in the newly established Christlich Demokratische Union (Christian Democratic Union) under the leadership of Konrad Adenauer in West Germany. He rejected the offer to run for a seat in the West German parliament. In 1951, he accepted a chair in political science at the University of Cologne. Between 1951 and 1955 he taught at the University of Cologne and at Harvard University. Brüning disagreed with Adenauer’s policy of integrating West Germany into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and objected to the incipient materialism of West Germans. After his retirement in 1955, Brüning decided to return to the United States. In 1957 he bought a small house in Norwich, Vermont, where he lived until his death. Michael Rudloff See also Great Depression; Intellectual Exile; Morgenthau Plan; Shuster, George Nauman; Treaty of Versailles References and Further Reading Mannes, Astrid Luise. Heinrich Brüning: Leben, Wirken, Schicksal. Munich: Olzog,1999.

Morsey, Rudolf. Brüning und Adenauer. Zwei deutsche Staatsmänner. Düsseldorf: Droste, 1972. ———. Zur Entstehung, Authentizität und Kritik von Brünings “Memoiren 1918–1934.” Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1975. Patch, William L. Heinrich Brüning and the Dissolution of the Weimar Republic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

BUFFALO At any one time during the second half of the nineteenth century, about 1 percent of the German immigrants living in the United States resided in Buffalo, New York. Though advocates of German culture in the United States such as Karl Heinzen and Theodore Sutro berated the community in Buffalo for its lack of theater and literary culture, Buffalo’s community was one of the wealthiest and most politically prominent emigrant German communities in the world. Today, however, there is no sign of a German community within the city limits. Pennsylvania Germans such as Martin Mittag and Samuel Helm settled along the eastern shore of Lake Erie as early as the 1790s. But John Kuecherer, a water carrier who arrived from Baden in 1817, was commemorated later as the city’s pioneer German. After the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825, Buffalo became a commercial center and a stopover for immigrants and goods heading west. The German population grew rapidly. German immigrants established their first church, St. John’s Lutheran, in 1829, and their first newspaper, Der Weltbürger (The Cosmopolitan), in 1837. Breweries, incorporated Vereine (clubs), distinctly German Catholic churches, and a Lutheran seminary were all

BUFFALO

established before the European revolutions of 1848 sent many more settlers to the city. The Germans incorporated themselves fairly successfully into the city, winning privileges and accepting responsibilities. They purchased much of the city’s east side, which according to Buffalo’s Commercial Advertiser on June 12, 1857, was as American as the “Duchy of Hesse Cassel.” The timing and extent of their immigration served to unseat nativist politicians, help compete with rival Anglo-Americans in Fourth of July festivals, and win a special reception when President-elect Abraham Lincoln visited the city in 1861. German households also sent a higher proportion of young men into the Civil War than the city’s Irish and Anglo-Americans, though not as high a percentage as African Americans. One German battery led by Michael Wiedrich won special distinction in the war and acclaim at home. City officials integrated the teaching of the German language into the curriculum of the primary schools in 1866. In 1873, a local physician declared that the Germans of Buffalo had become a great power. Respected more than before and ever more numerous, the Germans began to assume a position of leadership in the city itself. In 1871, the city’s Germans celebrated the unification of Germany with a festival declared by the Buffalo Post on May 30 to have been the most “grand, imposing, glorious, and never-to-be-forgotten demonstration” in the city’s history. Two years later, the mobilization of the city’s German Vereine (clubs) overturned a movement to eliminate the German program in the schools. One of the Verein leaders, Philip Becker, subsequently was elected mayor of Buffalo in 1875, 1885,

187

and 1887. By World War II, Buffalo had elected nine German American mayors, more than any other major city in the United States. In 1904, an east side basketball team, appropriately called the “Germans,” won what amounted to the world championship title during the St. Louis Olympic competition. By World War I, the German banks, hospitals, and churches in the city’s skyline attested to the significance of a German element that during the late 1870s crested in influence, accounting for half of the city’s population. But with the decline of nativism and an increase in working-class unrest, the solidarity of the city’s Germans also dissipated in the 1870s. Marxist newspapers such as the Die Arbeiterstimme am Erie (The Worker’s Voice on Erie) in 1878 and the Buffaloer Arbeiter Zeitung (Buffalo Workingman’s News, 1885–1918) called for a revolution that would overthrow the government and the capitalist order. German Catholicism that had begun in Buffalo as a vocal attempt in the 1840s and 1850s to wrest the city’s largest church from French pioneers and Irish bishops became more conservative and innerdirected by the 1870s. By 1900, German Catholicism in Buffalo was an empire marked by numerous otherworldly gothic spires, hundreds of Vereine, about twenty primary schools, and a population greater than the Mormon element of Salt Lake City. The clubs of the more liberal Germans also advanced, with the culmination of their work being the building of a new music hall for the city in 1883. Many leading Germans, such as Jacob Schoellkopf, the first businessmen to win the right to harness the power of Niagara Falls, and Philip Becker acquired impressive degrees

188

BUFFALO

of power financially, politically, socially, and even in denominational affairs. They helped lead a city that was a pioneer in the development of electrical energy and had more per capita millionaires than any other by 1900. By the early 1900s, amid signs of achievement, there was also a growing sense of disappointment among the city’s German leaders. The immigrants were dying off. Leading Vereine of the nineteenth century, such as the Turnverein, the Liedertafel, and the German Young Men’s Association dropped precipitously in membership. A leading soap manufacturer, William Lautz, declared that the teaching of German in the public schools had been a failure and that the “strange drama” of language loss had occurred in many German families. In the face of these realities, however, Germanophiles staged a wakeup call to German Buffalo. In 1904, a coterie of professionals tied to the German department of the public schools, the city’s German hospitals, and its German banks instituted the city’s first German Day and formed a federation that affiliated with the German American Bund, formed three years before in Philadelphia. Uncertainty reigned as the community found the United States increasingly hostile to Germany and inching toward an alliance with Great Britain and France. Some said that the community had emerged from the doldrums of the late nineteenth century. Outspoken pro-German groups like the Bund and the Harugari showed increases in membership, the circulation of local German newspapers grew, and the political power of the Germans appeared to be on the rise. By the time of U.S. entry into World War I, Louis

Fuhrmann was in his seventh year as mayor, the city had four parks with distinctly German names, and the number of students taking German in the public schools had reached its highest level. But a climactic disenchantment followed. Telling incidents, not widespread enough to inflame, raised the cost of remaining German. Patriotic hoodlums broke up a meeting of the Harugari. One Friedrich Winter was stabbed for buying a German newspaper. Pretensions of Germanic greatness had attained a mythic status. But Germany began to lose the war, and with its loss went the utility and prestige of having ties to it. During World War I, newspapers such as the Buffaloer Arbeiter Zeitung, the Demokrat (The Democrat—a Weltbürger offshoot, 1837–1918), and the Freie Presse (Free Press, 1860–1914) folded. The local bund tried in vain to survive in 1918, after finally pledging support for the U.S. war effort. An Anglo-American graduate of Yale, George Buck, defeated Louis Fuhrmann, and many parks, hospitals, and banks lost their German names. Buffalo’s German American community emerged from the war with a single daily, the Volksfreund (People’s Friend, 1868–1954), the once proud Buffalo Orpheus, a number of regional societies, and a scattering of churches where the German language was still a mainstay. The breweries and brewer’s union that had maintained the German language in their transactions were decimated by Prohibition. The area once hailed as the “Great German East Side” now consisted of two neighborhoods—the Orchard and Schiller Park. Buffalo’s Polish community moved north into the German quarter, as many of German descent joined Americans of English

BUFFALO

and Irish descent in moving into neighborhoods on the far north and south sides. As the older establishment of pioneers and liberals died, a new, more conservative German American culture emerged during the 1920s. Frank X. Schwab, a two-term German Catholic mayor (1922–1929), hosted German American leaders and helped revive the German Day celebration in 1922, four years before the return of that festival to Cincinnati. Schwab’s Buffalo remained wet. The mayor fired the policemen who had enforced Prohibition and rewarded agents who helped destroy the Ku Klux Klan. When the Depression came in 1929, nostalgia flourished more conclusively. Four new German literary societies arose in Buffalo during the late 1920s and early 1930s, and associations such as the Herwegh singing society and the local alliance of Vereine reassembled. By the mid-1930s, it was not a lack of enthusiasm that concerned German American leaders but fanaticism. A pro-Nazi group, the Friends of the New Germany, emerged in Buffalo in 1933. Though the inner cadre of this group consisted of only about thirty-six young men and four women—almost all of them immigrants— they won sympathizers from many in the community who dreamed that the local Deutschtum (the German community) could be revived. In the early days, both Joseph Eltges, a German Catholic owner of the Volksfreund, and the scion of the wealthy Schoellkopf family Jacob Schoellkopf II, proffered time and public tributes on behalf of local Nazis. Public condemnation of Nazism and Germany itself, however, upstaged this second revival completely, and Buffalo’s Deutschtum fell from the rank of a nation-

189

ality to a dispersed ethnic group. By the time Hitler plunged Europe into war in 1939, local Nazis were so hated that local German American politicians such as Frank Schwab and Edwin Jaeckle were agitating for their suppression. From 1941 to 1945, the U.S. Justice Department prosecuted local Nazis, while the Buffalo Federation of German Societies maintained a low profile. After the war, the Volksfreund appeared irregularly and no longer presumed to give advice to German speakers. The last German neighborhoods lost their character, and the oldest section, the Orchard, became a slum known as the Fruit Belt. Only a few German societies and churches persisted, with many accepting non-German members. Due to a remarkable decline in the city’s population in the late twentieth century and to a suburban exodus, there is today no recognizable German neighborhood in a city that 130 years before was half German. Andrew Yox See also Cincinnati; Friends of the New Germany; Hexamer, Charles J.; National German-American Alliance; Schwab, Frank X. References and Further Reading Gerber, David. The Making of an American Pluralism: Buffalo, New York, 1825–1860. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1989. Yox, Andrew. “Decline of the GermanAmerican Community in Buffalo, 1855–1925.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1983. ———. “The Parochial Context of Trusteeism: Buffalo’s Saint Louis Church, 1828–1855.” The Catholic Historical Review (October 1990): 712–733. ———. “Bonds of Community: Buffalo’s German Element, 1853–1871.” Coming and Becoming: Pluralism in New York State History. Ed. Wendell Tripp. Cooperstown: New York State Historical Association, 1991a, 185–208.

190

BUFFALO BILL ———. “The Fall of the German-American Community: Buffalo, 1914 to 1919.” Immigration to New York. Eds. William Pencak et al. Philadelphia: Associated University Presses, 1991b, 126–147.

BUFFALO BILL By the end of the nineteenth century, millions had taken part in a common experience promising to transport them to the real American West: Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show, which toured Europe and the United States extensively during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Throughout its thirty-three-year existence, this vibrant show blurred the lines separating entertainment spectacle and history, creating an experience that seemed to be “the real thing.” Presiding over the show was one of the best-known Americans of the day and one of the first modern international celebrities: Buffalo Bill. Numerous cultural and political luminaries saw it, such as Queen Victoria, Emperor Wilhelm II, Pope Leo XIII, and Karl May, as well as hundreds of thousands of other spectators from all walks of life. It served as inspiration for Puccini’s opera La Fanciulla del West (The Child of the West) and numerous western dime novels. In short, it aroused enthusiasm and passion on both sides of the Atlantic for over three decades and helped mold a German understanding of the American West. Although best known for his Wild West shows, Colonel William F. Cody (also known as Buffalo Bill or in Germany as Büffel-Wilhelm) gained a fair degree of fame in the United States before he organized his first Wild West show in 1883. He had previously ridden for the Pony Express

and Majors and Russell, fought in the Civil War as a Union soldier, driven a stagecoach, hunted buffalo to feed the KansasPacific Railroad’s work crews, served as a scout for the U.S. Cavalry, prospected for gold, engaged in several major battles against American Indians, and acted in several melodramatic theatrical productions. As a result of his exploits he received the Congressional Medal of Honor and was elected to serve in the Nebraska state legislature. Contemporaries commonly believed that he had truly experienced firsthand the settlement of the western frontier. Due to his exploits and the resulting accolades he achieved, he and a business partner, Nate Salsbury, thought him the perfect person to organize a show promising easterners a glimpse of the quickly vanishing frontier. The initial successes the show achieved in the United States led Cody and Salsbury to expand it to Europe for several seasons. Following successful tours in Britain, France, and Italy, the show went to Germany in 1890–1891. The show offered a spectacle that amazed its German observers. When the company arrived in a German city, crowds gathered to see the unloading of the train’s cargo and watch the parade as it went to an open space in the city. So impressed were the observers by the rapidity with which the show assembled corrals and tents that the Prussian military sent officers to document specifically how the troupe accomplished this feat so quickly. Following the arrival at the designated open space, the company set up a camp, complete with tepees, corrals, stagecoaches, and tents. The public was allowed to roam these grounds for free and meet the company’s celebrities. The show itself was a series of acts, each

BUFFALO BILL

191

Circus poster showing cowboys rounding up cattle and portrait of Colonel W. F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody on horseback. (Library of Congress)

demonstrating a mythologized aspect of the western frontier such as the job of a Pony Express rider, life in a Native American village, gunfights, and horse taming. The Wild West show allowed German audiences the chance to see things, people, and events they associated with the American West that they had long imagined but had probably never seen. Examples included Native Americans, cowboys, Mexican vaqueros, buffalo, broncos, and displays of lassoing. Several of the show’s most popular star performers during the German tour were Annie Oakley, Jim Larson, Jonnie Baker, Red Bear, Black Heart, and Eagle Horn. The show had a full itinerary in Germany. By the end of its travels it had performed in the German cities of Munich, Dresden, Leipzig, Magdeburg,

Brunswick, Hanover, Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, Strasbourg, Dortmund, Duisburg, Baden-Baden, Mannheim, Darmstadt, Koblenz, and Aachen. Moreover, it visited the Austrian cities of Innsbruck and Vienna. Although the show obviously presented a romanticized vision of the American West—replete with such clichés as gunfights and Indian war dances—its promoters claimed that it represented an actual portrait of the western landscape. Moreover, Cody’s actual participation in the drama further blurred the lines separating fact and fiction. For its own part, the company purposely attempted to confuse German audiences. A disclaimer in the Wild West’s German program read, “We

192

BUND DEUTSCHER FRAUENVEREINE

have only real personalities, only true, no false equipment. . . . [the performance] depicts a great, romantic and nevertheless realistic picture of the time, that though now over, still lives in memory. . . . Here is no theater production, one sees here actual life, as it was in the west . . . a genuine, unadulterated [ungeschminkt] picture of the past—the fighters and wild riders of the prairie” (Shealy 2003, 11). German newspaper reviewers of the production seem to have accepted the assertion that they were in some ways seeing an objective portrayal of life in the American West. They described it as a combination of performance, historical reenactment, circus, and educational opportunity. On seeing the performance, a reviewer effused, “One feels nature—the wild, powerful, unbounded nature of the Prairie. That is something completely different from the most beautiful, impressive circus.” Another reporter wrote that “one gets a real living picture of the hunting- and Indian-life of the North American prairie,” and yet another reporter told his readers, “If you would hold that Col. W. F. Cody is a loud charlatan, you are very mistaken” (Shealy 2003, 23, 45). The show powerfully influenced many Germans’ conception and understanding of the American West. Cody always asserted that the reason for his international tour was to serve as a type of cultural ambassador from the New World to the Old, in order that Europe might think more highly of the United States. In this respect, he must have been pleased with the reaction of German audiences. According to Cody and other members of the troupe, German audiences attended the productions with more enthusiasm and interest than their Euro-

pean counterparts. The visit of the Wild West to a city often left in its wake groups of hobby clubs devoted to exploring aspects of American Indian culture or life in the West. Moreover, numerous contemporary articles relate stories of girls pretending to be Annie Oakley and men injuring themselves as a result of trying to duplicate the show’s stunts. Interestingly, the movement of performers across the Atlantic Ocean occurred in both directions. Following the show’s tour through Germany, it returned to Chicago to take part in the World Exposition of 1893. Wilhelm II allowed a detachment from the Prussian military to accompany the troupe and perform their riding abilities before American audiences. Gregory Paul Shealy See also Indians in German Literature References and Further Reading Blackstone, Sarah J. Buckskins, Bullets, and Business: A History of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986. Kasson, Joy S. Buffalo Bill’s Wild West: Celebrity, Memory, and Popular History. New York: Hill and Wang, 2000. Moses, Lester George. Wild West Shows and the Images of American Indians, 1883–1933. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1996. Reddin, Paul. Wild West Shows. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Shealy, Gregory. Buffalo Bill in Germany. MA thesis, University of Wisconsin at Madison, 2003.

BUND DEUTSCHER FRAUENVEREINE (FEDERATION OF GERMAN WOMEN’S CLUBS) On March 29, 1894, the Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine (BDF, or Federation of German Women’s Clubs) was founded in

BUND DEUTSCHER FRAUENVEREINE

Berlin. It was the first umbrella organization with the specific aim of connecting and centralizing the broad spectrum of women’s interests and concerns. The idea for such a federation had originated in the United States. In 1893, several prominent German women’s rights activists—Anna Simson, Hanna Bieber-Böhm, Auguste Förster, and Käthe Schirmacher—had attended the International Women’s Congress at the Chicago World Fair and had familiarized themselves with the perspectives, strategies, and organizational forms of the American women’s movements. Taking the National Council of Women as their model, they had returned to Germany with the plan to bring together, under one organizational roof, as many different women’s clubs as possible and thus to extend the movements’ political reach and influence. The World Fair in Chicago and the resulting formation of the BDF can thus be considered the formal beginning of German American organized women’s cooperation. In addition to the National Council of Women in the United States, the BDF was also indebted to the International Council of Women (ICW), which was founded in Washington, D.C., in 1888. The meetings of the ICW happened in the context of a lively, more informal transatlantic exchange. At the end of the nineteenth century, travel times between the United States and Europe had shrunk to five days on an ocean liner, although distance and cost often still constituted considerable obstacles, both for individual women and the organizations of which they were part. Nevertheless, many professional contacts were established, and individual friendships developed. One prominent example

193

was Jane Addams, the founder of the settlement movement, who traveled to Europe in 1883 as part of her “finishing tour.” She visited Ireland, England, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Austria, France, Switzerland, and Germany. This journey, intended as the final step of her formal education, turned into the initial impulse for her later dedication to social reform. Two years later, she again visited Europe (this time especially England, Germany, Italy, and Spain) and brought back the idea for Hull-House. During this second trip, Addams collected information on women’s situation and the state of the women’s movements in these European countries, being especially impressed by German social reform. And Addams was not alone in her interest and engagement. Other reformers of the Progressive Era—among them Florence Kelley, Alice Hamilton, Mary Church Terrell, Mary Kingsbury Simkovitch, and Emily Greene Balch—repeatedly traveled to Europe, often including visits to Germany. Most of them had initially come on study or finishing tours but later deliberately sought contacts with German reformers. Many saw in German institutions and reforms models to take back and implement on their side of the Atlantic. Especially the German educational system and an insurance legislation that emphasized social responsibility seemed worthy of emulation. In turn, German women familiarized themselves with the goals and perspectives of the American women’s movements during their travels to the United States. Addams in particular became a role model for the prominent positions women could occupy within social reform. Hull-House in Chicago was considered one of the most

194

BUND DEUTSCHER FRAUENVEREINE

attractive destinations of politically interested European travelers; even Bertha von Suttner, Austrian writer, pacifist, and first recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, stopped there. German women also took advantage of the opportunity to inform American women of their activities at home because most American activists had only a sketchy understanding of the situation in Germany, despite the general enthusiasm that accompanied these transatlantic connections. And several prominent German women’s rights activists managed to be acknowledged in the United States for their ideals and goals; Alice Salomon in particular established herself in American circles as an expert on German social policies and published widely in American journals. ICW and BDF shared the idea of bringing together and accommodating a wide variety of women’s interests; accordingly, both organizations’ statutes were intentionally vague and flexible. The ICW’s corresponding secretary, Teresa Wilson, expressed both apprehension and enthusiasm when she described this strategy of noninterference in the Quinquennial Report of the ICW for 1899 as both “our stumbling-block and our pride—our stumbling-block because of the difficulty we experience in explaining precisely by rule and measure what we are and what we want, and our pride because this very vagueness enables us to be all-embracing” (Rupp 1997, 19). In a similar vein, paragraph 2 of the BDF’s founding documents determined that the federation should explicitly refrain from interfering in its member societies’ internal affairs. This policy of noninterference, however, was not easy to maintain, as the various groups’ perspectives and goals differed widely and often resulted in conflicting de-

mands. In Germany, the bourgeois women’s movement alone was divided between radicals and moderates, and Socialist and conservative women constituted independent factions outside middle-class organizing. In addition, Prussian law prohibited women, high school students, apprentices, and “insane” persons—until 1908—from being members of political organizations. This law had far-reaching consequences for the formation of an organized women’s movement in the German Empire because it forced all women’s organizations to project an explicitly nonpolitical image in order to prevent being shut down by police. This was especially detrimental to the Socialist/Social Democratic women’s movement because their support for the rights of female workers was, as far as the state was concerned, undoubtedly political. Socialist women’s societies and their members were thus constantly under observation, running a high risk of persecution and/or prohibition. Despite these difficult political circumstances and its highly contested beginnings, the BDF quickly developed into a very powerful organization. Before World War I, membership grew surprisingly fast. With 65 member organizations in its first year, it grew to include 137 organizations with about 70,000 individual members in 1901. In 1913, it consisted of 2,200 organizations and approximately 500,000 individual members. In 1933, the National Socialists tried to incorporate the BDF in its own women’s organization; to avoid this development, the BDF chose to disband. Kerstin R. Wolff See also Addams, (Laura) Jane; International Council of Women

BURGESS, JOHN WILLIAM References and Further Reading Gerhard, Ute, and Ulla Wischermann. Unerhört: Die Geschichte der deutschen Frauenbewegung. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1990. Greven-Aschoff, Barbara. Die bürgerliche Frauenbewegung in Deutschland, 1894–1933. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1981. Herminghouse, Patricia. “‘Wohl auf Schwestern!’ Schnittpunkte der deutschen und amerikanischen Frauenbewegung im 19. Jahrhundert.” Deutsch-amerikanischen Begegnungen: Konflikte und Kooperation im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Ed. Frank Trommler and Elliott Shore. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 2001, 103–116. Rupp, Leila J. Worlds of Women: The Making of an International Women’s Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Schüler, Anja. Frauenbewegung und soziale Reform: Jane Addams und Alice Salomon im transatlantischen Dialog, 1889–1933. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004.

BURGESS, JOHN WILLIAM b. August 26, 1844; Cornersville, Tennessee d. January 13, 1931; Newport, Rhode Island American political scientist. After studies in Germany, John William Burgess became professor at Columbia University and a major influence in the creation of political science as a graduate academic discipline in the United States. Burgess grew up in Tennessee in a slaveholding but pro-Union family. In the Civil War he served with the Union as scout and quartermaster. After the war he studied at Amherst College, from which he graduated in 1867. He studied law with a law firm in nearby Springfield, Massachusetts, and was admitted to the bar in 1869. He did not

195

practice but joined the faculty of Knox College. From 1871 to 1873 Burgess studied law, history, and political science at the universities of Göttingen, Leipzig and Berlin, where he had Johann Gustav Droysen, Theodore Mommsen, Heinrich von Treitschke, Rudolf von Gneist, and other leading scholars of the day as teachers. A companion in his study trip was Elihu Root, later U.S. secretary of state. Upon his return to the United States in 1873, Burgess taught history and political science at Amherst until 1876, when he joined the faculty at Columbia University. In 1880, together with Nicholas Murray Butler, Burgess established the School of Political Science at Columbia University, which replicated German educational models. The school soon commenced publishing the Political Science Quarterly. In 1890 Burgess published his most important academic work, Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, and became dean of the Faculty of Political Science in 1890. He remained in that position until his retirement in 1912. Burgess’s relationship with Germany and with German culture can be seen as part of his mission in life. During the Civil War, Burgess vowed to himself that he “would devote [his] life to teaching men how to live by reason and compromise instead of by bloodshed and destruction” (Reminiscences 1934, 29). He sought to acquire in German universities “the education which would fit [him] for the life work which [he] had chosen for himself ” (Reminiscences 1934, 86). In 1906 Burgess became the first Roosevelt Professor of American History and Institutions at the Friedrich Wilhelm University in Berlin. When World War I broke out, Burgess wrote several newspaper articles and two

196

BURMEISTER, CARL HERMANN CONRAD

books in which, as he later stated, he sought to express the idea “that as a neutral nation, we ought to understand how the parties involved viewed the war, and thus maintain our neutrality intelligently” (New York Times, December 17, 1918, p. 2). For his empathetic treatment of the German position, Burgess endured sharp criticism. When the United States entered the war, the secretary of war banned Burgess’s two war books. After the war, Burgess was repeatedly among the first named in Senate hearings as a source of pro-German sentiment. James R. Maxeiner See also Göttingen, University of; World War I References and Further Reading Burgess, John W. Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law. 2 vols. Boston: Ginn, 1890–1891. ———. Reminiscences of an American Scholar: The Beginnings of Columbia University, with a Forward by Nicholas Murray Butler. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934. Farr, James. “Burgess, John William.” American National Biography. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999, 3:940–941.

BURMEISTER, CARL HERMANN CONRAD b. January 15, 1807; Stralsund (Pomerania), Prussia b. May 2, 1892; Buenos Aires German geographer and explorer of Argentina. Hermann Burmeister studied medicine at the University of Halle, where he received his doctorate in 1829. Four years later, Burmeister finished his Habilitation (postdoctoral degree) at the University of Berlin.

In 1837 he was appointed honorary professor for zoology at the University of Halle. At this point, he had already been recognized as a very successful scholarly author for his Grundriß der Naturgeschichte (Basics of Natural History), published in ten editions between 1833 and 1868; his Handbuch der Naturgeschichte (Handbook of Natural History) in two volumes, published in 1837; and his Geschichte der Schöpfung (History of Creation), published in eight editions between 1843 and 1872. In 1848, Burmeister was elected as deputy of the newly created German National Assembly in Frankfurt am Main. Disappointed by the failed 1848 revolution, Burmeister asked for a sabbatical from his university and embarked on an extensive journey through South and Central America. After Alexander von Humboldt had arranged for funding from the Prussian government, Burmeister left Germany for South America in 1850. In order to carry out some paleontological research in Brazil, Burmeister traveled from Rio de Janeiro via Nova Friburgo to Lagoa Santa and visited the provinces of Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. However, a broken leg prevented him from accomplishing all that he had planned for this trip. Back in Germany, Burmeister published several books about his encounters in Brazil, among them Reise nach Brasilien (Journey to Brazil, 1853); Landschaftliche Bilder Brasiliens (Landscape Pictures of Brazil, 1853); Systematische Übersicht der Tiere Brasiliens (Systematical Overview over the Animals of Brazil, 1854–1856), in three volumes; and the Erläuterungen zur Fauna Brasiliens (Remarks about the Fauna of Brazil, 1856). In 1856, Burmeister returned to South America for geological and paleontological

BURMEISTER, CARL HERMANN CONRAD

research as well as for observations of the climate, fauna, and birds. Between 1856 and 1860, he spent most of his time in northern Argentina. However, he also went on research trips from Buenos Aires to Rosario and through the Pampas to Mendoza. In Mendoza, Burmeister spent about thirteen months in 1857–1858 in order to investigate the fauna and to take meteorological measurements. His book, Über das Klima der Argentinischen Republik (About the Climate of the Argentinean Republic, 1861), was a direct result of this research. For about nine months, Burmeister led the life of a farmer in Paraná. In June 1859, he embarked on his second big journey into the northern parts of Brazil. From Rosario, he reached Córdoba, Tucumán, and Catamarca before he crossed the Andes into Chile. Burmeister was the first European to take this path across the Andes. In Chile, he boarded a ship bound for Europe. Burmeister was able to correct European’s topographic knowledge about South America. His eye for detail and his excellent abstract thinking skills enabled him to produce the first comprehensive description of the physical geography of the La Plata states in his book Reise durch die La Plata-Staaten mit besonderer Rücksicht der Argentinischen Republik (Travel through the La Plata States with an Emphasis on the Argentinean Republic) in two volumes (1861). Burmeister’s extensive travels matched his extensive scope of knowledge and publications. In addition to books on paleontology and zoology, he published works on biology and climate research. Burmeister is known as the founder of the geoscientific explorations of the La Plata states and as the best specialist of the physical geography of Argentina.

197

Soon after his return, Burmeister finally decided to emigrate to Argentina for health reasons. In 1862, he took over management of the Museo Público in Buenos Aires, which he transformed into one of the world’s most impressive paleontological collections. In 1870, he established the natural science department at the University of Córdoba and recruited German academics for the university (among them was Ludwig Brackebusch). Burmeister published an uncounted number of articles in journals as well as many books. His most important and comprehensive treatment of South American geography was the Physikalische Beschreibung der Argentinischen Republik (Physical Description of the Argentinean Republic, 1875), which he dedicated to his patron and friend Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, the president of Argentina. His last expedition brought him to Patagonia in 1887. Upon his death, he received a state funeral in Argentina for his service in the geographic exploration and investigation of that country. Eight years later, a memorial made from white marble and erected in Buenos Aires at the shore of the Rio de la Plata was dedicated to Burmeister. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Argentina; Brackebusch, Ludwig; Humboldt, Alexander von References and Further Reading Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1978, 1:409–412. Hermann Burmeister: Ein bedeutender Naturwissenschaftler des 19. Jahrhunderts. Stralsund 1993 (Meer und Museum; vol. 9). Ratzel, Friedrich. “Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad.” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1903, 47:394–396.

198

BUSINESS, U.S.–THIRD REICH

BUSINESS, U.S.–THIRD REICH Well before the the 1941 Trading with the Enemy Act set legal prohibitions on trade with Axis nations, General Motors and Ford Motor Company disregarded antiNazi public sentiment and vigorously competed for Nazi military contracts. In 1938 General Motors president Alfred Sloan publicly stated that as an international business, General Motors ought to conduct its international operations in purely business terms without consideration of the political ideologies or policies of nation-states. Referencing contemporary debate surrounding international relations with Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich, Sloan’s commentary reflected a general philosophy shared with Ford Motor Company executives of both political apathy and tacit support for the Nazi regime. Although General Motors and Ford executives were not the only prominent Americans supportive of Nazi Germany before the war, including such household names as Joseph Kennedy, Prescott Bush, and Charles Lindbergh, their corporate actions just prior to and during the war have been a source of recent legal and public inquiry. The story of General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and the Nazi authorities is not simply one of totalitarian coercion by a monolithic state but of complex motivations tempered by acts of consensual collaboration and corporate greed in adopting a “business as usual” attitude under the Third Reich. Like many industrialists worldwide, executives at General Motors were generally intrigued with Hitler and supportive of his economic policies. Throughout the 1930s, it was not uncommon for top Gen-

eral Motors executives like Alfred Sloan, William Knudsen, or vice presidents James Mooney and Graeme Howard to make public statements in support of Hitler and Nazi Germany. After a trip to Germany in 1933, Knudsen referred to the Third Reich as one of the great miracles of the twentieth century. In 1938 James Mooney, along with Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and Benito Mussolini, received the Grand Cross of the German Eagle, the highest award available to foreigners to reward invaluable service to the Third Reich. In 1940 Howard wrote a book entitled America and a New World Order that supported Hitler’s corporate-friendly economic policies; a piece that placed Howard on an FBI surveillance list throughout the war. General Motors played an important role in prewar military production and the sharing of advanced technologies with the Third Reich through its German subsidiary, Adam Opel AG. As consumer spending decreased before the war, General Motors sought new production markets through military contracts. In 1935 the Wehrmacht encouraged General Motors to open a new truck plant in Brandenburg, producing the “Opel Blitz” truck exclusively for the German armed forces. The Brandenburg plant had an annual production capacity of 25,000 trucks for the Nazi military. In order to protect General Motors’ investments from “nationalization” by the Nazis and to keep profits up, James Mooney negotiated a deal with the Nazi authorities in Berlin to convert all Opel production to war materials in 1940. Outside of basic production before the war, General Motors technologies became vital to Nazi military strategy. In a 1977 interview with Bradford Snell, Hitler’s minister

BUSINESS, U.S.–THIRD REICH

for armaments Albert Speer asserted that without the synthetic fuel technology provided by General Motors to IG Farben at the request of the Nazi regime, Germany would never have even considered invading Poland. Henry Ford, inspired by the fabricated Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, purchased a small newspaper in 1918 called the Dearborn Independent and set aside $10 million to finance his public exposure of a “Jewish plot against humanity.” Faced with consumer boycotts and a pending lawsuit for slander, Ford discontinued the publication of his newspaper in 1922 and focused upon spreading his antisemitic tracts through the international publication of his book, The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem. Ford’s book, a piece still praised and published by antisemites worldwide on the Internet, also caught the attention of men like Adolf Hitler, who came to deeply respect and admire Ford as an industrialist and fellow antisemite. The Nazi Party distributed a German translation of Ford’s book and Hitler himself kept a large photo of Ford in his Munich office, stating once in a 1931 interview that he considered Henry Ford to be his personal inspiration. During the Nuremberg trials Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler Youth program, stated he developed his antisemitic views at the age of seventeen not from reading Hitler’s Mein Kampf (My Battle), but from Ford’s The International Jew. In 1938 Ford Motor Company’s German subsidiary Ford-Werke AG began producing troop transport trucks for the German military. General Motors had faced certain challenges under the Third Reich due to the foreign ownership of Adam

199

Opel AG, whereas the Opel company had been manufacturing in Germany since 1862 and had a long-standing German identity. Since Ford-Werke AG was an American-built and -owned company, Ford felt threatened by the nationalist sentiment of the German public and Nazi authorities and felt compelled to convert its production facilities to fulfill military contracts. In order to protect its subsidiary, Ford forged closer bonds with the Nazi Party and IG Farben, each corporation owning large shares in each other’s foreign subsidiaries to protect their investments from state interference or liquidation. This process of “Germanizing” the business came in the late 1930s under direction from Ford management in Dearborn, showing loyalty to the production needs of Hitler’s government while maintaining a majority American ownership. Continued American involvement had a dual benefit for Ford and the Nazis, allowing the Nazis to exploit Ford technologies and resources while Ford exerted control and influence on its subsidiaries in occupied territories in the event of Nazi European expansion. Although both General Motors and Ford Motor Company claim to have played a vital role to the Allied powers in armament production throughout the war, boasting to be “the arsenal of democracy,” it is clear that neither corporation can claim a guilt-free record in their relations with the Third Reich. As Allied troops began their push through western Europe, they were astonished when they encountered an enemy that was driving trucks and jeeps built by General Motors and Ford. Once German cities like Cologne were liberated, Allied soldiers found large numbers of slave laborers residing at a Ford-Werke

200

BUSINESS, U.S.–THIRD REICH

plant that had been virtually untouched by Allied bombing raids that had leveled the rest of the city. After Europe began its postwar path to economic recovery and restored consumer spending, General Motors and Ford Motor Company assumed a leading and profitable role in the European automotive market, while many of their prewar competitors faded into obscurity. Joel Lewis See also Ford, Henry Augustus; Lindbergh, Charles; World War II

References and Further Reading Billstein, Reinhold, Karola Fings, Anita Kugler, and Nicholas Levis. Working for the Enemy: Ford, General Motors, and Forced Labor in Germany during the Second World War. Ed. Nicholas Levis. New York: Berghahn Books, 2000. Higham, Charles. Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi American Money Plot, 1933–1949. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1983. Reich, Simon. The Fruits of Fascism: Postwar Prosperity in Historical Perspective. London: Cornell University Press, 1990. Turner, Henry A. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

C CAHENSLY, PETER PAUL b. October 28, 1838; Limburg an der Lahn, Hesse d. December 25, 1923; Koblenz, Prussia Founder of the St. Raphaels-Verein zum Schutz der katholischen deutschen Auswanderer (St. Raphael Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants), which he served as general secretary and later as president. Peter Paul Cahensly was a central figure in the “nationality question” within the American Catholic Church. He served in the Abgeordnetenhaus (Prussian House of Delegates) from 1885 to 1915 and in the Reichstag (German parliament) from 1898 to 1903. After completing his merchant apprenticeship, Cahensly traveled to the French port city of Le Havre, where he lived from 1861 until 1868. While in Le Havre he witnessed the hardships that emigrants faced. Inspired by the actions of a German missionary priest, P. Lambert Rethmann, whom he met while working for the St. Vincent de Paul Society, Cahensly decided to lobby for the improvement of emigrant conditions in Europe’s port cities. During the annual Katholikentage (Catholic Days),

he called upon the General Assembly of German Catholic Societies to take an active role in providing spiritual, moral, and material help for emigrants in the prominent ports Antwerp, Le Havre, Bremen, and Hamburg. His efforts led to the formation of the St. Raphaelsverein at the General Assembly in Mainz in September 1871. Cahensly provided the new association with financial support and served as its first general secretary (and later as its president from 1899 until 1919). He met with emigration authorities and government officials in the port cities and drafted annual reports on the enforcement of emigration regulations. In 1883 he traveled incognito to the United States in steerage so that he could gain firsthand experience of the miserable emigrant conditions. While in the United States, Cahensly toured the “German Triangle” of the Midwest and the large cities of the East Coast, drumming up support for emigrants along the way. The main American headquarters of St. Raphaelsverein, the Leo House (named after Pope Leo XIII), was opened in New York City in 1889. Eventually branches of the association sprouted throughout the United States.

201

202

CANADA, GERMANS

IN

During the 1880s and 1890s, Cahensly’s name became synonymous with a particular view in a debate within the American Catholic community. Cahensly believed that German Catholics were losing the faith in the United States because the American church did not adequately cater to the needs of its national minorities. German Catholics, he argued, needed German priests who spoke German with their congregation. Thus he helped draft and then presented Pope Leo XIII with the Lucerne Memorial (1891), which recommended that the American church be districted upon national rather than geographical lines and that bishops should be selected in proportion to the size of the respective national immigrant communities. Pope Leo XIII eventually rejected the Lucerne Memorial, but his decision did not prevent bickering within the American Catholic Church. “Americanist” Catholics, who were predominantly liberal and Irish, denounced what they called “Cahenslyism” as an affront to the catholicity of the church and an encroachment of German Catholic politics onto American soil. Cahensly did in fact represent the German Catholic Center Party (Zentrum) in both the Prussian House of Delegates and would later become a member of the German parliament. He denied that his stance on the national question in the American church was politically motivated and maintained that he had only the spiritual interests of German Catholics in mind. The St. Raphaelsverein (after 1977, Raphaels-Werk) continues to aid emigrants to this day. Kevin Ostoyich See also St. Raphael’s Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants

References and Further Reading Barry, Coleman, J., OSB. The Catholic Church and German Americans. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing, 1953. Gleason, Philip. The Conservative Reformers: German-American Catholics and the Social Order. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968. Roemer, Theodore, OFM Cap. The Catholic Church in the United States. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1950. Schenk, Heinrich, and Victor Mohr. Das Erbe Cahenslys: Festvortrag zum 150. Geburtstag Peter Paul Cahenslys. Hildesheim: Bernward Verlag, 1989.

CANADA, GERMANS IN (DURING WORLD WARS I AND II) By 1914, the over 400,000 people of German descent in Canada constituted the Dominion’s third-largest ethnic group after the British and French. Most of the German speakers in Ontario—including the sizable Mennonite population—had been Loyalists, although the roots of the small German population in Nova Scotia predated the American Revolution. Almost half of Canada’s Germans and most of the newcomers were pioneer farmers in the prairie provinces, including 20,000 Mennonites. Many of the non-Mennonite Germans in the west had lived in the United States, and most of the rest had come from ethnically German enclaves in eastern Europe. Less than one-fifth were Germanborn. Religion, not ethnicity, defined German settlements, and since German Canadians employed the German language primarily for religious purposes, the need to maintain it as a barrier against assimilation was less noticeable than among other

CANADA, GERMANS

immigrants. Nonetheless, the overwhelmingly rural—and hence isolated—nature of German settlement in the west and the ethnic homogeneity characteristic of “block” settlement helped preserve cultural identity. Only the more recent immigrants from eastern Europe had been exposed in any significant way to völkisch thought and felt part of a “German nation.” In the older, established German communities of British Columbia and Ontario, successful business and professional men were part of the local “establishment,” politically and otherwise. German cultural clubs flourished in most urban centers. In Berlin, Ontario, the country’s most “German” city, the birthdays of the Emperor Wilhelm II and Queen Victoria were both celebrated as civic holidays. The German Canadians in these long-settled communities saw no contradiction between loyalty to Canada and admiration of German culture. In the early years of the century, “nativism” (or Anglo-conformity) was a growing force in western Canada. As John Dafoe, editor of the influential Manitoba Free Press, editorialized in 1910: “We must Canadianize this generation of foreignborn settlers, or this will cease to be a Canadian country in any sense of the term” (May 10, 1910). Dafoe could have easily substituted British for Canadian. Yet as “preferred” immigrants, Germans were seldom a nativist target. However, from the Boer War (1899–1902) onward, AngloCanadians began to see their German neighbors as being in league with Berlin and the emperor. Like their lively weekly press, most German Canadians—regardless of their European origins—sympathized with Germany, naively arguing that

IN

203

it was as natural for them to feel loyalty to Germany as for British immigrants to support their “old country.” By 1914, half of the German Canadian population was Canadian-born, and only 20,000 were not naturalized (that is, not British subjects). Overall, the “German” community in Canada was markedly heterogeneous, with no cohesive ethnic identity and with rare exception, only a cultural—but not a political—affinity for “the Fatherland.” The outbreak of World War I marked the end of innocence for Canada’s German population as the much-favored settlers and citizens found themselves vilified overnight. Canada would wage war against not only Germany but also “Germanness.” In fairness, the Canadian government faced a difficult situation. The Dominion’s population included half a million people from countries at war with the British Empire, many of them only recently arrived. Incautious statements favorable to the German and Austro-Hungarian cause had been made by some newspapers and community leaders. Canada bordered the neutral United States, where millions more who were sympathetic to the British Empire’s enemies resided. The realization that some German and Austrian reservists were slipping into the United States and thence back to Europe further heightened suspicions. Despite Ottawa’s initial pledge that “immigrants of German nationality quietly pursuing their usual avocation . . . should continue in such avocation without interruption,” public tolerance rapidly eroded (Entz 1976, 58). Anglo-Canadian animosity focused on “enemy aliens,” of whom Germans quickly became the most loathed. The experience of the 10,000-strong community

204

CANADA, GERMANS

IN

in Winnipeg, Canada’s third-largest city, was typical. Efforts to create a German Canadian identity, so central to the community’s activities prior to 1914, had to be abandoned. Indeed, churches were the only German cultural institutions not to show a marked decline in participation, and even some of them cut back on German-language services. The outbreak of hostilities ignited a wave of vandalism against German property, and many workers of German descent were fired. Local merchants and consumers boycotted German products and businesses. Some members of the community were even assaulted on the street. Most foreigners—like the Ukrainians and Poles—were quick to display their loyalty to the British cause as a group, but Germans were reluctant, instead trying to lie low. Although no evidence of spying was ever unearthed, fears of German fifth columnists became rampant. Daily the warlike nature of the “Huns” was hammered home in the press. Ottawa supplied every newspaper with a copy of the British Report of the Committee on Perceived German Outrages, which breathlessly accused the German army of “murder, lust and pillage . . . on a scale unparalleled in any war between civilized nations” (Thompson 1991, 6). Meanwhile, German cultural attainments were everywhere denigrated. The idea that “Kaiserism” and militarism embodied the will of the German people was universally accepted. Winnipeg’s Germans were bewildered by their portrayal in the Englishlanguage press but powerless to do anything about it. The city’s Germans, who had been trying to integrate before the war, now had less contact than ever with their English-speaking neighbors.

In Ontario, German Canadians voluntarily closed many of their schools, and most refrained from using their language in public. After bitter controversy and repeated eruptions of violence against German-operated businesses and institutions as well as ordinary citizens, the people of Berlin voted to rename their city the suitably patriotic Kitchener in 1916. For many western Canadians, loyalty and cultural and linguistic uniformity became synonymous during World War I. Public pressure finally achieved the abolition of all bilingual schools in Manitoba in 1916. Alberta and Saskatchewan followed suit two years later. Public schools were seen as the mill that would take immigrant children and “turn them out with the stamp of the King and the Maple Leaf ” (Thompson 1991, 8). Such displays of nativism were not just aimed at Germans. Nonetheless, many reacted by shedding their identity—Braun became Brown, and Schmidt Smith. Several western communities with German names adopted less offensive identities—Dusseldorf, Alberta, became Freedom, and Prussia, Saskatchewan, was renamed Leader. Still, many other towns in heavily German-populated areas resisted the tide. Throughout the war, jittery Canadians invariably linked accidental disasters like the burning down of the parliament buildings in 1916 to the “hidden hand” of the “enemy alien.” Harvest time reliably brewed a spate of rumors that the crop would be torched. Newspapers repeatedly warned of a German American army massed to invade, with “enemy aliens” secretly drilling in Canada to assist them. In reality, German Canadians posed no security threat, and there was no evidence dur-

CANADA, GERMANS

ing the war of their involvement in fifth column activity. Naturalized Germans or Austrians who tried to prove their loyalty by enlisting were usually rejected. The University of Toronto dismissed three German faculty members, and miners in Fernie, British Columbia, struck rather than have to work alongside Germans. Scattered acts of violence against German property and individuals occurred virtually everywhere and usually involved soldiers. Forcing Germans on the street to kneel and kiss the Union Jack was a favored measure. Many of the accusations leveled against German Canadians were cruelly ironic, such as the case of a Lutheran pastor in Ontario denounced for preaching in German whose son was serving in France. Although governments rarely encouraged or approved outbreaks of vigilante justice, prosecutions were rare, and all gradually succumbed to an outraged public’s demands that they “deal” with the “enemy alien.” The War Measures Act (1914) had given the federal government powers of “arrest, detention, exclusion and deportation” of individuals and specifically denied the rights of bail and habeas corpus to anyone arrested “upon suspicion that he is an alien enemy.” From 1915 onward, such persons—80,000 registered, a large proportion of them Germans—had to report monthly to local authorities, and their movements (and bank accounts) were strictly monitored. Altogether Ottawa interned nearly 8,000 Canadian residents for varying periods, including almost 1,200 Germans. Internment and registration applied only to the unnaturalized, and the great majority of the internees were impoverished Ukrainians.

IN

205

German-language newspapers continued to publish. The War Measures Act incorporated a censorship law, but Ottawa refused to muzzle the German-language press. Instead, the government closed down “defiant” papers and had local officials and the Royal North West Mounted Police monitor the others. The chief censor quickly extracted a pledge that nothing would be published “unduly to cause exultation among German readers” (Entz 1976, 58). Editors walked a fine line. When Conrad Eymann, editor of Der [Saskatchewan] Courier, urged his German Canadian readers to become more involved in Canadian life “from a thoroughly loyal Canadian standpoint,” his apparent advocacy of political involvement was not well received (April 24, 1915). So-called returned men (mostly wounded veterans) led a growing chorus to silence the “enemy press”—Der Courier’s offices were ransacked by such protestors twice in 1917 alone. When the Great War Veterans Association, ardently patriotic and strongly nativist, called in 1918 for the immediate closure of all German-language publications—with the veiled threat that they would do it themselves if Ottawa dragged its feet—Prime Minister Robert Borden acted. In September, an order-in-council prohibited publication “in any enemy language.” The reinforcement crisis of 1917 produced a Unionist government of Englishspeaking Conservatives and Liberals committed to conscription for overseas service. Although principally aimed at French Canadians, conscription made the predicament of “enemy aliens” much worse. The War-Times Election Act (1917) disenfranchised all Germans (and other “enemy

206

CANADA, GERMANS

IN

aliens”) who were naturalized but had arrived after 1898, which included the vast majority of Germans in western Canada. All Mennonites lost the vote without exception. Both groups were also exempted from the draft. The measure was one of several adopted to ensure a Unionist victory at the polls in December 1917. Returned soldiers and many others thought the government had let the “enemy aliens” off too lightly. “Left to fatten on war-time prosperity,” they argued, saying it was time to conscript these people for industry at a private’s pay (Thompson 1991, 9). In contrast to German Canadian business and professional people and urban workers who had suffered badly during the war, German-speaking farmers generally had done well—their sons stayed home, and agricultural prices were high. German Canadians in Ontario did not lose the franchise and scored a rare political victory when William D. Euler, the mayor of Kitchener, won election to the House of Commons in 1917 on an unapologetically pro-German Canadian and anticonscription platform. By 1917–1918, the “war increasingly came to be viewed,” according to Art Grenke, “as a struggle, not between armies, but between forces of British and Allied justice and righteousness, and the Germans forces of darkness and autocracy.” To its credit, the federal government did not accede to the more extreme demands of the nativists and patriots during the last two years of the war, but public opinion would not have stopped it. The last year of the conflict brought exhaustion at home and a wave of strikes. Frightened upper- and middle-class Canadians branded labor unrest as “bolshevism,” which was denounced as a Germaninspired war strategy. Although German

Canadian workers who participated in strikes were just following the lead of their unions, their actions were offered as clear evidence of a malign Teutonic plot. The banning of meetings in German and the suppression of the German-language press that occurred in the last months of the war were both ostensibly aimed at the Bolshevik menace. The red scare ensured that many anti-German measures remained in place through 1919. As David Smith aptly put it, people of “enemy alien” origin became a problem for the Canadian government from 1914 to 1918 “not because they were disloyal . . . but because many native-born Canadians suspected them of being disloyal” (Smith 1969, 436). Although many of the measures taken against Germans had been part of the prewar nativist agenda, fear of and hatred toward the “enemy alien” nurtured by wartime patriotism had helped to legitimize government action. The impact of the oppression suffered during World War I was deep and lasting. The ethnic pride and traditional self-esteem of German Canadian communities plummeted to a point where even those United Empire Loyalist families who before 1914 had been proud of their German descent suddenly renounced it. At least 100,000 German Canadians claimed Dutch or Austrian ethnicity in the 1921 census. The prewar belief in “German culture” was discarded, with the result that Germans became one of the most assimilated ethnic groups in Canada during the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, most wanted nothing more than to be left alone. The government restored the franchise in 1920, and the 1919 prohibition against German immigration was dismantled in 1923. Public opinion, however, would have kept the door firmly closed.

CANADA, GERMANS

The militant Anglo-Canadianism spawned in World War I set the cultural tone during the interwar years and constituted a far more virulent form of nativism than anything the “foreign-born” had encountered before World War I. The 1931 census showed 474,000 Canadians of German descent. Although only about one in ten were from Germany, most Anglo-Canadians continued to feel that all Germans were culturally homogeneous and had their political roots there. Eight years later, only 16,000 of the Germans in Canada were not naturalized, and large numbers of these were Jewish, Austrian, or Czech refugees. The reopening of German immigration had led to an influx of both Mennonites and non-Mennonites from Russia during the 1920s. Of the 90,000 post–World War I German immigrants in the Dominion in 1939, 80 percent had taken up farming in the West (McLaughlin 1985, 13). Nazi Germany made a major—if disorganized—effort to proselytize among these newcomers after 1933. The National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) itself and the Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF, or German Labor Front) attempted to recruit German citizens, while the Deutscher Bund Kanada (German Association of Canada), a thinly disguised cultural and social club established in 1934, aimed at the naturalized (and by now predominantly Canadian-born) population. Membership in the DAF and Nazi Party never exceeded 500 and 140, respectively. As for the Bund, it claimed perhaps 2,500 members, including Mennonites and devout Lutherans who joined for nostalgic and cultural reasons rather than ideology. For many of the Russlaender (Russian) Mennonites who had fled Russia in

IN

207

the 1920s, the Nazis’ anticommunism exercised strong appeal. Most Germanlanguage newspapers—with several Roman Catholic exceptions—were sympathetic or at least benign toward the “new Germany,” a stance that would come back to haunt them after 1939. Overall, however, Nazism was never able to gain a large following among German Canadians. Although significant numbers of ethnic Germans undoubtedly sympathized in one way or another, the raving about Jews, Communists, racial purity, and even the preservation of the language was of little relevance to German Canadians during the Great Depression. Furthermore, the communities were divided geographically and otherwise and remained profoundly affected by the antiGermanism of World War I. By the late 1930s, the vast majority of Germans in eastern Canada and a growing number in the west had ceased to identify themselves as Germans, dooming any effort to promote a völkisch ideal and making Nazism itself seem “foreign.” Such success as the Nazis did achieve was assisted by the apathy of the Canadian government and non-German population. The Bund’s appeal lay primarily among the young, economically marginal, and generally disaffected recent German immigrants. Bund promoters, by continuously refuting anti-Nazi arguments in public, actually heightened the awareness of the Nazi threat among both German Canadians and the larger population. More overtly Nazi initiatives like setting up swastika clubs generally fizzled in the face of nativist opposition. The shock of the 1938 Reichskristallnacht and the undeniable prospect of war by 1939 finally began to alert Canadians to the “threat” of domestic Nazism.

208

CANADA, GERMANS

IN

Throughout the 1930s, “refugee” was a code word for Jew in Ottawa. Amid depression and dust bowl conditions, newcomers were unwelcome in Canada, least of all Jews. Proportionately, Canada had the worst record of any country in accepting German Jewish refugees. French-speaking Catholic Quebec was openly opposed, a view that the Liberal Party government of Mackenzie King felt it dare not ignore, but antisemitism ran deep in English-speaking Canada, too. Making “refugee” policy fell to a few antisemites in the bureaucracy, with predictable—and tragic—results. Ottawa mostly offered sanctimonious expressions of sympathy and promises to study the problem. The small Canadian Jewish community lacked confidence and was divided over how to influence the system. Canada’s response to the 1938 Evian Conference starkly revealed the country’s position—even a proposal to admit some 5,000 German and Austrian refugees, the “better kind of Jew,” over four years, with the costs paid by Canadian Jewry and none of the refugees to be settled in Quebec, was spurned by Ottawa. Reichskristallnacht forced public opinion to confront Nazi brutality, and the government appeared to be on the verge of finally helping on “humanitarian” grounds, only to back down again. Instead, Ottawa agreed to admit 200 families of anti-Nazi (and predominantly Roman Catholic) Sudeten Germans, not the least to deflect mounting international pressure to take Jews. As late as 1939, the government, with no significant public opposition, turned away the liner St. Louis with its pitiful cargo of 907 German Jewish refugees. Following strict regulations to the letter, Ottawa would not even provide temporary transit for German Jews bound for the United States.

The war changed nothing. About 2,600 “friendly” alien internees from Britain were accepted by Canada in 1940. Among them were many German refugees, including Klaus Fuchs, a future atomic spy. Ottawa, however, deemed them all suspect, and with tasteless irony, interned them with domestic Nazis for two years. Only the desperate need for skilled labor led to their gradual release. British requests to have thousands of German Jewish child refugees temporarily admitted were brusquely turned down, though thousands of British children were welcomed with open arms. While Canada did not officially declare war until September 10, 1939, a week after Britain, the proclamation of the Defence of Canada Regulations (DCR) under the War Measures Act a week earlier sent shudders through Canada’s German community. Under the DCR, the justice minister could detain without charge anyone who might act “in any manner prejudicial to the public safety or the safety of the state.” Once again, habeas corpus was suspended. Ominously, the government also granted these sweeping powers to provincial and municipal authorities who were likely to be much less scrupulous in their application. Whether naturalized or not, all Germans who had arrived after 1922 had to register. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had made a halfhearted effort during the late 1930s to identify the “suspect” elements within the German Canadian population. The force’s real interest was chasing “Reds”—a preoccupation the war would not change—and few German Canadians were involved in left-wing activities. Lacking contacts in the community or even language skills, the handful of offi-

CANADA, GERMANS

cers assigned to the task had not gotten very far. Mere membership in the Bund could find one portrayed as a dangerous Nazi agent. However, in the absence of anything better, the list compiled haphazardly by the RCMP became the master guide in the fall of 1939. During the first months of the war, English Canadian opinion pushed politicians and bureaucrats to destroy the German conspiracy within, and Ottawa and the authorities responded hurriedly, though rarely out of any legitimate security concerns. The first 303 arrests— most of them ordinary farmers and workers—were made on September 4, six days before Canada officially declared war. In camera judicial reviews followed, and with them the first releases for lack of evidence. Widespread reports of fifth columnists during the blitzkrieg of western Europe convinced skittish Canadians that such activities might be rife at home, derailing government plans to liberalize the DCR. The ensuing public uproar was fed by RCMP paranoia—even Eskimos, the Mounties claimed, had been recruited, and thousands of dangerous agents were likely on the loose. The force quickly assembled a new and longer list of “enemy alien” suspects, mostly via denunciations. By mid1941, however, everyone’s attention turned to the Japanese Canadian community in British Columbia. From 1942 onward Ottawa steadily released German Canadian internees and held only 89 in custody at war’s end. In December 1942 all naturalized Germans in Canada were exempted from reporting because of their “exemplary good behavior.” Six months later the armed forces authorized their enlistment. Forty citizens of German descent were denaturalized during the war, but the process was so poorly received by German Canadi-

IN

209

ans—a vital Liberal electoral constituency—that the King government quietly discontinued the practice. Altogether, a total of 847 Germans and German Canadians were detained, modestly lower than the World War I numbers. During World War II, policy toward German Canadians was much influenced by a small group of diplomats in the Department of External Affairs who advised the prime minister. They subscribed to the view that Nazism was a minority criminal conspiracy even in Germany, let alone Canada—hence it was only necessary to arrest the “real” Nazis. Neither King nor his ministers personally saw German Canadians as depraved or untrustworthy in the mass, and their obsession with maintaining national unity meant the government would try to avoid overreacting. In addition, the wartime emphasis on home front economic achievements helped German Canadians—who were already quite assimilated—to “fit in.” The relatively light military losses incurred through mid-1943 helped keep down anti-German feeling as well. Finally, unlike World War I, when from Wilhelm II to humble peasant, all had been “Huns,” during World War II the majority of the Anglo-Canadian public made a distinction between Adolf Hitler and his followers on the one hand and the majority of ordinary German people—and German Canadians—on the other. Most German organizations, certainly the ones not suppressed as Nazi fronts, quickly professed their loyalty, and many wisely suspended operations. In most areas, Lutheran churches ceased using German in services and proclaimed their loyalty to King George VI. A steady flow of German Canadian enlistments—for example, Albert Hoffmeister served with distinction in

210

CANADA, GERMANS

IN

command of an armored division—helped defuse suspicion. It helped greatly that most of the English-language press generally refrained from the anti-German vituperation so prevalent a generation earlier, instead stressing the government line that but for a few bad apples, German Canadians were loyal. Beginning in 1941, the Wartime Information Board (WIB) began targeting immigrant communities, including German ones, to support the war. As the title of WIB pamphlets and radio programs asserted, they were Canadians All. Nativists and overzealous patriots in the guise of chambers of commerce, service clubs, farmers’ organizations, unions, and of course the Royal Canadian Legion throughout the west protested the lack of “sufficient arrests.” Unlike World War I, however, vigilantism and rioting did not accompany the rhetoric. The sense of camaraderie that the war effort fostered generally worked to undermine class and ethnic barriers. Although most German Canadians benefited from this, Mennonites and Hutterites became the object of heightened hostility. In 1939 there were 110,000 Mennonites scattered across Ontario and the Prairies. Germanspeaking and pacifistic, their practice of “die Stillen im Lande”—being quiet in the land—was unlikely to save them from discrimination. Though some had been arrested and imprisoned from 1917 to 1918, and there had been serious friction with non-Mennonite neighbors, the Borden government had accepted their claim of conscientious objector status and honored pledges made to earlier Mennonite settlers that they would not be conscripted. Still, no such promise was given to the Russlaender Mennonites who immigrated to Canada during the 1920s.

Mennonite leaders failed to reach a consensus when they met in the spring of 1939 to discuss a common stand in the event of another war. Although the Russlaenders were generally prepared to serve as noncombatants, the majority adhered to the traditional position on nonparticipation, shunning even alternative service if it was directly related to the war. Conscription for home defense, introduced in June 1940, posed a serious problem. Apart from those groups given carte blanche exemption, initial negotiations with government officials over alternative service did not go well. There were isolated cases of vandalism, Mennonite public school teachers lost their jobs, and German-language classes had to be terminated as anti-Mennonite feeling intensified. Resolving the alternative service impasse was crucial, and the timely intervention of Agriculture Minister James Gardiner, a former Saskatchewan premier sympathetic to the Mennonite situation, avoided a crisis. Ottawa granted a form of civilian alternative service in late 1940 that served as an acceptable compromise. When the men were initially confined to working in national parks, public opinion dismissed the waste of labor. Although many Mennonites were prepared and indeed sought to do more, progress in making this possible was painfully slow. In 1943 the government, confronted with a desperate labor shortage, finally sent most Mennonite conscientious objectors to work on farms or in industry where their cooperative spirit and work ethic earned general admiration. Later that year, Mennonites were allowed to enlist in the army medical services. Over 7,000 Mennonite men accepted alternative service, and many others simply went to work in war industries.

CANADA, GERMANS

The most telling statistic involved the more than 3,000 who enlisted in the armed forces, most as combatants. Bearing arms caused much conflict in (and between) Mennonite communities. Many of those who enlisted were shunned by their congregations or found it impossible to reintegrate after the war. Even alternative service broadened horizons. For many Mennonites, male and female, leaving home was a frequent—and often permanent—experience during World War II. Whereas Mennonites’ willingness to cooperate in the war effort in tangible ways won them at least grudging acceptance, the more isolationist and uncooperative Hutterite community, who adamantly refused any form of alternative service, was much resented and harshly treated. In Alberta, the home of most of Canada’s Hutterites, the government attempted to restrict their land-ownership, finally succeeding in 1947. By any measure—language use and retention, residential and occupational segregation, marriage patterns, or membership in ethnic churches and associations— among German Canadians all but the Hutterites were more assimilated into the Canadian mainstream in 1945 than in 1939. Although some of this process had been economically driven, much was attributable to wartime pressure. And although the situation was significantly better than it had been a generation earlier, it was painful enough, especially since “none of these [German] minorities ever constituted a serious threat to Canadian security,” as John Thompson argued. “In all cases the war emergency provided the justification for internment, but policies were built upon long-established patterns of prejudice established in peacetime” (Thompson 1991, 17).

IN

211

At least the absence of bitter antiGerman tensions within Canada during World War II made the postwar adjustment of German immigrants easier. The onset of the cold war, coupled with basic Canadian decency, led to the acceptance of 50,000 displaced persons in 1947 and 1948, primarily from Western-occupied Germany and mostly German refugees from east of the Oder-Neisse Line. By 1950, Ottawa permitted citizens of West Germany to immigrate, and during the next twenty years, almost 300,000 arrived. The “enemy alien” experience in the two world wars, of which German-speaking Canadians bore a disproportionate share, had a profound ethno-cultural impact on their community. Gerhard Bassler, a leading historian of the period, pointed out: “While English Canada participated in the world wars with an unprecedented ‘national’ euphoria and emerged from them with a new sense of nationhood, a large segment of Canadian society, including the population of the entire German-Canadian mosaic . . . was left the opposite experience. Its members were ostracized as ‘aliens’ and penalized for their non-English cultural and ethnic identity. [Their] experience [during eleven years of war] and, as a result, [their stigmatization] for many more years, made generations of German Canadians eager to renounce their visible ethnicity and heritage” (Bassler 1990, 42). By the 1960s, while “Germans” were still the third-largest identifiable ethnic group, they were among the best integrated, least vocal, and least politically active ethnic groups in Canada. Certainly the two wars played a central role in this transformation. Pat Brennan

212

CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES

IN WEST

See also Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Fuchs, Klaus; Nova Scotia; Ontario; Papen, Franz von; S.S. St. Louis; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in; World War I, German Sabotage in Canada during References and Further Reading Bassler, Gerhard P. “Silent or Silenced Cofounders of Canada? Reflections on the History of German Canadians.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 22, 1 (1990): 38-46. Entz, W. “The Suppression of the German Language Press in September 1918 (with Special Reference to the Secular German Language Papers in Western Canada).” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 8, 2 (1976): 56–70. McLaughlin, Kenneth. The Germans in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1985. Smith, David. “Emergency Government in Canada.” Canadian Historical Review, 50, 4 (December 1969): 429–448. Socknat, Thomas. Witness against War: Pacifism in Canada, 1900–1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987. Thompson, John. Ethnic Minorities during Two World Wars. Ottawa: Canadian Historical Association, 1991. Wagner, Jonathan. Brothers Beyond the Sea: National Socialism in Canada. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1981.

CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES IN WEST GERMANY At the end of World War II, Canada left a small occupation force in Germany that was integrated into the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR). This contingent, based on the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division, was withdrawn in 1946. The acceleration of the cold war in the late 1940s, particularly the Berlin blockade and the Communist takeover of Czechoslovakia, led Canada to reassess its place in the postwar world order. A charter member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),

GERMANY

Canada initially earmarked a division-sized force to be deployed in the event of war in Europe. Overzealous Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) leaders then committed, without receiving approval first, twelve jet fighter squadrons and twelve light jet bomber squadrons. The Canadian government retracted the initial offer but agreed to build and commit twelve fighter squadrons. The situation in Korea, however, prevented the deployment of the Canadian division to serve with NATO. Suffering from the effects of an isolationist prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, the army had been pared down after 1945 to a cadre and continental defense force. New formations had to be raised during “peacetime.” Consequently, the initial Canadian land force commitment to NATO consisted of a division, with one brigade group deployed forward in West Germany and two brigade groups based in Canada to be sent as reinforcements if the cold war went “hot.” The 27th Canadian Infantry Brigade Group (CIBG) landed at Rotterdam on November 21, 1951. At the time, there was concern that Korea was a feint for a major Soviet overt and covert attack on Western Europe. At the same time, the United States deployed four divisions by sea. These actions served as a deterrent maneuver to demonstrate transatlantic solidarity and to give some steel to the lightly equipped occupation forces. Operation Panda, as the 27 CIBG deployment was called, sent the Brigade directly to serve with Northern Army Group (NORTHAG) in Hanover on the East German border. Soon after, in early 1952, the first RCAF Sabre squadrons deployed by air across the Atlantic Ocean to Europe in Operation Leap Frog. Initially, 1 Air Division RCAF consisted of

CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES

ten Sabre squadrons. It had numerous bases in Europe: the West Germany–based squadrons were located at Zweibrücken and Baden-Soellingen. Both formations were part of NATO’s Integrated Force. The 27 Brigade was part of I (British) Corps as an independent formation (one out of ten brigades in the corps), whereas 1 Air Division was nearly 25 percent of 4 Allied Tactical Air Force’s (4 ATAF) fighter strength. The brigade group redeployed to the Soest-Hemer-Iserlohn region outside of Cologne by 1953. Operationally, the brigade’s role was to shape the battlefield and force the advancing Soviets to pile up on several obstacles, which would present a target of sufficient density to warrant using nuclear weapons. This would offset the crushing Soviet conventional capability located on the other side of the Iron Curtain. At that time, the entire brigade rotated with the Canadian-based units every three years, and RCAF squadrons rotated personnel through the European-based squadrons. Consequently, 27 Brigade was relieved by 1 Brigade, 2 Brigade, and 4 Brigade in the 1950s. By 1958, the decision was made to keep 4 Brigade in place and rotate units through it. The Canadian brigade participated in annual exercises alongside allied NATO forces. The purpose of these exercises, in addition to preparing for war, was to present a deterrent posture to the Warsaw Pact and to stiffen up the European allies in a myriad of ways. For example, surplus Canadian equipment was transferred to the Dutch and French armies. Training exchanges and Partnerschaft relationships were established with Bundeswehr units. The emergent Luftwaffe (air force) acquired Canadian-built F-86 Sabres and trained alongside Canadian pilots in the

IN WEST

GERMANY

213

NATO aircrew training program. Reconciliation between Canadians and Germans at the national as well as personal level was facilitated by these expanding contacts. The presence of an effective, salient Canadian military contribution numbering 12,000 people plus their dependent communities was a critical aspect of Canada’s NATO commitment in West Germany. The West Germans were not alone in confronting the massive threat on the other side of the Iron Curtain, and this fact was demonstrated time and again as the Centurion tanks of the Canadian brigade and the F-86 Sabre fighters of 1 Air Division patrolled the skies. In time, four squadrons of CF-100 Canuck all-weather fighters, usually reserved for the air defense of North America, were deployed to serve with 1 Air Division. In general, the role was to engage in aerial combat to gain air superiority and to escort nuclear strike aircraft headed for interdiction targets. Changing NATO strategy with regard to nuclear weapons had a direct impact on Canadian forces stationed in West Germany. Canada had always favored a NATO nuclear strategy, and the Europe-committed forces started training as early as 1951 to operate on a nuclear battlefield. Almost all exercises incorporated the nuclear dimension into them. The decision by the Eisenhower administration to implement nuclear sharing arrangements with NATO allies altered the Canadian force structure. Honest John free-flight rockets were made available to the brigade by 1961, and with the reduction of British forces in BAOR, Canada’s contribution became even more numerically significant in that one surfaceto-surface missile battery amounted to 25 percent of the Honest John batteries in I (British) Corps.

214

CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES

IN WEST

On the air side, the Canadian government accepted a nuclear strike role for 1 Air Division, which meant scrapping the F-86 and CF-100 fighters and reducing the air commitment from twelve squadrons to eight. Canada chose the Lockheed F-104 in 1959–1960. Built in Canada under license, the CF-104 Starfighter equipped six strike and two reconnaissance squadrons. All aircraft had the ability to deliver nuclear weapons: the strike squadrons could carry weapons with a yield of 1 megaton. In 1966, the government of Charles de Gaulle demanded the removal of Canadian nuclear weapons delivery units from French soil. Canadian nuclear operations were conducted from Zweibrücken, Baden-Soellingen, and eventually Lahr, which was traded for the Canadian bases in France. Indeed, the decision by Canada to acquire the F-104 airframe influenced other NATO allies to do the same so they could access the nuclear stockpile. The Luftwaffe also adopted the Starfighter as its nuclear strike aircraft, and Germany’s relationship with Canada prospered. The Berlin crisis of 1961 prompted Canada to prepare to reinforce 4 Brigade in West Germany with one of the Canadabased brigades: 3 Brigade was readied for action in the summer of 1961, and shipping was on the verge of being called up when the crisis subsided. In a year, the Cuban missile crisis almost escalated out of control. At that time, Canadian general Jean V. Allard was commanding a British division that included 4 Brigade. A tripartite but non-NATO organization called LIVE OAK had been established to forcibly open the Berlin access routes in the event of blockage. Allard’s British division was earmarked to handle LIVE OAK tasks, and it moved to Helmstedt when the crisis

GERMANY

broke. Ultimately, the force was stood down when the Soviets turned their ships back. At this point, the CF-104 squadrons were in the process of deploying to West Germany and were not yet prepared to execute nuclear operations. However, 4 Brigade had its Honest John rockets prepared if the situation escalated: the brigade moved to its deployment areas near the Harz Mountains in case the Warsaw Pact attacked. It would not be the last time. In 1968, the Czech crisis “Prague spring” generated a massive Soviet reinforcement of its forces in East Germany through Poland. This prompted a NATO alert, with NATO nuclear forces on quick reaction alert loading up with their weapons and ground units deploying to survival areas. Again, 4 Brigade (now 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group, after it had been reequipped with armored personnel carriers, self-propelled guns, and a Centurion tank upgrade) moved off at high speed to its defensive positions forward of the Weser River. The 1960s were the heyday of Canada’s military commitment to NATO in West Germany. In terms of numbers and quality, the air and land forces were significant contributions to NATO security. One Air Division boasted 33 percent of 4 ATAF’s nuclear strike capacity and approximately 10 percent of the air-deliverable nuclear weapons in Allied Command Europe. Four Brigade retained 25 percent of I (British) Corps’ nuclear capacity, and one-eighth of its conventional capacity. Canadian pilots were assigned high-risk targets (command-and-control sites, missile sites) because of their superior skills, and Canadian soldiers were tasked to cover a dangerous gap that developed in

CANADIAN MILITARY FORCES

NORTHAG due to Belgian withdrawals from their sector. By 1970, however, two factors emerged to reduce the effectiveness of Canada’s NATO forces in West Germany. NATO strategy shifted to “flexible response,” which reduced dependency on nuclear weapons in favor of fighting conventionally as long as possible first and then using nuclear weapons if that failed. The election of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the subsequent defense review unleashed antinuclear and anti-NATO thinking in the cabinet and among elements of the bureaucracy. In theory, the reduction in nuclear forces should have been accompanied by an increase in conventional forces in order to implement the new strategy. Instead, Trudeau decided to cut nuclear forces and at the same time reduce conventional forces. Outright withdrawal from West Germany was averted when a compromise was struck between anti- and dissident pro-NATO cabinet factions. The number of CF-104 squadrons was reduced from eight to three, and those three squadrons were redeployed as conventional attack squadrons. The base at Zweibrücken was closed, leaving Lahr and BadenSoellingen as the primary Canadian air bases. Four Brigade lost its Honest John rockets and then was slashed in half, from three infantry battalions to two, with the tank regiment and artillery regiment each cut in half. To make matters worse, the salient contributions to forward defense in NORTHAG that 4 Brigade made became moot when the brigade was forced to relocate to Lahr and Baden-Soellingen bases. The remnants of 4 Brigade were assigned to a vague reserve role for Central Army Group (CENTAG), and all saliency was lost.

IN WEST

GERMANY

215

It took the Trudeau government five years to realize that its policy was flawed. Instead of taking action to correct it, however, cosmetic improvements were made to satisfy West Germany’s leadership, which was pressuring Canada to remain effective players in the defense of the NATO Central Region. For example, a minimalist number of Leopard tanks were purchased in 1978 to equip 4 Brigade, replacing aging Centurions. In time, the Trudeau government was replaced. In 1983, the Mulroney government pledged to reinvigorate Canada’s NATO commitment. Numerous improvements were made to 4 Brigade, including improved antitank capability, better mobilization plans, and the adoption of a clear mission on the intercorps boundary on the Czech border between VII (US) and II (German) Corps, a critical juncture. CF104s, not designed for close air support operations, were crashing far too often on training missions, so the New Fighter Aircraft project was initiated in the late 1970s. In time, the CF-18 Hornet was selected. Three squadrons totaling forty-eight aircraft were deployed to Baden-Soellingen by 1985. The CF-18 was multirole: it could conduct air superiority operations as well as air-to-ground missions, though the propensity was for aerial combat. The disapperance of the Warsaw Pact as a result of peaceful revolutions in Eastern Europe caused the Canadian government to reconsider its military engagement in West Germany. Beginning in 1990, Canadian forces withdrew from West Germany. Two CF-18 squadrons from Baden-Soellingen, plus an infantry company to guard them were deployed to Bahrain in the fall of 1990 as part of the operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Units of 4 Brigade (this included 4

216

CARRANZA,VENUSTIANO

Combat Engineer Regiment and a composite Royal Canadian Regiment/Royal 22nd Regiment battalion group) joined the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the spring of 1992, which was deployed as a peacekeeping force in Croatia. By 1993, the CF-18s flew back to Canada, and the remnants of 4 Brigade closed out, unit by unit. Sean M. Maloney See also U.S. Bases in West Germany; World War II References and Further Reading Bashow, David L. Starfighter. Stoney Creek: Fortress Publications, 1991. Maloney, Sean M. War without Battles: Canada’s NATO Brigade in Germany, 1951–1993. St. Catharines: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1997. ———. “Berlin Contingency Planning: Prelude to Flexible Response, 1958–63.” Journal of Strategic Studies 25, no. 1 (March 2002): 99–134. Milberry, Larry. The Canadair Sabre. Toronto: CANAV Books, 1986. Morin, Jean, and Richard H. Gimblett. Operation Friction: The Canadian Forces in the Persian Gulf, 1990–1991. Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1997.

CARRANZA,VENUSTIANO b. December 29, 1859; Cuatro Ciénegas, Coahuila d. May 20, 1920; San Antonio, Tlaxcalantongo President of Mexico during the last years of World War I who found himself courted by Germany, which was seeking an ally geographically close to the United States. Venustiano Carranza held various political positions in Porfirio Diaz’s Mexico, but in 1909 he joined forces with Francisco

Madero to overthrow the long-standing dictator. Carranza remained loyal to Madero when the latter assumed the presidency. After Madero’s death in 1913, Victoriano Huerta, a general under Madero, assumed power. Carranza did not agree with Huerta’s dictatorial methods and led one of the many rebellions against the new regime. Woodrow Wilson, who became president of the United States in 1913, adamantly opposed Huerta and refused to recognize his adminsitration’s legitimacy. With increased pressure from opposition, including the United States, Huerta fled Mexico. The power vacuum created by Huerta’s flight left Carranza and Pancho Villa as the most likely successors. Washington chose to support Carranza, and Wilson sent General John J. Pershing into Mexico to capture Villa. Although the punitive expedition failed, Villa’s powers slowly diminished, allowing Carranza to establish supremacy. After six years of fighting, the revolutionary leadership concluded that it was time to legitimize their cause. A congress met at Querétaro in November 1916 and eventually drafted the Constitution of 1917. Special elections were held in March 1917, in which Carranza won the presidency easily. Carranza’s appointment did little to ease tensions between the United States and Mexico. As World War I raged in Europe, it became increasingly likely that the United States would enter the fray against Germany. Most Latin American nations prepared to ally with the United States, but Carranza believed the best course for Mexico was to remain neutral. Germany, much like the United States, wanted Mexico on its side and decided to pursue an alliance.

CARRANZA,VENUSTIANO

217

Venustiano Carranza (left), president of Mexico, 1917–1920, shown with with G.F. Weeks. (Library of Congress)

One of the pivotal events of Carranza’s presidency occurred when the British intercepted a telegram from the German foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, intended for the Mexican government. The “Zimmermann telegram” set forth a scenario for Germany and Mexico to forge a formal alliance. Germany asked that Mexico attack the United States, should it attack Germany. In return, Germany, after winning the war, would make sure that Mexico received back lands that the United States had taken in the nineteenth century. Carranza turned down the German offer, as he continued to prefer a path of neutrality, especially given the fragile nature of the Mexican state. When word got out in the

United States, after newspapers published the telegram, citizens were outraged. This event, coupled with Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, led the United States to declare war on Germany on April 6, 1917. Melvin Duane Davis See also Mexico; World War I References and Further Reading Hart, John Mason. Revolutionary Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Knight, Alan. The Mexican Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Richmond, Douglas. Venustiano Carranza’s Nationalist Struggle. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.

218

CASABLANCA CONVERENCE/UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER

CASABLANCA CONFERENCE/ UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER At the end of the British American conference in Casablanca, January 14–23, 1943, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with Winston Churchill at his side, explained that the elimination of Axis war power meant their unconditional surrender. This proclamation was the one war aim pertaining to Nazi Germany that the Allies publicly announced during the war. It was immediately criticized by the American media as a wholly negative one that would only stiffen the German resolve to fight and thus prolong the war and increase American casualties. Indeed, “unconditional surrender” proved an encumbrance to psy-

chological warfare. In subsequent explanations British and American leaders stated that this policy did not mean the enslavement of the German people. Roosevelt clarified that “unconditional surrender” did not mean the destruction of the enemy population, but he emphasized that it did aim at the destruction of Nazism, fascism, and militarism. There was, however, little disagreement among political and military officials over the validity and purpose of the formula. Roosevelt, who had been a member of the Wilson administration during World War I, had regarded the armistice with Germany ending that war to be a mistake that had given rise to the “stab-in-the back legend” of a German army undefeated in

Casablanca Conference at Casablanca, French Morocco, Africa. The “unconditional surrender” announcement. President Roosevelt, with Prime Minister Winston Churchill at his side, reads to the assembled war correspondents, January 1943. (Library of Congress)

CATHOLIC WOMEN’S UNION

the field. In U.S. wartime planning the term “unconditional surrender” had been discussed approvingly from the time the United States entered World War II. Soon thereafter, Roosevelt announced that no compromise could end the current conflict, thus also ruling out any substantive contacts and negotiations with the German resistance to Adolf Hitler. Domestically the president intended his announcement to quell a public outcry, especially among the liberal media and intellectuals, over a negotiated deal his administration had struck in November 1942 with the French Fascist admiral Jean-Francois Darlan to prevent resistance against the Allied troops after their landing in North Africa (TORCH). Similarly, the Soviet ally had to be reassured that Britain and the United States were determined not to enter into separate deals with parts of the German leadership. In addition to public apprehension over the demand for unconditional surrender, sections of the U.S. government, such as the emigrant-staffed Research and Analysis Branch of the Office of Strategic Services, pointed to the troublesome effects of the unconditional surrender policy from a psychological warfare point of view, especially when compared with the Soviets’ alternative strategy of holding out a prospect of democratic self-rule, as embodied in the Free Germany Committee. Michaela Hoenicke Moore See also Tehran Conference; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany; World War II References and Further Reading Casey, Steven. Cautious Crusade: Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Public Opinion, and the War against Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Klemperer, Klemens von. German Resistance against Hitler. The Search for Allies Abroad, 1938–1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.

219

O’Connor, Raymond G. Diplomacy for Victory: FDR and Unconditional Surrender. New York: W. W. Norton, 1971.

CATHOLIC WOMEN’S UNION The Catholic Women’s Union (CWU), established in 1916, modeled itself closely on the Katholischer deutscher Frauenbund (KDF, or Catholic German Women’s Organization) as a result of the organization’s almost exclusively German American membership and its emphasis on ethnic issues. The CWU remained under the jurisdiction of the male German Catholic Central-Verein (CV), whose St. Louis– based national headquarters it shared. By the early 1920s the Catholic Women’s Union, along with many other women’s groups, had affiliated with the National Council of Catholic Women, based in Washington, D.C., as part of the larger trend toward centralizing lay groups. The CWU followed an ethnically based model of Catholic activism, drawing heavily from German reform influences. It emphasized a maternalist ideal to assist working women and the poor and opened its membership to working women, although both the membership and leadership of the CWU tended to be middle class. Though socially conservative on many issues, the CWU occasionally challenged both the authority and indifference of the clergy and hierarchy. By engaging in social reform programs, middle-class women, many of whom were mothers, sought to extend their maternalism to the poor or working classes and to channel their leisure time and material wealth into more acceptable ends. They could, moreover, increase the visibility of Catholic women in voluntary

220

CATHOLIC WOMEN’S UNION

work without entering the more controversial arena of suffrage activism and other women’s rights issues. Although the orientation and goals of Catholic women’s groups remained removed from traditional politics, they often became active on issues pertaining to modernity, social morality, and the family. In the early twentieth century, several groups took stances against a number of issues, including birth control measures, suffrage, the Child Labor Amendment, divorce, and immoral entertainment and dress. Women justified their involvement in these groups on the basis of defending their home and moral beliefs, as earlier generations of middle-class Protestant women had justified their involvement in temperance and in other issues. German American Catholic women in the early twentieth century organized their reform efforts around the principle of home protection, and they chose St. Elizabeth of Thuringia as their patron saint. St. Elizabeth, who lived in the early thirteenth century, was the daughter of a king. After her early marriage, she devoted herself to charitable pursuits, including work with lepers and the poor, as well as relief efforts for flood and famine victims. She died a widow at age twenty-four, after having established a Franciscan Hospital in Marburg, and became widely known as the “Patroness of the Poor.” By adopting her as its symbol, CWU leaders sought to emphasize the selflessness of their programs, their compassion toward the poor, the universality of charity among females, and the common ethnic bond between St. Elizabeth and the members of their organization. The CWU emerged in 1916 to complement the existing male CV. Key lay leaders and members of the hierarchy, in-

cluding Milwaukee archbishop Sebastian Messmer and Chicago archbishop James Quigley, supported the creation of a woman’s group. But the initiative also encountered resistance from some within the CV, who believed that women should not have a public role. In the coming years, CWU members found that they needed to defend their work to those male clergy, bishops, or laity who were hostile or indifferent to their organization. By 1925, the CWU had 50,000 members in branches in nineteen states and a national budget of $45,461. Although the most active groups were concentrated in Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas, and Missouri, the CWU also formed branches in Arkansas, New Jersey, Connecticut, and several other states where the German American population was proportionately small. Although the domestic ideology of CWU members seems inspired by the middle-class Protestant separate spheres ideology of mid-nineteenth-century America, their views on Catholic social reform drew extensively from central European influences. Because the German ethnic identity was a strong focus in both the male and female Vereines (clubs), these women appropriated models of social action that existed in Europe, as well as responding to secular, Protestant, and Catholic trends within the United States. In fact, many bourgeois women in late nineteenth-century Germany articulated a similar view of “social motherhood” that emphasized the responsibility that middle- and upper-class women held for poorer women in their communities. Despite their emphasis on domesticity, members of the CWU simultaneously acknowledged that many mothers had no choice but to remain in the workforce.

CATHOLIC WOMEN’S UNION

They advocated the expansion of day care facilities for children, such as those of the St. Elizabeth Settlement in St. Louis, and promoted the establishment of a mother’s pension program. Although, like Pope Leo XIII, they condemned socialism, the CWU and Central Verein also proved quite critical of modern capitalism and its effects on the working class and poor. Much of the rhetoric in the CWU emphasized the unique prerogative that women, as mothers and wives, held for extending their influence throughout society, except in ways that involved traditional political activities. German Catholic women believed that as females they were uniquely able to influence society while remaining within the domestic sphere. This domestic sphere was not limited, however, to the private home. Unlike other Catholic women’s groups in the United States, German American women readily acknowledged the existence of class differences within society; although other Catholic lay groups implicitly recognized divisions between its members and those they sought to assist, they did not refer to them in class terms. Many of the initiatives undertaken by the CWU in the early twentieth century were patterned on those of Catholic women’s organizations in Germany, particularly the KDF, which was established in 1903. Members of the KDF and CWU forged relationships between their two groups, shared many of the same views on social issues, and launched similar charitable efforts. The CWU viewed German organization members as part of a larger transatlantic movement, and several KDF members visited CWU leagues throughout the United States. One difference between the leaders of the German organization and the American one was the more modest economic position of those in

221

the United States. For example, the leadership of the Wisconsin German Catholic League, a CWU affiliate, was comprised mostly of wives and daughters of businessmen. The CWU’s major work involved the development of a traveler’s aid network. The programs targeted rural German Catholic women who had left their homes for work in cities such as Milwaukee and Chicago; these reformers sought to create a network of affiliated traveler’s aid societies. This particular emphasis of the CWU also proved similar to that of Catholic women’s organizations in Germany. There, women’s groups claimed to have benefited 2 million working women and had launched a network to protect young women at railroad stations and ports, like others developed for Catholic immigrants in the United States and elsewhere. Anti-German sentiment permeated American society during World War I, leading the New York branch of the CV to suspend its conventions in 1917 and 1918. Yet the CWU did not discuss the issue of divided loyalties in their publications. The Wisconsin branch of the CWU referred only obliquely to the issue in its statewide publication, when it announced that it had changed its name from DRK Frauenbund von Wisconsin/GRC Women’s League to the less ethnic-sounding Catholic Women’s League of Wisconsin. It also reported on the success of liberty bond drives, underscoring the CWU’s loyalty to the United States. As part of its objection to modern social influences, the CWU actively opposed birth control laws and the Child Labor Amendment and had its members write letters to their political representatives to express their views on those topics. The CWU

222

CENTRAL PARK

and CV advocated the creation of mother’s pension programs, health insurance, and other maternal assistance programs. The programs that they advocated would have had a far greater impact than the SheppardTowner Act (1921), which provided federal matching funds to states for the provision of prenatal and infant care, child care clinics, and visiting nurses. Yet CWU members in Wisconsin sent at least one petition opposing the Sheppard-Towner bill to a Wisconsin congressman, arguing that the bill would allow the federal government to take away power from local and state agencies. The fear that it would remove the social stigma against unmarried motherhood might have influenced their decision. CWU members also viewed the Child Labor Amendment as a potential infringement of parental authority and distributed pamphlets urging Catholics to oppose it. Another major controversy arose among CWU leaders in the early 1920s, with the emergence of the National Catholic Welfare Council (NCWC) and National Council of Catholic Women (NCCW), the national lay groups sponsored by the hierarchy after World War I. The CWU members viewed those organizations suspiciously as a threat to the identity, agenda, and vitality of their own group. Although ultimately the CWU affiliated with both the NCWC and NCCW, CWU members voiced their resentment that the NCCW sought to engage in work pioneered by the CWU. Ultimately, in the wake of anti-German sentiment resulting from World War I and the creation of the NCCW in 1920, the CWU moved away from its strong ethnic identification and toward greater uniformity with other Catholic women. In 1924, the CWU replaced as its patron saint St. Elizabeth, an

ethnic as well as religious symbol, with Saint Mary, Our Lady of Good Counsel, a universal Catholic saint. Deirdre M. Moloney See also German American Women’s Organizations; German Catholic CentralVerein References and Further Reading Gleason, Philip. The Conservative Reformers: German-American Catholics and the Social Order. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968. Moloney, Deirdre M. American Catholic Lay Groups and Transatlantic Social Reform in the Progressive Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Sachße, Christof. “Social Mothers: The Bourgeois Women’s Movement and German Welfare-State Formation.” Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States. Eds. Seth Koven and Sonya Michel. New York: Routledge Press, 1992, 136–158. Spael, Wilhelm. Das katholische Deutschland im 20. Jahrhundert: Seine Pionier-und Krisenzeiten, 1890–1945. Würzburg: Echter-Verlag, 1964.

CENTRAL PARK Since its creation in 1858, Central Park has been one of New York City’s landmarks. The first landscaped public park in the United States could not have been envisioned, let alone built, without a profound knowledge of German garden theory and German garden design. In fact, the aesthetic and social principles that governed Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux’s design for Central Park can be traced back to German landscape architecture: the understanding of the park as a national work of art, as a succession of landscape paintings often bearing national connotations, and as a symbol of democracy that offers a public space where all social classes can meet.

CENTRAL PARK

It was a German philosopher and professor of aesthetics, Christian Cayus Lorenz Hirschfeld (1742–1792), who was the first person worldwide to articulate and substantiate the need for a public park designed for all social classes and financed by the government. He explored this idea in his groundbreaking book, Theorie der Gartenkunst (Theory of Garden Art, 1779–1785), a five-volume work that Olmsted owned and heavily relied upon—both for content and style—in his own writing and his park design. The English Garden in Munich was the first realization of Hirschfeld’s social principles, a landscaped park that Olmsted visited several times and on which he lavished much praise. New York City was growing rapidly in the 1840s. Urbanization and its consequences, such as the inhumane and unhygienic conditions of tenement housing, bred fatal epidemics. The influx of American farmers and European immigrants in search of better job possibilities led to fierce competition for employment, often resulting in poverty and leading to riots and crime. Wanting to exercise control over the lower classes as well as believing in nature’s therapeutic ability to civilize the riotous classes, members of the upper class expressed the urgent need for a public park. In 1853 the state legislature authorized a public park financed by the city government. A space of 843 acres filled with rocky outcrops and therefore undesirable for building purposes was designated as parkland. The oblong park site in the midst of Manhattan, stretching from 59th Street to 106th Street, was extended to 110th Street in 1863, and reaching from Fifth Avenue on the east side to Eighth Avenue, today is called Central Park West, on Manhattan’s west side.

223

To ensure the best possible results for the design of Central Park, a contest was held in 1857. It was the first landscape design competition in the United States. Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), an autodidactic landscape gardener and former journalist, and his partner Calvert Vaux (1824–1895), a British-born architect, won the competition when their design entry “Greensward,” beat out thirtytwo competitors. Characteristic of their design were the pastoral and picturesque landscapes, the extensive sweeping meadows (Sheep Meadow, East Meadow) juxtaposed with wooded rugged-rocky terrains (the Ramble, as well as landscape around the lakes called Loch and Pool) planted with indigenous vegetation. Four transverse roads crossing through the park were mandatory in the design. Olmsted and Vaux deliberately lowered them below park level so as to avoid disrupting, visually or acoustically, the three-dimensional landscape paintings they had created. They also relied to a great extent on the terrain’s natural pictorial qualities and deliberately kept the architecture sparse. Olmsted was not the only designer of Central Park; neither was Vaux. Both men counted on the tremendous botanical knowledge and the artistic sensibilities of German gardeners whom they assigned leading positions in the Central Park administration. Ignaz Anton Pilat (1820– 1870) in particular, but also Wilhelm Fischer (1819–1899) and Eugene Achille Baumann (b. 1821), who had received a thorough education in Germany and had already been well established in New York, were instrumental to the park’s realization. Olmsted and Vaux relied on the German philosopher Christian Cayus Lorenz Hirschfeld for their social vision for the

224

CENTRAL PARK

Central Park Summer, by John Bachmann. A New York City landmark, Central Park could not have been envisioned, let alone built, without a profound knowledge of German garden theory and German garden design. Central Park’s 44 bridges (here, Bow Bridge) were focal points of Olmsted’s and Vaux’s effort to make the park function as a national monument. (Library of Congress)

park, but they resorted to the celebrated German landscape gardener Hermann Heinrich Fürst von Pückler-Muskau (1785–1871) for the aesthetics. The pictorial language the German aristocrat employed designing his expansive estate in the southeastern town of Muskau (1815) bears distinct national connotations. To make Central Park “a great work of art of the Republic,” the American designers and their German gardeners resorted to the national aspects of Pückler’s pictorial language. In fact, Olmsted’s partner Charles W. Eliot would later identify Pückler-Muskau’s pictorial language as a “national style,” urging American landscape architects to adopt it. The national aspects of Pückler’s pictorial language consist of the naming of things to evoke the historical past, in Pück-

ler’s case, his aristocratic genealogy, but he also makes references to German mythology by naming old oak trees “Thor” and “Odin.” Further, Pückler’s deliberate use of indigenous rock as building material and his use of indigenous plants were meant to imbue the park visitor with national pride about the native vegetation. Olmsted and Vaux singled out nature as the nation’s greatest cultural resource and the most potent expressive vocabulary. Like Pückler, Olmsted and Vaux used indigenous vegetation to display the tremendous diversity of flora in the United States and, by doing so, educated the park visitors and encouraged them to take national pride in their native plants. In employing nature as pictorial language, they alluded to the country’s history as “Nature’s Nation” (Miller 1967) at

CHAMISSO, ADELBERT VON

a time when the United States was becoming an increasingly industrial nation. Their adoption of Pückler’s national principles is further exemplified by their use of local building material. The bridges and rustic seats were often made of the gneiss and Manhattan schist found in the park. The park’s forty-four bridges, too, were focal points of Olmsted’s and Vaux’s effort to make the park function as a national monument. The bridges’ design, building material, location, and above all their quaint names (Pine Banks Arch, Huddlestone Arch, Springbanks Arch, Oak Bridge) are intended to evoke the nostalgia for American rural life. Explicit allusions to, for instance, the Natural Bridge, a natural and national monument Thomas Jefferson describes in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1784–1785), express the designers’ intention to make Central Park a national monument as well. Olmsted and Vaux also customized the park’s landscape to preserve and document the lost landscape of the nation. Just as the painters of the Hudson River School painted the Catskill Mountains, the White Mountains, and the Adirondacks exactly when they were being destroyed by tourism and industrialization, Olmsted and Vaux evoked the very same landscapes in the park. They provided allusions to those exemplary terrains for two reasons: first, in accord with their understanding of the park as a succession of landscape paintings, they wanted to create a “picture gallery” of the most celebrated American landscapes. Second, they wanted to provide those who could neither afford to go to galleries nor to make a trip to the Catskill Mountains with at least a suggestion of the famous landscapes en miniature. Their goal has been amply realized. To this day more than

225

25 million people visit this outdoor picture gallery, an oasis amid a chaotic, bustling, sensorily exhausting metropolis, each year. Franziska Kirchner See also Landscape Architects, German American References and Further Reading Beveridge, Charles Eliot, and David Schuyler, eds. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted. Vol. 3: Creating Central Park, 1857–1861. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983. Kirchner, Franziska. Der Central Park in New York. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002. Miller, Perry. Nature’s Nation. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Miller, Sara Cedar. Central Park: An American Masterpiece. New York: H. N. Abrams, 2003. Rosenzweig, Roy, and Elizabeth Blackmar. The Park and the People: A History of Central Park. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992.

CHAMISSO, ADELBERT VON b. January 30, 1781; Boncourt Castle, France d. August 21, 1838; Berlin, Prussia German romantic author: participated in the Russian exploration of Alaska, Hawaii, and California. With the objective of discovering a subarctic navigable passage across North America, the Russian brig Rurik, under the command of captain Otto von Kotzebue, set sail from Kronstadt, Russia, in the summer of 1815. This voyage took Kotzebue and crew across the Atlantic Ocean, around Cape Horn, and into the Pacific Ocean. The Rurik sailed up to the Bering Strait, making the first of its two visits to Alaska in summer 1816. From there it sailed south to San Francisco Bay, remaining there for approximately one month.

226

CHAMISSO, ADELBERT VON

The ship next paid its first visit to Hawaii, arriving in the then Sandwich Islands in the fall of 1816. After approximately three weeks, it sailed westward, before again turning north for the second visit to Alaska in the summer of 1817. Ill health and harsh weather forced the captain to abandon his objective of finding a passage through the Arctic, and the crew eventually headed home, passing once more through the Hawaiian Islands. The voyage ended when the Rurik arrived home in St. Petersburg in the summer of 1818. A good account of this journey was provided by resident naturalist and romantic writer Adelbert von Chamisso. Chamisso, best known for Peter Schlemihl’s wundersame Geschichte (Peter Schlemihl’s Miraculous Story) and numerous poems, published in 1836 a two-volume edition of his journey, consisting of his journal and a series of essays and observations of the voyage. This story is one of many travelogues from the period, in which much of the Pacific Ocean was first being thoroughly explored by Europeans. Through Chamisso, the reader benefits from having a naturalist and a romantic poet telling the story. His volumes contain rich details, not only of the flora and fauna he encountered but also of the people he met. For example, the reader learns of Chamisso’s hikes through the Hawaiian Islands, along with similar wanderings in the Aleutians. The books include an account of a botanical excursion in Hawaii, in which he walked through a fertile valley behind Honolulu (Hanaruru), picked some beautiful grasses he had not seen before, and encountered considerable grief because he had actually picked rice during the first year it had successfully grown in the islands.

Chamisso discusses indigenous customs and relations among the Russians— who were not popular in the Hawaiian Islands—Spanish, other Europeans, and Americans. The indigenous peoples of Hawaii generally enjoyed and had fun with Chamisso, causing him once to say “Arocha,” a customary peaceful salutation, incessantly. The author’s response displayed his good nature toward the peoples he met. In California, Chamisso witnessed negotiations between the Spanish governor and the Russians who were encroaching on Spanish territory. Although the Russians were not the only power that violated Spain’s claims in that region, they had a settlement near San Francisco, which the Spanish wanted vacated. Chamisso’s command of languages provided him an important role in these negotiations: although no decision was made over the settlement’s future, both parties decided to issue a document that would be sent to the Spanish and Russian royal courts. This essentially solved the problem, at least during Chamisso’s stay in California. In addition to his journal of this voyage, Chamisso also wrote several essays about his experiences. One of these provides more details of his stay in California, including weather patterns and the plight of the local peoples. There are descriptions of the animals of the region, including the ferocious brown bear, along with wolves, foxes, goats, and stags. The problems faced by the local peoples were more serious, resulting from a Spanish policy that also kept the region underpopulated and sapped California of its potential for trade and shipping. The mission system was more problematic, especially because of its exploitation of the native peoples. The socalled savages faced serious troubles, and

CHEWING GUM

found their histories, customs, beliefs, and languages treated with contempt by the mission priests. Indeed, Chamisso notes that the local peoples were dying at alarming rates from disease and the lack of sufficient medical help. Chamisso knew he could do little to help the peoples he encountered, but he hoped that someone who followed his expedition would be able to learn more about the local cultures of the area. Chamisso was fortunate throughout his journey. His efforts to collect fossilized ivory, human skulls, stuffed birds, and models of whales were greatly aided by his sympathetic captain, who provided extra storage. When Chamisso safely arrived home, he wrote about his journey and left history not only with a literate account of his travels but also with a sizable collection of specimens for the museumgoers of Berlin. David E. Marshall See also Indians in German Literature; Kino, Eusebius Franciscus; Travel Literature, Germany-U.S. References and Further Reading Chamisso, Adalbert von. A Voyage around the World with the Romanzov Exploring Expedition in the Years 1815–1818 in the Brig Rurik, Captain Otto von Kotzebue. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986.

CHEWING GUM Since the end of World War II, chewing gum has had an important place in the collective memory of Germans. It is a symbol of the new beginning after the war and a result of the U.S. occupation of parts of western Germany. Americanization of West German society during the 1950s brought Coca-Cola, chewing gum, and

227

rock ’n’ roll to a young generation that was starving for entertainment and willing to experiment with new and unusual cultural imports. The history of chewing gum in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) is the history of the product developed by the Wrigley’s Company, which was founded in 1891 in Chicago. Wrigley’s established its first German production facility in 1925 in Frankfurt am Main, where it produced the PK gumball. However, in 1932 Wrigley’s had to close its German outlet because of increasing difficulties importing necessary raw materials and the financial problems related to Germany’s obligations under the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. After 1933, Wrigley’s chewing gum could still be distributed and purchased inside Germany. However, it was no longer produced there and had to be imported. Wrigley’s opened an import and distribution bureau at Berlin’s famous Unter den Linden Boulevard for marketing purposes. In contrast to Coca-Cola, however, Wrigley’s renamed its product: chewing gum became Kaubonbon (chewable candy). The image of the American GI chewing Wrigley’s gum became an icon in European culture during and after World War II. For some time, Wrigley’s decided to send its entire production to the U.S. soldiers engaged in the European and Asiatic theatres of World War II. As well as CocaCola, chewing gum became symbolic of U.S. resolve to win the war. It was to give the U.S. soldier psychological support during combat. Scientific studies had proven that chewing helped to decrease stress. Furthermore, chewing gum became important in winning the trust of the defeated civilian population. U.S. soldiers who handed chewing gum to German children were no longer seen as enemies but as sympathetic

228

CHEWING GUM

German Wrigley’s gum advertisement. (Wrigley Germany)

men. For the Germans, chewing gum and American cigarettes functioned as currency on the black market. Gum-chewing U.S. soldiers provided Wrigley’s with an invaluable opportunity to advertise and market its product. The GIs became, involuntarily, pioneers for the advertisement of Wrigley’s spearmint gum. In later years, Wrigley’s sold twice as much chewing gum in the southern part of Germany, the former American Occupation Zone, than in the northern part where the British had been in charge of administration. However, chewing gum was a luxury product for most people in postwar West German society. No worker could afford Wrigley’s chewing gum, sold at ten Pfenning a piece and fifty Pfenning a package. Because it was treated as a luxury product, it was subject to certain import limitations. In the long run Wrigley’s conquered the

German market, and its chewing gum became a staple among young children after the economic recovery of West Germany. It quickly rose to the top of chewing gum producers in West Germany (Unterhachingen, near Munich, became the German headquarters) and continued to dominate the market. To correctly pronounce the product name was certainly a challenge for West Germans. In the 1950s, an analysis among customers revealed that there were at least twelve different pronunciations. Subsequently, Wrigley’s engaged in an advertising campaign focused on its product name. In these advertisements, consumers could read the shortened version “Rigley’s” instead of “Wrigley’s,” and spearmint was rewritten as “Speer”-mint. Since 1959, Wrigley’s has printed on its product’s wrapping the German term Kaugummi (chewing gum).

CHICAGO

Since chewing gum was identified with Americanization as much as Coca-Cola, blue jeans, and rock ’n’ roll, it became the target of protest and resistance by conservative cultural critics. Their opposition toward the gum-chewing younger generation combined traditional cultural stereotypes about American society with the fear of a degeneration of culture caused and symbolized by chewing gum. The chewing of gum has been used by generations of youngsters to silently protest traditional norms of behavior and paternalistic limitations of freedom. Nevertheless, conservative critics did not succeed in their endeavor to rid Germany of chewing gum. Today, it is part of a multi-billion-dollar health and cosmetics industry. Chewing Wrigley’s spearmint gum is said to provide fresh breath and clean teeth and even to help fight the desire to smoke. Hilmar Sack See also American Occupation Zone; Americanization; Coca-Cola; Consumerism; McDonald’s Restaurant References and Further Reading Aaseng, Nathan. Business Builders in Sweets and Treats. Minneapolis: Oliver Press, 2004. Davies, Henry. “Deutsche Wrigley.” All around Wrigley (Fall 1985): 8–11; (Winter 1985): 9–11; (Spring 1986): 6–9. Lee, Norma E. Chewing Gum. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976.

CHICAGO Important urban center of German migration in the United States during the nineteenth century. Chicago’s history illustrates the full impact of the dramatic social, demographic, and economic changes American society and economy underwent in the second half

229

of the nineteenth century. Compared with other cities in the Midwest, Chicago was a latecomer, but its growth was breathtaking. Within a few years it rose from a small settlement along the frontier to the dominant metropolis of the American continent. Chicago’s booming economy attracted hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Europe and internal migrants from the American Northeast. Between 1880 and 1890 alone, Chicago’s population doubled from 500,000 to over 1 million, making Chicago the second-largest city in the United States and the fifth-largest in the world. Between 1890 and 1900 almost 80 percent of Chicago’s inhabitants were foreign-born or children of immigrants (Philpott 1978, 7–8). Even for the United States, this was an unusually high proportion. The rise of Chicago went hand in hand with a growing degree of social disorder. Mass immigration and rapid social change, accompanied by several economic recessions, caused social unrest. During the last third of the nineteenth century, Chicago became the site of the worst outbursts of urban violence in the United States. Chicago’s rise depended on three connected factors: location, investment, and immigration. Chicago was incorporated as a city in 1837 with just 4,000 inhabitants. From the 1850s to the 1870s, Chicago emerged as a strategically located traffic hub, halfway between the seemingly unlimited raw materials and agricultural products of the West—in particular lumber, grain, and meat, which were processed in Chicago—and the markets on the East Coast and beyond. The Civil War proved a catalyst driving the rise of Chicago against its main rivals, the river cities Cincinnati and St. Louis. Both cities were too close to

230

CHICAGO

the military action and suffered from trade blockades caused by the war. Chicago became the main production and supply center for Union troops west of the Alleghenies. After the war, Chicago developed into the leading railroad hub of the American continent and a strongly expanding industrial center. In 1850, the city of Chicago already counted 30,000 inhabitants, in 1870, 300,000, and in 1900, 1.7 million. Although the processing industries such as meat packing gradually began to move west before the turn of the century, Chicago remained a distribution center with an innovative service sector and, more importantly, a financial marketplace where the commodity prices were fixed. Chicago’s largest immigrant group during the decisive second half of the nineteenth century was Germans. However, today few traces recall the presence of tens of thousands of German-speaking immigrants in Chicago. A prominent Goethe Monument on the northern edge of Lincoln Park dedicated before World War I, a small Schiller statue, and streets named after Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller on the near North Side are the most visible traces, apart from Chicago’s cemeteries, where thousands of graves with German inscriptions can still be found. Further northwest, on Lincoln Square, a few remnants of post–World War II immigration remain: a popular German restaurant, a small souvenir shop, a delicatessen, and nearby, a Konditorei (bakery). However, the area is not a German neighborhood; most of the immigrants who lived there during the 1950s and 1960s have moved to the suburbs. Although streets and buildings in Chicago recall the names of famous immigrants of other ethnic backgrounds, once-famous German

immigrants like the doctor and FortyEighter Ernst Schmidt, publisher and politician Anton Casper Hesing, newspaper editor and politician Lorenz Brentano, Civil War general Edward Salomon, and many others are forgotten. Around 1900, shortly after the decline of the strong German transatlantic migration, the Germans and their still vibrant ethnic life were much more visible in Chicago. Yet U.S. entry into World War I in 1917, which went hand in hand with a massive anti-German propaganda campaign, seemingly obliterated the ethnic life of the Germans within a few weeks. The famous Germania Club was renamed Lincoln Club, the Bismarck Hotel became the Hotel Randolph, the large German Hospital changed its name to Grant Hospital, and so on. Almost all street names referring to German persons, cities, and regions were changed by the city council. German as the official language was dropped by many associations and disappeared from most immigrant church pulpits. And like many Americans, quite a few Chicagoans anglicized their German-sounding names. Nevertheless, it would be too simplistic to trace the virtual disappearance of the Germans in Chicago to 1917. The German presence in Chicago was never as dominant as in the three cities of the so-called German triangle surrounding Chicago (Milwaukee, Cincinnati, and St. Louis) or as in many of the smaller cities and towns throughout the Midwest. In Chicago, Germans certainly represented the largest immigrant group in numerical terms during the second half of the nineteenth century: in 1850, they numbered about 1,000, or 17 percent of Chicago’s population; in 1870, about 52,000, or 17.5 percent; in 1900, about 170,000, or

CHICAGO

10 percent. However, Chicago also attracted large numbers of Irish, English, Bohemian/Czech, and Scandinavian immigrants, and, after 1880, eastern European Jewish, Polish, Italian, and Greek immigrants. By the turn of the century, the number of German immigrants was declining significantly. Moreover, as elsewhere in North America, German immigrants were far from being a homogeneous group. They arrived throughout the nineteenth century from different regions in Germany and came for different reasons. Regional and religious differences often went hand in hand. German speakers were Protestant, Catholic, and even Jewish. German immigrants influenced by socialism, a strongly growing group in Chicago since the early 1870s, were openly atheist or agnostic; others were freethinkers. The borders of the German group in Chicago were constantly shifting, reflecting to some extent that even after 1871 Germany was rather a broad cultural concept than a national state with clearly defined borders. In the dynamic setting of Chicago, ethnic categories were not fixed. Germans overlapped with several other ethnic groups, especially from east-central Europe. Many Bohemian immigrants, for instance, spoke German, as did Austrians, some Poles and Scandinavians, and most Jews who arrived before the 1870s. In addition, immigrants who did not identify themselves as German were still categorized as Germans by others. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that most attempts to lump together Germans and their numerous Vereine (associations), ranging from the Turners to many literary societies and religious congregations, were short lived. The so-called Beer Riot of 1855—a violent protest by German and

231

Irish immigrants against a ban of the public sale and consumption of alcohol by the city—strengthened the cohesion of the German group. Conflicts over Prohibition laws were symbolic battlegrounds over the place of (German and Irish) immigrants in mid-nineteenth-century American society. In 1856, German immigrants led by FortyEighters organized a cultural center called the Deutsches Haus (German House), which served as a focal point for many of the German associations for several years before it lost its appeal. Many Germans in Chicago identified with the newly founded Republican Party. German opinion leaders in Chicago, especially the editors of the leading German daily, the Illinois Staatszeitung (Illinois State Newspaper), George Schneider, Eduard Schlaeger, and Lorenz Brentano (all Forty-Eighters) were prominent Republicans in Illinois. During the Civil War, many Germanborn Chicagoans fought for a mostly German unit, the 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment, which was led by the famous Forty-Eighter Friedrich Hecker and later by the German Jewish Chicagoan Edward Salomon. The regiment, which fought at Gettysburg, included companies made up of Jewish and Scandinavian immigrants, respectively. The loose organization of the German group and its many facets made it inclusive for many groups, not least Germanspeaking Jews. Even though the small Jewish community in Chicago as such remained distinct from the German community project, individual Jews like banker Henry Greenebaum, lawyer Julius Rosenthal, and rabbi Emil Hirsch were among the leaders of the Chicago Germans. The huge 1871 German victory parade on the occasion of the end of the

232

CHICAGO

Franco-Prussian War and German unification was organized in Rosenthal’s office and led by Greenebaum. Like the Beer Riot of 1855 and the raising of the 82nd Illinois Regiment, the 1871 parade proved to be a rallying point for the heterogeneous German group. German-speaking immigrants lived all over Chicago. During the 1850s and 1860s, the main German neighborhood was the Near North Side. Following the disastrous Chicago fire in 1871, many Germans moved farther to the north; during the 1880s and 1890s, ethnic German neighborhoods could be found in particular on the Northwest Side along Milwaukee Avenue. At first glance, the Chicago fire represents the worst-case scenario of social disorder in the modern American city. Large parts of Chicago burned down within a few hours, and thousands of people of all social backgrounds lost their homes. Federal troops were dispatched to Chicago to safeguard law and order. German immigrants were particularly hard-hit, as the fire destroyed in particular the German North Side and thus weakened the cohesion of the German immigrants in the city. The Chicago Relief and Aid Society discriminated against many immigrants, especially those who did not speak English. The philanthropic Deutsche Gesellschaft (German Society), in later years known as the German Aid Society, which had been established in 1854 to support immigrants from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, could only assist a few of the worst-off victims of the fire. Before the 1920s, most bakers, butchers, and brewery owners (and brewery workers) in Chicago were German immigrants. Several Germans “made it,” becoming successful and wealthy businesspeople.

Even before the turn of the century, growing numbers of German immigrants rose into the middle class. But throughout the nineteenth century, most Germans were manual workers. Unlike other European immigrants in Chicago, a large proportion of the Germans arriving between the 1840s and 1870s were skilled in different fields, often having been trained as artisans. German women often worked as domestic servants, usually starting at a young age. German men and women arriving after the Civil War found jobs as industrial workers. During the 1870s, Socialist German immigrants led efforts to organize a radical workers’ movement in the city, which was influenced to some extent by anarchist ideas. Chicago was still recovering from the fire when two serious recessions hit the nation in 1873 and in 1877, displacing hundreds of immigrant workers from their jobs. The recession of 1877 led to strikes and serious violence in Chicago, and again federal troops were brought in to quell the disturbances. The 1877 strikes were the first in a series which culminated in the 1886 Haymarket riot and the 1893 Pullman strike. In both instances Chicago saw the worst urban workers’ riots in the nation’s history. Several cultural institutions in Chicago can be traced back to German founders, most famously the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, which was founded by conductor Theodor Thomas in 1891. During the nineteenth century Chicago counted numerous well-attended German-language theaters and many small German music and literary societies. Several of the largest German American newspapers, such as the Illinois Staatszeitung or the Abendpost (Evening Post), which had readers throughout the Midwest and beyond, were

CHICAGO

published in Chicago. After the turn of the century, however, the vibrant German ethnic life in Chicago gradually lost its momentum, becoming less German. The slow erosion of the still large German American community network from within was caused by the decreasing immigration of German speakers, the loss of German as a spoken language among the second generation, and declining membership in the Vereine. In retrospect, the inherent structural weakness of the Chicago German community, which from the start had been more project than tangible reality, and the post1900 erosion of German ethnic life mitigate the seemingly massive impact of the U.S. declaration of war against Germany in 1917. In Chicago, moreover, the antiGerman campaign of 1917 must be seen within a specific interethnic political context. In 1914, leading Chicago Germans facing a growing disintegration of German ethnic life instrumentalized the war to rally Germans once again. They managed to bring thousands to the streets supporting the German cause. Throughout 1915, several large rallies were held in support of the German war effort. Although Jewish and Irish immigrants who opposed Russian and English oppression of their kin in Europe initially expressed sympathy, Polish and Czech immigrant leaders who were supporting efforts for national independence in Europe were deeply offended. A series of small, sometimes violent interethnic incidents paralleling to some extent the war in Europe ensued. In 1917, Poles and Czechs, now backed by official U.S. policy, took revenge for the Teutonic arrogance. After World War I, Chicago Germans played a rather subdued role. The German Vereinsleben (activities of associations) did

233

not entirely disappear but was organized much more inconspicuously than before 1900. The German-language Abendpost, for instance, was published into the 1950s. During the 1930s, the pro-Nazi German American Bund was active in Chicago, one of its most important centers. However, the impact of the Bund was limited, and the organization lost its appeal even before U.S. entry into World War II. As a result of persecution by the Nazis, several famous German and German Jewish emigrants moved to Chicago during the 1930s. Among them was the Bauhaus architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, who taught at the Illinois Institute of Technology and emerged as a leading proponent of the influential international style. Mies and his students played a major role in shaping the modern image of Chicago and, in fact, of most modern cities in the Western world with their office buildings. A number of influential intellectual and academic exiles from Germany taught and studied at the University of Chicago; for example, the historian Hans Rothfels, the physicist and Nobel Prize laureate James Franck, and Stefan Heym, who took a masters degree in the German Department during the 1930s and became a leading German writer after the war. During the 1960s, famous exile scholars like the theologian Paul Tillich and the philosopher Hannah Arendt taught at the University of Chicago. Tobias Brinkmann See also Addams, (Laura) Jane; Altgeld, John Peter; Anarchists; Bauhaus; Cincinnati; 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; Forty-Eighters; German American Bund; Haymarket; Hecker, Friedrich; Heym, Stefan; Illinois; Illinois Staatszeitung; Intellectual Exile; Judaism, Reform (North America); Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig; Salomon, Edward S.; Socialist Labor Party

234

CHILE References and Further Reading Avrich, Paul. The Haymarket Tragedy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Brinkmann, Tobias. “Von der Gemeinde zur Community”: Jüdische Einwanderer in Chicago, 1840–1900. Osnabrück: Rasch, 2002. Cronon, William. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. New York: W. W. Norton, 1991. Holli, Melvin G. “German American Ethnic and Cultural Identity from 1890 Onward.” In Ethnic Chicago: A Multicultural Portrait. Ed. Melvin G. Holli and Peter d’Alroy Jones. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1995, 93–109. Philpott, Thomas L. The Slum and the Ghetto: Neighborhood Deterioration and MiddleClass Reform, Chicago, 1880–1930. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Seeger, Eugen. Chicago: Die Geschichte einer Wunderstadt. Chicago: M. Sternand, 1892. Seeger, Eugen, and Eduard Schlaeger. Chicago: Entwickelung, Zerstörung, und Wiederaufbau. Chicago: M. Stern, 1872. Smith, Carl. Urban Disorder and the Shape of Belief: The Great Chicago Fire, the Haymarket Bomb and the Model Town of Pullman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

CHILE During the middle of the nineteenth century, the Chilean government made a deliberate effort to recruit German immigrants to settle the sparsely populated south. Those settlers, together with individual urban dwellers (mostly businesspeople and professionals) who immigrated to Chile during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the descendants of both groups, constituted approximately 30,000 German-speaking residents by the midtwentieth century. They included Chileanborn, naturalized, and permanent German residents. By the early twenty-first century,

the German-language newspaper Condor reported a weekly readership of 15,000 to 20,000. This numerically small group has enjoyed remarkable economic success while retaining the German language, culture, and institutions, as a result of the tolerant Chilean state’s absence of suppression of the language and cultural institutions of the Germans, or any other nationality, even during the two world wars. Conquered by Spain in the sixteenth century, Chile declared its formal independence in 1818. During the colonial era, very few Germans entered. Bartholomé Flores (variously called Barthel Blümlein or Bartholomäus Blumen), a literate carpenter from Nuremberg in Spanish service, became alderman, legal counsel, and in 1549 treasurer in Santiago. Beginning in the early seventeenth century, German Jesuits and members of other religious orders entered the country. Prior to and shortly after Chile’s declaration of independence, a trickle of German merchants settled in the urban areas, and by 1822 the first German trading company had been established in Valparaiso. Systematic immigration by Germans began around the mid-nineteenth century. Approximately 10,000 to 11,000 Germans entered Chile between 1850 and 1900. Half of those were married, and families with five or more children were not uncommon. Children born in Chile were, by law, considered Chilean citizens. By 1907, it was estimated that 30,000 Germans and their descendants lived in Chile. Proportionally, German immigrants were numerically unimportant. According to statistics from 1917 (Converse 1979, 302) most immigrants were Spanish, followed by Italian, German, British, and French immigrants.

CHILE

Looking to Europe and North America, South Americans observed economic development based on healthy agriculture and rapid industrialization from the efforts of skilled and trained European farmers and artisans. This led the Argentine Juan Bautista Alberdi to utter his popular aphorism “to govern is to populate.” The Chileans Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna and Vicente Pérez Rosales became instrumental in promoting liberal immigration policies and colonization projects beginning in the 1840s. Earlier, Bernhard Eunom Philippi (Bernardo Philippi), while in Prussian employ, collected flora and fauna, mapped Chile’s south, and participated in the Chilean expedition to win the Straits of Magellan. He gained military honors, served temporarily as governor of that region, and proposed colonization of Chile’s south by Germans to the Chilean government after exploring the densely forested areas of Llanquihue. Eventually appointed to Germany as official agent for immigration to Chile between 1848 and 1852, he recruited mostly from around Hesse Cassel, his home region. These settlers, on land purchased in and around Valdivia, were soon joined by groups from throughout Germany, arriving from Silesia, Württemberg, Westphalia, Brandenburg, Saxony, Hanover, and Hamburg. German Bohemians settled Nuevo Braunau. In 1852, the Chilean Vicente Perez Rosales was sent to Germany as consul general, where he recruited additional colonists, especially among the middle class. He considered families more stable than single men and included the latter only if they were members of families. The first recruited and subsidized group consisted of 180–200 Catholic families who had agreed to pay their own way in

235

exchange for a promise of land around Lake Llanquihue; loans and tax exemptions; and aid for German priests, teachers, and doctors to keep settlements homogeneous. However, land around Lake Llanquihue could not yet be reached, and the land around Valdivia was no longer free. Immigrants with capital had bought properties around Valdivia, built homes and shops, and engaged in trade and commerce, developing it into a thriving urban community. Additional ships arrived at the coastal Forts of Corral where the immigrants lived miserably in the fort’s casemates until they finished building a road to Lake Llanquihue. Puerto Montt, on its southern edge, was established in 1853. Each family had to clear the forest to receive their parcels of land, credit, seed, oxen, a cow, and other supplies. By 1861, several communities had developed around the lake. Further north, the lands of the Frontera had originally been planned to remain in the hands of the indigenous population. Earlier, small, adjoining German settlements had failed because of the Indian rebellions of 1859. After successful military operations against the Mapuche (Araucanian) Indians, new colonization laws were passed to free Frontera land for settlement by Europeans, including Germans, who for the most part chose not to farm there. A few smaller mixed groups, financed by the Chilean government, had been settled on the Chiloe Peninsula in 1895, but many of the Germans left by 1903 and, together with additional Germans and Europeans from throughout South America, established Huefel-Comuy at the edge of the Frontera between 1905 and 1912. In 1924 new colonization laws were passed, and the government settled Catholic Bavarians in

236

CHILE

Peñaflor and several other small settlements. A private group of 230 from Siegburg an der Lahn bought land east of Parral in 1961. The Colonia Dignidad contributed to economic development of the area and assisted the indigenous population with modern farming. After the initial establishment of immigrant settlements in the south, the Germans and their descendants spread and by 1895 were found throughout Chile. After 1910 the purchase of land became more difficult. In agriculture and trades, German immigrants and their descendants contributed to economic development. IberoChilean preference for land in central Chile had facilitated German settlements in the south, where the landscapes resembled those of their homeland. In Chile as in most of South America, where huge but uncultivated landholdings and landless peasants were the rule, the German settlers introduced the concept of family farms. Agriculture flourished in the Lake District, and by 1932 the biggest farms belonged to families with German names in Valdivia, Puerto Montt, and Puerto Varas. The immigrants had brought limited financial assets but made up for that with human capital. Most of the farmers concentrated on beef cattle and dairy herds, followed later by hogs, and by 1924–1925 they produced 75 percent of Chilean butter, much meat, and enough hides to supply all of Valdivia’s tanneries (Converse 1979, 317). For the most part, the immigrants were literate and skilled. Prior to emigration, many had prepared themselves for their new lives in Chile by learning additional trades. The raw materials produced by farmers as well as the forests provided for the growth of industries: leather goods,

shoe factories, lumber, sawmills and paper mills, grain mills, and breweries. Candles and, after the importation of bees, honey were often produced by women immigrants. Many of the goods had previously been imported at high prices. Finally, the raising of cattle and hogs resulted in the establishment of slaughterhouses and the production of meat products such as hams and sausages for exports. German entrepreneurs flourished in many communities, especially in the hotel and restaurant business and machine and repair shops. Many of Chile’s pharmacies and pharmaceutical businesses were run by German immigrants and their descendants. A long list of companies and merchant houses established in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries by German immigrants and their descendants were later joined by German branch firms. Immigrants not only provided but also promoted a market for German imports and sales. During the two world wars, Allied statutory or black lists interrupted German Chilean, German, and other Axis businesses by imposing trade embargoes. In response, the German Chamber of Commerce (now Camara Chileno Alemana de Comercio e Industria) was established in 1916. After its temporary demise during World War II, it received its juridical persona or legal recognition in 1950, once again furthering German and Chilean trade. The establishment of schools became imperative for the German settlers, who were aware that literacy contributed to the success of such small minority groups. In the absence of sufficient Chilean schools, particularly in the isolated areas of Chile’s south and the Frontera region, the immigrants established fifty-two schools, which

CHILE

were primarily secular but included a few religious schools. Although they were financed primarily by German Chileans they were, with interruptions during the two world wars, subsidized by Germany with teachers and books. Beginning in the early 1930s, German Chilean youth became targets of Nazi propaganda. With the active encouragement of teachers from Germany, most of the secular schools adopted Nazi curricula, and existing youth groups were modeled after the Hitler Youth. After 1938, the Chilean government insisted on compliance with state requirements (e.g., 85 percent of the teachers had to be Chilean citizens). A proposed Chilean law to establish Spanish as the only primary language, however, was defeated as being unconstitutional. In the 1970s, encouraged by resumed bonds with Germany and aid, the schools became socially responsive toward indigenous cultures and the disadvantaged. Still today, German private schools are renowned for providing an excellent multilingual education. German was spoken almost exclusively in the isolated lake communities, but in mixed communities most Germans soon became bilingual, often mixing German and Spanish. During the twentieth century, the young began to prefer Spanish, but many Chileans of German descent are still able to converse in German. Although insisting on the additional use of Spanish in the schools, organizational protocols, and publications during World War II, the Chilean state never discouraged the use of German or any other foreign language. In the south only a few German newspapers, except for some local and religious papers, succeeded between 1886 and 1928. Most news was spread by word of mouth. In urban central Chile, Valparaiso, and

237

Santiago, the Deutsche Zeitung fuer Chile (German Newspaper for Chile) succeeded three earlier papers, including the first German paper in Valparaiso in 1870, and was published until diplomatic relations between Chile and Germany were severed in 1943. In 1938, the Deutsch-Chilenische Bund (DCB) or Liga Chilena-Alemana (German Chilean Association) began publication of Condor, combining its publication with several existing smaller papers, in the attempt to distance the German Chilean community from National Socialist Germany. For a while after1943, Condor faced difficulties, but it expanded and still publishes today as a weekly Germanlanguage paper. Of about 20,000 to 30,000 Germanspeaking people living in Chile in the mid1930s, approximately 60 percent were Protestant and 40 percent were Catholic. In part because of resistance by German bishops, Chile’s demand for only Catholic immigrants soon changed. Although Chile permitted religious freedom, Protestant churches could not build towers or install bells. Catholic immigrants were served by priests and members of religious orders, including many German-speaking monks. American aid helped build the first German Protestant church in Osorno in 1863. By the 1930s, local congregations had established about fifteen German Protestant congregations. Because of German subsidies and pastors sent by Germany, those Protestant congregations fell under the influence of the Foreign Office for Church Affairs of the Reich during the 1930s. After 1960 and the establishment of the Chilean Synod, the Protestants once again cooperated with the Protestant Church in Germany, this time in an ecumenical movement that emphasized social

238

CHILE

responsibility. Only one congregation in the south temporarily broke away in protest against such liberal changes. On the other hand, German Catholics were considered part of the Chilean Roman Catholic Church and participated in its activities from the time of their arrival in Chile. Communities established specific associations to support schools, churches, and hospitals. German freemasons helped establish the German Hospital in Valparaiso in 1877, and Hamburg merchants founded a hospital in Concepcion in 1897. In 1907 Puerto Varas established a hospital with German doctors and Mallinckrodt nuns and nurses. The large, modern German Hospital Aleman in Santiago opened in 1917, followed by additional hospitals throughout Chile, including in Colonia Dignidad. The statutes of the hospitals required that members of all confessions, nationalities, and both genders be served. Self-help organizations assisted widows, orphans, and stranded seamen and established voluntary insurance funds. Germans and other European immigrants organized voluntary fire departments, which had been almost unknown in South America. Purely social, cultural, and recreational organizations were abundant. Almost all communities, rural and urban, had a local German club (Deutscher Verein), which provided gemütliche, or congenial ambience for social and cultural events. Some of the elegant urban clubs had libraries and dining facilities for business meetings as well as social or official meetings with Chileans. Women’s clubs were involved in cultural and charitable activities, including the support of nursing homes. Singing clubs and choral and instrumental groups were common in most communities. Athletic and sports clubs, including gymnas-

tics, soccer, rowing, hiking, bowling, and marksmanship, abounded. German Chilean graduates of Chilean universities in Santiago, Valparaiso, and Concepcion founded fraternities to help maintain the German language. In the late 1930s, the members of the oldest and probably the most liberal pro-German but anti-Nazi fraternity, the Burschenschaft Araucania, became instrumental in preventing the worst excesses of Nazi influence and preserving traditional German Chilean institutions. After World War II, the fraternities concentrated on the young and Chile’s social problems. The Liga Chilena Alemana (German Chilean Association) had been created as an umbrella organization in 1916 in response to Allied propaganda and blacklists, to protect German Chilean institutions, especially the schools, to lobby for Chilean neutrality, and to protect the interests of German citizens. Nazi infiltration and ideology held the Liga and many of its member associations captive between the early 1930s and May 1938. Then, prudent German Chileans excluded German citizens and extricated the Liga, schools, organizations, and especially youth groups from Nazi control. After Chile’s diplomatic break with Germany in 1943, the Spanish language was adopted for Liga protocols, and the bylaws were changed to conform to Chilean law. Nowadays, Liga still supports the German schools and promotes German Chilean cultural institutions and programs in an effort to preserve the positive vestiges of German culture. Although German immigrants were not required to serve in the military, some German colonists and descendants did serve in the militia. Mostly they provided medical help in the Valparaiso German

CINCINNATI

Hospital during the 1891 Civil War. In that war, the German captain Emil Körner, hired in 1885 by the Chilean government to train the Chilean military, led troops of the winning Congressionalists, the faction German Chileans had not favored. He was promoted to general chief of staff and returned to Germany in 1910. During both world wars, some young German Chileans joined German citizens who left to serve in the German military, although it was illegal for the Chilean-born to do so. Chile’s tolerance not only promised but facilitated naturalization, while permitting dual citizenship. Naturalized German Chileans entered the civil service as municipal administrators (i.e., Puerto Montt and La Union), educators (e.g.,Valdivia), and mining engineers. Before the turn of the century, German Chileans were elected as mayors (i.e., Valparaiso and Osorno), aldermen (twelve of fifteen in Puerto Montt, four of ten in Osorno), and councilmen (Valparaiso and La Serena). By 1890, several sons of immigrants held seats in the Chilean congress. Although he was not a citizen, Bernhard Philippi was appointed governor of Magellan. After 1898, a few noncitizens were permitted to enter the civil service and hold municipal offices in special cases. Christel Converse See also German Migration to Latin America (1918–1933); German-Speaking Migration to the Americas; Philippi, Bernhard Eunom; Printing and Publishing References and Further Reading Blancpain, Jean-Pierre. Les Allemands au Chili: 1816–1945. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag, 1974. Converse, Christel. “Die Deutschen in Chile.” In Die Deutschen in Lateinamerika. Ed. Hartmut Fröschle. Tübingen: Erdmann Verlag, 1979, 301–372.

239

———. “Culture and Nationalism among the German-Chileans in the 1930s.” MACLAS: Latin American Essays, no. 4 (April 1990): 117–124. Converse, Christel Krause. “The German Immigrants and Their Descendants in Nineteenth-Century South America.” MA thesis, DePaul University, 1974. ———. “The Rise and Fall of Nazi Influence among the German-Chileans.” PhD diss., Georgetown University, 1990. Tenenbaum, Barbara, ed. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture, vol. 1, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1996. Young, George F. W. Germans in Chile: Immigration and Colonization, 1849–1914. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1974.

CINCINNATI Cincinnati is considered the the most Teutonic of American cities. Germans shaped Cincinnati’s development from its earliest years. The frontier Ohio River fort Losantiville (1788) was strategic as German Baptists, or “Dunkers,” who had come to Pennsylvania in 1719 and settled upriver at Columbia. David Ziegler, born in Heidelberg in 1748, moved to Pennsylvania before the American Revolution and then, having gained the rank of major in the Continental Army, commanded Fort Washington in 1790, the year the outpost was named Cincinnati. Martin Baum (1765–1831), from Alsace, arrived in 1795 via Maryland. By 1810, he had established a general store, a mill, and the first bank, sugar refinery, and iron foundry in the West, recruiting Germans from eastern cities. Baum’s barge Cincinnati broke the round-trip speed record to New Orleans in 1811 before he invested in steamboats. He founded the Western Museum; a subscription library; schools; and the Society for

240

CINCINNATI

the Promotion of Agriculture, Manufacturing, and Domestic Economy. Despite the 1818–1819 panic and mill fires in 1823 and 1835, Baum prospered as industry boomed by 1830 in the “Queen City of the West,” incorporated as a city in 1819. Germans made up 5 percent of the city in 1830 when immigration from Germany as well as from the East Coast escalated. The German population jumped from 23 to 27 percent from 1840 to 1850. Friedrich Hecker, German nationalist and hero of the failed 1848 revolution, arrived to cheering crowds in New York and then Cincinnati, where he settled, serving as a magnet for thousands of fellow FortyEighters. Cincinnati became the nation’s secondlargest industrial city, its population swelled by arrivals from the Rhineland, BadenWürttemberg, and Bavaria. Working-class newcomers settled north of the center and east of the Miami–Erie Canal in 110 blocks dense with three-story brick tenements, townhouses, and shops intermingled with gardens and punctuated by church spires. Germans made up 60 percent in Uber dem Rhein (Over-the-Rhine), the German neighborhood in the city, and a fourth of the city’s 115,435 inhabitants in 1850, occupying professions such as shopkeepers, bakers, tailors, and woodworkers. Tradespeople called “mechanics” made the city a printing and machine-tool center. The less skilled found jobs as the city became a pigslaughtering and pork-packing center nicknamed “Porkopolis.” Germans who had been truck farmers around the city’s periphery made Pleasant Ridge a suburb, attracting more Germans with life centered on the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the 1870s. They moved up the Millcreek Valley into Cor-

ryville, annexed to Cincinnati in 1870. From 1870 to 1890, German immigration numbers were high. The city had the nation’s third-largest Germanic population, 45 percent, in 1900; only Hoboken (55.7 percent) and Milwaukee (64 percent) had a greater concentration of German residents. Twelve percent, or 38,308 of the 325,902 Cincinnatians, had been born in Germany. In 1900, the city listed over 200 German physicians and 167 lawyers, along with prominent industrialists, businesspeople, and politicians (Hurley 1982, 104). After World War I, immigration nearly stopped. During World War II and after, only a small number of German Jews who fled Nazi Germany; Danube Swabians, Pomeranians, and Silesians; and others displaced by Soviet occupation made their way to the city. The 1970 U.S. Census revealed German as the native language of 55,000 out of the city’s 451,455.

Political Influence David Ziegler won election as council president in 1802 as the village was incorporated, before it became a city. Martin Baum was elected mayor in 1807 and 1812. The city printed ordinances in German in the 1830s. Admitted to the bar in 1849, Johann Bernhard Stallo (1823–1900), who arrived from Oldenburg in 1839, became a Court of Common Pleas judge. After coming under attack from the nativist KnowNothing Party in the 1840s, many Germans joined the new Republican Party after 1856. Know-Nothing xenophobia peaked in the 1850s, tainting local politics and erupting in violence with nativist cries of “Kill the Dutch” in 1855 as German militias barricaded Over-the-Rhine for three days of rioting. Know-Nothings failed to rid public schools of German. Lib-

CINCINNATI

erals gained clout by electing ten of their members to City Council in 1852 and loosened Sabbatarian restrictions. Hecker and Stallo supported the largely German 9th Ohio Volunteer Infantry Regiment with 1,500 militia and Turnerites. Under Prussian officer August von Willich (1810–1878), Die Neuner (The Nines) was distinguished in the Civil War. Willich was honored in Washington Park by a 1873 portrait statue by Leopold Fettweis, inscribed in German, “1848. 1861. By word and deed [he fought] for the people’s freedom in his old and new native lands.” Germans won many political offices. Gustav Tafel (1830–1908) was born in Munich and settled with his grandparents in Cincinnati in 1849. After working as a printer, he became the Volksblatt (People’s Newspaper) city editor in 1855 while studying law. Admitted to the bar in 1858, he served as colonel in the 9th Ohio, before he won election to the state legislature in 1866. Elected mayor in 1897 on a “fusionist” ticket to modernize the water and sewer systems, he served one term, until 1900. Wielert’s Pavilion (1873), the leading beer garden, provided a Stammtisch (round table) as headquarters for George B. Cox, the Republican “boss” dominating local politics from 1884 to 1912, when Rudolph K. “Rud” Hynicka and August Herrman took over the “machine.” Political groups also met in the Germans’ Central Turner Hall behind Wielert’s. Charles Fleischmann (1835–1897), a German Jew who got rich from distilling liquor and yeast production, founded the Market National Bank, served as Ohio governor William McKinley’s adviser, and became a prominent philanthropist. His son Julius (1872–1925) served as mayor

241

(1900–1905), pledging businesslike management. He began free kindergartens in public schools and built the first public bathhouse in 1904. Leopold Markbreit (1842–1909) became mayor in 1908, continuing Fleischmann’s progressive policies. Born in Vienna, he immigrated in 1848 and became a lawyer. After serving in the Civil War, he edited the Volksblatt for years after 1886 and served as waterworks commissioner (1896–1907) before Republicans chose him as mayoral candidate. When he died in office in 1909, the city staged tributes in German and English. German Jew Frederick S. Spiegel (1858–1925) was a one-term Republican mayor (1914–1915). Born in Prussia and educated in a Westphalia gymnasium, he came via Alabama and graduated from the Cincinnati Law School while editing the Freie Presse (Free Press). He entered public service in positions including chairman of the Public School Committee on German language. While a judge of the Superior Court (1902–1913), Spiegel headed several Vereine (associations). Backed by the waning Cox machine, George Puchta (1860– 1937), born in Cincinnati of German-born parents and a machine tools businessman, won the mayorality (1916–1917) with the largest plurality ever. Preoccupied with looming war, Puchta organized a municipal war council to support the federal effort before returning to his business. Despite the Germanophobia during and after World War I, long-assimilated German American civic leaders regained prominence in politics after World War II. Edward Nicholas (Eddie) Waldvogel (1895–1954), a Catholic born in the city with a résumé of public positions and civic service, was elected mayor in 1953. Eugene

242

CINCINNATI

Ruehlmann, a Western Hills lawyer of German descent, was mayor from 1967 to 1971 and championed urban renewal. Gerald Norman (Jerry) Springer (1944–), the child of German Jewish parents who fled from Nazi Germany to New York, moved to Cincinnati after he had received a law degree in 1968. The liberal Democrat served on the City Council, had an interim mayoral term in 1974, and won election as mayor (1977–1978) before going on to a career as a TV talk show host. His 2003 decision not to run for Congress from his hometown won national coverage.

Diverse Religion Local Germans were religiously divided— freethinkers, various Protestant sects, Catholics, and Jews. German and Swiss followers of Ulrich Zwingli founded Cincinnati’s first German Protestant congregation, St. Johannes Kirche (Saint John’s Church) in 1814 and built a Gothic church in 1868, later called St. John’s Unitarian. German liberals fought with orthodox Catholics and Protestants. Stallo led freethinkers in the legal fight to keep the Bible and hymns out of public schools in the 1830s. Celebrating Christmas in the German way was opposed by many AngloSaxon Protestants. A radical, anticlerical Socialist from Vienna, Frederick Hassaurek, became a leader of the Freimännerverein (Freemen’s Society). His antiCatholic attacks inflamed Turners to demonstrate against the papal nuncio’s 1853 visit. Wilhelm Nast (1807–1899), born in Stuttgart, immigrated in 1828 and converted to Methodism, bringing it to Cincinnati in 1835. He edited the weekly Der Christliche Apologete (The Christian

Apologist) (1839–1894) to promote fundamentalism, Sabbatarianism, and temperance. Cincinnati became the home of German Methodism. Northern Germans built the Deutsche Evangelische St. Paulus Kirche (St. Paul’s Evangelical Church, 1850), with its steeple topped by a gilded rooster. The Deutsch Evangelisch Reformierte Salem’s Kirche (Salem Evangelical Reformed Church, 1856) erected a German Gothic brick church in 1867, with its spire topped by a gilded Angel Gabriel. Concordia Lutheran (later Prince of Peace) built a brick Gothic church in 1871. Philippus Evangelical and Reformed Lutheran (1891) had a golden fist with finger pointing to heaven atop its church. German Catholics founded Holy Trinity parish, including a school, in 1834. The Swiss-born priest Johann Martin Henni (1805–1881) founded St. Marien Kirche (St. Mary’s Church) in 1842. German architect Franz Ignatz Erd built it, then the largest in the Ohio Valley, with stained glass from Bavaria and German paintings. Its 170-foot “broach spire” had the city’s oldest public clock. Father Joseph Ferneding moved from St. Mary’s to found St. Johannes parish in 1845 in a German Romanesque brick church and then the less affluent St. Paul’s in the 1850s. Henni’s Wahrheits-Freund (Henni’s Friend of Truth, 1837) became the nation’s first German Catholic newspaper to counter the anticlericalism of German freethinkers. Although the city had only 150 Jews in 1830, an influx of 10,000 came from Germany by the 1860s. Most of the newly arrived migrants settled in the West End. Leaders championed “modernized” laws and ritual. Isaac Mayer Wise (1819–1900) left Bohemia for the United States in 1846.

CINCINNATI

He settled in Cincinnati in 1854 and made the city a center for Reform Judaism. Wise worked with the K. K. Ben Yeshurun (Children of God) synagogue, which was the home to the Minhag America prayer book and rabbinical education. Together with Rabbi Max Lilienthal, he published The Israelite (1854) and Die Deborah (1855–1903). They established rabbinical training at the Hebrew Union College (1876), which ordained the first American rabbis in 1883. Emphasizing “religious community” and ethical monotheism rather than the law “not adapted to the views and habits of modern civilization,” they minimized ritual, held the Sunday rather than Saturday Sabbath, integrated women in family pews, and had mixed choirs. They eliminated keeping kosher and cultural traits that would make them “stand out” from the mainstream.

German Cultural Life An 1838 law introduced German into public schools. Cincinnati’s Germans used and preserved their language at home while speaking English in the outside world, thus making their urban culture bilingual. Although Die Ohio Chronik (The Ohio Chronicle) began publishing in 1826, most Germans read the Tägliches Cincinnatier Volksblatt (Daily Cincinnati People’s Paper, 1836), the only German daily in the United States for almost a decade. There were three other German papers by 1850. Unionists preferred the Arbeiterzeitung (Worker’s News Paper); radicals liked the Republikaner (Republican). A radical, anticlerical Socialist, Frederick Hassaurek, fled to Cincinnati from Vienna in 1848 to publish Hochwächter (The High Watchman) “an organ for intellectual enlightenment and social reform.” He later became editor of

243

the Volksblatt, which remained the major newspaper until World War I, survived only by the Freie Presse (Free Press, 1874). Stallo fostered the German Reading and Culture Society (1844) after studying at St. Xavier College. German Freimännervereine (freethinkers’ societies) organized Das Deutsche Institut (The German Institute, 1846), staging four plays a week until the Civil War. Stallo promulgated Hegelian philosophy through a study circle and the publication of his own books The General Principles of the Philosophy of Nature (1848), State Creeds and Their Modern Apostles (1872), and Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics (1881), earning renown in Germany as his era’s most significant philosopher of science. Heinrich Arminius Rattermann (1832–1923), who immigrated from Ankum in 1846, edited the monthly Der Deutsche Pionier (The German Pioneer, 1874–1885), which was published by the city’s largest association (1869–1887), making it a top journal of German American culture and history. He also edited the Deutsch-Amerikanisches Magazin (German American Magazine) and contributed to literary life by writing forty-four books, hundreds of articles, and countless poems. Friedrich Hecker organized the first American Turnverein (Turner Society, 1848) in Cincinnati to foster “refined humanity” through physical exercise and intellectual development, which had the motto Mens sana in corpore sano (a sound mind in a sound body). This concept goes back to the founder of the modern German Turnerbewegung (Gymnasts Movement), Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, who in 1811 amid Napoleonic invasions articulated a philosophy to prepare for democratic freedom. Hecker opened a small Turnhalle (Turner

244

CINCINNATI

Hall) in 1850 and then the large, central Turnhalle in 1859 with an athletic club, a concert room, and theater. Germans formed the Schützenverein (Shooting Club) in 1831. Civil War veterans expanded the association, incorporated in 1868 with 250 members, each holding $500 in stock to buy a hill northwest of the city as a shooting park, or Schützenbuckel. Opened as a public beer garden, it had beer and wine cellars, a dance pavilion, swings, and bowling alleys. Germans held their annual Schützenfest there until 1873. From the Haydn Society in 1822 and first Männerchöre (male chorus) in 1838, Germans enriched urban life with dozens of singing societies, bands, and orchestras. The first annual Sängerfest (singing festival) took place in 1849. Crowds enjoyed music of the German masters at the Löwengarten (Lion Garden, 1860–1872). Clara Baur (1835–1912), born in Württemberg, founded a Conservatory of Music in 1867 that was modeled after the Stuttgart Conservatory. Rattermann helped found the American Sängerbund (Association of Singing Clubs), wrote German opera librettos, and hosted a salon for intellectuals. The city’s Sängerbunds built the Sänger Fest-Halle (1870) opposite Washington Park, with a seating capacity of 5,000. Germans crusaded to expand the use of their language in public schools. The Board of Education formed the German English Normal School in 1871 to train Germanlanguage teachers. By 1890, about half of all students studied German, although it was optional. The system had 175 German teachers in elementary schools and four in high schools by 1900, who reached over 18,000 pupils. Dr. Heinrich H. Fick (1849–1935), who came to Cincinnati in 1864, became assistant superintendent in

1901 and headed the German English Normal School until he retired in 1915. Fick devised a bilingual curriculum, the “Cincinnati Plan,” used in many cities along with his textbooks. German Americans created an extensive cultural and social network that was not well liked by their Anglo-Saxon neighbors. Germans faced hostility from the American Protestant Society, which disliked the recreational “Continental Sunday,” called “a high carnival of drunkenness,” and championed temperance to counter the German culture of beer. Germans successfully rallied against the “Puritan Sabbath” and Sunday closing laws: “Kamf gegen die Sabbathfrommelei” (Battle against the Puritan Sabbath). The 1890 Cincinnati City Directory listed 1,810 saloons, only a few non-German. For those living in cramped domestic quarters and even for the prosperous with parlors, such places provided informal, recreational “living rooms” as well as community centers. Cincinnatians, including women and children, consumed 40 gallons of beer a year per capita in 1893, 24 over the national average. They drank during vaudeville at Hubert Heuck’s Volkstheater (People’s Theater, 1875). Georg Rapp’s Highland House (1876) had panoramic views from its Mount Adams restaurant, beer garden, picnic grounds, concert hall, theater, and bowling facilities inside and outdoors for 8,000 at a time. Moritz Eichler’s ornate Clifton House had extensive gardens, plus a concert hall and hotel. In that heyday, seventeen beer gardens staged concerts—Hildebrand’s, Kissell’s, Schickling’s, and others. Wielert’s Pavilion (1873), the most fashionable, boasted an immense interior and beer garden lined with busts of Ludwig van Beethoven, Johann Wolfgang

CINCINNATI

Goethe, Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy, Johann Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Friedrich Schiller, and Franz Schubert. Michael Brands’s orchestra was the nucleus of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra (1895). All prospered until World War I and its aftermath squelched Cincinnati’s German culture for decades. Most Germans who arrived after World War II assimilated quickly, even more so than those before, although the Verein der Donauschwaben (Society of Swabs from the Danube) celebrated its first festival in 1956. Cincinnati hosted the Forty-first National Saengerfest in 1952. The roster of Cincinnati Symphony conductors reveals ongoing German influence—Fritz Reiner, Eugene Goossens, Max Rudolph, Thomas Schippers, and Michael Gielen. Even Jesus Lopez-Cobos, director in the 1990s, had been music director of the Berlin Opera before he came to Cincinnati.

Shaping the City From frontier days, Germans shaped the city’s infrastructure. Merchants formed the Covington and Cincinnati Bridge Company in 1846, hiring engineer John Augustus Roebling and his firm to build the first bridge over the Ohio River. Amos Shinkle, a coal merchant, expedited the project financially and politically in 1856. Construction stalled during the panic of 1857, as Irish workers quit and the Civil War intervened. The world’s longest suspension bridge was completed in 1866 as 120,000 people, over half of Cincinnati’s population, walked across it. Andrew H. Ernst helped found the Cincinnati Horticultural Society (1843), which was responsible for major urban beautification, especially after the 1852 arrival of Prussian landscape gardener

245

A view from Covington, Kentucky, shows the Roebling suspension bridge spanning the Ohio River to Cincinnati. (Corbis)

Adolph Strauch (1822–1883), who designed estates in the new suburb of Clifton, redeveloped Spring Grove as a garden cemetery, and then created the city’s first public parks in 1870 and 1872. Their friend, Andreas (Andrew) Erkenbrecher, founded the Association for the Acclimatization of Rare Birds. Supported by the local German press and advice from the Berlin zoologist Alfred Edmund Brehm, Erkenbrecher incorporated the Cincinnati Zoological Society (1873), modeled after the Frankfurt Zoo. Strauch advised German designer Theodore Findeisen on the layout. Animals were sent by Carl Hagenbeck in Hamburg. The nation’s second zoological gardens opened in 1875, twice the size of that in Philadelphia, which had opened the year before. Hagenbeck’s agent, Sol Stephan, helped spawn other American zoos, promoting Hagenbeck’s idea of barless enclosures. Johann (John) Hauck, a brewer who came from Bergzabern in the

246

CINCINNATI

Palatinate in 1852, saved the bankrupt zoo after Erkenbrecher’s death in 1885. Architects Alfred Fellheimer and Stewart Wagner designed Union Terminal (1933), an art moderne masterpiece with an infundibuliform (funnel-shaped) interior, to handle 216 trains per day. Weinhold Reiss, born in Karlsruhe in 1886 and trained in art in Munich, designed its huge mosaic murals of Ohio settlement, transportation, and local industrial workers, executed by the Ravenna Mosaic studios of Berlin and New York. Some of them were moved to the airport in 1973.

German Beer Breweries Immigrants imported the process of lagering beer developed in the 1830s by Gabriel Sedlmayr in Munich and Anton Dreher in Vienna, which used chilled processing to produce a carbonated brew lighter than English beers. By 1840, eight small Cincinnati breweries made Lagerbier. As more Germans immigrated, breweries grew to eleven in 1848, sixteen in 1856, and thirtysix in 1860, including six of the nation’s twenty largest by 1870. Local production soared from 354,000 barrels (1 barrel holds 32 gallons) in 1870 to 656,000 in 1880 to 1,115,000 in 1890. Christian Moerlein (1853) opened a barrel factory in 1862, which became the city’s largest brewery by the 1880s, with buildings of German Romanesque Revival “round-arched style” in three Over-theRhine blocks. After Moerlein installed an ice machine in 1876, annual production leaped from 60,000 to 98,000 barrels. Moerlein opened a pioneering bottling plant in 1895 to ease shipment problems, advertising Old Jug-Lager Krug Bier as “Exhilarating, Stimulating, Re-Juvenating, Wholesome, Delicious and Pure.” Its reputation

spread nationally in the 1890s, producing 350,000 barrels of “National Export” and “Old Jug Lager.” Conrad Windisch joined Gottlieb and Henry Muhlhauser to found the city’s second-largest brewery in 1866, producing 175,000 barrels a year by 1890. Louis Hudepohl and Fred Kotte bought the Koehler Brewery in 1885. It had a hundred employees and annual production of 40,000 barrels in 1902 when Hudepohl died, leaving the business to his wife and five daughters, who carried on, shifting to make near beer and soft drinks during Prohibition and thus preserving one of the city’s only three surviving breweries. Daughter Celia and her husband John O. Hesselbrock revived and automated it in 1932 as Hudepohl-Schoenling. Their Christian Moerlein brand became the first American beer to pass Germany’s rigid purity law, the Reinheitsgebot, in 1983 (Hurley 1982, 190).

World War I and Its Impact The Deutscher Staatsverband (German State Association) held its annual picnic in Chester Park on August 1, 1914, when Cincinnati’s German American population learned about the outbreak of war. After a telegram was read that announced the declaration of war by Germany, all participants sang “Die Wacht am Rhein” (The Watch on the Rhine). Many recent emigrants supported imperial Germany’s policies, but the German American establishment embraced American patriotism. The Freie Presse assailed Woodrow Wilson’s neutrality and the German-Austrian-Hungarian Aid Society raised funds for “iron” for the Central Powers. After the United States entered the war, Cincinnati’s police banned German in public meetings; and many Vereine were

CINCINNATI

closed. The City Council anglicized thirteen Germanic street names, from Bismarck to Montreal, Berlin to Woodward, Hamburg to Stonewall, Bremen to Republic, German to English, and so on. So did many families and societies. The German Mutual Insurance Company became Hamilton County Fire Insurance. Its statue of “Germania” was shrouded in black, draped with the American flag, then rechristened “Columbia,” with “E Pluribus Unum” inscribed on her cape. The German National Bank took the name Lincoln. The Staatsverband became the American Citizens League. Vigilantes destroyed German inscriptions on buildings. The Alien Property Custodian seized suspect German businesses. The American Protective League enforced a ban on German-composed music. The German Theater was closed. Public school students taking German dropped from 13,856 in 1916 to 7,546 in 1917. Ohio eliminated elementary German in 1918, firing most “Hun tongue” teachers and censoring those remaining. The library purged German books and periodicals from its shelves. Cincinnati’s Germans spoke English in public and raised $95,000 for a 1918 Liberty Bonds Crusade. The Volksblatt folded in 1919 after raids by federal agents; the Freie Presse held on until 1924. The last German-language church, Philippus Protestant, adopted English in 1921. Prohibition seemed the coup de grace in 1920, closing twenty-six breweries and countless saloons and beer gardens. Wielert’s became the Gildenhaus Funeral Home. John Stenger’s restaurant, founded in 1893, closed and was not revived by his son until 1934. The Gambrinus Stock Brewery, founded by Christian Boss in 1867, folded in 1922.

247

A unified German community never recovered its prewar vibrancy. German was not taught in elementary schools; but six teachers gave lessons in the Central Turnhalle. The Catholic Kolping Society revived the shooting sport in 1923 through the Schuetzenclub. Fifteen churches had services in German in 1935 and used the language in Sunday schools. Amusement parks revived German Days in the 1930s; Coney Island attracted 38,000 for one in 1938. The German Literary club met upstairs at the restaurant founded in 1872 by German-born baker Anton Grammer. The walls of this restaurant were decorated with Wirtstube-style murals of Rhineland landscapes in the 1940s. Today, the Downtown Council attracts thousands to a mid-September Oktoberfest of beer brats (bratwurst), metts (Mettwurst), and German music on Fountain Square. Even though the National Municipal League named Cincinnati an “All American City” in 1981, the city revived and retains its place as the most Teutonic of American cities. Blanche M. G. Linden See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Beer; Forty-Eighters; German Jewish Migration to the United States; Hecker, Friedrich; Judaism, Reform (North America); Landscape Architects, German American; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Roebling, John Augustus and Washington Augustus; Strauch, Adolph; Turner Societies; Verein; Willich, August von; Wise, Isaac Mayer References and Further Reading Clubbe, John. Cincinnati Observed: Architecture and History. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1992. Dobbert, Guido A. The Disintegration of an Immigrant Community: The Cincinnati Germans, 1870–1920. PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1965.

248

CLUSS, ADOLF Engelhardt, George W. Cincinnati: The Queen City, 1901. Cincinnati: Young and Klein, 1982. Hurley, Daniel. Cincinnati: The Queen City. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Historical Society, 1982. Sarna, Jonathan D., and Nancy H. Klein. The Jews of Cincinnati. Cincinnati: Center for Study of the American Jewish Experience, 1989. Tenner, Armin. Cincinnati Sonst und Jetzt. Cincinnati: Mecklenburg and Rosenthal, 1878. Tolzmann, Don Heinrich. The Cincinnati Germans after the Great War. New York: Peter Lang, 1987. Tolzmann, Don Heinrich, ed. Festschrift: German-American Tricentennial Jubilee: Cincinnati 1983. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Historical Society, 1982. Wimberg, Robert J. Cincinnati: Over-theRhine. Cincinnati: Ohio Book Store, 1987.

CLUSS, ADOLF b. July 14, 1825; Heilbronn am Neckar, Württemberg d. July 24, 1905;Washington, D.C. One of the leading architects, engineers, and city planners in nineteenth-century Washington, D.C., Adolf Cluss was also a social reformer and journalist. He fled Germany for the United States after taking part in the failed revolution of 1848. Cluss was born into a family of wealthy craftspeople and winegrowers. He attended school in Heilbronn and became a carpenter. In 1846, he was employed in Mainz as “second architect” at the Hessische Ludwigsbahn, Rhine-Hessen’s first railroad. In Mainz, Cluss was involved in the Turner movement and organized the Arbeiterbildungsverein (Workers Educational Organization), which offered workers free classes and access to Socialist literature. He also contributed to Der Democrat, the weekly

journal of the Arbeiterbildungsverein, and was one of three delegates from Mainz to the convention of the Frankfurt Parliament in 1848. Cluss had met Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in 1847 and stayed in touch with them for many years, exchanging letters on an almost weekly basis. Until the failed revolution of 1848 forced Cluss to emigrate, he was a regular contributor (under the pseudonym of C. Lange) to the Deutsche Brüssler Zeitung (German Brussels Newspaper), a Communist biweekly newspaper that informed German refugees about democratic activities in Europe. After arriving in the United States in September 1848, Cluss spent several months in New York City before his interest in politics brought him to Washington, D.C. His skills secured him employment with the U.S. Coastal Survey, and while stationed at the Washington Navy Yard, he attended sessions of the nearby U.S. Congress. Cluss lobbied for better working conditions in the Navy Yard. At the same time, he joined the leftliberal Washington Turn-Verein (Turner Association) and got involved with publishing its journal, the Turn-Zeitung (Turner Gazette); he also contributed numerous articles to political organs including the London People’s Paper and the New York journal Die Reform (The Reform). The second half of the 1850s was a turning point in Cluss’s life. In 1855 he became an American citizen, and that year he joined the Treasury Department as a draftsman, which started his career as an official architect in the U.S. capital. Cluss married Rosa Schmidt, a fellow immigrant from his hometown, on February 8, 1859. His conflicts with other members of the German émigré community further contributed to his transformation from a German activist and social reformer to an architect who at-

CLUSS, ADOLF

tempted to realize his reformist ideas through building, engineering, and urban planning. In 1862 Cluss started his own architecture firm with Wilderich von Kammerhueber, another German immigrant. Although some of the early commissions were for the military, the office also designed the first public school building in Washington, D.C., the Wallach School. Over the years, Cluss contributed as an innovative engineer and architect to Washington’s system of free public schools, which would be unsurpassed in the nation. The excellence of his work was recognized in the United States and abroad. Cluss was awarded a Medal for Progress in education and school architecture at the World’s Exposition in Vienna in 1873 for his design of Franklin School. His school designs also won prizes at international expositions in Philadelphia (1876), Paris (1878), and New Orleans (1884). Cluss’s schools, which included many engineering innovations such as modern heating systems and light-filled classrooms, were seen as both functional and attractive and influenced architects into the early twentieth century. As chief engineer of the Board of Public Works in the District of Columbia (since 1872), Cluss designed a modern sewer system and implemented comprehensive plans for a modernization of the city’s gas and water infrastructure. He also pursued the “parking” of Washington’s streets by narrowing roadways and planting trees and grass along wide avenues. Among Cluss’s many projects were eight churches with characteristic splitlevel plans (with classrooms on the ground level) and three major markets (Alexandria City Hall and Market House, Center Market, and Eastern Market). In the 1880s,

249

Adolf Cluss established himself as one of the most experienced and innovative museum architects in the United States. His designs included the Army Medical Museum, extensive exhibition spaces in the Agriculture and Patent Office buildings, and the reconstruction of the Smithsonian “castle.” His architectural masterpiece was the National Museum (today the Arts and Industries Building) on the National Mall. It opened to the public in 1881 and was designed in a modernized Romanesque style that featured a red brick façade enlivened by colored glazed bricks that were meant to resemble woven cloth, perhaps inspired by Gottfried Semper’s theory of textile as the original wall material. There can be no doubt that Cluss’s influence on Washington, D.C., architecture was decisive in the period after the Civil War, when the U.S. capital redefined itself and grew from a seat of government to a major national city. Shortly before Cluss’s death, changing architectural tastes and new technological demands led to the replacement of most of his buildings. Cluss’s signature Victorian red brick architecture gave way to a neoclassicism where marble and limestone were dominant. However, his impact is still visible today in the schools and row houses on Capitol Hill, as well as his designs on the National Mall. Christof Mauch See also Landscape Architects, German American References and Further Reading Beauchamp, Tanya Edward. “Adolph Cluss: An Architect in Washington during the Civil War and Reconstruction.” Records of the Columbia Historical Society 48 (1971–1972). Lessoff, Alan, and Christof Mauch, eds. Adolf Cluss, Architect: From Germany to America. New York: Berghahn Books, 2005.

250

COCA-COLA

COCA-COLA After pharmacist John S. Pemberton invented a stimulating new soft drink in 1886, his carbonated and caffeinated creation quickly rose to national and worldwide prominence. It became not only an integral part of everyday life in the United States, but also the American national drink and a defining element of twentiethcentury American culture. The drink, the brand’s logo, and the Coca-Cola bottle, created by Alexander Samuelson in 1915, turned into symbols of consumerism and the American way of life. Admired by some, despised by others, Coca-Cola faces a large number of cultural critics who consider its enormous success to be the CocaColonization of the world. Both sides, however, agree that the success of CocaCola is evidence of the value and symbolic power of a worldwide and decades-long advertising campaign. The new concept of a brand was one of the most important product innovations in the history of the consumer society, and Coca-Cola paved the way for the new worldwide culture of brands. In 1929, the first Coca-Cola vending machines were installed in Germany. Only one year later, the German branch of the Coca-Cola Company was founded in Essen. This company was an essential element in the economic and cultural Americanization of German society. Before World War I, Germans considered the United States to be a distant land of dreams, a place that held their hopes for freedom after emigration. This attitude changed with Germany’s defeat and the arrival of American loans, companies, and products. After Germany’s economy stabilized, American companies and products pushed their way into the German market.

Coca-Cola, Wrigley’s Chewing Gum, and Kellogg’s Corn Flakes became staples in the homes of affluent families. Their appearance fed the discourse about the place of American products in everyday life and about the advantages and disadvantages of Americanization. Even after 1933, American products were not banned but further constituted an integral part of German consumption. Initially, Coca-Cola with its advertisements promising leisure, freedom, and fun seemed to contrast the political and ideological climate of Nazi Germany. Subsequently, some Nazi dignitaries who considered the American soft drink to be un-German made their doubts public and demanded an end to the continuous presence of Coca-Cola. Nevertheless, the CocaCola Company developed and nurtured a close and friendly relationship with the German government. This became evident in the rare legal exception that allowed Coca-Cola to use bottles that did not comply with the standardized measurements set by the German Reichsflaschenverordnung (the imperial law about the standard measurements of bottles). Only between 1942 and 1949 was production of Coca-Cola inside Germany halted because of lack of raw materials. Coca-Cola’s big breakthrough in Germany came after World War II, when Coca-Cola plants followed U.S. soldiers who were stationed there. After the founding of the West German state and the Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), Coca-Cola won over a significant group of new customers with its slogan “Mach mal Pause!” (Take a Break!). This slogan captured the attention of millions of busy, hardworking West Germans who longed for joy after years of war, destruction, and reconstruction. This 1950s Coca-Cola slo-

COCA-COLA

gan, repeated again and again in advertisements, reached an unprecedented level of fame by entering the German vocabulary as an unchangeable and oft-quoted saying. It is now used by German speakers to ask somebody to take a break from work and career or to sarcastically interrupt somebody’s never-ending monologue. In the 1970s and 1980s, new English slogans, such as “Enjoy Coca-Cola” and “CocaCola is it,” were introduced to customers who could then consider themselves “cooler” and happier because they were consuming the only “right” drink, the one everybody else was drinking. After 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, Coca-Cola expanded into the former German Democratic Republic (GDR). Even more than in post–World War II West German society, Coca-Cola was not just a drink in East Germany. It was considered a symbol of the triumph of Western capitalism, and the bottles and cans were collected as trophies. Drinking Coca-Cola in the former Eastern European Communist countries thus became a symbolic and reassuring act of integration into the Western world, and the substitute cola that had been produced for years in the GDR did not stand a chance. Alexander Schug See also Americanization; Chewing Gum; Consumerism; McDonald’s Restaurant References and Further Reading Beyer, Chris H. Coca-Cola Girls: An Advertising Art History. Portland: Collectors Press, 2000. Domentat, Tamara. Coca-Cola, Jazz, und AFN: Berlin und die Amerikaner. Berlin: Schwarzkopf und Schwarzkopf, 1995. Rose, Rogger, and Patra McSharry Sevastiades, eds. Coca-Cola Culture: Icons of Pop. New York: Rosen, 1993. Watters, Pat. Coca-Cola: An Illustrated History. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978.

251

Coca-Cola’s 1955 slogan “Mach mal Pause!” (“Take a Break!”) captured the attention of millions of busy, hardworking West Germans who longed for joy after years of war, destruction, and reconstruction. (Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin)

COLOMBIAN GERMAN AIR TRANSPORT COMPANY see Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aéreos

252

COMMITTEE

ON

PUBLIC INFORMATION

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC INFORMATION President Woodrow Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) by executive order on April 14, 1917, nine days after Congress declared war on Germany. The primary purpose of the CPI was to unify public opinion in favor of the war effort, explain the justification for U.S. entry into the military conflict, and to spread the message of the United States’ selfless war aims across the North American continent, as well as Europe. Under the leadership of George Creel, a progressive and reform-minded newspaperman from Missouri, the CPI became a public relations agency that used every form of communication to bring the government’s message to the people. The CPI enlisted thousands of volunteers who educated Americans about the facts of the war and German militarism. Famous writers and leading historians prepared circulars and leaflets and supplied the nation’s press with feature articles defining American ideals, purposes, and war aims. The Speaking Division sent famous speakers, including U.S. veterans, several Belgians, and the Blue Devils from coast to coast, describing life on the front and German atrocities. The Four-Minute Men, a group of 75,000 volunteer speakers, addressed audiences with brief fourminute speeches during reel changes in movie theaters and explained why the United States entered the war. Speeches, motion pictures, billboards, pamphlets, and cartoons presented the enemy, Germany, as a murderous aggressor and as an obstacle to the civilized world and justified U.S. entry into this global conflict as good fighting evil. This emotionally charged promotion of American values and nega-

tive portrayal of Germany not only created a willingness to sacrifice life and money for the war effort but also resulted in hatred and intolerance to everything German and un-American. The CPI also established a Division of Work with the Foreign-Born to shape and unite the attitudes of the foreign-born. The CPI targeted immigrants from fourteen European countries, but German immigrants and their descendants received particular attention through the German Bureau. Creel enlisted famous immigrants as writers and speakers to combat ignorance about the United States and bring the truth about the war and American ideals to the foreign-born. These writers supplied the foreign-language press with articles about education, industry, religion, agriculture, and institutions to project a true picture of American democracy and its devotion to peace and unselfish aims in the war. Speakers and writers emphasized that the war was a fight with Wilhelm II and his government, not with the German people. In October 1917 the CPI also established the Friends of German Democracy in the German Bureau for the purpose of keeping the German-born loyal to the United States. It appointed Franz Sigel, the son of the Civil War hero Franz Sigel, as its president to recognize the loyalty German Americans had demonstrated in the past. Prominent, loyal German American authors wrote pamphlets and articles, such as “Democracy, the Heritage of All,” “German Militarism and Its German Accusers,” “Lieber und Schurz: Two Loyal Americans of German Birth,” “On Loyalty, Liberty, and Democracy,” and “American War Aims and Peace Program,” which reached an estimated 2 million German readers. The Friends of German Democracy also sent

COMMITTEE

letters and appeals to groups in Switzerland, who were able to smuggle many of them into Germany. These articles aimed to incite opposition to the war and urged the people of Germany and Austria to overthrow their old rulers and to establish pro-democracy governments. At the same time, the German Bureau also collected valuable information on various German organizations and the German-language press in the United States to learn how German propaganda had been able to make headway and how the U.S. government might be able to stop it. The CPI not only fought to unite American public opinion against Germany and for the war effort but also aimed to persuade world opinion in favor of the Allies. Creel and government officials believed that for years preceding the war, Germany had been secretly building a publicity machine, in the United States and elsewhere, designed to spread pictures of Germany’s vast industrial, commercial, and military power and to spread lies about the United States. To counter this impact and to provide European countries with information explaining American ideals and war aims, the CPI opened offices and established wireless service throughout the world, including Mexico City, Paris, Bern, Rome, Madrid, Lisbon, Tokyo, and Beijing. President Wilson’s speeches and CPI pamphlets, posters, and movies received worldwide circulation. Well-known authors such as Ida Tarbell and William Shepherd wrote short articles describing the nation’s history and its social and industrial progress and emphasizing U.S. patriotism, self-sacrifice, and goodwill toward allied nations. Several articles also exposed German methods of propaganda. The Foreign Press Bureau translated and mailed

ON

PUBLIC INFORMATION

253

them to the foreign press. The office in Bern, Switzerland, was one of the busiest. Getting news into the Swiss press appeared to be one of the best ways to get news into Germany because Germans read Swiss papers, German papers quoted from Swiss papers, and rumors circulated freely between Switzerland and Germany. The CPI also had full control over the foreign distribution of American movies. By requiring foreign movie houses to purchase entertainment films with war pictures, the CPI was able to distribute the committee’s own movies and became convinced that it ran the German propaganda film industry out of business. George Creel believed that the CPI succeeded in destroying the German misinterpretation of the United States as a materialist country and turned the most misunderstood nation in the world, the United States, into the most popular. Petra Dewitt See also Lieber, Francis; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz; World War I; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Blakey, George T. Historians on the Homefront: American Propagandists for the Great War. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1970. Cornebise, Alfred E. War as Advertised: The Four-Minute Men and America’s Crusade, 1917–1918. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1984. Mock, James R. Words That Won the War: The Story of the Committee on Public Information, 1917–1918. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939. Ross, Stewart Halsey. Propaganda for War: How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight the Great War of 1914–1918. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1996. Vaughn, Stephen. Holding Fast the Inner Lines: Democracy, Nationalism, and the Committee on Public Information. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980.

254

CONQUISTA

CONQUISTA Germans played a minor but nevertheless notable role in the European expansion to the New World. In the first half of the sixteenth century, when Spain embarked on the conquest of the Central and South American mainland, merchant houses from the south German imperial cities of Augsburg and Nuremberg were among the most important bankers of the Spanish crown. In 1519, the Augsburg firms of Jacob Fugger and Bartholomäus Welser financed the election of Charles V as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and over the next three decades the Fuggers, Welsers, Herwart, and Sebastian Neidhart, among others, continued to advance large sums to the Spanish crown. These financial activities paved the way for direct participation in transatlantic commerce and the conquest of the South American continent. Initially the German firms set up warehouses (factories) in Seville, the Spanish entrepôt for trade with the West Indies. In 1525 the printer Jacob Cromberger and his son-in-law Lazarus Nürnberger were the first Germans to receive permission to enter the American trade, which had until then been exclusively reserved for Spaniards. Lazarus Nürnberger sent agents to the island of Santo Domingo, where they exported sugar and precious metals and imported textiles, metal goods, and books. One of his agents on Santo Domingo, the carpenter Bartholomäus Blümel (Flores) from Nuremberg, traveled to Peru in 1536, accompanied Pedro de Valdivia on the expedition that led to the conquest of Chile (1540–1541), and acquired an extensive landed estate there. Lazarus Nürnberger also traded in pearls and slaves and represented the interests of

leading south German merchant houses in Seville. Even before Charles V opened the American trade to foreign merchants in 1526, the Welser representatives Ambrosius Talfinger and Georg Ehinger received permission to travel to the New World and establish a factory on Santo Domingo. In March 1528 Heinrich Ehinger and Hieronymus Sailer, acting for the Welsers, concluded a treaty with the emperor that gave them jurisdiction over the territory that became known as Venezuela. Ehinger and Sailer agreed to build three fortresses, found two towns, and settle each of them with 300 colonists. Moreover, they were to administer the province, distribute land among the colonists, and Christianize the Indians. In return, they received a number of special privileges. These included the right to transport 4,000 African slaves across the Atlantic, mining concessions in Venezuela and the neighboring province of Santa Marta, monopolies on Venezuela’s foreign trade and on the production of salt, tariff reductions, and the right to send three commercial vessels directly from South America (Santo Domingo) to Flanders. Since no documents concerning the Welsers’ plans for Venezuela have been uncovered, their motives remain obscure. Some scholars have claimed that the firm, which was also engaged in mining activities in Saxony and Bohemia at the time, was primarily interested in exploiting precious metals, and the Welsers did send about fifty miners from Saxony to the New World. Others have argued that the firm’s primary aim was the conquest of a rich Indian civilization. Most likely, the Welsers initially considered a range of economic options that also included plantation agriculture and trade in tropical goods. In any

CONQUISTA

case, the Welsers’ governors and military leaders in Venezuela—Ambrosius Talfinger, Nikolaus Federmann, Georg Hohermuth, and Philipp von Hutten—soon fixed their attention on the extraction of booty from the region’s Indians and conducted a series of military expeditions into the interior parts of Venezuela and neighboring Colombia. The origins of the myth of El Dorado, an Indian cacique whose body was ritually covered with gold, lie in these entradas, which may have covered a total distance of 20,000 kilometers (about 12,500 miles). Ambrosius Talfinger founded a settlement on Lake Maracaibo on his first expedition in 1530 and was killed on his second entrada to the interior parts of the province in 1532. Nikolaus Federmann, whose narrative of his first expedition through the llanos (lowlands) of southeastern Venezuela has survived, came closest to the goal of conquering a rich Indian people on his second entrada, when he succeeded in crossing the Andes to the Colombian valley of Cundinamarca. Unfortunately for him, the Spanish conquistador Goncalo Jiménez de Quesada had arrived there before. Although Quesada, Federmann, and a third conquistador, Sebastian de Benalcázar, jointly founded the city of Bogotá in 1539, Spain eventually rejected the Welsers’ claims to Colombia. The last and longest of the expeditions was headed by Philipp von Hutten, a Franconian knight who had already participated in Georg Hohermuth’s 1535–1538 foray, and Bartholomäus Welser the younger. Their arduous five-year journey (1541–1546) was a complete failure in economic terms, and upon their return the two leaders were murdered by rival Spanish officers. The crown suspended the Welsers’ jurisdiction

255

in 1546 and, after extensive litigation, officially took the province away from them a decade later. Contemporaries like the clergyman Bartolomé de las Casas and later Spanish chroniclers have accused the Welser governors and captains general of treating the Indians with particular brutality and savageness. Although their accounts are often biased, the German conquistadors were certainly no less hesitant than their Spanish counterparts to recruit Indian laborers by force, torture and kill natives, and loot and burn their villages. During the 1530s and 1540s, the Indian slave trade was one of the major activities of the Venezuelan colonists. Why the Welsers abandoned other economic goals in favor of conquest remains a matter of debate, but there is evidence that the provincial governors, who were indebted to the firm and interested in quick profits, discouraged and even sabotaged a more farsighted policy of colonization and development. Compared to the Welsers, the role of other German merchant houses in the conquest of South America was much more limited. For a while the Fuggers were interested in obtaining a South American province for themselves. In 1531 their representative Veit Hörl even negotiated a treaty with the Spanish crown that would have given the firm jurisdiction over present-day Chile, but it was never ratified. Four years later, the Nuremberg branch of the Welsers and the Augsburg merchant Sebastian Neidhart financed and outfitted two ships of the fleet that carried the Spanish conquistador Pedro de Mendoza and his army to the La Plata region. Mendoza founded the city of Buenos Aires but did not discover the rich Indian civilization he had hoped for. One

256

CONSUMERISM

of the roughly eighty German participants, the Bavarian Ulrich Schmidel, wrote an eyewitness account that constitutes one of the most important sources on this phase of Spanish colonization. Mark Häberlein See also Mining; Schmidel, Ulrich References and Further Reading Bitterli, Urs. Die Entdeckung Amerikas: Von Kolumbus bis Alexander von Humboldt. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1991. Friede, Juan. Los Welser en la Conquista de Venezuela. Caracas: Ed. Edime, 1961. Häberlein, Mark, and Johannes Burkhardt, eds. Die Welser: Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des oberdeutschen Handelshauses. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2002. Simmer, Götz. Gold und Sklaven: Die Provinz Venezuela zur Zeit der WelserStatthalterschaft, 1528–1556. Berlin: Wissenschaft und Technik-Verlag, 2000.

CONSTRUCTION see Aufbau

CONSUMERISM Consumer patterns in Germany and America have always been intertwined with other aspects of culture. Objects and their ownership don’t just provide comfort, they are also markers of identity. Thus throughout the twentieth century, the adoption of American consumerism (or mass consumption), and its cultural repercussions, was a subject of heated debate. It remains so today. The close relationship between American culture and mass consumption has spurned argument over the nature of Americanization in Germany, the level at

which Americanization is actually modernization, and whether counter-Americanization measures are necessary in order to preserve cultural heritage. The debate over mass consumption first grew in Germany in the years following World War I, when industrialists sought to discover how the United States obtained its economic success. Proposals for postwar economic reforms were rooted in the Fordist model, but lifestyle and mass consumption were also key to these discussions as Germans sought to discover at what level culture, as well as technology and Tailorist methods of management, was formative. It was believed that the key to economic success also lay in American culture and society. Thus class structure, the emancipated American woman, and daily life in the United States became subjects of popular debate. Critics of Americanization, however, feared the effects of this change, as American culture became increasingly associated with a monotonous, homogenous mass consumption that was held up against traditional German culture (Kultur). They were concerned over the way that popular culture material such as American cinema and jazz music challenged established social and political orders. Film was one of the most effective avenues through which American consumer cultural values were spread. By the 1920s, approximately 60 percent of the films shown in Germany were American (Pells 1997, 16). Coincidently, however, the transmission of American values through cinema was ultimately both an American and a German effort, beginning especially with the growth of fascism in Germany. German cinematic talent left to escape increasing

CONSUMERISM

social restrictions or was imported to play roles in American films. The result is that German actors, directors, and composers played a large role in American cinematic classics of worldwide renown, such as Gone With the Wind (1939) and later Casablanca (1942). The debate over consumerism continued between trade unionists and workers who saw mass consumption as democratizing and elites who feared such changes and rejected the effect mass consumption had on class structure. However, in the end, American influence was largely psychological only, affecting familial relationships and societal actions. It sold to Germans because it reflected many of the appealing American myths: individuality, success, progress, and optimism. Americanism was also attractive to Germans because it was not European; embracing American values was not seen as incorporating a competing culture but rather as a necessary, inevitable modernization. The American model need not be emulated outright but was something that could be modified to match German needs. Thus Weimar industry was modernized without the mass consumption stemming from expanded markets, decreased cost, and wage reform. Americanism was Germanized. The influence of American consumerist practices changed in the years following World War II. As West German disposable incomes began to increase during the 1950s, people began to spend a larger percentage of their earnings on luxury items—many of which were made in the United States and associated with the American lifestyle. The purchase of an automobile, especially an American brand, became a symbol of the American dream.

257

Whereas car ownership had formerly been an outward expression of the sharply stratified nature of German society, ownership of cars by a wider group of people was indicative of the growing middle class. It was also during these postwar years that Germany became Coca-Cola’s most important foreign market. American-style advertising paired Coke with cars and that which they represented. Change, however, did not result in the replacement of one culture with another. Though cultural critics such as Francis Otto Matthiessen were alarmed by his German students’ preference for Coke over beer, drinks in Germany today that consist of a mixture of Coke and beer are an expression of the way American culture is reused after appropriation. The American government influenced German consumer habits at this time, as American culture and corporations had gained a foothold in West Germany during the occupation years. The place of American culture in Germany was central to Germans’ increasing acceptance of mass culture. Whereas Germans had rejected mass consumption after World War I because of its homogenizing, anticultural aspects, the United States had waged a cultural initiative in Europe following World War II that altered German conceptions of American culture. Marshall Plan funds, for instance, paid for the study of American industry and managerial methods; meanwhile, Germany was also the front line in the fight against communism in Europe and the center for many cultural initiatives by the United States. Cultural programs attempted not only to combat communism and sell democracy but also to change German habits and traditions. This is not to say that American culture has been

258

CONSUMERISM

absorbed in its original form or without protest. Germans who feared cultural change and a unifying of the masses (reminiscent of the Nazis’ mass politics) suggested that the building of culture from the bottom up, as opposed to the top down, was inferior. Companies such as McDonald’s and MTV have tailored their products to the German market and have been widely accepted. Nonetheless, anti-American sentiment in this regard continued throughout the twentieth century. In the 1960s, American movies and music gained in popularity, especially through the adolescent revolt against high culture and their expression of this through consumer products. Ironically, American popular culture and consumer habits became for German youth a symbol for the opposition of America. It had come to be associated with hegemony in the world and thereby also the older German generation of the war years. German youth expressed their affinity with the rebellion of American minorities and youth through American products. German and American consumption practices shifted again in the 1980s, when an improved German economy, coupled with the growing frustration of American consumers with the quality of products, increased sales of German products such as cars, which had long been associated with quality and craftsmanship. The influence of the German automotive industry in the United States is also apparent in latecentury mergers and buyouts, such as the takeover by Germany’s Mercedes of the major American car manufacturer Chrysler. Meanwhile, in the media, the privatization of German television in the 1980s led to commercials and an increase in

American programming; German media has been increasingly influential in the United States as well, however, as evidenced in purchases and partnership agreements between American and German media companies, such as the buying of American media outlets by Bertelsmann, one of Germany’s largest media and publishing companies. Much like American producers of popular culture in Germany earlier in the decade, Bertelsmann tailors products to its American audience. The turn of the twenty-first century saw additional sales of iconic American media companies, such as the purchase of Jim Henson Company by Germany’s EMTV and Merchandising AG, as well as growing competition between media giants such as Kirch Group in Germany and Rupert Murdoch in the United States. Thus it becomes more difficult to differentiate who is creating consumer and popular cultural products and from which side of the Atlantic Ocean the influence in mass consumption is coming. Stacy Dorgan See also Coca-Cola; Foreign Policy (U.S., 1949–1955), West Germany in; Hollywood; McDonald’s Restaurant; Volkswagen Company and Its VW Beetle References and Further Reading Nolan, Mary. Visions of Modernity: American Business and the Modernization of Germany. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Pells, Richard. Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture since World War II. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Rogers, Everett M., and Francis Balle, eds. The Media Revolution in America and in Western Europe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 1985. Willett, Ralph. The Americanization of Germany, 1945–1949. London: Routledge, 1989.

CARE/CRALOG 259

COOPERATIVE FOR AMERICAN REMITTANCE TO EUROPE/COUNCIL OF RELIEF AGENCIES LICENSED FOR OPERATION IN GERMANY Both the Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe (CARE) and the Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany (CRALOG) were founded after World War II. Their primary task was the collection of donations in the United States for the purpose of distributing humanitarian aid to Europe. CARE was an independent enterprise created by nongovernmental American aid societies, whereas CRALOG was an umbrella organization for a number of nongovernmental, mostly religious societies. CRALOG and CARE used different methods to attract and collect donations. The organizations that participated in CRALOG collected food, clothing, and medication independently of CRALOG and transported the aid to the designated U.S. port, from which it was shipped to Germany. CRALOG was responsible for organizing the transport from these U.S. ports to Germany. In the case of CARE, U.S. citizens could order and pay for aid packages that CARE would send in their name to a specified receiver in Europe. Only a small number of CARE packages did not have a specified receiver and could therefore be distributed among Germans in need at the discretion of the welfare organizations. American donations sent to Germany by CARE and CRALOG were distributed by nongovernmental social welfare organizations in Germany, most of which were affiliated with churches: Caritas with the Catholic Church and the Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (Aid

Organization of the Evangelical Church in Germany) with the Protestant Church. The Deutsche Rote Kreuz (German Red Cross) and the Arbeiterwohlfahrt (Workers Social Welfare) did not play a major role in this distribution of American donations. Donations were delivered to social aid institutions, such as asylums or refugee camps, and to local donation centers. In the case of the donations provided by CRALOG, local authorities and representatives of the social welfare organizations and the church decided how to distribute the aid. Nevertheless, CRALOG insisted that the distribution had to follow American regulations. CARE packages were simply sent to the receiver by mail and picked up in local distribution centers. Recipients of these packages had to sign a statement acknowledging the receipt of the package. This receipt was mailed to the American donor as proof that his or her donations had been received by the individual specified. From the beginning, CRALOG was established as an aid organization exclusively for Germany. CARE was responsible for all of Europe, although Eastern European countries did not receive or often rejected such help for political reasons. Nevertheless, far more than half of all CARE packages were destined for Germany. This geographic imbalance was due to the high number of German Americans involved in ordering CARE packages for their relatives in what was left of Germany. In the two years from summer 1946 to summer 1948, CRALOG alone organized the shipment of more than 40,000 tons of aid to Germany. In this period, more than 3 million CARE packages were sent to Germany. When CRALOG closed down its operations in Germany in 1962, it had brought more than 300,000 tons of aid to

260

CARE/CRALOG

CARE packages for Reichsbahner. American donations sent to Germany by CARE and CRALOG were distributed by nongovernmental social welfare organizations in Germany, ca. 1945–1947. (Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin)

Germany. CARE, which shut down its operations in 1960, was responsible for having sent about 83,000 tons of aid to Germany. Although U.S. governmental aid in food and privately sent packages surpassed the donations given to Germans by CARE and CRALOG, both organizations played a decisive role in providing assistance for the people in need. In the beginning, large segments of the population received support from CARE and CRALOG. Later, after the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the beginning of Germany’s economic recovery, refugees from the former East Prussia, Pomerania, and Silesia as well as prisoners of war returning from Russian captivity received most of the aid.

Although CRALOG sent much more aid to Germany than CARE, it is the latter that is still remembered by Germans. The individualized approach to helping people in need provided the basis for personal relationships across the Atlantic. This was something that CRALOG could never achieve. Nevertheless, CRALOG and CARE contributed a great deal to the improvement of the relations between West Germany and the United States. From a German point of view, American help aided the emergence of positive feelings toward the former enemy among broad segments of West German society. Unfortunately, American aid also helped enshrine an attitude according to which Germans viewed themselves as victims of

COUNCIL

National Socialism and avoided any discussion of guilt and responsibility. From an American point of view, the delivery of aid helped change the perception of Germany among Americans. Immediately after the war, a majority of the American population was in favor of harsh retribution. Reports about the desperate situation of the German population provided by CARE and CRALOG helped to change this attitude and were partially responsible for the reemergence of a positive perception of Germany as the new ally in a worldwide struggle against communism. The outbreak of the cold war led to increased pressure by the American government on nongovernmental aid organizations. Since the number of private donations decreased throughout the 1950s, CRALOG and CARE relied more and more on governmental financial support and thus became dependent on political decisions by the government. The American government continuously attempted—rather unsuccessfully—to use aid provided by CARE and CRALOG as a political weapon in the cold war. Gabriele Lingelbach See also Reconstruction of West Germany References and Further Reading McSweeney, Edward O. P. Amerikanische Wohlfahrtshilfe für Deutschland, 1945–1950. Freiburg: Caritas Verlag, 1950. Sommer, Karl Ludwig. Humanitäre Auslandshilfe als Brücke zu atlantischer Partnerschaft: CARE, CRALOG und die Entwicklung der deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen nach Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs. Bremen: Selbstverlag des Staatsarchivs Bremen, 1999.

FOR A

DEMOCRATIC GERMANY

261

COUNCIL FOR A DEMOCRATIC GERMANY The Council for a Democratic Germany (CDG) was founded in New York City in May 1944 by German émigrés with different political affiliations in order to add an organized voice of “the other Germany” to the American public wartime debate and in the hope of influencing the official U.S. planning for postwar Germany. Its purpose was not to prefigure a kind of governmentin-exile, but rather to advocate a constructive European-wide peace settlement based on continued Allied cooperation. The groups’ organizing committee comprised nineteen left-liberal political and cultural representatives (among them Bertolt Brecht, Hermann Budzislawski, and Paul Hagen) under the chairmanship of the Protestant theologian Paul Tillich. The sixty cosigners of the council’s original declaration included a wide range of German artists, academics, religious representatives, and political—especially labor—activists. Party affiliations ranged from the Catholic Center Party through various liberal parties to Socialists and Communists (e.g., Friedrich Baerwald, Ernst Bloch, Lion Feuchtwanger, Paul Hertz, Fritz Kortner, Peter Lorre, Heinrich Mann, Erwin Piscator, Wolfgang Stresemann, and Carl Zuckmayer). Although primarily an organization of emigrants and refugees, the council was publicly supported by a group of American intellectuals long active in public campaigns against the Third Reich and favoring a constructive peace with defeated Germany (John Dewey, Horace M. Kallen, Reinhold Niebuhr, Dorothy Thompson, Rabbi Jonah B. Wise, and others). The council had a significant precursor in an earlier German American advocacy

262

COUNCIL

FOR A

DEMOCRATIC GERMANY

group with which it shared both personnel and political aims: the American Friends for German Freedom (AFGF), with its indefatigable research director Karl Frank, alias Paul Hagen (who represented the Socialist Neu-Beginnen, or “New Beginning” group), as well as Max Lerner, Dorothy Thompson, Thomas Mann, and Paul Tillich as prominent executive members and Reinhold Niebuhr as chairman. Preceding the CDG by almost a decade, the AFGF had its origins in left-liberal intellectual and Jewish European–dominated trade union circles. The AFGF made significant contributions to both public and official debates on the Third Reich through its substantive research output, based on extensive contacts in the German underground, and its regular publications. Many of its members never quite gave up hope for a popular revolt within Germany against the Nazi terror and in general insisted on that nation’s own ability for democratic renewal. Like the AFGF, the council continued to fight in the public debate of 1944–1945 on two fronts: against both the Moscow-inspired German Communists and the American hard-liners on the German question, the “Vansittartists.” Responding directly to the enunciations of the Nationalkommitee Freies Deutschland (NKFD, or National Committee for a Free Germany), established in Moscow in 1943, the Socialist and liberal exiles in the United States rejected the Moscow group’s direct appeal to the German army as falling far short of the necessary democratization. In its public declarations the council accepted a collective German responsibility for the Nazi crimes, including the need for restitution. It was in similar agreement with Allied war plans in its

indictment of Prussian German militarism. The council insisted, however, on a distinction between the Nazis and their supporters and the German people themselves, clinging to the hope that the latter would, at least in the final phase of the war, join in the defeat of Nazism. The reconstruction of a democratic Germany should be left to Germans themselves. The council strongly argued against any plans for dismemberment and partitioning, as first discussed in Tehran, as well as the kind of deindustrialization that the Morgenthau Plan envisioned. Instead it held out the vision of a supranational European unity as a prerequisite for postwar peace, anticipating continued cooperation within the international anti-Hitler coalition and expecting that Anglo-American liberal democracy would be supplemented by farther-reaching social welfare measures. For a few intense months, committees and subcommittees of the council drafted memoranda for the political, economic, and cultural reorganization of Germany’s postwar democracy. By 1945, however, the council, which had never attained sufficient public or official attention, faltered under the combined pressure of a general realization of the extent of German war crimes and the first signs of inter-Allied tension. In contrast to its Soviet counterpart, the NKFD, the council did not become an instrument of U.S. policy toward Germany; indeed, the Roosevelt administration for the most part ignored it, just as it rejected all substantive contacts with any German opposition to the Nazi regime. The late arrival and feeble voice of the council on the American scene illustrates that German exiles were hardly a politically relevant force. Michaela Hoenicke Moore

COUNCIL See also Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt; Fromm, Erich; Intellectual Exile; Lorre, Peter; Mann, Thomas; Morgenthau Plan; Neumann, Franz L.; Tehran Conference; Thompson, Dorothy; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany; Vansittartism; Zuckmayer, Carl References and Further Reading Koebner, Thomas, Gert Sautermeister, and Sigrid Schneider, eds. Deutschland nach Hitler: Zukunftspläne im Exil und aus

FOR A

DEMOCRATIC GERMANY

263

der Besatzungszeit, 1939–1949. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987. Langkau-Alex, Ursula, and Thomas M. Ruprecht, eds. Was Soll Aus Deutschland Werden? Der Council for a Democratic Germany in New York, 1944–1945. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 1995. Radkau, Joachim. Die deutsche Emigration in den USA: Ihr Einfluss auf die amerikanische Europapolitik, 1933–1945. Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1971.

D DARMSTAEDTERS (THE FORTY) Darmstaedters, or “The Forty,” were a group of thirty-four young men from the county of Baden in Germany, who emigrated to the United States in 1847 to form a utopian/Communist settlement in Texas called “Bettina.” About 130 idealistic, utopian communities of all types were established in the United States between 1663 and 1860. Most of these communities were located in Ohio and the upper Mississippi River valleys, the Great Lakes region, and the mid-Atlantic. Bettina was the one-hundred-and-twenty-fourth—the first in Texas but not the last. The United States in general and Texas especially had inspired young German idealists for years. With his romantic description of Texas and the heroic deeds of the Texans in their struggle for independence, Charles Sealsfield had pointed the way for those who were looking for a better place to live. His novel Das Cajütenbuch oder nationale Charakteristiken (The Cabin Book, or National Characteristics) was first published anonymously in two volumes in Zurich, Switzerland, in 1841. The novel was received with great enthusiasm. Five men emerged as the guiding spirits of the Darmstaedters: Gustav Schle-

icher, Ferdinand von Herff, Hermann Spiess, Friedrich Schenck, and Julius Wagner. Outwardly the Darmstaedter (or Gesellschaft der Vierziger [Society of the Forty], as they were called sometimes, too, because of their original number), were represented by Spiess and von Herff, who had originally founded this group seven years earlier. Their first idea had been to establish a German colony in Wisconsin or Iowa, but contact with the Verein zum Schutze deutscher Einwanderer in Texas (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas, or Adelsverein) made Spiess and von Herff change their plans. They knew, however, that their Communist “touch” would probably alienate the leading men of the Adelsverein. This was true, as the secretary of the Adelsverein, Dr. Ernst Grosse, had written in 1846 that the governments were afraid of the ghost of communism. For this reason they did not use the word “Communist” to describe their projected settlement in public while they were still in Germany. Count Carl of Castell-Castell from the Adelsverein, Hermann Spiess, and Ferdinand von Herff signed a contract in Wiesbaden on February 11, 1847, which promised the group free transport to their land, free food until their first harvest, 320 acres

265

266

DARMSTAEDTERS

of free land of their own choice on the grant of the Adelsverein for everyone, and free tools and materials for farming and construction for every settler. To guarantee every one of the Darmstaedter a place to live in Texas, this group was given 500 acres of land on the grant land of the Adelsverein, wherever they chose, for free. In case the settlement plans failed, another 500 acres would be given this group for free. The contract also stated that the group of the Forty under the leadership of Spiess and von Herff was independent from the Adelsverein and therefore not under the control of the society’s officials in Texas. According to the contract, Spiess and von Herff were allowed to enlist other German immigrants to join them. Bringing a group of 600 settlers or more would establish the right of the Forty to settle permanently on the land of the Adelsverein legally. With the help of the Adelsverein, young men from various backgrounds and with varying levels of education sailed from Hamburg to Galveston in May 1847, moved over land to New Braunfels, and from there traveled to the land they had been promised on the north bank of the Llano River on the Fisher-Miller Grant— not far from Fredericksburg, Texas, another German immigrant settlement. Having arrived on this spot on October 1, 1847, they started to build log cabins and called the place Bettina—in honor of the woman who had become one of their guiding spirits, the German author and social visionary Bettina von Arnim. From the beginning, the Forty had divided the work according to the various skills of each member. Some went on hunting trips to provide the group with meat. Other members cut trees, mended the houses, washed the dishes, and

worked in the fields. After a short while, though, the group began to disintegrate, and more and more members left. By 1850 the Darmstaedters had been dissolved. Some had returned to Germany, others had moved to various other states of the union, and a few remained in Texas, where some gained prominence, such as Ferdinand von Herff; Gustav Schleicher, who became Texas’s senator in Washington, D.C.; Friedrich Schenck; and Jacob Küchler. The reason for Bettina’s failure was mainly internal discord. Having based their settlement project on Communist ideas as articulated in Étienne Cabet’s philosophical novel Voyage en Icarie: roman philosophique et social (Voyage to Icaria, a philosophical and social novel), published in Paris in 1840, they could not agree on a fair distribution of responsibilities and products. Thus, the “forty” became one of the many idealistic Socialist communities in the United States in the nineteenth century that failed shortly after its establishment. Bettina is commemorated, along with the nearby Adelsverein settlements of Castell and Leiningen, by a state historical marker placed in 1964 on the north side of the Llano River across from Castell. Andreas Reichstein See also Adelsverein; Fredericksburg, Texas; New Braunfels, Texas; Sealsfield, Charles; Texas; Weitling, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Bestor, Arthur Eugene, Jr. Backwoods Utopias: The Sectarian and Owenite Phases of Communitarian Socialism in America, 1663–1829. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1950. Lich, Glen E. The German Texans. San Antonio: University of Texas Institute of Texan Cultures, 1981. Reichstein, Andreas. German Pioneers on the American Frontier. Denton: University of North Texas Press, 2001.

DAVIS, ANGELA YVONNE

DAVIS, ANGELA YVONNE b. January 26, 1944; Birmingham,Alabama American cultural theorist, scholar, activist, and advocate of civil rights for African Americans in the United States. Angela Davis was largely influenced by the ideas of her mentor, Herbert Marcuse. In return, she influenced and inspired the student movement in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and was held in high regard by the German Democratic Republic (GDR) for her fight for civil rights and work for the Communist cause. Her parents, Frank and Sally Davis, were teachers and had many Communist friends who brought Angela in contact with Communist youth groups, which she joined. She left home at the age of fifteen after she received a scholarship from the American Friends Southern Negro Student Committee to attend Elisabeth Irwin, an integrated private high school in New York, where she began to study Socialist and Communist philosophies. She was particularly interested in mass movements designed to overthrow political domination by elites. In 1961 Davis won a scholarship to Brandeis University, where she studied French literature. Her junior year she studied at the Sorbonne. Back in Brandeis for her senior year in 1964, she read philosophy with Marcuse, who became her graduate adviser and mentor. His notion, that only independent intellectuals could become revolutionary leaders, was readily accepted and used by the student movement in the United States and Europe. Marcuse introduced Davis to the neo-Marxist theories of the Frankfurt School and sent her to the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt am Main after her graduation. There

267

she studied with Marcuse’s former colleagues, Theodor Adorno, Jürgen Habermas, and Oskar Negt, from 1965 to 1967. Living with Socialist student leaders in the so-called Factory she experienced the heyday of the German student movement. While studying in West Germany, she repeatedly visited the GDR, where she met representatives of the Communist Party (CP) of the United States. Away from home, she closely followed the emergence of the civil rights movement. After her return to the United States, Davis worked on her doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Marcuse, who was then teaching at the University of California at San Diego. She became politically active with the Black Panthers, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, and Ron Karenga’s US-organization in graduate school. In 1968, she joined the CP of the United States and committed herself to the work in the all-black section called the “Che Lumumba Club,” In order to fulfill the requirements of her doctorate, Davis had to teach for one year and was appointed to the faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles in 1969. After learning of her membership in the CP, the governing body of the university, the Board of Regents, and the governor of California, Ronald Reagan, wanted her out of the university. After a battle in court, Davis was dismissed. In 1970 Davis was charged with conspiracy, kidnapping, and homicide because one of her friends, Jonathan Jackson, had used guns registered in her name in an unsuccessful attempt to free a prisoner during a court session in the Marin County Center in San Rafael, California, on Aug 7. After Davis had been arrested, a worldwide campaign began for her defense. Angela Davis Solidarity Committees had been

268

DAVIS, ANGELA YVONNE

founded in East and West Germany. At school, East German kids drew pictures of her, signed them with “Freedom for Angela Davis,” and sent them to the president of the United States, Richard Nixon. In West Germany, the Angela Davis Solidarity Committee in Frankfurt am Main staged a petition to President Nixon to free her. On June 4, 1972, the jury acquitted her of all charges. Angela Davis became a symbol for the struggle of the “other,” leftist America in the GDR. Kindergartens were decorated with her picture; schools were named after her. When Davis was finally set free, East Germans felt that they had accomplished something. When she came to participate in the Tenth World Youth Games in 1973 in East Berlin, which were held under the motto “Antiimperialist Solidarity, Peace, and Friendship,” she was at the center of the celebration. These games, also labeled “red Woodstock,” attracted 8 million visitors with 25,000 international participants. They were to demonstrate East Germany’s new openness to the world. Davis’s mentor, Marcuse, had supported the solidarity campaign on behalf of Angela Davis after she was arrested. He spoke at the Frankfurt am Main solidarity conference organized for her by the Offenbach Socialist Office, the largest independent group of the New Left in West Germany. However, he disagreed with her orthodox communism, which did not allow for criticism of Stalinism in Eastern Europe. For Davis, this issue was complicated since the Eastern European Communist countries had supported her struggle for freedom. After her release from prison, Davis taught black philosophy and women’s

studies at San Francisco State College, Stanford University, and Claremont College. In 1980 and 1984 she ran on the Communist Party ticket for the vice presidency. Since 1991 she has been teaching history of consciousness at the University of California. In 1994, she received the distinguished honor of an appointment to the University of California Presidential Chair in African American and Feminist Studies. She left the CP in the same year, when she realized that that body could not be reformed and freed from doctrinaire thinking. To fill the void, Davis focused her energies on the Conference Committees for Democracy and Socialism in the United States that she cofounded. In an interview with Neues Deutschland (New Germany) in 2003, she described the solidarity, especially from East Germans, that she had experienced during her time in prison, as a major motivation in her ongoing fight for her political and social activism. In 2004, Angela Davis was a tenured professor teaching the history of consciousness at the University of California at Santa Cruz, an interdisciplinary program that encompasses philosophy, literature, and history. In Germany, Angela Davis Solidarity Committees, like the Frankfurt am Main one, are still active and engage in the ongoing fight against political oppression, though their influence is very limited. Angela Davis’s legacy as symbol of the “other” America is still important in the former GDR. Christiane Rösch See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Frankfurt School; Marcuse, Herbert References and Further Reading Davis, Angela Yvonne. If They Come in the Morning: Voices of Resistance. New York: Third Press, 1971.

DAWES PLAN ———. Angela Davis: An Autobiography. New York: International Publishers, 1984. Marcuse, Herbert. Die Studentenbewegung und ihre Folgen: Nachgelassene Schriften. Vol. 4. Springe: Verlag zu Klampen, 2004. Nadelson, Regina. Who Is Angela Davis? The Biography of a Revolutionary. New York: P. H. Wyden, 1972.

DAWES PLAN A U.S.-led plan to revive the German economy so that Germany could pay the reparations it owed the Allies as a result of losing World War I, the Dawes Plan was the result of the work of a committee of economic experts appointed by the Allied Reparations Commission in November 1923. Named for its chairman, American financier Charles G. Dawes, the Dawes Committee issued a report in April 1924 that called for lower reparations payments as part of a comprehensive reform of the German economy. Never envisioned as a long-range solution for Germany’s economic problems, the Dawes Plan provided stabilizing reforms that enabled the German economy to grow and prosper, allowing Germany to make regular reparations payments to the Allies, primarily Britain and France, who in turn made war debt payments to the United States. The Dawes Plan operated until 1929, when it was replaced by the Young Plan, a new U.S.-led effort to reduce Germany’s reparations burden. By the time the Young Plan began, however, the effects of the Depression, which had originated in the United States, had spread to Germany, ending the economic boom of the late 1920s and creating the conditions for the electoral successes of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP).

269

The Dawes Plan was borne out of the international financial situation created by World War I, which saw the United States emerge as the world’s dominant economic power, enabled Britain and France to emerge victorious but financially exhausted, and left Germany in political and economic chaos. Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles required Germany to accept responsibility for starting the war and causing all the damages suffered by the Allied and Associated (the United States) governments during the conflict. As a result of this “war guilt” clause, Germany was required to pay reparations for all the damages it inflicted upon the civilian populations of the Allied and Associated powers. On April 27, 1921, the Allied Reparations Commission announced at its London Conference that Germany must pay a total reparations bill of 132 billion gold marks ($32 billion). The Allies had already determined that Germany would pay the majority of reparations (52 percent) to France, Britain would receive 22 percent, Italy 10 percent, and Belgium 8 percent; while the lesser Allied nations received varying percentages of the remaining total. Allied experts believed the German economy could tolerate the expense of the reparations, which could be met through in-kind and cash payments, the latter being raised by a combination of new taxes and spending reductions. The experts were correct in theory but wrong in practice. A politically and economically stable Germany could have made the scheduled payments, but the Weimar Republic in 1920 was neither: the republic defeated a left-wing rebellion in 1919, survived a right-wing coup attempt in 1920, and inherited a large budget

270

DAWES PLAN

President and Mrs. Coolidge, standing on steps beside Mr. and Mrs. Charles Gates Dawes, June 30, 1924. (Library of Congress)

deficit and highly inflated currency from the former imperial regime, which used deficit spending to finance the war. Hated by the Left and the Right, the republic was also held in contempt by much of the general population, who blamed it for conducting Germany’s surrender to the Allies and agreeing to the onerous terms of the Versailles Treaty, especially the “war guilt” clause that forced Germany to pay the massive reparations debt. Given this attitude, it was unlikely that Germany would move quickly to fulfill its reparations obligations—any German government that tried to relieve this debt by raising taxes would not survive for long. Instead, successive Weimar governments resorted to inflation as a means of raising cash to pay off debt.

This strategy seemed to work at first: the German economy expanded with the initial injection of new money, and in August 1921 the German government paid the first installment of 1 billion marks as demanded by the terms of payment of the “London Ultimatum,” as the Reparation Commission’s plan of April 1921 came to be called by the Germans. As inflation increased, however, Germany received less and less value for the marks it sold on the international currency market, where it had been buying foreign currency to pay reparations. At the end of 1921, the centrist government of Chancellor Joseph Wirth asked the Allies for a moratorium on reparations as the mark dropped in value to 192 to the dollar. The Repara-

DAWES PLAN

tions Commission finally agreed to a moratorium on monetary payments in November 1922 after the Wirth government, which fell that month, reported that new payments were impossible given the terrible state of the mark, which now stood at 3,500 to the dollar. France, however, insisted that Germany continue to make payments in kind. In January 1923, after the Germans failed to deliver a portion of the in-kind payments on time, the French government of Premier Raymond Poincare ordered troops, to occupy the Ruhr industrial region along with troops from Belgium. As the occupation progressed, the German government, now led by Chancellor Wilhelm Cuno, adopted a policy of “passive resistance” that encouraged Germans living in the Ruhr to refuse to work for the occupiers, who were forced to bring in their own workers to run German factories. Although a popular reaction that encouraged national unity, passive resistance led to economic disaster in Germany: the already heavily inflated mark spiraled into hyperinflation when the Reichsbank declared it could no longer risk using Germany’s dwindling gold reserves to support the worthless currency, which the Cuno government continued to print in order to support the millions of Germans now unemployed due to passive resistance. By August 1923, when the Cuno government was replaced by a cabinet led by Gustav Stresemann, the mark had fallen to 3.5 million to the dollar; it would reach 160 million to the dollar in September and drop to 4.2 trillion to the dollar before the Stresemann government began to bring inflation under control in November. The collapse of the mark ensured that Germany would not be able to resume

271

reparations payments, intensifying an international financial crisis that began with the German reparations defaults of 1922. Without reparations, the Allies argued they could not afford to pay on the $10.3 billion war debt they owed the United States, whose citizens demanded their government collect the debt. In 1923, that government was led by the Republican Warren G. Harding (died August 2, 1923) and Calvin Coolidge, whose secretary of state, Charles Evans Hughes, realized that Allied war debt repayment depended on solving the reparations issue. As early as December 1922, Hughes had endorsed the idea of turning over the problem of German reparations to a committee of financial experts, including Americans, who would develop a plan for German payment based on Germany’s ability to pay. The inclusion of Americans on such a committee was somewhat controversial, given the fact that American politicians, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, refused to equate the payment of reparations with the issue of Allied war debts, which the American people believed should be paid whether or not the Germans could make reparations payments to the Allies. Hughes’s idea received little attention from the Allies until the fall of 1923, when the crisis of the German economy was at its worst. On November 20, 1923, the Allied Reparations Commission created two committees made up of experts from the United States, Britain, France, Italy, and Belgium, who were entrusted with the task of proposing solutions to the German economic crisis in order to establish a manageable system of reparations payments. The first and more important of the two committees was headed by Charles G. Dawes, an American banker and future vice president of the

272

DECKERT, FRIEDRICH KARL EMIL

United States, and included another American, Owen D. Young, among its members. The Dawes Committee was supposed to devise a plan to balance the German budget and stabilize the mark. Meeting for the first time on January 14, 1924, the Dawes Committee went on to hold fifty-three meetings until April 9, 1924, when the committee delivered its final report. Dubbed the “Dawes Plan” by the press, the committee’s report stressed economic rather than political solutions to Germany’s problems: an annual system of lower reparations payments, new taxes and financial reforms aimed at balancing Germany’s budget, a reorganization of the Reichsbank, a goldbased German currency, and a series of international loans (mostly from the United States) to Germany. The Dawes Plan emphasized that a German recovery was contingent on maintaining the economic unity of Germany. This point was clearly a criticism of the Franco-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr and the continued Allied occupation of the Rhineland. With their own country in financial crisis, the French finally agreed to withdraw their troops from the Ruhr in August 1925 (Belgium left as well), a year after the formal adoption of the Dawes Plan by the Allies and Germany. The Dawes Plan’s reforms stabilized the German economy and enabled the Weimar Republic to experience a period of substantial industrial growth from 1925 to 1929. The U.S.-backed loans allowed Germany to make its required annual reparations payments to the Allies, who in turn used the reparations money to make payments on the war debt they owed to the Americans. This system began to collapse, however, with the coming of the Great Depression in 1929, which encouraged the Allies

and the United States to adopt the Young Plan that year. Named for its chairman and former member of the Dawes Committee , Owen D. Young, the Young Plan drastically reduced the total German reparations bill, but it had little effect on the Depression, which ravaged the German economy in 1930. The NSDAP benefited from the unpopularity of the Young Plan and the popular discontent brought on by the Depression to win big in the Reichstag elections of 1930, becoming the second-largest political party in Germany. R. Boyd Murphree See also Great Depression; Treaty of Versailles; World War I References and Further Reading Dawes, Rufus C. The Dawes Plan in the Making. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1925. Ellis, L. Ethan. Republican Foreign Policy, 1921–1933. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1968. Hardach, Karl. The Political Economy of Germany in the Twentieth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. Schuker, Stephen A. The End of French Predominance in Europe: The Financial Crisis of 1924 and the Adoption of the Dawes Plan. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976.

DECKERT, FRIEDRICH KARL EMIL b. February 26, 1848;Taucha, Saxony d. October 1, 1916; Dornholzhausen, Hesse German geographer of North America. Before entering the University of Leipzig to study geography, Emil Deckert worked as a teacher. In 1883, he finished his graduate studies with the defense of his doc-

DENAZIFICATION

toral thesis on the creation of railway networks in Germany. After having received his doctoral degree, Deckert dedicated himself to research on trade and colonial geography. In 1885 he published his book Die Kolonialreiche und Kolonisationsprojekte der Gegenwart (Colonial Empires and Colonial Projects of Our Days). From 1884 to 1885 he embarked on his first extensive trip through North America. Once home in Germany, he resumed teaching and then later published the popular science magazine Globus from 1888 to 1890. Herein Deckert published several articles about the United States on topics such as North American caves and the Great Salt Lake. In 1891 he decided to return to North America, this time accompanied by his family. Until 1899 he moved around, acquainting himself with the subcontinent. While still in North America he published several regional-cultural studies (e.g., Die neue Welt [The New World], 1892; Cuba, 1899) and several essays about the climate, geomorphology, hydrography, and cultural, infrastructural, and economic-geographical aspects of life in North America, Mexico, and the West Indies. In 1892, Deckert reprinted a selection of his earlier articles in his book Die Neue Welt: Reiseskizzen aus dem Norden und Süden der Vereinigten Staaten sowie aus Canada und Mexiko (The New World: Travel Sketches from the North and South of the United States, Canada, and Mexico). Deckert was recognized by his colleagues as the “best German expert on North America,” and Wilhelm Sievers asked him to write the part on North America for his Allgemeine Länderkunde (General Regional Geography, 1904). This particular volume, first published in 1904 and reprinted several times, became the standard German work on North America. As such, it enabled

273

Deckert to pursue an academic career. In 1906 he was appointed professor for economic geography (Wirtschaftsgeographie) at the Academy of Social and Economic Sciences in Frankfurt am Main, where he taught until his death in 1916. Before his death, he published his last book, Die Länder Nordamerikas in ihrer wirtschaftsgeographischen Ausrüstung (The GeographicEconomic Character of North America’s Countries, 1916). No other German geographer before World War I devoted himself so intensively to the exploration and investigation of North America. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Sievers, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Maull, Otto. “Emil Deckert.” Geographische Zeitschrift 23 (1917): 57–62. Roemer, Hans. “Friedrich Karl Emil Deckert.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker andand Humblot, 1957, 3:549.

DENAZIFICATION The policy of eliminating all traces of National Socialism (NS) from postwar Germany through public and private sector purges; the most controversial of all U.S. policies in its zone of occupation. Pursued between 1945 and 1948 by the four occupying powers (the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and France), U.S. denazification policy was initially the most sweeping and punitive. Denazification was enormously unpopular among Germans, and by 1952, the West German government had authorized the reinstatement of thousands of Germans who had lost their positions in the purges and formally terminated denazification. During the war, the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union agreed

274

DENAZIFICATION

that postwar Germany would be democratized, demilitarized, decartelized, and denazified. After the war, however, each occupying power (which by then included France) pursued denazification in different ways, their respective policies shaped by three factors: (1) the manner in which each occupier administered its zone; (2) its particular conceptions of National Socialism’s relationship to German society; and (3) the emerging conflict between the wartime Allies. U.S. and Soviet policies were initially the most extensive and ideology driven, though their guiding assumptions about German society and their ultimate objectives were very different. France, and especially Great Britain, tended to take a more pragmatic and often more lenient approach. In 1945, most U.S. policymakers expected a brief occupation. Given tremendous domestic political pressure to demobilize and the U.S. Army’s unwillingness to assume long-term responsibility for civil affairs in occupied Germany, U.S. officials decided that the Germans themselves would have to bear the bulk of the responsibility for their nation’s physical, political, and economic reconstruction. Yet they also assumed that a democratic future and lasting peace depended upon the elimination of all traces of NS from German society. U.S. denazification policy mandated either the automatic arrest or removal of a given individual from public or private sector employment, based on whether he or she had belonged to the NSDAP or had supported the dictatorship in more than a “nominal” manner. This policy of categorical removals reflected a conception of NS as having its foundations mainly in Germany’s most influential institutions: the party, the state (which included the educa-

tional establishment), the military, and industry. In practice, however, all adult Germans were to be subject to the denazification policy. In the very first stages of the occupation, denazification was only one of the many responsibilities assigned to local military government detachments. Soon, however, “Special Branch” units were created to handle the purges. Every adult German was required to complete a lengthy questionnaire (Fragebogen), detailing the subject’s personal, professional, and political past. To discourage falsification, the questionnaires themselves contained the warning that the Allies had possession of NSDAP records, against which answers would be checked. Occupation and counterintelligence officials would then review the completed questionnaires and make a recommendation for retention or dismissal. By June 1946, Special Branch teams had collected 1,613,000 questionnaires and had ordered the barring or removal from employment of 373,762 persons. The sheer magnitude of the purges, the inability of the military government to handle the workload, and much negative publicity in the American press led the military governor, U.S. Army general Lucius D. Clay, to hand over primary responsibility for denazification to the Germans. By June 1946, 316 local civilian tribunals (Spruchkammern) had been created, with anti- or at least non-Nazi Germans selected to preside over the cases and pass judgments. Regional German Ministries for Political Liberation provided the main oversight of the tribunals, though the verdicts were subject to approval by U.S. officials. Once again, every adult (some 13.5 million people in the American zone) had to fill out a background questionnaire (the Meldebogen, a

DENAZIFICATION

much shorter version of the Fragebogen) and submit it to his or her local Spruchkammer. The tribunal would place the defendant in one of five categories: (1) major offenders; (2)activists, militarists, and profiteers (“Belastet”); (3) less incriminated; (4) followers or fellow travelers (“Mitlaeufer”); and (5) exonerated. Most defendants were categorized as “followers.” Penalties ranged from short prison terms to temporary barring from employment to nominal fines. From the beginning, the policy suffered from many problems, above all that of reconciling the desire for a brief occupation with the perceived necessity of an extensive purge. This dilemma divided U.S. officials, many of whom viewed the purges as obstructing physical and political reconstruction, whereas others believed an uncompromising purge was a necessary step toward a stable and peaceful postwar Germany. Hence policy enforcement was often uneven as occupation officials with differing conceptions of Germany’s past and future struggled to maintain security, restore civic life, and carry out denazification. The sheer magnitude of the program also presented insurmountable difficulties. Millions of files and hundreds of thousands of cases had to be processed, and there were simply too few qualified U.S. and German personnel available to do the job. The vagaries of policy enforcement in occupied Germany led to many negative press reports in the United States about the “failures” of denazification. Such reports pressured Clay to widen the scope of the purges in 1945, which in turn exacerbated the administrative burden and heightened animosity among the Germans. The unpopularity of the purges among Germans was yet another major problem. Prominent German intellectuals

275

and church officials labeled the policy unjust, and it was ridiculed in the German press. Many held that denazification amounted to a charge of “collective guilt” and did not take into account the complexities of life under a dictatorship. Many also believed that numerous criminals had been allowed to go free, whereas those with allegedly little or even no real connection to NS were prosecuted. The new democratic German political leadership in the western zones—most notably Konrad Adenauer—understood that the objects of denazification proceedings were now their constituents and pressured U.S. authorities to bring the program to an end. Not surprisingly, then, within only a few years of West Germany’s creation in 1949, the new government in Bonn allowed those who had lost their positions in the purges to regain their jobs and ended the denazification program altogether. The Spruchkammer process also suffered from a number of fundamental weaknesses. The caseload remained overwhelmingly large, and U.S. officials noted a lack of qualified Germans committed to carrying out the letter of the law. The accused relied on affidavits (known derisively as Persilscheine, after a popular brand of detergent) from mutually reinforcing personal networks, thus distorting the evidentiary basis for making reasonably objective judgments. Above all, the use of affidavits turned denazification from a means of removing former Nazis from influential positions in society into a political and legal whitewash. Thousands of former Nazis who underwent a Spruchkammer trial could thereafter be reinstated to their former jobs and would be under no compulsion to account for or discuss their pasts in public.

276

DIESELDORFF, ERWIN PAUL

Finally, the emerging cold war between the former wartime Allies compromised the Allies’ original intentions with regard to the purges. The U.S., British, and Soviet governments, for instance, raced to obtain former Nazi intelligence officers and scientists for their respective military, scientific, and commercial establishments. As fourpower agreement over Germany’s future failed to materialize, the Americans, British, and French on the one side and the Soviets on the other sought to secure the allegiance of Germans in their respective occupation zones. This meant far less emphasis on reckoning with the past in the form of unpopular war crimes trials and denazification and a greater emphasis on reconciliation and reconstruction. This development, combined with the tribunal process many flaws, led the United States to relinquish oversight of denazification in 1948. Steven Remy See also Nuremberg Trials; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany; World War II References and Further Reading Boehling, Rebecca. A Question of Priorities: Democratic Reform and Economic Recovery in Postwar Germany. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books, 1996. Bower, Tom. Blind Eye to Murder: Britain, America, and the Purging of Nazi Germany—A Pledge Betrayed. London: Little, Brown, 1995. Frei, Norbert. Adenauer’s Germany and the Nazi Past: The Politics of Amnesty and Integration. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Remy, Steven P. The Heidelberg Myth: The Nazification and Denazification of a German University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Vollnhals, Clemens, ed. Entnazifizierung: Politische Säuberung und Rehabilitierung in den vier Besatzungszonen 1945–1949. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1991.

DIESELDORFF, ERWIN PAUL b. 1868 Birthplace: unknown d. 1940 Place of death: unknown Erwin Paul Dieseldorff, a native of Hamburg, was one of the wealthiest and most influential coffee planters and merchants in the Alta Verapaz region of Guatemala in the early twentieth century. Before migrating to Guatemala in 1888, he had been trained in the international trading firm of his uncle, C. W. Dieseldorff, in London. In Central America he began his career working for another uncle, H. R. Dieseldorff, who had a mercantile business in Cobán, the regional capital of the Alta Verapaz, and imported consumer goods and ironware from Birmingham and Manchester. In addition, he volunteered at several German coffee estates (fincas) and learned how to grow coffee. Endowed with a substantial inheritance, Dieseldorff soon became one of the largest estate owners in the Alta Verapaz. Around 1897 the Dieseldorff family, which included several brothers and nephews, already owned about 52,000 acres and 600,000 coffee trees and operated coffee-processing facilities (beneficios) in Cobán, San Pedro Carchá, and Panzós. The value of their land was estimated at 750,000 German Reichsmark. Dieseldorff continued to expand his estate in the following decades, and the family was among the few Germans who escaped expropriation by the Guatemalan government during World War II. In addition to his business activities, Dieseldorff had a lively interest in science and archaeology. During his early years in Guatemala, he accompanied the geographer Karl Theodor Sapper on some of his expeditions through Central America. His travel

DIETERLE,WILLIAM

experiences strengthened his interest in botany and archaeology. He collected and studied medical plants in the Alta Verapaz and experimented with their commercial production. In 1908 he published a guidebook for prospective coffee planters in the northern regions of Guatemala. Three volumes on the culture and religion of the ancient Maya civilizations were published in Germany between 1926 and 1933. Dieseldorff also wrote several articles on Maya archaeology. His personal papers, scientific collections, and business correspondence are located in the Dieseldorff collection of Tulane University Library in New Orleans. They also include historic manuscripts like a sixteenth-century copy of the “Golden Legend” of the Kekchí Maya. Moreover, he collected dictionaries of Indian languages, manuscripts of Indian dance dramas, and drawings of Mayan ruins. He corresponded with German geographers, ethnologists, and archaeologists like Karl Theodor Sapper and Eduard Seler, as well as with Frederic W. Putnam (1839–1915), director of the Peabody Museum archives at Harvard University. Michaela Schmölz-Häberlein See also Sapper Family References and Further Reading Náñez Falcón, Guillermo. “Erwin Paul Dieseldorff, German Entrepreneur in the Alta Verapaz of Guatemala, 1889–1937.” PhD diss., Tulane University, 1970. Schmölz-Häberlein, Michaela. Die Grenzen des Caudillismo: Die Modernisierung des guatemaltekischen Staates unter Jorge Ubico 1931–1944: Eine regionalgeschichtliche Studie am Beispiel der Alta Verapaz. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993. Wagner, Regina. Los alemanes en Guatemala, 1828–1944. Guatemala City: Editorial IDEA, 1991.

277

DIETERLE,WILLIAM b. July 15, 1893; Ludwigshafen am Rhein, (Bavarian Palatinate), Bavaria d. December 8, 1972; Ottobrunn, Bavaria U.S. film director, born Wilhelm Dieterle An eclectic filmmaker and producer, Wilhelm Dieterle grew up in Germany and began his artistic career as an actor for Max Reinhardt, onstage in Berlin, in 1921 (A Midsummer Night’s Dream) and onscreen for director Leopold Jessner and Paul Leni (Hintertreppe [Backstairs], 1921), Paul Leni (Das Wachsfigurenkabinett [Waxworks], 1924), Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau (playing Valentin in Faust, 1926), and many others, appearing in some sixty silent films mainly between 1920 and 1930. In Germany, Wilhelm Dieterle directed fifteen films from 1923 to 1931. He was the first director who ever produced a biographical film, Ludwig der Zweite, König von Bayern (Ludwig II, King of Bavaria, 1929). In 1930, Wilhelm Dieterle emigrated to the United States, where he released more than fifty feature films under the Americanized name of William Dieterle. The genres varied: dramas, musicals, adaptations from classics (The Hunchback of Notre-Dame, 1939), and film noir (Portrait of Jennie, 1948). In 1935, William Dieterle teamed with Reinhardt, and they codirected a flamboyant film version of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1935), with the music of Felix Mendelssohn. Although it was a commercial failure, this big-budget film was acclaimed by critics, and it remains the only film production made in the United States by Max Reinhardt. In Hollywood, William Dieterle also worked with actor Paul Muni for two major biographies of French

278

DIETRICH, MARLENE MAGDALENE

celebrities: The Story of Louis Pasteur (1935) and The Life of Emile Zola (1937). This second production won the Oscar for best picture in 1937. He also directed Bette Davis in an early version of the Dashiell Hammett novel The Maltese Falcon, titled Satan Met a Lady (1936). During World War II, Dieterle was the cofounder of an anti-Nazi magazine, The Hollywood Tribune, and helped many Jewish refugees arriving in the United States from Germany. William Dieterle returned to West Germany in 1959, working for minor productions, either in film, television, and later for theater festivals (Bad Hersfeld; Munich). Yves Laberge See also Hollywood; Leni, Paul; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Reinhardt, Max References and Further Reading Gemunden, Gerd. “Dieterle, William.” GERMAN 43: Exiles and Émigrés. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~germ43/resou rces/biographies/dieterle-w.html (accessed May 11, 2005). The German-Hollywood Connection. www.germanhollywood.com (accessed May 11, 2005). Passek, Jean-Loup, ed. Dictionnaire du Cinéma. Paris: Larousse, 1998.

DIETRICH, MARLENE MAGDALENE b. December 27, 1901; BerlinSchöneberg, Prussia d. May 6, 1992, Paris, France Marlene Dietrich became one of the first and brightest movie stars. Her career endured for decades, challenging stereotypes about gender and age, until she became an international classic. She grew up in a wealthy family near Berlin. After her dreams of becoming a violinist were quashed by a

wrist injury, she joined the chorus line of a traveling musical review in 1921. She entered Max Reinhardt’s innovative drama school, taking small roles in German films and onstage with his theater company. Dietrich married Rudolf “Rudy” Sieber, a Czech production assistant, in 1924 and had a daughter, later the actress Maria Riva. Although never divorced, the couple lived separately until Sieber’s 1976 death. Dietrich became a popular leading lady in German films, many co-starring Emil Jannings: Napoleons kleiner Bruder (The Little Napoleon, 1922), Tragödie der Liebe (Tragedy of Love, 1923), Die Freudlose Gasse (The Joyless Street), Manon Lascaut (both 1925), Der Juxbaron (The Imaginary Baron, 1926), Eine DuBarry von heute (A Modern Du Barry, 1927), Wenn ein Weib den Weg verliert (Cafe Elektric, 1927), Ich küsse Ihre Hand Madame (I Kiss Your Hand, Madame, 1929), and Der Schiff der verlorenen Menschen (The Ship of Lost Souls, 1929). Magazines compared her to Elisabeth Bergner and Greta Garbo. American director Josef von Sternberg chose her to star as seductive dance-hall vamp Lola Lola with Jannings in his Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel, 1930), filmed in both German and English. The heroine impervious to romance, her songs epitomized sultry independence in a husky voice that became her trademark: “Ich Bin die Fesche Lola” (I’m Fancy Lola) and “Ein Richtiger Mann” (Tonight I’m Looking for a Man). “Ich Bin von Kopf bis Fuss” (Falling in Love Again . . . Can’t Help It) became her theme song. The role won her international fame and a contract with Paramount Pictures. She left her husband and daughter to come to Hollywood as von Sternberg molded Dietrich’s glamorous, sensuous, mysterious persona. He called her his

DIETRICH, MARLENE MAGDALENE

“puppet” and directed her to lower her voice an octave, claiming to control “the depth of her thoughts” (Mordden 1983, 106). Her films included Morocco (1930), as a cabaret singer opposite Gary Cooper; Dishonored (1931), as a street walker turned spy; Blonde Venus (1932), opposite Gary Grant with a “Hot Voodoo” number she performed in a gorilla suit; Shanghai Express (1932), a $3 million box office success; and The Scarlet Empress (1934), as Catherine the Great. Von Sternberg’s wife Riza sued Dietrich for alienation of affection and libel, but Dietrich won the case by bringing her husband and daughter to the United States. Work with von Sternberg lasted through The Devil Is a Woman (1935), again as a cabaret singer. Already she had made Song of Songs (1933), directed by Rouben Mamoulian. She continued with Desire and The Garden of Allah (both 1936), the latter produced by David O. Selznick. While filming Knight without Armor in England (1937), Nazi agent and ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop approached her with Adolf Hitler’s personal appeal to return to Germany to make films. Hitler banned her films due to her refusal, and she became a U.S. citizen that March. Photoplay described Dietrich “of the heavy-lidded, inscrutable eyes” in a 1931 article, “Charm? No! You Must Have Glamour.” So popular was she that her mannish leisure pants created an unprecedented vogue among young American women. Scenes of her provocatively veiled in her cigarette smoke made smoking seem sexy and fashionable. Women tweezed eyebrows as she did and sucked lemons to keep their mouths tight but could not afford her other beauty secret—the halfounce of real gold dust Max Factor put in

279

Motion picture advertisment for Hermann Sudermann’s The Song of Songs with two illustrations of Marlene Dietrich, February 25, 1933. (Library of Congress)

her hair for glitter during filming. She was the image of the independent woman for decades, challenging convention, hinting at secrets of multiple liasons, even bisexual. She staged a “comeback” for Universal as Frenchy, a western saloon singer, opposite James Stewart in Destry Rides Again (1939), making “[See What] the Boys in the Back Room [Will Have]” a hit song (Mordden 1983, 110). Costume films followed: Seven Sinners (1940), The Flame of New Orleans (1941), Manpower (1941), and The Lady Is Willing (1942). In 1942, she co-starred with John Wayne and Randolph Scott in The Spoilers and Pittsburgh. She played a seductive harem dancer in Kismet (1944). During the war, she starred in war bond drives and entertained troops for the U.S.O., even near combat, over

280

DIMENSION2

500 times. She accompanied Allied troops into the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp to liberate her sister. She made antiNazi propaganda broadcasts in German, later winning the U.S. War Department Medal of Freedom (1947) and the Chevaliere medal of the French Legion of Honor. After she played a gypsy in Golden Earrings (1947), the media in 1948 dubbed her “the World’s most glamorous grandmother” as her daughter gave birth to a son. She then made a string of films: A Foreign Affair (1948), as an ex-Nazi in Berlin’s ruins in the dark comedy for Billy Wilder; Stage Fright (1950), singing “La Vie en Rose”; No Highway in the Sky (1951); Rancho Notorious (1952), playing a saloon singer; The Monte Carlo Story (1957); Witness for the Prosecution (1957), as the wife of a murder suspect; Touch of Evil (1958), as a gypsy fortune-teller; and Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), as a German aristocrat for Stanley Kramer. She had cameo roles in Around the World in Eighty Days (1956), Paris When It Sizzles (1964), and Just a Gigolo (1979). Dietrich starred in two weekly radio dramas, Cafe Istanbul (1952) and Time for Love (1953). Into the 1970s, she epitomized glamorous aging, an unprecedented image. She forged a new career as a popular, sultry, world-weary cabaret performer and recording star with her trademark spoken/singing style at venues in Las Vegas, London, Paris, Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Berlin. Old friend Maximilian Schell made the film Marlene (1984) with her voiceover commentary because she refused to appear on camera. Dietrich lived most of her life in Paris and retreated to seclusion there for the last

thirteen years of her life, dying of kidney failure at age ninety. Reluctant bureaucrats ceded to her desire to be buried in Friedhof III cemetery in Berlin-Friedenau. She left her memorabilia to the City of Berlin. In 2002, Berlin declared her an honorary citizen, “an ambassador for a democratic, freedom-loving and humane Germany” who personified “reconciliation.” Blanche M. G. Linden See also Films (German), American Influence on; Hollywood; Jannings, Emil; Reinhardt, Max; Sternberg, Josef von References and Further Reading Dickens, Homer. The Films of Marlene Dietrich. New York: Citadel, 1971. Frewin, Leslie. Dietrich: The Story of a Star. New York: Avon, 1967. Higham, Charles. Marlene. Norton, 1977. Mordden, Ethan. Movie Star: A Look at the Women Who Made Hollywood. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983. Sternberg, Josef von. Fun in a Chinese Laundry. New York: Macmillan, 1965.

DIMENSION2 Independent bilingual literary magazine. Edited by Ingo R. Stoehr. Editorial offices are currently located in Nacogdoches, Texas. The magazine aims to give an Englishspeaking audience immediate access to the whole spectrum of contemporary literary production in the major German-speaking countries of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Exclusively devoted to contemporary German-language literature, Dimension2 prints German original texts and their translations into English on facing pages. Literary texts include prose, poetry, and drama; short texts, such as poems and short prose, are published in full, and

DIMENSION2

longer texts, such as novels and theater plays, in excerpt. Although the focus is on creative literature, the magazine also publishes interviews with authors, publishers, and literary scholars; essays on literary and cultural issues; and black-and-white reproductions of artwork. So far the magazine has published over 200 authors, ranging from young talents who saw their first publication in English translation to well-established writers, including Günter Grass, Hans Christoph Buch, Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Barbara Frischmuth, Ludwig Harig, Rolf Hochhuth, Sarah Kirsch, Günter Kunert, Botho Strauß, Uwe Timm, and Christa Wolf. In a similar way, the translations are done by a wide range of practioners: some are graduate students at the beginning of their career; others are well-respected translators and scholars, such as Reinhold Grimm, Burton Pike, A. Leslie Willson, and the late André Lefevere. Each volume consists of three issues (January, May, and September) of approximately 140 to 160 pages each, and each issue is unified by a special focus. For the first five volumes, the January issues focused on new publications from the previous fall, including interviews with publishers, such as Siegfried Unseld, Michael Krüger, and Daniel Keel; the May issues introduced literary archives, including the German Literary Archives in Marbach and the Swiss Literary Archives in Berne; and the September issues presented literature with a thematic focus, such as the image of the New Germany (after unification), America, the classical tradition, and the Third World. Beginning with volume 6, the basic publication plan was made more flexible to allow for double issues,

281

such as on poetry and the literature of the years 1999 to 2001 (the turn of the millennium). Dimension2 prints approximately 700 to 900 copies per run. Publication is made possible by two factors: government support and volunteer work. From the inception of Dimension2, the German government’s agency for international cultural exchange, Goethe-Institut Inter Nationes, has supplied generous support with a standing subscription, accounting for about half the magazine’s subscription base. Individual issues have also received additional support from the Swiss Cultural office, ProHelvetia; the Deutscher Literaturfonds in Darmstadt; and the Austrian Bundeskanzleramt (Federal Chancellory) in Vienna. In spite of this support, publication of Dimension2 also depends on the magazine’s various contributors forgoing pay: editor and translators volunteer their services, and authors and publishers grant copyright free of charge on a one-time and nonexclusive basis. Dimension2 has been published since 1994, but the superscript 2 in its title pays tribute to its tradition: it is the successor publication to Dimension, which was founded in 1968 and edited by A. Leslie Willson at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1994, the same year Dimension ceased publication, the first issue of Dimension2 appeared. Ingo R. Stoehr See also Literature (German), the United States in; Literature (German American) in the Nineteenth Century; Literature, German Canadian References and Further Reading Dimension2: Contemporary GermanLanguage Literature. http://members.aol .com/germanlit/dimension2.html.

282

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN

DOBRIZHOFFER, MARTIN b. September 7, 1717; Friedberg (Bohemia), Austria [Frymburk], or Sept. 7, 1718; Graz d. July 17, 1791;Vienna, Austria Jesuit and early ethnographer who served in Paraguay. The birthplace and the date of birth for Martin Dobrizhoffer are not entirely certain. In 1734 Dobrizhoffer joined the Jesuit order and was dispatched as a missionary to Paraguay in 1748. Here the order had organized a huge, coherent territory, in which the native population of the Guaraní could live and work in secure settlements (Reductions) and be protected from the raids of the slave traders. However, the continued existence and protection of these Jesuit settlements was endangered because the prosperous Reductions provoked envy among the European settlers, who desired cheap labor. Dobrizhoffer arrived in Paraguay at a time when the Jesuit state was already in decline and the Reductions were repeatedly and violently attacked by slave traders. He lived about eighteen years with native tribes in Paraguay. His first assignment was to serve among the Mocobi in San Xavier (north of Santa Fé). From there, he was sent to live with the Abipón in San Hieronymus and later in Concepción. Last of all, he was ordered to take over the administration of the new Reduction “Zum Heiligen Rosenkranz und St. Karolus” (Holy Rosary and St. Charles) at the Rio Paraguay. The Abipón were a martial people who had recently moved into settlements and allowed themselves to be baptized. Nevertheless, they were continuously involved in warring among themselves and with neighboring tribes (Toba and Mocobi). Do-

brizhoffer learned the language and the habits of life of the Abipón; his fundamental work Historia de Abiponibus appeared in 1783–1784 in three volumes in Latin and German and was translated into English in 1822. Contemporaries considered it to be the most important book at the time about Paraguay, the Jesuit state, and the activities of missionaries. Because of his strict factual treatment of the Abipón’s customs and traditions, Dobrizhoffer paved the way for the ethnological investigation into the cultures and societies of the native tribes in South America. After the rescission of the Jesuit state in 1767, Dobrizhoffer had to leave Paraguay and returned to Austria, where he—after the breakup of the order—was appointed court chaplain by Maria Theresia in 1773. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Argentina; Paraguay References and Further Reading Egghardt, Hanne. Osterreicher entdecken die Welt. Forscher, Abenteurer, Idealisten. Vienna: Pichler, 2000, 92–106. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983, 2:82–83. Otruba, Gustav. “Dobritzhoffer, Martin.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker andand Humblot, 1959, 4:6–7.

DOHMS, HERMANN GOTTLIEB b. November 3, 1887; Sapiranga, Rio Grande do Sul d. December 3, 1956; São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul Lutheran church leader who studied theology at German universities and who published the Deutsche Evangelische Blätter für Brasilien (German Evangelical News for Brazil).

DUDEN, GOTTFRIED

During his study of theology at the universities of Basel, Leipzig, and Halle with Konrad von Orelli, Paul Heinrich Wilhelm Albert Mezger, Paul Wernle, Albert Hauck, Martin Kähler, Ferdinand Kattenbusch, and Friedrich Armin Loofs, Dohms discovered the theology of Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, Martin Kähler, Albert Ritschl, and Ernst Troeltsch. From 1914 onward, he worked as a parish pastor in Cachoeira do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, where he published the Deutsche Evangelische Blätter für Brasilien, the most important German-language magazine in Brazil. There he founded the PreTheological Institute, an institution that was later moved to São Leopoldo. In 1935 he also became the president of the Synod of Rio Grande do Sul, the church of the Lutherans in that state. In 1946 he founded the Lutheran Seminary (the present-day Lutheran School of Theology), also located in São Leopoldo, where he taught systematic theology. Acting as the leader of the presidents of the other Lutheran synods in Brazil, Dohms founded the Federation of Synods in 1949, whose name was changed to the Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil in 1952. Having been deeply influenced by Johann Gottfried Herder, Troeltsch, Ritschl, and Kähler, Dohms also dealt with the issue of the relationship between church and ethnicity. His efforts to build the Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil must also be understood from this perspective. His studies were devoted to the influence of German Protestant theology in Brazil, Auguste Comte’s positivism, the Brazilian political parties, and the rights of ethnic minorities in South America and particularly in Brazil. In this context he was interested in issues related to the citizenship of Ger-

283

man immigrants and their descendants in Brazil but also in their right to preserve the German cultural legacy. The impact of the nationalization policy of Getúlio Vargas on the communities of immigrants, World War II, and the discussions in the German Kirchenkampf (church struggle), including the transference of the confrontation between Deutsche Christen (German Christians) and Bekennende Kirche (Confessing Church) to Brazil, effected a profound reorientation in his thinking, leading him to emphasize the need of the Lutheran Church to be a church in Brazil and the opening to the ecumenical world. Martin Norberto Dreher See also Brazil; Brazil, Religion in; Germanism in Rio Grande do Sul References and Further Reading Dreher, Martin N. Igreja e Germanidade. 2nd ed. São Leopoldo: Editora Sinodal, 2003. Dreher, Martin N., ed. Hermann Gottlieb Dohms: Textos Escolhidos. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2001.

DUDEN, GOTTFRIED b. 1785; Remscheid (Westfalia), Prussia d. 1855; Remscheid (Westfalia), Prussia Gottfried Duden was the author of Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten Nordamerikas und einen mehrjährigen Aufenthalt am Missouri in den Jahren 1824, ’25, ’26 und ’27. In Bezug auf Auswanderung und Überbevölkerung (Report on a Journey to the Western States of America and a Stay of Several Years along the Missouri during the Years 1824, ’25, ’26, and ’27, published in English in 1829), which prompted many German-speaking settlers to move to Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and especially Missouri.

284

DUDEN, GOTTFRIED

In 1824, Duden had acquired 270 acres of land in present-day Warren County, close to the Missouri River and some 20 miles west of Saint Louis. Different from most settlers, he possessed sufficient financial means to live the life of a gentleman farmer for the next four years— apparently with only limited success in agriculture—before returning to Germany to publish his experiences in the form of thirty-six letters to an unnamed German friend. The book, although comprehensive, detailed, and accurate in the descriptions of his travels and sojourn in Missouri, often digresses into lengthy philosophical and sociopolitical comparisons between life in the wide expanses of the Missouri River valley and life in Germany. Many disaffected persons in Germany and Switzerland read it and began to organize emigration societies employing Duden’s advice. It obviously appealed to those living in the overpopulated area of Duden’s home region of the Rhineland, as well as to more affluent and educated readers throughout Germany and Switzerland with a desire to found homesteads based on nineteenthcentury ideas of bucolic life abroad. The popularity of Duden’s book during his lifetime is attested by successive publications, first in Elberfeld, Germany, in 1829, followed by a second revised edition in Bonn in 1834; two special editions, sponsored by the Swiss Emigration Society, appeared in St. Gallen in 1832 and 1835. No further editions followed because apparently reactions had come in from settlers, who upon their arrival in the United States had found Duden’s descriptions too glowing and optimistic. This prompted Duden to publish “Selbst-anklage Wegen seines amerikanischen Reiseberichts zur

Warnung vor fernerm leichtsinigen Auswandern (Self-Recrimination because of his American Travel Report to Caution Everyone against Frivolous Emigration, 1837). Portions of Duden’s Report on a Journey were first published in English from 1917 to 1919 by William Bek in successive issues of the Missouri Historical Review. A thoroughly annotated, but in some places tedious, English translation of the entire Report on a Journey, under the general editorship of James W. Goodrich, appeared in 1980. It also includes Duden’s essay “Concerning the Nature of the North American United States or: Concerning the Bases of the Political Situation of the North Americans.” In it, Duden lays out his theory that sparse population and a conducive natural environment are the reasons for the perfect living conditions awaiting the settlers in the Missouri River valley. In comparing them to the conditions in his homeland, he states that the miracle of a beggarless society “occurs in a country where passports are unknown, where one can travel thousands of miles without once being asked one’s name, where, although all the ordinary police protection common in Germany is altogether lacking, theft, robbery, and swindling are rare. . . . In America, Europe can recognize the results of its own overpopulation” (Duden 1980, 239f.). “A Postscript for Emigrating Farmers and for Those Who Contemplate Commercial Undertakings” is also included in the edition. It briefly gleans the most salient pieces of advice from the thirty-six letters: the most advantageous travel routes, either via New York and Baltimore overland or through New Orleans and then by steamboat up the Mississippi River; the cost of

DUNT, DETLEF

the respective travels; the means of payment; the best ways of carrying money; the minimum financial resources needed for a successful enterprise; and those items best brought along from Europe versus those that can be bought more cheaply in the United States are some of the points discussed. From a current perspective, Duden’s glowing description of life along the Missouri River is naïve, filled with nineteenthcentury German romantic notions of an untrammeled existence in an unspoiled wilderness that is just beginning to be opened to the uses of civilization. There are exceptions, however. His twenty-eighth letter deals with the many diseases to which a settler may be exposed and the lack of medical care, and his fifteenth letter allows a rare glimpse of the dangers and difficulties faced by the frontier settler, who is plagued by ticks, is bitten by rattlesnakes, and may lose his property to a raging forest fire. Immediately following in letter sixteen, in a manner reminiscent of Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm’s “Little Red Riding Hood,” Duden describes several dogs attacking a captured wolf, a “beast of prey,” that is being tortured and eventually destroyed by neighbors. Duden displays ambivalence toward this act of cruelty. There seems to be no ambivalence, but rather a bit of national pride, when he asserts that the descendents of Englishmen “proclaim without hesitation that they like the German immigrants best, whereas complaints about the Irish are common, as they are prone to be intemperate, lazy, and quarrelsome” (Duden 1980, 41). The Report on a Journey is not only an excellent sourcebook about frontier life in Missouri in the 1820s. For an American

285

readership, it also reveals interesting and often still relevant perceptions of the United States as seen from abroad. In addition, it proves that some problems perceived as new today have existed for almost two centuries. One example is Duden’s passing comment about the Electoral College, where he notes in 1829 that people want to elect the president directly and no longer go through representatives (Duden 1980, 152). Klaus Dieter Hanson See also Travel Literature, Germany-U.S. References and Further Reading Boone-Duden Historical Society. “Local Map of Boone Duden Historical Society.” http://www.rootsweb.com/~moboonhs/ma p.html (accessed July 19, 2004). Duden, Gottfried. Report on a Journey to the Western States of America and a Stay of Several Years along the Missouri (during the Years 1824, ’25, ’26, and 1827). Ed. and trans. James Goodrich. Columbia, MO: State Historical Society of Missouri and University of Missouri Press, 1980.

DUNT, DETLEF b. May 7, 1793; Lütjenburg, Holstein d. 1847; Columbus,Texas Author of one of the earliest German guidebooks to Texas, Reise nach Texas, nebst Nachrichten von diesem Lande für Deutsche, welche nach Amerika zu gehen beabsichtigen (Journey to Texas: With Information about This Land for Germans Planning to Go to America), in 1834. Dunt’s book reflects the growing German interest in Texas as a possible destination for emigrants even before the founding of the Republic of Texas in 1836. Dunt, who was born Detlev Thomas Friedrich Jordt, publicized the presence of Germans in

286

DUNT, DETLEF

Stephen Austin’s colony in Texas, most notably the settlement of Friedrich Ernst in Industry. Dunt’s book is an important source for the early history of European and American settlements in Texas. The book belongs to a particular genre of literature, the emigrant guide that flourished in the nineteenth century. These works address “how-to-do-it” questions beginning with who should emigrate, where the emigrant should go, what should be taken, and what is better purchased abroad. Dunt recounts that a Scot he met in Texas confirmed what many Americans who had traveled throughout the United States had told him: Texas, which still belonged to Mexico, was far superior to any part of the states for European settlers. As Dunt explains, it was possible in Texas for a male head of household to acquire a vast land grant. Dunt cautioned that to obtain the maximum grant, the immigrant must not only be married but have his wife with him. Dunt had not done well economically in Germany. He was still living in eastern Holstein in 1819 when he married a woman from the duchy of Oldenburg to the west. The marriage records note that his deceased father had been simply a Kaufmann (merchant or businessman), a term that without enhancement usually denoted a small businessman. Dunt’s first three children were born in the town of his own birth. In 1827, before the birth of a fourth child, he applied to the authorities in Oldenburg for permission to settle in the duchy. The request was denied until his father- and brother-in-law, both surgeons, filed affidavits that, if necessary, they would support him and his dependents to prevent the family from becoming a burden on public funds. Dunt moved with his

family to Berne/Wesermarsch, a small locality near the town where his wife’s father resided. Enticed by fellow Oldenburger Friedrich Ernst’s open letter of 1832 about the attractiveness of Texas, which circulated widely in parts of northern Germany, Dunt departed for Texas via Bremen on November 20, 1832. After sojourns of a few weeks in both New York and New Orleans, he arrived in Texas early in May 1833. He returned to Oldenburg in the fall of 1834. Almost two years elapsed before he carried out his plan, announced in his book, to emigrate to Texas, and then he failed to follow his own advice to bring his wife and take advantage of the generous land grants to which husbands accompanied by spouses were entitled. In February 1836, he and his two sons, aged thirteen and fifteen, set out for Texas, leaving his wife in Oldenburg with the couple’s two daughters, aged seven and ten—perhaps to care for the older daughter, who died the following year. In 1844 Dunt’s wife and their surviving daughter were still in Oldenburg, although by then they resided in Bockhorn/Wesermarsch, where the wife’s father lived until his death in 1843. Dunt himself made at least one more round trip between Texas and Oldenburg. The record of his surviving daughter’s confirmation in 1844 lists him as present at the ceremony in Bockhorn and as an innkeeper in nearby Berne/Wesermarsch. His stay in Germany must have been brief. In 1846 his wife emigrated to Texas with their daughter, now seventeen, as well as a young man, the son of a postal employee in Oldenburg, whom the daughter married the following year. Officiating at the wedding in September 1847 as justice of the peace was Dunt’s old

DUTCH

friend Friedrich Ernst of Industry, Texas. It is unclear from the records whether Dunt lived long enough into 1847 to see his daughter marry. Walter Struve See also Ernst, Friedrich; Texas; Travel Literature, Germany-U.S. References and Further Reading Brenner, Peter J. Reisen in die Neue Welt: Die Erfahrung Nordamerikas in deutschen Reiseund Auswandererberichten des 19. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Görisch, Stephan. “Die gedruckten ‘Ratgeber’ für Auswanderer: Zur Produktion und Typologie eines literarischen Genres.” Hessische Blätter für Volks- und Kulturforschung 17, 1985, 51–70. Struve, Walter. Germans and Texans: Commerce, Migration, and Culture in the Days of the Lone Star Republic. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996.

DUTCH It is often said that the use of the word Dutch by English-speaking people to refer to Germans was the result either of a confusion of identities or an attempt to pronounce the German word Deutsch, which, it is assumed, the Germans used to describe themselves. These explanations do not hold up under scrutiny. Of course, there were cases of confusion, but in the seventeenth century, when German settlers began to arrive in substantial numbers in Britain’s North American colonies, the term Dutch still had meanings that have disappeared and are forgotten today. The terms Deutsch and Dutch are closely related cognates, but prior to the nineteenth century—and even prior to the unification of Germany in 1871—many migrants from the German states were not prone to describe themselves as Deutsch, even to strangers. They were more likely to

287

refer to the territorial state from which they came. In some instances their sense of religious identity transcended the designation of homeland, as was often the case with Amish, Mennonites, Dunkers, Jews, and Moravians—to mention only a few. The “Pennsylvania Dutch,” the German Americans whose ancestors came mainly from the Palatinate and Lower Rhine regions and settled mostly in eastern Pennsylvania in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, often did not recognize the term Deutsch as applicable to themselves, even after the unification of Germany. With sarcastic wit they referred, in their German dialect, to the new arrivals as Deitschlänner (Deutschländer in standard German); that is, people who were constantly talking about Deutschland, a political entity created long after the ancestors of the Pennsylvania Germans departed for the New World. The use of Dutch as a synonym for German antedates British settlement of North America. In the late Middle Ages and early modern period, Dutch included both Germans and Dutch. It referred to people speaking a group of closely related Germanic languages. This usage pertained mainly to inhabitants of the Holy Roman Empire and distinguished two kinds of “Dutch” people on the basis of geography, culture, and, critically, language: “High Dutch (Hochdeutsch),” or “High German” in today’s English usage; and “Low Dutch (Niederdeutsch),” or “Low German” in today’s usage. The English language did not distinguish Netherlanders from other speakers of “Low Dutch,” except by specifying the province, locality, or region. War and political change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries created a strong need to distinguish Netherlanders

288

DUTCH

from other “Low Dutch.” The successful wars for independence waged by the northern provinces of the Low Countries led to the creation of the Republic of the United Provinces. Their withdrawal from the Holy Roman Empire and their independence were confirmed by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. The English language responded by increasingly restricting the term Dutch to people from the Netherlands. The corresponding shift in Dutch was different. The term duytsch, or duits, the Dutch cognate of Dutch and deutsch, was restricted to Germans and no longer included Netherlanders or their language. The Netherlanders now referred to their own language as Nederlands. The refrain of an old drinking song that I learned in college on the edge of the Pennsylvania German region expresses clearly some of the distinctions once made between various uses of Dutch. O, the Highland Dutch, And the Lowland Dutch, The Rotterdam Dutch, And the Goddamn Dutch, Singing glorious, glorious! One keg of beer for the four of us, Thank God there are no more of us, O, glorious! O, glorious! In this song “Highland Dutch” stands for the Austrians and South Germans. The “Lowland Dutch” are the northern Germans. And the “Rotterdam Dutch” refers to the inhabitants of the Dutch Republic or the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

English-speaking colonists and their descendants were carrying on traditional usage when they persisted in referring to Germans as Dutch in colonial America and beyond. An often overlooked reason why this label has stuck so well is that the confusion has often been useful to German Americans. For example, during both world wars the Pennsylvania Dutch seemed to many Americans to have nothing to do with Germany. General John J. Pershing, commander of U.S. forces in Europe, went a step farther when he, like some other Pennsylvania Germans, attempted to prove that his Palatine ancestors were actually French; they or their ancestors were presumably French Protestants who found a temporary haven in the Palatinate before emigrating to America. There is still another reason why the term Pennsylvania Dutch has survived the efforts of many scholars over many decades to eradicate it. A distinctive culture developed and persisted in some parts of Pennsylvania and nearby upper southern and middle western states. Both other German Americans and other Americans have perceived of this culture, especially in its Amish and Mennonite forms, as distinctly different from any other German culture. Walter Struve See also German Unification (1871); Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language References and Further Reading Yoder, Don. “Palatine, Hessian, Dutchman: Drei Bezeichnungen für Deutsche in Amerika.” Hessische Blätter für Volks- und Kulturforschung. Neue Folge der Hessischen Blätter für Volkskunde 17, 1985, 191–213.

E ECKENER, HUGO b. August 10, 1868; Flensburg (Schlesvig), Prussia d. August 14, 1954; Friedrichshafen Baden,Württemberg The world’s most prominent advocate of rigid airship flight between the world wars, whose spectacular zeppelin voyages helped to rebuild German ties with the United States. Eckener’s early career as a journalist brought him into contact with Graf Ferdinand von Zeppelin, whose dream of lighterthan-air flight he adopted with enthusiasm. During World War I, Eckener assumed control of the Zeppelin Works in Friedrichshafen. After the war, he arranged a deal to deliver an airship to the United States as an “in-kind” payment in war reparations, thereby skirting Allied disarmament provisions and keeping his plant and its skilled employees at work. After flights across the Atlantic, around the globe, and into the Arctic in 1924, 1929, and 1931, respectively, he was lionized as a national hero in Germany and revered around the globe. His political convictions and aims for the zeppelin brought him into conflict with the Nazis, who forced him out of public life. He strove in vain to rekindle international interest in airships after World War II.

An indifferent student as a youth, Eckener grew more interested in intellectual pursuits as a young adult. He studied economics, philosophy, history, and psychology at the universities of Berlin, Munich, and Leipzig, where he earned a doctorate with a dissertation in what today would be known as experimental psychology. During the 1890s and early 1900s, he worked as a journalist and editor, first in Flensburg and then at Friedrichshafen in southern Germany, where he resettled for health reasons at the end of the 1890s. He worked there as a correspondent for the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt Newspaper), writing commentary articles as well as music and art criticism. Friedrichshafen was also the center of Graf Zeppelin’s experiments with rigid airships, and Eckener was assigned to cover Graf’s earliest, and mostly failed, efforts. A string of zeppelin crashes at first reinforced Eckener’s skepticism about the future of the airship. He gradually developed a fascination with the great machines, however, and, after a personal meeting with Zeppelin in 1908, accepted the Graf ’s offer of a position in charge of public relations to help counter expert criticism from prominent physicists and engineers. Eckener then played a key role in directing the attention of German naval authorities toward the

289

290

ECKENER, HUGO

long-distance reconnaissance potential of the airship. He helped establish the Deutsche Luftschiff-Aktien-Gesellschaft (DELAG, or German Airship Corporation) and in 1911 was licensed as an airship pilot. From that point on, he directed the training of pilots for the corporation and assumed an increasingly preeminent role in the zeppelin program. Eckener directed the training of naval airship commanders during World War I, but the zeppelin was an acute military disappointment. Although the unrivalled range of the airship made it useful for marine reconnaissance and a few successful raids were carried out over England, the huge size and relatively slow speed rendered the airship quite vulnerable. Over half of Germany’s naval airships fell victim during the fighting to enemy fighters, storms, and lightning. At the war’s end, Allied authorities seized the newly built passenger zeppelin LZ 120 and mandated size restrictions on future construction which would have meant the end of airships capable of carrying passengers. Desperate to save what he viewed as his life’s work, Eckener offered to build a large new airship for delivery to the Americans in lieu of monetary reparations for the airships German ground personnel had destroyed to prevent them falling into Allied hands. As he had anticipated, U.S. authorities—particularly naval personnel—were eager to accept the proposal. The American Goodyear company, a rival to the German airship program, had produced in the airship ZR 1 a vessel considered by most experts to be technically inferior to the German product. Thus empowered to legally circumvent Allied aircraft construction restrictions, Eckener in 1923 and 1924 built the colos-

sal LZ 126, which he personally piloted across the Atlantic to Lakehurst, New Jersey, in October 1924. The ocean crossing was a spectacular success, covered by an intensive international publicity campaign engineered in part by the media-savvy Eckener himself. New York stopped in its tracks to watch the passing of the airship, and half a million people greeted the arrival of the LZ 126 (soon to be the Los Angeles) at Lakehurst. Eckener was given a ticker tape parade through Manhattan and received by Calvin Coolidge at the White House as the “modern Columbus.” Eckener’s success made him a hero in Germany as well, and he built upon it. With help from the government and a national fund drive, he built the Graf Zeppelin, the world’s largest airship. In August 1929, Eckener flew the new Graf Zeppelin around the world, profiting from the sale of newspaper rights, winning the “Special Gold Medal” of the American National Geographic Society, and evoking a huge popular response where the airship touched down in Tokyo and Los Angeles. This was followed by an Arctic flight in collaboration with the Russians in 1931, another pioneering success. Eckener was now so popular that the Social Democrats seriously discussed running him as a presidential candidate in 1932 against Adolf Hitler. With the rise of the Nazis, however, and the still-mysterious explosion of the Hindenburg at Lakehurst in 1937, Eckener’s airship program was doomed. He himself was forced into retirement from public life, and his beloved airships were scrapped by the Nazis. After the war, he tried without success to revive international interest in the airship and spent the last years of his retirement composing his memoirs. David Murphy

EDERLE, GERTRUD

291

See also Treaty of Versailles; Zeppelin References and Further Reading Botting, Douglas. Dr. Eckener’s Dream Machine: The Great Zeppelin and the Dawn of Air Travel. New York: Henry Holt, 2001. De Syon, Guillaume. Zeppelin! Germany and the Airship, 1900–1939. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. Eckener, Hugo. Im Zeppelin über Länder und Meere. Flensburg: Verlagshaus Christian Wolff, 1949. Itataliaander, Rolf. Hugo Eckener: Ein moderner Columbus. Konstanz: Verlag Friedrich Stadler, 1979.

b. October 23, 1906; New York City d. November 30, 2003; New York City

Gertrud Ederle swam the English Channel, August 6, 1926, in the record time of 14 1/2 hours. She is the first woman ever to have accomplished this feat. Here, William Burgess, her trainer, is shown greasing Ederle down before her start. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Born to German immigrants in New York City, Ederle was the first woman to swim the English Channel in 1926. Ederle was raised in the German section of New York’s West Side, a secondgeneration German immigrant with working-class roots. Her father Henry was a butcher and her mother a housewife and caregiver to their six children. Trudy, as her family called her, was a tomboy who learned to swim at the family cottage in New Jersey when she was nine, though she claimed she did not learn to swim correctly until she mastered the crawl stroke that carried her across the English Channel. Tutored by the Women’s Swimming Association of New York, whose coach discovered her talent, she won her first swimming competition at fifteen. One year later she beat the men’s record for the classic 21mile race from Manhattan’s Battery to Sandy Hook in New Jersey. Between 1921 and 1925 she held twenty-nine amateur and world records in women’s freestyle

events, winning three medals at the 1924 Paris Olympic Games. Ederle’s first attempt to swim the channel in 1925 ended unsuccessfully. After nine hours her trainer, who claimed Ederle was too nauseated to continue, pulled her protesting from the water. A year later on August 6, 1926, Ederle returned to Cape Griz-Nez on the coast of France for her second attempt, this time with financial backing from Captain Peterson of the New York Times and Chicago Tribune. Wearing an outfit customized by her sister Margaret— red bathing cap, two-piece swimsuit, wraparound goggles—and slathered with lanolin and lard to protect against jellyfish and cold water, she battled the 21-mile crossing for fourteen hours, thirty-one minutes. High winds, driving rain, and shifting tides forced her to swim an arduous extra 14 miles. When her concerned father begged her to retreat into the accompanying boat,

EDERLE, GERTRUD

292

EGG HARBOR CITY, NEW JERSEY

she replied “what for?” and kept on swimming until she saw welcoming bonfires off the coast of England. A roaring crowd who had gathered to celebrate her accomplishment greeted her. Overnight, the newspapers would claim, she had become the most famous woman in the world. Ederle had shown it could be done, triumphing over the prevailing view that opposed competitive athletics for women due to their presumed physical inferiority. Eschewing the public spotlight, she traveled to Germany to visit her father’s relatives. While Ederle was there, another female swimmer accomplished the channel swim, thus diminishing the magnitude of Ederle’s achievement in the eyes of the media. Nonetheless, she returned home to a massive celebration, first in New York Harbor to the din of swooping airplanes and steamship sirens and then up Broadway to a ticker tape parade. At City Hall, the mayor compared her achievement to Moses crossing the Red Sea, Caesar crossing the Rubicon, and Washington crossing the Delaware. The media was not slow to size up the “Queen of the Waters” and “America’s best girl” as the ideal type of American womanhood while at the same time underscoring her sturdy German features and workingclass origins. A telegram from the United German Societies of Americans of German Descent proclaimed their pride that the first woman conqueror of the channel was a German American, a butcher’s daughter who grew up to be a Queen. Ederle’s ambition stopped short at the channel shore. Her potential professional career was badly mismanaged, and offers of lucrative theater and swimming engagements came to naught. A red roadster promised to her by her father was one of

the few tangible incentives she received for her swimming achievement. She was traumatized by her triumph and celebrity status and suffered a nervous breakdown at the age of twenty-one. She was also dogged by misfortune, injuring her back, which severely limited her mobility, and then becoming deaf, which she blamed for her growing shyness and lack of confidence. During World War II, Ederle became an instrument technician for American Overseas Airlines at La Guardia and later volunteered to teach deaf children to swim. Around the same time she was appointed to President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee on the Fitness of America’ s Youth and in 1965 was inducted into the International Swimming Hall of Fame. Her last public appearance was in 1976 on the fiftieth anniversary of her historic channel swim. She lived on until she was ninety-seven, living quietly in New York with two female companions and then at the Christian Health Care Center in New Jersey, where, confined to a wheelchair, she was surrounded by her trophies. Christiane Job and Patricia Vertinsky References and Further Reading Benjamin, Philip. “Then and Now: Gertrude Ederle, First Woman to Swim the English Channel Still Gets Fan Mail.” New York Times, August 6, 1961, 58. Gallico, Paul. “Gertrude Ederle.” The Golden People. New Jersey: Doubleday, 1965. Trumbull, Walter. “Queen of the Waters.” St. Nicholas 53 (October 1926): 1114.

EGG HARBOR CITY, NEW JERSEY Although never close to fulfilling the objectives of its founders in the 1850s that it become a German metropolis with a

EGG HARBOR CITY, NEW JERSEY

293

Nautical chart of Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey (1822). Egg Harbor City has the distinction of long being reputed the most German town in America. As late as 1900 virtually everyone in Egg Harbor spoke German. (New York Public Library)

world-class harbor, Egg Harbor City has the distinction of long being reputed the most German town in the United States. As late as 1900, virtually everyone in Egg Harbor spoke German. The proposals for this haven of Germandom were formulated in the wake of Know-Nothing Party nativist agitation, which included violence against German and other immigrants in mid-nineteenthcentury America. But altruistic concerns were intermingled with material objectives. A group of prominent Germans in Philadelphia, a center of nativist activity, served as architects of a grandiose plan for a large commercial and industrial center with a seaport and an agricultural hinterland in southern New Jersey. Crucial to these plans was the newly opened Camden and Atlantic Railroad between Philadelphia and the new resort of Atlantic City. Egg Harbor is about 30 miles southeast of

Philadelphia and would be a rail stop enroute to Atlantic City. Egg Harbor was designed to benefit the Camden and Atlantic by increasing its freight and passenger business. Some Philadelphia businesspeople of German descent were actively involved in both the rail line and the new “city.” Serious planning for what became Egg Harbor began in late 1854 with the founding in Philadelphia of a corporation, the Gloucester Farm and Town Association, which purchased some 38,000 acres of pine woods. The first settlers arrived within a year or so. The association issued stock, initially at $300 and later at $400 per share. Each share entitled the purchaser to a 20acre farm, as well as a town building lot. A town lot alone cost $78. The construction of public buildings, schools, parks, streets, and much more was promised. The association’s aggressive publicity campaign included extensive advertising in

294

EGG HARBOR CITY, NEW JERSEY

newspapers in many U.S. cities. A promotional pamphlet printed in German in 1859 by the association offers insights into a mentality shared by many nineteenthcentury German emigrants and prospective emigrants. The brochure enunciated the goals of the project: “A new German home in America. A refuge for all German countrymen who want to combine and enjoy American freedom with German Gemütlichkeit. . . . A place to develop German folk life, German arts and sciences, especially music” (Cunz 1956, 11). The actual development diverged greatly from the association’s promises. Egg Harbor succeeded as little as another product of Philadelphia Germans—Hermann, Missouri—founded two decades earlier. In 1860 the population of Egg Harbor stood at 789; by 1890 it had scarcely doubled. The planners had expected the town to spread northeastward to the Mullica River, which, it was assumed, would somehow be made navigable for large ships. But the “city” never grew to the river, and no port was constructed. The settlers’ dismay at the wilderness they encountered upon arrival led to the formation of an organization demanding that the board of directors in Philadelphia make good on the association’s promises. Unlike Hermann, Missouri, where an analogous struggle ended with the severance of all links between settlers and the sponsoring organization, the Philadelphia masters of Egg Harbor yielded some power by revising the constitution of the Gloucester Farm and Town Association to provide for representation of the actual settlers on the board. The town survived largely by cultivating grapes and making wine, for which it became widely known. Another major

source of employment was tailoring. Big city shops sent garments for finishing work. As in other German settlements, a myriad of musical groups, choirs, gymnastic societies, dramatic clubs, literary societies, and fraternal orders flourished. Like Hermann, Missouri, and Fredericksburg and New Braunfels, Texas, Egg Harbor provides an example of unfulfilled nineteenth-century German aspirations to create a new, better Germany in the United States. Although Egg Harbor never fulfilled its designers’ ambitious plans, it remained overwhelmingly German speaking until the twentieth century. A small influx of Italians, many of whom were attracted by the wine industry, provided some diversity without altering the basic character of the town. But as the twentieth century advanced, the town became Americanized in speech and culture. Beginning in 1916, the proceedings of the city council were recorded only in English, no longer in both English and German. The German Lutheran Church in Egg Harbor did not shift to keeping its records in English as well as German until 1932. By then, most of the several other churches in town had gone over to record keeping in English only. The loss in language was accompanied by modest growth in the number of residents. From 1,808 in 1900, the population stood at 4,546 in 2000. But the town has retained part of its heritage. Where else in the United States could one find street after street named for German composers, as well as many a street with an ancient Greek or Latin name? Walter Struve See also Fredericksburg, Texas; Hermann, Missouri; New Braunfels, Texas

EHRENREICH, PAUL MAX ALEXANDER References and Further Reading Bosse, Georg von. Ein Kampf um Glauben und Volkstum: Das Streben während meines 25 jährigen Amtslebens als deutschlutherischer Geistlicher in Amerika. Stuttgart: Chr. Belsersche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920. Breder, George F. Egg Harbor City: 1855–1905, Goldenes Jubiläum, Sept. 16–19. Egg Harbor City: Deutscher Herold, 1905. Cunz, Dieter. “Egg Harbor City: New Germany in New Jersey.” Society for the History of Germans in Maryland. Annual Report 29 (1956): 9–30.

EHRENREICH, PAUL MAX ALEXANDER b. December 12, 1855; Berlin, Prussia d. April 4, 1914; Berlin, Prussia German ethnographer and anthropologist who traveled extensively to Brazil and Argentina and conducted comparative research on Native American mythology. Paul Ehrenreich received his doctorate in medicine from the University of Berlin in 1880. Under the influence of Rudolf Virchow, he turned to the study of ethnology and anthropology. From 1884 to 1885 Ehrenreich toured Brazil for the first time and visited the Botokude in the two states, Espírito Santo and Minas Gerais. Based on his observations, Ehrenreich published Ein Beitrag zur Charakterisitk der botokudischen Sprache (A Contribution to the Characteristics of the Botokudian Language) in 1896. In addition, he was the first European to report about the delta region of the Rio Doce. From 1887 to 1888 he participated as an anthropologist and photographer in the second Xingú Expedition led by Karl von

295

den Steinen. This expedition brought him from Buenos Aires via Cuyabá to the native tribes of the Bakairi, Nahuquá, Mehinaku, Auití, Yaulapití, and Kamayurá. Ehrenreich collected about 1,235 artifacts from these tribes and donated this ethnographic collection to the Museum für Völkerkunde (Ethnological Museum) in Berlin. After a stay in Cuyabá during the rainy season, the expedition traveled to the Bororo, which had been forced to settle in a reserve. After the expedition was dissolved, Ehrenreich continued his research independently in the area of the Rio AraguayaTocantins and the Rio Purus. Further, he explored the eastern parts of the mountainous Matto Grosso. His journey led him from Cuyabá and Goiás to Leopoldina and via the Araguaya to Belém. He wrote about his encounters on this trip in his Südamerikanische Stromfahrten (South American River Voyages, 1892). Ehrenreich drastically corrected topographic knowledge about South America and presented his results in a chart on a scale of 1 to 1 million (1892). He carried out ethnological and linguistic studies with the Karayá and published the results in Beiträge zur Völkerkunde Brasiliens (Contributions to the Ethnology of Brazil, 1891) and Anthropologische Studien über die Urbewohner Brasiliens, vornehmlich der Staaten Matto Grosso, Goyaz und Amazonas (Purus Gebiet) (Anthropological Studies about the Native Population of Brazil, Especially of the People in the Provinces of Matto Grosso, Goyaz, and Amazonas [Purus region], 1897). After his return, he received a second doctorate (DPhil) from the University of Leipzig in 1895. In 1911 he received a professorship of ethnology at the University of Berlin. Further exploration voyages

296

EICHMANN, KARL ADOLF

led him to India, East Asia (1892–1893), and North America (1898 and 1906). During the later trips, Ehrenreich compared his findings in Brazil with the new findings in North America and published his book Die Mythen und Legenden der südamerikanischen Urvölker und ihre Beziehungen zu denen Nordamerikas und der alten Welt (The Myths and Legends of South American Native People in Their Relation to Those of North America and the Old World, 1905). In his later years he devoted himself mainly to the study of mythology, publishing Die allgemeine Mythologie und ihre ethnologischen Grundlagen (The General Mythology and Its Ethnological bases, 1914) and his Die Sonne im Mythos (The Sun in Mythology, 1915). Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Argentina; Brazil; Steinen, Karl von den References and Further Reading Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983, 2:158–159. Zerries, Otto. “Ehrenreich, Paul Max Alexander.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1959, 4:354.

EICHMANN, KARL ADOLF b. March 19, 1906; Solingen, Prussia d. May 31, 1962; Ramleh, Israel German Schutzstaffel (SS) lieutenantcolonel in charge of the Gestapo Section IV B4 for Jewish Affairs who implemented and administered the operational apparatus behind the deportation and deaths of Jews to extermination camps in the sixteen German-occupied territories during World

War II. After the war, Adolf Eichmann escaped to Argentina, where he lived peacefully and undiscovered for about ten years before he was captured by MOSSAD and tried in Israel. Eichmann’s Protestant middle-class parents relocated from Solingen to Linz, Austria, upon the death of his mother. He failed to complete his engineering degree, but his studies taught him to be particularly meticulous in his endeavors. He began his working life as a laborer and salesman. He worked for the U.S.-based Vacuum Oil Company from 1927 to 1933. He found his true vocation when he joined the Austrian army and the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) in 1932; he served as a Schutzstaffel (SS) corporal at Dachau concentration camp in 1934. Thereafter he joined the Security Service (SD) where his performance in devising a solution to the “Jewish problem” garnered attention from his superiors, Heinrich Himmler and Richard Heydrich. To better understand his prey, Eichmann undertook an in-depth self-study course of Jewish history, faith, and culture; Zionism; and the Hebrew and Yiddish languages. By 1938 Eichmann was ordered to Vienna, where he established the Central Office of Jewish Emigration with the aim of addressing the “Jewish problem.” In exchange for an exit visa, Jews met with forced emigration, extortion, and bribery. As the Reich’s expert on Jews, Eichmann became director of the Gestapo Section IV B4 of the Security Office (RHSA), making him solely responsible for the Department of Jewish Affairs and evacuation. From this position, Eichmann implemented the Final Solution (Endlösung), based on directions

82ND ILLINOIS VOLUNTEER INFANTRY REGIMENT

from the Wannsee Conference of January 20, 1942, that he had helped to organize. Before Eichmann’s elevation to director, Jews were shot and buried in common graves that caused seepage and proved unsanitary. To spare his SS troops this inhumane sight, he turned to using gas; first in mobile van units and later in concentration camps. He introduced Zyklon B, which was far less costly than one bullet per Jew. Victims were gassed in supposed shower rooms, and their bodies were then incinerated in camp ovens. Eichmann was a zealot in this job; he complained about unmet death camp quotas. He reported to Himmler that some 6 million Jews had met their deaths under his supervision. After the collapse of the Third Reich, U.S. troops captured Eichmann near Ulm on May 7, 1945, wearing the uniform of a Luftwaffe airman second class and carrying the identity of Adolf Karl Barth. He fled the camp, knowing very well that he would be discovered sooner rather than later. In August 1945 the Americans captured Eichmann again and confined him to Oberdachstetten camp. The Americans still had no knowledge of whom they held in custody because he was using the alias of SS Lieutenant Otto Eckmann, 22nd Calvary Division. On January 5, 1946, Eichmann escaped with forged identification under the name Otto Neninger. He then went underground. In 1950, Eichmann reached Austria and then Italy, where he received a refugee passport as Ricardo Klement, posing as a German national from Bolzano, Italy. Eichmann obtained an Argentine visa and moved there in 1950; his family arrived later. On May 2, 1960, Israeli secret service agents found Eichmann living on

297

Garibaldi Street in Buenos Aires. The spectacular kidnapping of Eichmann and his secret abduction to Israel engendered considerable global interest. Eichmann was charged with crimes against humanity and stood trial from April 2 to August 14, 1961. He was found guilty on December 2, 1961, and hanged in Ramleh prison on May 31, 1962. Annette Richardson See also Argentina; Latin America, Nazis in References and Further Reading Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalam: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin Books, 1994. Harel, Isser. The House on Garibaldi Street: The Capture of Adolf Eichmann. London: Deutsch, 1975. Loziwick, Yaacov. Hitler’s Bureaucrats; The Nazi Security Police and the Banality of Evil. London: Continuum, 2002. Reynolds, Quentin J. Minister of Death: The Adolf Eichmann Story. London: Cassell, 1961. Russell of Liverpool, Edward. The Record: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann for his Crimes against the Jewish People and against Humanity. London: Heinemann, 1962.

82ND ILLINOIS VOLUNTEER INFANTRY REGIMENT The 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment fought for the Union during the American Civil War and included numerous German volunteers. The men who joined the regiment chose to become members and were not forced to join because of any federal government conscription requirements. The regiment was created at Camp Butler, Springfield, Illinois, on September 26, 1862, and was mustered into service a month later. The 82nd started that autumn with nearly 1,000

298

82ND ILLINOIS VOLUNTEER INFANTRY REGIMENT

men, the usual regimental strength, and would end the war with barely 300 soldiers three years later. The regiment was divided into eleven companies, A through K, with Company C being composed entirely of German Jews. More than twothirds of the men were German immigrants living in the Chicago area, with a significant number of recruits residing in the Belleville area of southern Illinois. Two prominent German soldiers, Friedrich Hecker and Edward S. Salomon, created and commanded the regiment throughout the war. The 82nd fought in both the eastern and western theaters of the Civil War, participating in the battles of Chancellorville, Gettysburg, Mission Ridge, and Atlanta; Sherman’s March to the Sea; and the campaign of the Carolinas. By war’s end in 1865, the recent German immigrants were recognized as soldiers who had fought with great pride and distinction. The German volunteers in the 82nd Illinois differed socially and economically from one another. German immigrants from the predominantly agricultural regions of their homeland settled in southern Illinois because of the favorable farming conditions there. Farmers who did not have the ability to purchase land in a German province found that elusive opportunity in Belleville, Illinois. Skilled and semiskilled German laborers, however, were more likely to settle in Chicago, where their previous work experience could develop into economic opportunities. They became the dominant ethnic group in the manufacturing and mechanical industries. Upward social and economic mobility was easier in the Midwest than it was on the East Coast of the United States during the 1840s and 1850s. As a result, German immigrants

found it easier to integrate themselves into American culture in the Midwest. Regardless of their economic and social standing, the Germans volunteered to join the 82nd Illinois for numerous reasons: to protect northern Republican Party ideas under attack by the South, to raise their status both politically and socially in the community, to have an adventure, and to make money. Additionally, many recruits joined the regiment out of the simple pride of being patriotic Americans, even if they were recent immigrants. Their newfound country had provided them with the opportunity to reach many of their dreams and goals, and the Civil War allowed them to repay that debt. Ethnic pride entered into the recruitment equation as well. In Chicago, the Germans disliked the Irish and wanted to make sure their enlistment numbers were higher than those of the Irish. Their neighborhoods faced stigmatization by the city if enough men did not enlist in the recruitment quotas. Moreover, a draftee was not entitled to any of the volunteer recruitment bonuses that were common at the time. Colonel Friedrich Hecker and Lieutenant Colonel Edward S. Salomon were responsible for helping to create and organize the 82nd Illinois in 1862. Before the Civil War, Colonel Hecker lived in Belleville, Illinois, and Lieutenant Colonel Salomon resided in Chicago. The two Germans had previously served together in the 24th Illinois Regiment. Germans throughout Chicago and southern Illinois quickly filled the enlistment quotas when they learned who was in charge of the 82nd Illinois Regiment. Salomon was responsible for helping to create an entire company exclusively of German Jews, which would be

82ND ILLINOIS VOLUNTEER INFANTRY REGIMENT

nicknamed the Concordia Guards after the recruitment hall. Finally, on September 26, 1862, the 82nd Illinois was formally created at Camp Butler, Illinois, and integrated into the Union army on October 23. In December 1862, the 82nd Illinois was attached to the First Brigade, Third Division, 11 Corps of the Army of the Potomac under the command of their fellow Germans, Generals Alexander Schimmelpfennig and Carl Schurz. The early months of 1863 witnessed the 82nd Illinois’s participation in what was known as the “Mud Campaign”—a series of movements throughout Virginia that eventually brought them to Chancellorsville. The Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863 was a terrible defeat for the Army of the Potomac. The men of the 82nd Illinois, however, performed bravely during the attack upon them by Confederate general Stonewall Jackson. They were able to keep the Confederate forces in check as the Union army retreated. The 82nd paid a high cost in defending the retreating Union troops—Colonel Hecker was wounded while attempting to rally his men, and 156 men were counted as casualties. Two months later, the 82nd Illinois was again in the middle of an historic battle. The Battle of Gettysburg, from July 1 through July 3, 1863, allowed the Union army to regain the pride it had lost at Chancellorsville. The first day of battle quickly turned against the Union army north of the town, forcing them to retreat through the town and rally their forces on Cemetery Hill. Colonel Hecker was still recovering from his wounds at Chancellorsville, which presented Lieutenant Colonel Salomon with the opportunity to lead the 82nd. Under his command, the

299

82nd provided protection for the Union artillery batteries on the plains north of town, covered Union regiments retreating through Gettysburg, and positioned themselves facing Confederate troops on Cemetery Hill. The second day brought little relief for the 82nd. The regiment confronted a group of Confederate sharpshooters on the outskirts of town and participated in the twilight battle to protect neighboring Culp’s Hill. The third day of the battle occurred south of the 82nd Illinois’s position, allowing the men to only witness the Confederate charge against the well-entrenched Union line. The resounding defeat of the Confederates forced them to forget their plans of invading the North and made them retreat back into Virginia. The 82nd continued its pursuit of the Confederate forces until the fall, when it was transferred with the 11 Corps out west. Throughout October and November 1863, the 82nd faced off against Confederate generals Longstreet and Bragg in Tennessee, participating in the Battle of Mission Ridge. In December, the regiment was encamped in Lookout Valley and a month later reorganized into the new 20th Corps, part of the Army of the Cumberland. Hecker, who was now a general, resigned in March 1864, transferring command of the regiment to Salomon. From May until July, the 82nd worked its way through the South toward Atlanta, Georgia, contributing in the siege of the Confederate stronghold for the rest of the summer. On September 2, Atlanta fell to the Union forces, and within days the 82nd was part of the occupation force assigned to guard Confederate prisoners, defend the city, and partake in the supply foraging expeditions. The men’s stay in Atlanta lasted until the

300

EINHORN, DAVID

middle of November 1864, when they became the rear guard for General William Sherman’s March to the Sea. Within a month, the 82nd had reached the defenses of Savannah, Georgia. The 82nd continued its sweep through the Deep South, conducting operations through the Carolinas during the early months of 1865. Finally, on April 16, the men learned that the Confederates had surrendered and that the war was over. They made their way to Washington, D.C., to join in the victory festivities and participate in the Army’s Grand Review. Marc Dluger See also Chicago; Hecker, Friedrich; Salomon, Edward S.; Schimmelpfennig, Alexander; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Andreas, Alfred Theodore. History of Chicago. Vol. 2. New York: Arno Press, 1975. Keil, Hartmut, and John B. Jentz, eds. German Workers in Industrial Chicago, 1850– 1910: A Comparative Perspective. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1983. Meites, Hyman L. History of the Jews of Chicago. Chicago: Chicago Jewish Historical Society, Wellington, 1990. Pierce, Bessie Louise. History of Chicago: From Town to City, 1848–1871. Vol. 2. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1940. Tortorelli, Susan. “82nd Illinois Infantry Regiment History: Adjutant General’s Report.” http://www.rootsweb.com /~ilcivilw/history/082.htm (cited October 9, 2002).

EINHORN, DAVID b. November 10, 1809; Dispeck, Bavaria d. November 2, 1879; New York, New York German American Reform rabbi and editor of the Sinai.

David Einhorn received his rabbinical training at a traditional yeshivah in Fürth, where he earned an official rabbinical diploma. He also received a secular education and studied philosophy at the universities of Erlangen, Würzburg, and Munich. Introduced to the methods of critical enquiry and Wissenschaft (science) in the philosophy of religion, he moved away from Jewish orthodoxy and was rejected from the rabbinate by both religious and secular authorities in Bavaria. In 1842 he was hired as a rabbi in Birkenfeld, in the grand duchy of Oldenbourg. Five years later he succeeded Samuel Holdheim, a radical supporter of the German Reform movement, as chief rabbi in Mecklenburg-Schwerin. For a few months he served as rabbi of a radical Reform congregation in the city of Pest, Hungary, until that congregation was closed down by the government. For Einhorn, Judaism could never be static but was constantly adapting to the challenges of the times and demonstrated the capacity for continuous development. He stressed what he called the “essence of Judaism”—the spirit of pure humanity— which he regarded to be older than Jewish nationhood. Therefore, he concluded, Judaism had from its beginning commanded its followers to overcome its national exclusiveness and serve as an ethical example for humankind. Left without opportunities in Europe, Einhorn left for the United States with his wife and two daughters in 1855, having been invited by Har Sinai congregation of Baltimore, Maryland, the country’s first Reform congregation, to serve as their rabbi. His arrival coincided with the Cleveland Conference, a rabbinical meeting in

EINHORN, DAVID

1855, organized by Isaac M. Wise and Isaac Leeser, who sought a religious platform for national unity in American Judaism. Having suffered from the influence of established religious authority, which prevented changes in Judaism, and having failed to secure the development of Jewish Reform thought because the all-embracing communal structures in Europe (jüdische Einheitsgemeinde) thwarted religious compromise on the congregational level, Einhorn instantly understood that American religious structures would provide an unique environment where a modern Judaism could flourish. Thus, here he fiercely opposed the attempt at a national religious union and the establishment of a “synod.” He cherished the individualism of the American congregation and believed that only in this climate of religious liberty could Reform Judaism develop fully according to its principles. Critical to America’s scholarly potential, Einhorn sought to maintain a close intellectual relationship to German Jewish thinkers, such as Abraham Geiger and Samuel Holdheim, which he considered essential to the maintenance of theological and philosophical Reform principle. In 1856 he founded the monthly periodical Sinai (1856–1862) to disseminate his thoughts in the United States and published his prayer book, Olat Tamid. An uncompromising champion of abolition, Einhorn was forced to flee from Baltimore in 1861. He settled in Philadelphia and served as the rabbi of the congregation Kenesseth Israel. In 1866 he moved to New York City to lead the congregation Adath Israel, later Temple Beth El. At the Philadelphia Rabbinical Conference in 1869, Einhorn stressed the messianic nature of American Reform Judaism. By dominating the

301

conference, Einhorn made a future union of American Jews on theological grounds, as envisioned by Wise, impossible. His thinking gained greater influence after his death through his sons-in-law, Kaufmann Kohler and Emil Hirsch, who were married to Johanna Einhorn Kohler and Mathilde Einhorn Hirsch, respectively. These two men shaped the American Reform movement theologically from the “Pittsburgh Platform” (1885), a rabbinical conference that took place in Pittsburgh. Its results served as a basis for what used to be referred to as “Classical Reform.” Classical Reform stressed Reform principle (Judaism’s basis as spirit, not law, so that continuous religious progress could be achieved) over communal unity. In Pittsburgh, Reform Jews defined themselves as a community of belief. It gave up the idea of Jewish nationhood and instead stressed Jewish identity as American Jews. The Pittsburgh Platform called for a “living Judaism,” which was reflected in active social service. This interpretation opened a mutual interest with American groups in the dominating social gospel movement. Finally, the conference decided to use Einhorn’s prayer book Olat Tamid as a model for the Union Prayer Book of the American Reform movement and thus secured Einhorn’s lasting influence on the American Reform movement in Judaism. Cornelia Wilhelm See also Judaism, Reform (North America); Kohler, Kaufmann; Wise, Isaac Mayer References and Further Reading Friedland, Eric L. “‘Olath Tamid’ by David Einhorn.” HUCA 45 (1974): 307–332. Greenberg, Gershon. “The Messianic Foundations of American Jewish Thought; David Einhorn and Samuel Hirsch.” WCJS (1975): 215–226.

302

EINSTEIN, ALBERT Kohler, Kaufmann, ed. David Einhorn, Memorial Volume: Selected Sermons and Addresses. New York: Bloch, 1911. Meyer, Michael A. Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1990.

EINSTEIN, ALBERT b. March 14, 1879; Ulm,Württemberg d. April 18, 1955; Princeton, New Jersey The most eminent physicist of the twentieth century of German Jewish background, Albert Einstein emigrated to the United States in 1933. He revolutionized physicists’ understanding of space and time with his special theory of relativity (1905) and general theory of relativity (1915). His light quantum hypothesis (1905) contributed largely to the establishment of quantum physics and revolutionized the wave and particle theory of classical physics. After conflicts with the authoritarian German school system, Einstein left Germany for Italy at age fifteen and in 1895 he went on to Switzerland, where in 1896, he finished school in Aarau, Switzerland, and entered the Technical University of Switzerland (ETH) in Zurich to study physics and mathematics. Upon graduation in 1900, Einstein failed to secure an academic career. He worked instead as a substitute teacher. From 1902 to 1909, he was employed as an evaluator for the Patent Office of the Swiss government in Bern. During these years, Einstein defended his first and second doctoral (Habilitation) dissertations, in 1905 and 1909, respectively. In 1905 he published three ground-breaking papers on the lightquantum hypothesis, the Brownian mo-

tion, and electrodynamics. These publications paved the way for his academic career. In 1909, Einstein was appointed extraordinary professor of theoretical physics at the University of Zurich. In 1911, he accepted a full professorship at the German University of Prague. From 1912 to 1914, Einstein taught at the ETH. Invited by leading German physicists in Berlin, he moved there in 1914. In Berlin, Einstein became a full member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences and was made director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics in 1917, which freed him from teaching obligations. The Berlin years were the peak of Einstein’s scientific and social recognition. However, he also became the target of political and antisemitic attacks by German right-wing and racist politicians. When Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor in January 1933, Einstein, who was giving guest lectures in the United States, decided not to return to Germany. Opposing the new political system, Einstein cancelled his membership in the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Until his death, he remained in the United States and worked as a fellow at the newly founded Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. After a British solar eclipse expedition in Africa confirmed essential parts of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, he quickly became world famous and also attracted the attention of scholars on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Yet, his first trip to the United States was connected not to his scientific achievements but to the Zionist cause. In 1921, Einstein traveled with Chaim Weizmann to the United States to collect donations for the Zionist movement and for the founding of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. During this visit, he received his first honorary doctorate

EINSTEIN, ALBERT

303

Albert Einstein receives from Judge Phillip Forman his certificate of American citizenship, October 1, 1940. (Library of Congress)

from Princeton University. He also met influential American scholars such as Robert Andrew Millikan, the most important U.S. physicist at that time. It was Millikan who invited Einstein at the beginning of the 1930s for several research stays at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena (Cal Tech). Although he held the scholarly climate in Berlin in high esteem, Einstein had thought about leaving Germany since the beginning of the 1920s. The political climate of the Weimar Republic, right-wing trends, and increasing antisemitism were responsible for his growing alienation from German society. In the summer of 1932, he had readily agreed to accept an appointment at the Institute for Advanced Study in

Princeton. The industrialist Abraham Flexner had founded the institute to give scientists the opportunity to pursue research projects without teaching obligations. This appointment allowed Einstein to keep his position in Berlin and spend the winter semester at Princeton Institute. When the Nazis seized power, Einstein was in Pasadena working at Cal Tech. He immediately denounced the new political system and pointed out the persecution of Jews and of political dissenters in his home country. In his resignation letter to the Prussian Academy of Sciences (April 5, 1933), Einstein wrote that he would not live in a country where citizens could not enjoy equality in the face of the law, nor freedom of opinion and teaching. Einstein was one of the

304

EINSTEIN, ALBERT

very few German scholars who immediately attacked the Nazi dictatorship. After a short stay in Europe, Einstein returned to the United States in the fall of 1933. From his exile in the United States, Einstein continuously criticized the political terror and antisemitic propaganda of the Nazi system. He used his position as a recognized scientist to help persecuted and exiled colleagues. During World War II, Einstein also served as a scientific adviser to the U.S. Navy. In 1939 he supported the initiative of Leo Szilard and Eugen Wigner, two émigrés from Berlin, to inform President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the possibility that Nazi Germany could develop an atomic bomb and to suggest that Americans should begin a similar project. Einstein was not involved in the Manhattan Project partly because of his lack of expertise in nuclear physics and partly because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) felt that he might be politically unreliable. It concluded its investigation of Einstein in the summer of 1940 with this evaluation: “In view of his political background, this office would not recommend the employment of Dr. Einstein on matters of a secret nature, without a very careful investigation, as it seems unlikely that a man of his background could, in such a short time, become a loyal American citizen” (Jerome 2002, 39). The FBI was suspicious of his German past since “in Berlin, even in the political free and easy period of 1923 to 1929, the Einstein home was known as a Communist center clearing house. Mrs. and Miss Einstein were always prominent at all extreme radical meetings and demonstrations.” These baseless accusations were not new to Einstein. The political police in Germany and the right-wing

press had come to the same ridiculous conclusion during the 1920s. Freedom and civil liberty were central to Einstein’s political convictions. He not only attacked Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia for their annihilationary policies, he also criticized the state of civil liberties in the United States. The McCarthy era reminded Einstein of the right-wing extremism of the 1920s. His support of the civil rights movement in the United States made him a hero in liberal circles and a villain to conservative, right-wing politicians. Some of the latter even wanted to take away his U.S. citizenship and throw him out of the country since he did not hide his left-leaning, humanistic opinions. For instance, in the 1930s, he took the side of the Popular Front government of Spain and supported the “Friends of the Lincoln Brigade,” who fought in the Spanish Civil War against Francisco Franco. His uncompromising anti-Nazism and support for any anti-Fascist organization, including Communist and pro-Soviet groups, did not make him many friends within the American establishment. Einstein met public resentment when he aligned with the civil rights movement and engaged together with the singer Paul Robeson and the ethnologist William du Bois in the antilynching movement. All these activities made Einstein a political outsider who became the target of Secret Service investigations at the beginning of the 1950s. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Einstein demanded a ban on nuclear weapons. He favored the creation of a world government that would find peaceful solutions to conflicts between nations and states. He became one of the most vocal critiques of the ensuing cold war and was one of the authors of the Russel-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA

Einstein-Manifesto that became the basis for the Pugwash movement, a movement that since 1957 brought together scientists from different countries and political backgrounds to discuss the dangers of nuclear weapons, general disarmament, and world security. However, the FBI was less concerned with Einstein’s position on international problems and more with his statements concerning domestic policy. Einstein criticized the judicial system, which was based on the idea of equality but sometimes failed to meet that ideal. Racism was the “worst American disease” to him. In particular, he criticized the activities of Senator Joseph McCarthy and branded his investigations as a modern-style Inquisition. The FBI considered Einstein a danger since his prominence could compel other Americans to follow his example and to speak out against the injustices of American society. J. Edgar Hoover was personally involved in the attempt to prove Einstein’s Communist leanings. He considered him to be the lynchpin of a supposedly Communist spy network that he wanted to uncover. In the end, it was his prominence and the lack of conclusive evidence that saved Einstein from becoming another victim of McCarthyism. Dieter Hoffmann See also U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange; Wigner, Eugen(e) Paul References and Further Reading Fölsing, Albrecht. Albert Einstein: A Biography. New York: Viking, 1997. Jerome, Fred. The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War against the World’s Most Famous Scientist. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2002. Pais, Abraham. “Subtle Is the Lord”: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982. Sayen, Jamie. Einstein in America: The Scientist’s Conscience in the Age of Hitler and Hiroshima. New York: Crown, 1985.

305

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA The first modern encyclopedia designed and published in the United States according to international standards established in Europe in the first quarter of the nineteenth century was the work of the German American Francis (Franz) Lieber (1798 or 1800 to 1872), an eminent jurist, political scientist, and polymath. With its thirteen volumes, the Encyclopaedia Americana, Popular Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature, History, Politics and Biography, Brought down to the Present Time; Including a Copious Collection of Original Articles in American Biography; on the Basis of the Seventh Edition of the German ConversationsLexicon, was published in Philadelphia from 1829 to 1833 and became an instant success with the American reading public, notably among the professional class. During the following decades, the Encyclopaedia Americana was published in numerous editions in different places by different pubishers and was widely used in all parts of the country until the time of the Civil War. Its significance is twofold. First of all, it represents the successful transfer and adaptation of the German type of encyclopedia, namely Brockhaus’s twelve-volume Allgemeine deutsche Real-Encyclopaedie für die gebildeten Stände or ConversationsLexikon (Universal German Encyclopedia for the Educated Classes, 1827–1829), to the needs and circumstances of the United States, and in the process it evolved into a truly American reference work. At the same time, it functioned over many decades as a widely accepted source of information, not only about things American but also about the history and culture of the principal European nations of England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, and Spain.

306

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA

Lieber had derived the rationale for his enterprise from “the wants of the age,” which he saw as not confined to the new American republic but as a common trait of all modern Western nations. The speed with which political changes now took place; the accelerating pace of scientific discoveries, where “science gathers contributions from every quarter of the globe ” (vol. 1:iv); and the increasing facility of communication among nations with the rapid spread of information had enormously enlarged the field of civilization and therefore required a new type of work that would furnish the general reader with all the information necessary to keep abreast of these developments. The Brockhaus Reallexikon (encyclopedia) had successfully filled that need in Germany and other European countries (it was translated into Danish, Dutch, Swedish, and French). Now Lieber wanted to create a “repository of knowledge” relating to the United States and to all branches of knowledge that could be of value to an English and American readership and include “all subjects of general interest on the continent of Europe” (vol. 1:v). The Encyclopaedia Americana was thus explicitly designed by Lieber to venture beyond the traditional historical and cultural reach of the English encyclopedias that had been in use in the United States until the early 1800s. Lieber’s plan for such a work won immediate approval and strong support among the New England intelligentsia, notably from the group of recent graduates of the University of Göttingen in Germany, who shared and expressed a view of a future American national culture independent from that of Great Britain and in whose plans the adaptation and utilization of German cultural ideas and achievements

played a vital part. They included George Bancroft; Edward Everett, professor of Classics at Harvard and subsequently its president; and George Ticknor, the first professor of Romance Languages and Literatures at Harvard. In Göttingen they had been students of the new historical and philological disciplines for which the university was famous and had absorbed the Herderian notions of nationhood and national culture upon which these disciplines had been erected. Upon their return to the United States, they used these new ideas to construct their own notion of an American national culture. They found their mouthpiece when Everett assumed the editorship of the prestigious North American Review. An essential part of their program was the attempt to enlarge the American cultural horizon beyond the one they had inherited from their former colonial masters. The journal published important articles by Bancroft, Alexander, and Edward Everett, which introduced the American public to major German authors such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, and Johann Gottfried Herder. Lieber, who had made contact with the group upon his arrival in Boston in 1827, shortly saw himself play the double role of mediator of German culture in this country and participant in the new American nationalist movement whose cultural and political ideals he shared. Supplied with strong letters of support from the Göttingen alumni, he convinced Mathew Carey, of Carey, Lea, and Carey of Philadelphia, arguably the most prominent publishing house in the country at the time, to accept his proposal for an American encyclopedia and sign a contract with him. Setting up shop in Boston with Carey’s support, he hired an assistant editor

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA

(E.Wigglesworth), and went about his task employing up to a dozen translators at a time. Yet to make the work truly an American encyclopedia required the removal of hundreds of articles from the original Brockhaus encyclopedia, the rewriting of hundreds more, and the creation of an equal number of new entries. He succeeded in securing American contributors who were experts in their respective fields, the most prominent among them Joseph Storey, associate justice at the Supreme Court, who contributed over 120 pages on American legal topics. Also in need of treatment were the topics of Native American languages and American history, biography, economy, geography, mineralogy, and flora and fauna. Robert Walsh, editor of the American Quarterly, agreed to write the biographies of prominent Americans; Moses Stuart, theology professor at Andover and an expert on German biblical hermeneutics, wrote and/or translated many of the articles on religious topics; Edward Everett was responsible for the Greek and Roman classics; and George Ticknor covered modern European letters and literatures, in particular those of Italy and Spain. John Pickering of Salem, Massachusetts, who, together with Peter S. Duponceau, president of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia (also a contributor), belongs among the founders of American linguistics, was commissioned to write a lengthy article on the North American Indian languages. To inform the American public about the forthcoming work, Lieber in 1828 had an eight-page prospectus inserted in the North American Review. In 1829 the first volume appeared, and by 1830 volume 5 had been published, but the final volume (13) was not published until 1833 because the task had

307

proven more demanding and complicated than the editor had first anticipated. Writing to his German correspondent Wilhelm von Humboldt, who belonged to the European network of friends and informants with whom he had stayed in contact after his arrival in this country (Wilhelm and his brother Alexander both were accorded entries in the encyclopedia), Lieber likened the Encyclopaedia Americana project to a jealous mistress who mercilessly claimed his time. In order to bring the work up to date on the latest political developments, as promised in the title, Lieber felt obliged to write extensive accounts of the Greek Revolutionary War, the July Revolution of 1830 in France, the establishment of the Kingdom of Belgium in 1831, and the English Reform Act of 1832. Upon completion, the shape of the work was determined as much by the standards required for the modern encyclopedia as by the editor’s decisions on what to include and exclude; his choice of contributors; and his educational background, intellectual culture, historical understanding, and philosophical and political beliefs and opinions. Although the work, in order to represent the political map of the time, contains articles on most European nations, their respective treatments differ noticeably in type and density of information offered. “Germany,” with nearly 34 pages, would seem to surpass “Great Britain,” with a mere 26 pages, were it not for an additional 6.5-page entry “England” (with an entry on the English language) and another 5.5 pages on “Scotland.” Belgium, mentioned only briefly in volume 1 (the country did not exist yet in 1829), was given a 15-page treatment in the appendix to volume 13. Poland, although not an independent state, received an entry of over 10

308

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA

pages because, Lieber argued, it possessed a clear ethnic, cultural, and linguistic identity. The entry “Prussia,” in contrast, consists of only 7.5 pages and includes critical comments on the heterogeneous nature of the Prussian state. “Russia” has 33 pages, against “Spain” with 24 and “Portugal” with about 17, whereas “Italy” takes up nearly 45 pages. However, the lengthiest treatment—over 100 pages—was given to “France.” Its extraordinary length (including several appendices) was not due to a predilection of Lieber for France or French civilization, but resulted from his view of the current state of affairs in Europe as the consequence of the French Revolution and its aftermath: the rise of Napoleon, his conquest of Europe and eventual defeat, the order imposed at the Congress of Vienna with its restoration of the monarchical system on the continent, the opposition it encountered in various countries, and the developments in France that led to the July Revolution of 1830. The latter was seen by Lieber as an encouraging sign that other countries, in particular Germany, might follow suit and move toward a democratic and representative form of government. The developments in France were therefore depicted within the larger European context, and much of the lengthy account devoted to them read more like a history of modern Europe than French history. Not surprisingly, Lieber used these articles in a separate publication. Yet upon closer examination, the apparent preponderance of France over the rest of the European nations dissipates, and a persistent German presence emerges. The very structure and organization of the work in fact displayes its German descent. Besides the entry “Germany,” we find a veritable plethora of different articles dealing

with German literature, philosophy, theology, science, scholarship, music, and painting that convey mostly state-of-the-art information and open new vistas that had not been available in the country until then. In addition, many articles pertaining to topics such as Greek and Roman civilization or the entries on general literary topics, such as the ballad, the drama, the epic, the concept “romantic,” and the substantial article on literary history—areas in which the Germans had taken the lead— relied heavily on German scholarship. Often, German scholars and critics, like August Wilhelm and Friedrich Schlegel, are quoted verbatim. The same holds true for the articles on Homer and the English poet William Shakespeare. The list of German authors represents a substantial enlargement of the literary horizon of the New England Göttingen alumni, whose interest was focused on classical authors like Herder, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Goethe, and Schiller. Now for the first time information was made available on the mainstream of writers that make up the literary history of Germany. Thus new names were added to the canon that had been established by Madame de Staël in her influential book De L’Allmagne (Germany, 1813; Amer. ed., 1814). Besides entries on authors such as Clemens Brentano, Gottfried August Bürger, Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg, Salomon Gessner, Johann Wilhelm Gleim, Johann Christoph Gottsched, Friedrich von Hagedorn, Albrecht von Haller, Friedrich Maximilian Klinger, Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Lessing, Martin Opitz, Jean Paul Richter, Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg), Ludwig Tieck, on the medieval Nibelungen poem and, of course, Goethe and Schiller, we encounter names not mentioned by de

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA

Staël, such as Ernst Moritz Arndt, Simon Dach, Paul Fleming, Christian Fürchtegott Gellert, Paul Gerhardt, Andreas Gryphius, E. T. A. Hoffmann, Ludwig Christoph Hölty, or Johann Anton Leisewitz. Throughout, entries are organized around the biographical data for each figure; their important works are given with a few descriptive and (or) evaluating comments, mostly from a moralizing, liberal, political point of view. Thus Arndt is praised for having contributed to the liberation of Germany from Napoleonic rule “by his bold and patriotic writings” (vol. 1:386), and Novalis’s Hymns to the Night we are informed “have the greatest merit,” though we are not told why. About Klopstock we learn that as a lyric poet, he belonged among the most successful of any age, so that “he may well be called the Pindar of modern poetry” (vol. 7:377). The treatment of Germanys philosophy and theology, though uneven in its coverage, proved to be more consequential than that of its literature. It raised issues and evoked ideas that preoccupied the minds of the New England intelligentsia at the time, providing them with strong indicators for the making of a new philosophical outlook beyond traditional empiricism or Calvinism that would be articulated by the Transcendentalists (Ralph Waldo Emerson and Theodore Parker) during the following years and decades. Among the articles on German philosophers, those on Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Immanuel Kant are the longest. The entries on the idealists Joahnn Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling contain no more than biographical and scant bibliographical data and generalizations, though some of Schelling’s main ideas are discussed in an

309

article on the German philosophy of nature. Fichte is praised chiefly for his patriotism and ethical stance. Schelling and Hegel were still alive at the time, as was Goethe. The entry on Leibniz, “one of the most celebrated scholars and philosophers Germany has ever produced” (vol. 7:490), by contrast, discusses the details of his life and his achievements in various fields, from mathematics, logic, and physics to metaphysics. Here the emphasis is placed on his rationalist, antiempiricist stance, notably his doctrine of innate necessary truths. In his article on Kant, Lieber uses formulations that evoked this Leibnizian doctrine when he describes key notions in that thinker’s Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason). He employes expressions first introduced by de Staël to account for Kant’s position at a time when no English or French translations were yet available. Formulations much like these by Lieber later entered into the core writings of the American Transcendentalists: Kant having discovered “the fundamental laws of the mind,” ascertained the “exact number of these original or transcendental ideas or, imperative forms.” These we do not derive from experience, but rather “we acquire experience” by them. Of the mind’s three departments, the senses are “passive,” whereas the understanding displays “spontaneous activity,” yet reason shows “the highest degree of mental spontaneity” (vol. 7:305–306). Remarkably, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, “a distinguished German philosopher,” receives more attention than any of the idealist thinkers or Lieber’s former teacher, Jakob Friedrich Fries. On account of the “religious glow “ of his metaphysical writings, Jacobi has been called “the German Plato,” and Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher is lauded for having

310

ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA

“done much for the intellectual and religious advancement of his countrymen.” Georg Christoph Lichtenberg is described as “the greatest natural philosopher, and wittiest writer Germany has produced.” But these men are surpassed by Herder, to whom “Germany is deeply indebted in almost every branch of literature” (i.e., in theology, philosophy, literature, and history) and “who brought before the public the poetry of past times of Europe and Asia” (vol. 6:274f.). Yet the entries on European philosophers, taken singly or together, regardless of nationality, only insufficiently convey the importance that was attributed by the editor of the Encyclopaedia Americana to German philosophy. In the article “Philosophy” (Appendix, vol. 10:594– 604), the exceptionality of German thought is maintained and its reach extended beyond the traditional sphere of philosophy. The Germans had acquired through their philosophy “a spirit of scientific liberty, unknown in other nations,” a spirit that pervaded “the best of their works on religion, on literature, on natural philosophy” . . . “and may well challenge comparison.” Madame de Staël had already expressed similar views, as would the Transcendentalists later. In its compilation of the scientific knowledge produced in the different European nations, the Encyclopaedia Americana included a significant contingent of German scientists and scholars, many of whom were connected with the University of Göttingen. Besides the mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, founder of modern anthropology, we find representatives of the historical-philological disciplines, such as the orientalist Johann Gottfried Eichhorn,

the classicist Christian Gottlob Heyne, the philosopher and literary historian Friedrich Bouterwek, and the historian Arnold Hermann Heeren, some of whose works had been translated and published in this country by his former student Bancroft. Lieber included entries on the German linguists Jakob Grimm, Heinrich Julius Klaproth, Johann and Friedrich Adelung, and Johann Severinus Vater—the latter two were involved with the beginnings of American linguistics. This new discipline (in which Lieber possessed strong personal interest) was represented by John Pickering, with his article on the American Indian languages (Appendix, vol.6:581–600, subsequently translated and published in Germany), and by Peter S. Duponceau, with entries on the German Moravian missionaries in Pennsylvania, Johann Gottlieb Ernst Heckewelder, and David Zeisberger and their pioneering work on Indian languages and customs. Lieber also included a lengthy and personal article on the historian Berthold Niebuhr, his former teacher and benefactor (231 lines). His desire to join German and the American traditions can be gathered also from his treatment of the U.S. legal system. Thus, the article on the jury system consists of two parts: one, the translated Brockhaus text by a German legal scholar who also discusses the weaknesses of the system, and the other, a contribution by the American judge Storey. This entry illustrates in an exemplary fashion how the Encyclopaedia Americana could be both product and vehicle of the multifarious process of German American cultural transfer it helped set in motion and sustain. A distinct weakness of the work derives from the the disproportionate length of its

ENDE, AMALIE VON

articles devoted to the lives of American political and military personalities. Thus, the entry on Benedict Arnold, American general and turncoat during the American Revolution, takes up almost 10 pages, whereas Aristotle and René Descartes are compressed into 2 pages each, and the poet John Milton occupies a mere 2.5 pages. Yet on balance, the work, with its approximately 8,000 pages and 20,000 articles, proved a highly practical and effective compilation of knowledge. Its ready availability and low price contributed to its success—its contents equaled that of thirty-six to forty-eight English octavo volumes, which would have cost about $150, whereas the price for the entire thirteenvolume set was a mere $32.50. It sold throughout the entire country and abroad, with sales reaching 100,000 sets over the years. Presidents Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln owned one, as did Emerson and his writer friends; Alexis de Tocqueville received one as a gift from the editor himself. The work helped enormously “to republicanize,” as one reviewer put it, the knowledge that once had been the privilege of a few. It was above all the rapid expansion of the United States during the decades following its first publication that rendered the work outdated by the time of the Civil War. Kurt Mueller-Vollmer See also Adelung, Johann Christoph; Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward; Göttingen, University of; Humboldt, Wilhelm von; Lieber, Francis; Ticknor, George; Transcendentalism; Vater, Johann Severin References and Further Reading Freidel, Frank. Francis Lieber: NineteenthCentury Liberal. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1947.

311

Mueller-Vollmer, Kurt. “German-American Cultural Interaction in the Jacksonian Era: Six Unpublished Letters by Francis Lieber and John Pickering to Wilhelm von Humboldt.” Die Unterrichtspraxis, no. 1 (1998):1–11. Neal, John. “Encyclopaedia Americana.” North American Review 34 (1832): 262–268. Perry, Thomas Seargeant, ed. The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber. Boston: James Osgoodand, 1882. Pochmann, Henry A. German Culture in America: Philosophical and Literary Influences, 1600–1900. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957. Schäfer, Peter, and Karl Schmitt, eds. Franz Lieber und die deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen im 19.Jahrhundert. Weimar: Böhlau, 1993. Walsh, Robert. “Encyclopaedia Americana.” American Quarterly Review 6 (1829): 331–360.

ENDE, AMALIE (AMELIA) VON b. June 19, 1856;Warsaw, Russia d. August 25, 1932; New York, New York A student of the German American writer and activist Mathilde Franziska Anneke, Amalie von Ende was exposed to radical ideas and that exposure was reinforced by her marriage with German-born (Georg) Henrich von Ende (1847–1879), a journalist with Communist leanings, in 1876. Until her husband’s death, she collaborated with him on a number of radical journalistic ventures. She was an important German American writer, journalist, translator, composer, musician, teacher, and lecturer. At the age of six, Amalie von Ende arrived in Milwaukee, where she received early training in music. Following her move to Chicago, she started the German

312

EPHRATA

American Young Ladies Institute, a boarding school for girls that adhered to progressive pedagogical principles. She remained principal of that school until 1893, when she moved to New York City and became the most significant and prolific cultural mediator between Germany and the United States in her time. In leading German and American papers and journals such as Das Literarische Echo (Literary Echo) and The Bookman, she informed American, German American, and German readers about the complex literary and cultural developments in the respective finde-siècle societies, often from a comparative angle. In 1898, von Ende introduced a German audience to Emily Dickinson by translating four of her poems for a German American magazine and two for a German magazine. A board member of Horace Traubel’s Walt Whitman International, an organization assembling friends and enthusiasts of Walt Whitman, she was an ardent advocate for Walt Whitman and worked hard and very successfully for his reception in Germany. Her intense interest in music never subsided; in New York, she was known as a pianist; she also composed several songs, which were published in Germany. Always critical of Prussian nationalism and militarism and a feminist pacifist who demanded the replacement of patriotism by matriatism, von Ende became deeply disillusioned with Germany after the outbreak of World War I. The number of her journalistic contributions declined after 1914, and she increasingly took to the lecture circuit, which led her to most major colleges and universities on the East Coast, where her lectures and presentations were highly acclaimed. Von Ende’s work was in-

formed by a then-rare, inclusive, and antielite notion of culture, clearly anticipating the multicultural revisions of canons toward the close of the twentieth century. Walter Grünzweig See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska References and Further Reading Grünzweig, Walter. “Cries of Distress: Emily Dickinson’s Initial German Reception from an Intercultural Perspective.” The Emily Dickinson Journal 5, no. 2 (1996): 232–239. Müller, Manuela. Amalie von Ende: Wegbereiterin des interkulturellen Journalismus. Porträt einer Mittlerin und Grenzgängerin zwischen den Kulturen. Diplomarbeit, Department of Journalism, Universität Dortmund, 1998.

EPHRATA A monastic community of Sabbatarians in northern Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Ephrata was founded in the late 1720s by (Georg) Conrad Beissel (1691–1768). During its peak period in the middle decades of the eighteenth century, the community may have numbered over 300 people. Its members wrote numerous religious hymns, developed a style of choir singing that profoundly impressed visitors, and left a rich legacy of illuminated manuscripts. They also constructed large monastic buildings whose architecture is thought to reflect religious symbolism. Ephrata attracted numerous visitors and the attention of European observers even in Beissel’s time. One of the most famous German exiles in the twentieth–century United States, Thomas Mann, incorporated a passage on Beissel and the choral music of Ephrata into his novel Doctor Faustus (1947). Today the remaining buildings are among the

EPHRATA

Pennsylvania German culture area’s major tourist attractions. The tenth child of a baker from Eberbach in Palatinate who was orphaned as an eight-year-old, Conrad Beissel spent his youth in abject poverty. He was reportedly apprenticed to the baker’s trade and came to Heidelberg as a journeyman, where he had a conversion experience in a pietist circle in 1715. Three years later, he was apparently expelled from the Palatinate as a religious dissenter and lived with radical pietists in the Hessian principality of Isenburg-Büdingen for some time. In 1720 he emigrated to North America and apprenticed himself to a weaver in Germantown, Pennsylvania. A year later he moved to the still sparsely settled Conestoga region, where he sought to live the solitary life of a hermit. In 1724 Beissel received baptism from the Dunker Peter Becker and subsequently became the leader of the Dunkers, a radical pietist group practicing adult baptism by immersion, in the Conestoga area. Beissel gradually moved away from basic Dunker teachings, however, when he began to honor Saturday as the divinely ordained Sabbath and advocate celibacy. The renewed baptism of six members of his congregation in 1728 marked his break with the Dunkers. Four years later, Beissel moved to a solitary cabin on the banks of Cocalico Creek, but his adherents followed him and established their own dwellings. Single men and women lived in hermit cabins, while the so-called householders lived together in family units. This distinction between celibates and householders became a basic feature of life at Ephrata. In 1735 the community built the first monastic house for female celibates, whom Beissel organized into the Order of Spiri-

313

W.P.A. poster promoting the Ephrata Cloister, Lancaster County, PA. It reads, “Ephrata: Visit the ancient cloisters of the early German pietists in Lancaster Co., Pennsylvania,” ca. 1936–1941. (Library of Congress)

tual Virgins. A few years later, a communal house was constructed for the male celibates, who were organized as the Zionitic Brotherhood. In a veritable building boom, a number of additional buildings were erected until midcentury, and Beissel’s evangelizing attracted new converts, including the Reformed pastor Peter Miller and Pennsylvania’s Indian agent Conrad Weiser. Under the direction of the brothers Israel and Samuel Eckerlin, Ephrata also entered a phase of economic expansion: mills and workshops were built, and a printing press was acquired in 1745. Beissel’s emphasis on celibacy has been traced to his peculiar understanding of the androgynous nature of God and the first man. In Beissel’s view God combined male and female characteristics in perfect balance, the female attributes being embodied

314

ERNST, FRIEDRICH

in the conception of the divine virgin Sophia. The sexual difference between man and woman was interpreted as a consequence of original sin and humanity’s fall, and Beissel promoted chastity and discipleship as the way to eventual reunion with God. A prolific author of theological and poetic works, Beissel developed a highly original mystical language to convey his sense of the presence of God. Beissel’s theology of redemption and rebirth and his eschatology drew on continental European sources, particularly on the mystic Jacob Boehme and the radical pietist writers Johann Georg Gichtel and Gottfried Arnold, and the community sought to express these concepts in its religious life and material culture. Life at Ephrata was structured by rituals like baptism by immersion and communal love feasts, and the celibates practiced an ascetic lifestyle that involved a sparse, mostly vegetarian diet, the tonsuring of heads, the wearing of white, hooded garments, and extended nightly prayer sessions. Conrad Beissel’s charismatic personality attracted numerous people, but his autocratic and occasionally erratic demeanor also caused repeated conflict. As early as 1745, Beissel expelled Israel Eckerlin, the leader of Ephrata’s communal economy, who may have become too influential for his taste. His final years were overshadowed by legal conflicts over property rights and challenges to his authority. After Beissel’s death in 1768, Peter Miller became the leader of the celibates, but the community was already in decline, and the last celibate woman died in 1813. Of the various offshoots of the Ephrata cloister established during the eighteenth century, all were short lived except the Antietam/Snow Hill congregation in south-central Pennsylva-

nia, which flourished throughout the nineteenth century. Mark Häberlein See also Germantown, Pennsylvania; Mann, Thomas; Pennsylvania; Pietism; Weiser, Conrad References and Further Reading Alderfer, E. Gordon. The Ephrata Commune: An Early American Counterculture. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985. Bach, Jeff. Voices of the Turtledoves: The Sacred World of Ephrata. University Park: Penn State University Press, 2003. Carpenter, Delburn. The Radical Pietists: Celibate Communal Societies Established in the United States before 1820. New York: AMS Press, 1975.

ERNST, FRIEDRICH b. June 18, 1796; Neustadt-Goedens, Grand Duchy of Oldenburg d. May 16–July 10, 1848; Industry,Texas One of the earliest German settlers of Texas when it still belonged to Mexico, prior to the Texas war for independence and the establishment of the Republic of Texas in 1836. Friedrich Ernst was instrumental in the emigration of many other Germans to Texas in the nineteenth century. In 1831 Stephen F. Austin, proprietor of “Austin’s Colony,” granted Ernst a league of land (ca. 4,428 acres) in what is today Austin County. On the west bank of Mill Creek, Ernst founded the town of Industry, arguably the earliest surviving German community in Texas. Only months after his arrival, he wrote an open letter (dated February 1, 1832) to a friend in his homeland, calling for Germans to settle in Texas. This letter was published in at least one newspaper and circulated widely in manu-

ERNST, FRIEDRICH

script form in northern Germany. Ernst described Texas as a land without winter, with soil requiring no fertilizer, and with a climate akin to southern Italy’s. His appeal received still wider distribution when Detlef Dunt’s guidebook for German emigrants to Texas, Reise nach Texas: nebst Nachrichten von diesem Lande für Deutsche, welche nach Amerika zu gehen beabsichtigen (Journey to Texas: With Information about This Land for Germans Planning to Go to America, 1834), reprinted it with much additional material encouraging emigration to Texas. The man known to history as Friedrich Ernst was born Christian Friedrich Ernst Dirks in a small community in the grand duchy of Oldenburg in northwestern Germany. He came from modest origins; his father was a gardener in the ducal gardens. The younger Dirks also acquired a knowledge of gardening. He married well; his father-in-law was a judicial official in another small town in Oldenburg. Ernst worked as a clerk in the ducal post office. In the fall of 1829 he left Oldenburg with his wife and their children. After arriving in New York late in 1829, the family ran a boarding house there for a year, long enough to be recorded in the census of 1830 under their new surname, “Ernst.” From New York, Ernst and his family set out for Missouri in February 1831 under the influence of Gottfried Duden’s popular book, Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten Nordamerikas und einen mehrjährigen Aufenthalt am Missouri in den Jahren 1824, ’25, ’26 und ’27. In Bezug auf Auswanderung und Überbevölkerung (Report on a Journey to the Western States of America and a Stay of Several Years along the Missouri during the Years 1824, ’25, ’26, and ’27, 1829). One of the earliest handbooks instructing Ger-

315

mans how to emigrate to Texas, Duden’s book focused on the wonders of that territory. En route to Missouri, the Ernsts changed course and sailed to Texas via New Orleans at a time when Stephen F. Austin was seeking to gain European settlers for his colony in Texas. Working together with another German, Charles Fordtran, whom he met in New York, Ernst developed a little German colony within Austin’s. In 1838 he officially laid out the town he called “Industry” and sold town lots there. By then he had a substantial truck garden and a large orchard. Some historians have gone so far as to attribute the introduction of orchardry in Texas to Europeans, particularly Ernst. He became known also for the cigars he had made in a small “factory” on his premises. His other crops included cotton, as well as maize for both animals and humans. Early on he traded a quarter of his land for about a dozen cows, and before long he was raising hogs and chickens. Like many other early settlers, he was a man of many trades. He is reported to have run a store in Industry at some point. About 1840 his wife opened a hotel—the term at first expressed more wish than reality—in the large new house he built in Industry. By the mid1840s, part of the large stream of German immigrants moving up from coastal regions to the interior of Texas passed through Industry, and not a few of them, especially officers and representatives of the sponsor of much of this stream, the Adelsverein (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas), were guests at the hotel. In 1842, immediately prior to the great surge in the volume of German emigration to Texas, perhaps as many as several hundred Germans were living in Industry and its immediate vicinity. By 1860, the town itself

316

ERTL, HANS

may have increased to as many as 1,400. In 2000 its population was a mere 304. Valiant efforts have been under way to preserve what is left of the historic settlement. When Ernst died in 1848, he left only a modest estate, valued in the dollar of the day, at some $3,400. The man who had abruptly departed his native duchy twenty years earlier had become the founder of a town in Texas, justice of the peace for the western section of Austin County, and member of the County Commissioner’s Court of Appeals (a body whose main concerns were building roads and encouraging the operation of ferries). Walter Struve See also Adelsverein; Duden, Gottfried; Dunt, Detlef; Texas References and Further Reading Biesele, Rudolph L. The History of the German Settlements in Texas, 1831–1861. San Marcos: German-Texan Heritage Society, 1986. Lindemann, Ann, James Lindemann, and William Richter, eds. Historical Accounts of Industry, Texas, 1836–1986. New Ulm: New Ulm Enterprise Printing/Industry– West End Historical Society, 1986. Struve, Walter. Germans and Texans: Commerce, Migration, and Culture in the Days of the Lone Star Republic. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996. York, Miriam Corff. Friedrich Ernst of Industry. Giddings: Nixon Printing, 1989.

ERTL, HANS b. February 21, 1908; Urschalling am Chimsee, Bavaria d. October 23, 2000; La Dolorida, Chiquitania, Bolivia Pioneering cameraman, filmmaker, and mountaineer Hans Ertl worked with direc-

tors Arnold Fanck (1889–1974), Günther O. Dyhrenfurth (1886–1975), and Luis Trenker (1892–1990) to develop the mountain film genre for German cinema (Freiburger Schule [Freiburg School]). Collaboration with director Leni Riefenstahl (1902–2003) on Olympia yielded innovations that included work with a handheld motion picture camera and the first recorded underwater film footage. Travel to South America in the 1950s led Ertl to produce documentaries on the culture of indigenous Bolivian people. Coming of age in the Bavarian Alps, Ertl developed an affinity for mountaineering and an interest in filmmaking. Expected to follow in the family business, Ertl enrolled at the Kaufmännische Fachhochschule (Business College) in Munich to study business in 1930. After only one year of study, Ertl left college to work with Fanck, founder of the German mountaineering film genre (Bergfilm [Mountain Film]). Ertl traveled with Fanck’s production team to Greenland to assist as cameraman and stunt actor in the mountaineering film SOS Eisberg (SOS Iceberg, 1933). Further work in the genre of Bergfilm followed with camera work for Dyhrenfurth’s Der Dämon des Himalaya (The Demon of the Himalayas, 1935). It is Ertl’s early work with Fanck and his subsequent development of the mountaineering film that established him as a member of Fanck’s Freiburger Schule of filmmaking. On the set of SOS Eisberg, Ertl developed an important relationship with the actress and aspiring director Leni Riefenstahl. Ertl’s friendship and collaboration with Riefenstahl on Fanck’s films led her to favor him as lead cameraman for Tag der Freiheit—Unsere Wehrmacht (Day of Free-

ERTL, HANS

dom—Our Army, 1935). Their collaboration continued in Riefenstahl’s epic documentaries Olympia (1938) and Olympia II (1938). It was during his period of collaboration with Riefenstahl that Ertl developed his most innovative cinematic techniques. While shooting promotional footage for the 1934 Winter Olympic Games, Ertl’s pioneering work with a handheld camera presented audiences with the perspective of a ski jumper while in flight. Further, while documenting the diving competition for Olympia, Ertl recorded the first known underwater film sequences. After completing work on Riefenstahl’s films, Ertl joined director Luis Trenker’s team as cameraman for Liebesbriefe aus dem Engadin (Love Letters from Engadin, 1938) and collaborated with Arnold Fanck on Ein Robinson (1940) in Chile. Ertl’s plans to return to Chile for an independent film project in 1939 were thwarted when he was forcefully drafted into the Wehrmacht (Armed Forces). During World War II, Ertl worked primarily as a war correspondent for the Propaganda Ministry. From 1939 to 1945 Ertl documented General Erwin Rommel’s desert campaign in northern Africa, as well as battles in the Caucusus and on the western front. He also served as cameraman for the propaganda films Glaube und Schönheit (Faith and Beauty, 1940), Der Sinn des Lebens (The Meaning of Life, 1940), and Sieg im Westen (Victory in the West, 1941). After the war, Ertl returned to filmmaking, directing Nanga Parbat (1953), a documentary of Herman Buhl’s successful ascent of Nanga Parbat in the Pakistani Himalayas. Disappointed by the failure of Nanga Parbat to garner the coveted German Film Prize, Ertl withdrew from public life in Germany

317

and settled in Bolivia. In 1954 Ertl embarked with his family on an Andes-Amazon expedition to locate and photograph Inca cities in the Bolivian jungle. Following the successful completion of his expedition, Ertl released the documentary film Vorstoß nach Paititi (The Charge into Paititi, 1955) and wrote two books recording his experiences. Paititi (1955) traces Ertl’s progress through the Amazon and describes his discovery of Inca ruins. A book of photography, Arriba, Abajo: Vistas de Bolivia (High and Low: The Vistas of Bolivia), followed in 1958. Together with daughter Monika, Ertl produced a second documentary on South American culture, Hito Hito (1958), in which they recorded the culture of the now extinct Sirino Indians. After failing to complete his final film, Ertl retired from filmmaking. He settled near Santa Cruz, where he became a cattle farmer. In the 1980s Ertl wrote two memoirs: Meine wilden dreißiger Jahre (My Wild Thirties, 1982) and Hans Ertl als Kriegsberichter (Hans Ertl: War Correspondent, 1985). During his lifetime, Ertl also published numerous articles on South American culture and mountaineering. Two documentary films on Hans Ertl’s life have been made: Hans Ertl—Bolivien Urwald (Hans Ertl—Bolivian Jungle, 1981) and Der Gratwanderer—Die Erinnerungen des Hans Ertl (Wanderer on the Edge: Hans Ertl’s Recollections, 1995). Marta Folio See also Hollywood References and Further Reading Ertl, Hans. Meine wilden dreißiger Jahre: Bergsteiger, Filmpionier, Weltenbummler. München: Herbig, 1982. Fanck, Matthias. “Der letzte Gipfel. Erinnerungen an den Abenteurer Hans Ertl.” Süddeutsche Zeitung, November 9, 2000.

318

ESCHWEGE,WILHELM LUDWIG VON Heissenberg, Claudia. “Der alte Mann im Urwald—und andere Geschichten aus Bolivien.” Heinz-Keun-Stiftung, 1998. http://www.heinz-keun-stiftung.de /pdf/jahr13/jahr13_14.pdf (accessed summer 2004). Semper, Franck. “Hans Ertl in Bolivien.” 2000. http://www.sebra-verlag.de /aktuelles/hertl.htm

ESCHWEGE,WILHELM LUDWIG VON b. November 10, 1777; Aue (near Eschwege), Hesse d. February 1, 1855;Wolfsanger, Hesse German mining expert who contributed to the industrialization of Brazil. Wilhelm Eschwege studied law and economy at the University of Göttingen and geology at the University of Marburg. After he had gained practical experience in the mining industry, in 1802 Eschwege took over the directorship of the ironworks company Foz d’Alge in the Portuguese province of Estremadura. In 1810, he was appointed a member of the Academy of Science in Lisbon and entered into the service of the Portuguese government in Brazil, where until 1821 he was primarily active in Minas Gerais. Within ten years he established twenty-eight ironworks, thereby founding Brazilian metallurgy. In 1817, Eschwege was appointed general director of goldmining in Brazil and director of the imperial mineralogy cabinet. Aside from his job in the mining industry, he also laid the scientific foundation for the study of mineral deposits and became “the father of Brazilian geology.” He produced the first geological profile of Brazil and the first colored geological map of Minas Gerais, and

he was also the first to conduct barometric measurements. Eschwege is responsible for naming itabirite and itacolumite. In addition to his pioneering work as a geologist, he also carried out early research into Brazilian ethnology (among the Botokude and Coroado). Eschwege was among the first to point out the destructive impact humans have on nature. He publicly demanded an end to the destruction of Brazil’s tropical forests. After his return to Europe, he split his time between Portugal and Germany, where he was active as a mining expert. Eschwege used the remaining part of his life to document his scientific findings from his time in Brazil. He wrote several books, including Journal von Brasilien oder vermischte Nachrichten aus Brasilien auf wissenschaftlichen Reisen gesammelt (Journal of Brazil, or Mixed News from Brazil Collected on Scientific Journeys, 1818); Geognostische Gemählde von Brasilien (Geological Pictures from Brazil, 1822); Brasilien, die Neue Welt (Brazil, the New World, 1824); Beiträge zur Gebirgskunde Brasiliens (Contributions to the Lore of Brazil’s Mountains, 1832); and Pluto Brasiliensis. Eine Reihe von Abhandlungen über Brasiliens Gold-, Diamanten- und anderen mineralischen Reichtum (Pluto Brazil: A Series of Essays on Brazil’s Gold, Diamonds, and Other Mineral Wealth, 1833). Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Mining References and Further Reading Beck, Hanno. “Wilhelm Ludwig von Eschwege.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1959, 4:652. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983, 2:181–183.

ESPIONAGE AND SEDITION ACT Toussaint, Friedrich. “Wilhelm Ludwig von Eschwege (1777–1855), a German Engineer of Mining and Metallurgy in Portugal and Brazil.” History of Technology 22 (2000): 155–169.

ESPIONAGE AND SEDITION ACT On June 5, 1917, just two months after the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson enacted the Espionage Act, duly passed by Congress, into law. This act was intended to catch and punish spies, in particular German spies, and to stop the subversive activities of foreign enemies. Debates over the bill demonstrated that many members of Congress feared that Germans in the country were spies and believed this bill was necessary to safeguard and protect the nation’s defense secrets. But this statute went far beyond outlawing behavior such as spying for the enemy, willfully sabotaging war production, and promoting the success of the enemy. It also gave the government the tools to silence people who expressed opposition to the administration’s efforts to fight a war that aimed to make the world safe for democracy. The most negative paragraph of the Espionage Act stated that anyone who made “false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces” or caused or attempted to cause “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall willfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service” could receive a “fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than

319

twenty years or both” (40 Stat. 217 [1917]). Prosecutors and the courts used this section of the Espionage Act to charge and convict individuals suspected of committing disloyal activities and making subversive statements. Article 12 of the Espionage Act prohibited the sending through the mails of any material “advocating or urging treason, insurrection, or forcible resistance to any law of the United States.” This gave Postmaster General Albert Burleson the authority to determine what were mailable and what were treasonous publications and to ban such subversive material from the mails. In effect, the Espionage Act allowed one government official to silence the foreign-language press, in particular the German-language papers, and to coerce it to change its position on the war. Most German-language newspapers had opposed U.S. entry into World War I, but not all had supported Germany. However, the threat of loosing mailing privileges convinced most papers to rapidly change their editorial policy, to become more patriotic, and to conform to the national position on the war or to suspend publication. By the spring of 1918, in response to growing violence and intolerance directed at suspected enemies within the United States, public officials began to demand stronger laws against spies and disloyal acts. Claiming that the Espionage Act had not brought about enough convictions and had not succeeded in wiping out sabotage and treasonous behavior, representatives and senators passed the more severe Sedition Amendment to the Espionage Act on May 7, and Wilson signed it into law on May 16, 1918. It made it a crime to “willfully utter, print, write, or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language”

320

EUGENICS/EUTHANASIA

about the U.S. government, the Constitution, the flag, or armed forces or to use “language intended to cause contempt, scorn, contumely, or disrepute.” It also made it illegal to obstruct the sale of war bonds, to advocate the success of the enemy, or to “urge . . . any curtailment of production . . . essential to the prosecution of the war” (40 Stat. 553 [1918]). Any publicly voiced criticism of government policy could be interpreted as pro-German sentiment and was punishable by fines up to $20,000, or twenty years’ imprisonment, or both. The Sedition Act thus broadened the power of the Espionage Act not only to stop the overt acts of German spies and saboteurs but to also eliminate the unpatriotic words of any opponent to the war. The Espionage and Sedition Act was intended to ensure loyalty and conformity while the United States dealt with a national crisis. The zealous enforcement of these laws also made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between a German spy or traitor and a person who simply criticized U.S. war policies. As a result, more than 2,000 law-abiding citizens of German birth, workers, and individuals who expressed an opinion critical of the government’s war effort were arrested and prosecuted for having made pro-German and disloyal statements. About half of them were convicted, and hundreds of aliens were deported. These acts were very effective in silencing immigrants, the foreignlanguage press, and opponents to the war and in restricting their civil liberties. Petra Dewitt See also Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; World War I; World War I and German Americans; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in

References and Further Reading Jensen, Joan M. The Price of Vigilance. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968. Peterson, H. C., and Gilbert C. Fite. Opponents of War, 1917–1918. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957. Zieger, Robert A. America’s Great War: World War I and the American Experience. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.

EUGENICS/EUTHANASIA The eugenics movement, both in the United States and in Europe, had its roots in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and the application of this theory to human beings. But Darwin’s ideas were not the only impetus behind the development of eugenics. This movement was also influenced by early criminology, scientific racism, and sociological studies of the poor. Each of these strands blended together gave rise to the eugenics movement, whose goal was to improve the genetic pool through selective breeding, thereby eliminating the weaker elements in society and reinforcing Darwin’s ideas regarding the survival of the fittest. These weaker elements were to be found often in one or more of the following categories: the working class, the mentally or physically handicapped, those with a criminal record, and non-Caucasians and/or Jewish people. Scientists, working together with politicians and social workers, developed public policy regarding sterilization and, in the case of Nazi Germany, murder, all under the guise of furthering and strengthening certain genetic qualities of the human race. However, although many intellectuals and scientists in the United States dismissed these early theories by the interwar period, in Germany they found fertile ground with the rise to power of Adolf Hitler.

EUGENICS/EUTHANASIA

In the mid-1800s, several European intellectuals wrote about the possibilities of eugenics and reinforced their ideas with contemporary assumptions about the inequality among classes and races, neither of which could be proven scientifically. The French thinker Joseph-Arthur de Gobineau proposed a hierarchy of races in 1853 in his work The Inequality of Human Races. He believed that the pattern of human history evidenced the struggle between the races and demonstrated that certain races (white Europeans) were destined to greatness, whereas other races (nonwhites) were destined to be ruled or controlled by the superior races. He emphasized what he perceived as the dangers in race mixing, which he labeled as degeneration, conjecturing that it would weaken the purer, stronger white race. This theory of degeneration, according to de Gobineau and Benedict Augustin Morel, stated that weak hereditary characteristics would worsen with each successive generation; if a man suffered from a nervous disorder, then his child would be neurotic and his grandchild would be insane. Given the extensive European global empire structure, de Gobineau believed that the mingling of Europeans with nonEuropeans presented a serious danger to the superior place of Europeans. His work began a pattern of science buttressing prevailing stereotypes and beliefs that persisted into the middle of the twentieth century and that led in multiple directions, including sterilization and murder. De Gobineau’s racial hierarchy was perpetuated by other European intellectuals such as the German composer Richard Wagner; his son-in-law, Houston Stewart Chamberlain; and Paul de Lagarde. This trio of thinkers believed that the Jewish “race” was the most degraded of all and

321

warned of their enormous potential for corrupting the “purer” races. These beliefs led to the coining of a new word, antisemitism, in 1879 by Wilhelm Marr. Prior to this time, when referring to hatred of Jews, the term Judenhass was used. However, tying into the desire to link racism with science, these intellectuals saw the need for a more modern term that emphasized the supposed race of Jews, rather than their religion. For this strain of eugenicists and racists, Jews represented the most degenerate of all the races, given to parasitical behavior. The process of Jewish assimilation into European culture, sparked by the Enlightenment and the Napoleonic Code, hastened their fears that Jews were infiltrating Western Christian society and contaminating its racial purity through intermarriage. Criminologists such as the Italian professor of legal medicine, Cesare Lombroso, were also key figures in the early development of eugenics. He theorized that criminals were people whose physical and mental capacities had not fully developed. He identified certain physical characteristics, such as a sloping forehead, long arms, large incisors, and lack of symmetry in facial features, and patterns of behavior, such as emotionality and inconstancy, as indicators of stunted development and one’s tendency toward immoral and/or criminal acts. He also labeled certain groups within society as hereditarily predisposed to criminality, including both the handicapped and gypsies. He presented his ideas in his 1863 work, Genius and Madness, which argued that criminality was habitual because it was hereditary. Criminals with his identified physical and behavioral characteristics were a constant threat to society and could never be reformed; therefore, he recommended that they be put to death

322

EUGENICS/EUTHANASIA

by the state. Lombroso’s ideas found favor in the United States with many American scholars, particularly those who managed prisons and asylums. Another key figure in the intellectual development of eugenics theory was the Englishman Francis Galton. In his work, Hereditary Genius (1869), Galton posited that the racial health of a people was dictated by their natural, inherited characteristics and formulated thirteen criteria on which people should be judged. The way to ensure national strength was to encourage those with all or most of his identified characteristics to have many children, while dissuading the hereditarily weak from giving birth. Within the so-called positive characteristics were many stereotypically middle-class attributes such as character, work ethic, height, and intelligence. His work was read widely across Europe and the United States. Within the United States, the early proponents of the eugenics movement were clustered around those who cared for the mentally and/or physically handicapped or criminals and those who studied the roots of poverty and immorality. Its underpinning was threefold: the Progressive Era, which sought to eradicate ills, corruption, and weaknesses in society and politics; the growing belief that heredity dictated strengths and weaknesses in human development; and increasing anti-immigrant sentiments, particularly directed against immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. This manifested itself in the form of mandatory sterilization laws and laws preventing marriage between people labeled as “degenerate” in the early 1900s. Prisons, asylums, and homes for delinquent youth became “laboratories” for testing basic assumptions about degeneracy and heredity.

In the United States, the most common “cure” was to remove these lesser beings from the gene pool by forced sterilization and/or castration. This extreme measure was first instituted by F. Hoyt Pilcher, the superintendent of the Kansas State Home for the Feebleminded. In the mid-1890s, Pilcher castrated forty-four boys and sterilized fourteen girls to stop them from procreating. Medical science soon thereafter offered the less extreme options of tubal ligation and vasectomy. This part of the movement culminated with the Indiana legislature passing the first law mandating the sterilization of habitual criminals, the mentally handicapped, and rapists who were housed in a state institution, once their case had been reviewed by a panel of experts. By 1917, a total of sixteen states (including Indiana) had passed such legislation (California, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin). In the interwar period, fourteen additional states enacted forcible sterilization laws (Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia). By 1931, more than 12,000 people in the United States had been sterilized (Haller 1984, 133–134, 137, 141). Another strand was the prohibition of the marriage of certain types of people. In 1896, Connecticut passed legislation forbidding the marriage of a mentally handicapped person, the first such legislation in the United States. By 1905, five other states (Kansas, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana) had enacted similar laws, some with even further-reaching restric-

EUGENICS/EUTHANASIA

tions, such as forbidding alcoholics to get married. By the mid-1930s, laws prohibiting the marriage of mentally handicapped persons existed in forty-one states, of epileptics in seventeen states, and of alcoholics in four states. With these actions, the United States became the first government to endorse compulsory sterilization laws. In the early 1900s, Charles Benedict Davenport founded a series of institutions, including the Eugenics Records Office and the Eugenics Research Association, at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island. Davenport was trained as a biologist, anthropologist, and eugenicist and worked closely with well-established racist theorists such as Madison Grant. Under his leadership and that of his institutions’ manager, Harry Hamilton Laughlin, they influenced the development of public policy on sterilization, marriage prohibition, and decreasing immigration, the last most notably through the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924. In the 1930s, Laughlin and Davenport praised the sterilization laws passed by the Third Reich in their newsletter, Eugenic News. In addition, Davenport published his research in German scientific journals and served on two journals’ editorial boards throughout the 1930s, severing his ties much later than most other American eugenicists. In addition to the exchange of scientific information via publications, eugenicists held a series of meeting in the early 1900s that allowed them to meet and share ideas directly, through the International Society for Racial Hygiene (ISRH), an organization heavily influenced by German eugenicists, which first met in Dresden in 1907 and later in London in 1912. Although these contacts were temporarily lessened due to World War I, they emerged

323

once more in the 1920s, as scientists in Germany were strengthening their support for legislation dealing with those “unworthy of life.” German scientists remained isolated from the international eugenics movement until 1925, when Germany was reintegrated into the international community. An important result of renewed contact was extensive financial assistance given by the Rockefeller Foundation in the 1920s and 1930s to support German research in eugenics and to provide funds for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity. These two German institutes pushed for government support and legal processes to ensure the genetic health of Germany and played a central role in the formation of public policy. In 1932, the Prussian Parliament held discussions on a proposed sterilization law, based on those of multiple American states and Switzerland. The drive to institute eugenics at the national level began shortly after President Paul von Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler as chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. For scientists (centered in the German Society for Race Hygiene and these two aforementioned institutes) and the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP), racial purity and good birth were of utmost importance. They feared that the strongest and purest people within society were having too few children, while the weakest people were having too many. Therefore, they instituted policies and programs to reverse this imbalance. One element of their policy was the development of the Lebensborn (Well of Life) program, under the leadership of the Schutzstaffel (SS). This program began as a series of boarding homes for unwed mothers of

324

EUGENICS/EUTHANASIA

pure Aryan race and developed over the 1930s into a selective breeding program. After women gave birth, the state encouraged them to leave the children in its care. At least 12,000 children were born into the Lebensborn program between 1938 and 1945. A second part of this program coordinated the selection of racially pure children from eastern European countries occupied by the Third Reich, who were taken from their homes and adopted by German families. Estimates of the number of kidnapped children range from 100,000 to 250,000 (Carlson 2001, 328). The sterilization program of the Third Reich began in July 1933, when the German Reichstag passed the Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases. It stated that anyone with a hereditary illness could be sterilized against his or her will if a medical expert determined that he or she was likely to produce children with a serious hereditary defect and was based on several state laws passed in the United States. According to this law, hereditary illness was characterized by one of the following conditions: congenital feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, manic depression, hereditary epilepsy, Huntington’s chorea, hereditary blindness or deafness, serious physical deformities, or chronic alcoholism. The majority of people sterilized against their will were deemed congenitally feebleminded, yet no clear, scientific definition and/or test existed to detect this condition. Decisions were, therefore, often arbitrary. A person could recommend himself or herself for sterilization, but the vast majority of the recommendations came from physicians, nurses, or the administrative heads of homes, hospitals, and prisons. The decision to sterilize someone in Germany was made by a newly created

Hereditary Health Court, which was composed of one judge and two physicians. If the court decided in favor of sterilization, there was no path of appeal, and the court did not consider whether the person was in favor of the sterilization or not. Some 300,000 German citizens had been sterilized under this program by 1939; during the course of the war, an additional 50,000 to 75,000 people underwent forcible sterilization. Therefore, approximately 0.5 percent of the German population was directly affected by this program (Friedlander 1995, 30). In the United States, some American scientists began to question the path that Nazi eugenicists had chosen, marking a widening gap in practice and support between the two scientific communities. By the late 1930s, American scientists such as Franz Boas, a prominent anthropologist and professor at Columbia University, directly and publicly attacked the policies and beliefs of the Third Reich. Within mainstream organizations such as the American Eugenics Society, social eugenicists took positions of power away from racial eugenicists. Scientific support for sterilization laws and practice was not waning; rather, there was a shift in focus from sterilization based upon race or antisemitism to sterilization based upon social factors such as government support for larger families of “superior” genetic background. Indeed, forced sterilization continued in the United States until the 1970s, totaling more than 62,000, of which more than 20,000 (32 percent) were sterilized by the state of California (Haller 1984, 141). The Third Reich’s eugenics program led directly to mass murder through the euthanasia program known as T-4, which

EVERETT, EDWARD

killed mentally and physically handicapped children and adults, and the Holocaust, which built upon this mindset of eliminating those seen as “lesser,” or genetically inferior. The German and American scientific communities were reconnected after World War II during the Nuremburg Doctors’ Trials, held in 1946. These trials focused on medical professionals who were involved in the T-4 program and/or medical experiments conducted in concentration camps and killing centers. However, U.S. prosecutors did not charge those involved with the forced sterilization of more than 3,500,000 German citizens, making a distinction between “genuine” eugenics and the mass killings. In the long term, these German eugenicists, even many who were involved with mass murder, were quickly reintegrated into the international scientific community, often with the assistance of U.S. scientists. Laura J. Hilton See also Antisemitism; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Barkan, Elazar. The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Carlson, Elof Axel. The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2001. Friedlander, Henry. The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Haller, Mark. Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1984. Kühl, Stefan. The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Mosse, George. Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.

325

EVERETT, EDWARD b. April 11, 1794; Dorchester, Massachusetts d. January 15, 1865; Boston, Massachusetts Everett is primarily remembered today as the “other” orator at Gettysburg, when Abraham Lincoln delivered his historic address, and secondarily as the holder of numerous public offices, as well as the presidency of Harvard College, but he is not widely known as a cultural intermediary between Germany and the United States. In fact, Everett was among the early contributors to the wave of enthusiasm for the German language and literature that swept the New England intellectual elite in the early nineteenth century. After his graduation from Harvard in 1811 and a brief ministerial career, Everett accepted a newly endowed chair of Greek literature at his alma mater, an appointment that allowed him to travel and study in Europe prior to assuming his teaching responsibilities. Accompanied by his friend, George Ticknor, he left for Europe in 1815 and returned four years later. After a brief tour of Europe, the two nascent scholars enrolled at the University of Göttingen, which, thanks largely to their influence, was to become a de facto graduate school for Harvard graduates who were later to gain prominence, such as George Bancroft, Joseph Green Cogswell, and John Lothrop Motley. Everett immersed himself in his studies with prodigious enthusiasm and energy, concentrating on Greek, while studying subjects as diverse as modern history, civil law, Hebrew, and German language and literature. While in Germany he found time to write book reviews for the North American Review, the most important of which was a forty-five-page review of

326

EVERETT, EDWARD

Edward Everett, ca. 1863. (Library of Congress)

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Dichtung und Wahrheit (Poetry and Truth), considered to be the first important article on Goethe written in an American journal. After completing his PhD in 1817, probably the first American to receive that degree at Göttingen, Everett returned to Harvard in 1819. During his brief teaching career, he introduced German philological methodology to his students of Greek. As a student and young professor, Everett clearly made a substantial contribution to American understanding and appreciation of German culture. This was especially true in the case of Goethe, who had been known primarily through indifferent translations of The Sorrows of the Young Werther (1774) and selected passages from Faust. During their stay at Göttingen, he and Ticknor had undertaken a

pilgrimage to Weimar, where they had an interview with Goethe. Even though Everett viewed Goethe as somewhat stiff and cold, he persisted in his admiration of him. In his review of Dichtung und Wahrheit (1817), Everett made a plea for a greater understading of the poet, while comparing some of the passages in Faust with the writing of William Shakespeare. While in Germany, Everett also laid the groundwork for the subsequent German collection at the Harvard library. With a grant of $500 from the Harvard College, he purchased German grammars and dictionaries, Greek lexicons, and other works. He also began negotiations with Goethe to acquire his writings, which culminated in the eventual purchase through Joseph Cogswell of a twenty-volume edition of Goethe’s works for the library. During his teaching career at Harvard, Everett was also editor of the North American Review, in which he published reviews of several German authors. During the same period, he translated a prominent Greek grammar and a reader, which reflected current German scholarship, for the benefit of his students. In spite of such promise as a teacher and scholar, Everett decided by 1824 to turn his abundant energies to public life, virtually terminating his intensive involvement in German culture. His change of career was partly attributable to his dissatisfaction with teaching immature youths and partly because of his admiration for Daniel Webster, who became Everett’s mentor. As Webster’s protégé, Everett became a member of the House of Representatives, governor of Massachusetts, and ambassador to Great Britain. After his return from England, he became president

EVERETT, EDWARD

of Harvard College from 1846 to 1849. When Webster died in 1852, Everett succeeded his mentor as secretary of state until 1853 and then served briefly as senator from Massachusetts (1853–1854). One of his last acts of public service reflected his student days at Göttingen, where he and Ticknor had been favorably impressed with the extensive university library. Inspired by these impressions, he joined Ticknor in founding the Boston Public Library and served as president of its board from 1852 to 1864. In this way, too, Germany played a role in the legacy that Everett left to his city and nation. John T. Walker

327

See also American Students at German Universities; Bancroft, George; Encyclopaedia Americana; Göttingen, University of; Motley, John Lothrop; Ticknor, George References and Further Reading Bartlett, Irving H. “Edward Everett Reconsidered.” New England Quarterly 69, no. 3 (September 1996): 426–460. Frothingham, Paul Revere. Edward Everett: Orator and Statesman. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1925. Long, Orie. Literary Pioneers: Early American Explorers of European Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1935. Pochmann, Henry A. German Culture in America: Philosophical and Literary Influences, 1600–1900. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957.

F FAR EAST, U.S.-GERMAN ENTENTE IN THE During the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, the intensity of diplomatic relations between the United States and the German Empire reached a climax. A series of diplomatic clashes taught the Germans not to underestimate U.S. imperialism. Simultaneously, as the situation in Europe darkened, German desire to call upon U.S. goodwill grew constantly and was expressed, for example, during the First Moroccan Crisis. German attempts to reach some kind of alliance or at least close cooperation with Washington in order to guarantee the integrity of China in 1907 and 1908 followed this vein. The episode clearly reveals the basic fruitlessness of German-U.S. cooperation during Roosevelt’s presidency. After the conference of Algeciras in 1906, which had amply demonstrated the utopian character of German American cooperation, Berlin’s disillusionment did not last long. Already in May of the same year, Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow had outlined his conception of the future, emphasizing the need to rely on Germany’s own power. Yet, he also named the Allies and potential friends that the empire had left. In this list the United States was promi-

nently included. The perceived urgency of a rapprochement with the United States grew because of Germany’s increasing isolation or—speaking in the contemporary terminology—“encirclement.” In 1907, the Far East was the region where Berlin’s diplomatic failures seemed to lead to dangerous developments. A whole series of agreements among major powers, like France and Japan, Russia and Japan, and finally even Great Britain and Russia with regard to China, in combination with the existing alliances, made Germany’s containment seem complete. Due to the imminent end of the Manchu dynasty, the partition of China seemed more likely than ever before. In Berlin, the Foreign Office and Wilhelm II feared exclusion from the Chinese market and sought the help of the only power besides Germany that had not yet concluded an agreement, the United States. Because of the diplomatic situation, German hopes were not completely unfounded. Economic rivalries in the aftermath of the Russo-Japanese War had revealed deep tensions between the United States and Japan. Late in 1906, discrimination against Japanese schoolchildren in San Francisco led to open protests by Tokyo. While Roosevelt was able to allay

329

330

FAR EAST, U.S.-GERMAN ENTENTE

these tensions by an exchange of diplomatic notes—the so-called gentleman’s agreement—the press continued to play on “yellow peril” notions. From the German point of view, it was natural that Berlin should cooperate with Washington. Keeping the door open to allow trade with all countries had been the declared policy of the United States in China for several years. Now, in 1907, with its European competitors united against her, Germany sought to replace the United States in the Chinese question and announced that it worked for the same objective. One of the measures to win U.S. support was to try to arouse suspicion and fear against the other great powers. Thus, Wilhelm II in September 1905 wanted to palm off his favorite “yellow peril” picture, accompanied by a frank letter about the topic, on Roosevelt. Yet, the German government resolved to wait for an U.S. initiative for closer contacts. By the end of 1906, when reports about the heightened possibility of a conflict between the United States and Japan reached the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, such a U.S. initiative seemed likely. By the end of October, the embassy in Washington reported that Roosevelt had brought up the topic of a probable war himself and had asked for some information on the Japanese navy. Roosevelt’s wish for data was fulfilled in early November, and Ambassador Hermann Speck von Sternburg was instructed to encourage the president’s mistrust in a careful manner. In February 1907, Sternburg reported growing antiJapanese feelings in the United States. He also stressed the fact that U.S. leaders supported the conciliatory policy of the presi-

IN THE

dent because of the inferiority of the U.S. Navy in the Pacific Ocean. New racial conflicts in San Francisco in May and the conclusion of the FrancoJapanese agreement in early June made an alliance with the United States even more likely. Indeed, public opinion in the United States as well as in Europe became more and more convinced that a war against Japan was inevitable. In addition, the German envoy in Beijing began to warn against the threat of Japanese expansion and suggested examining the possibility of cooperation with the United States, Russia, and China to prevent this eventuality. In July, Germany informed Roosevelt about the substantial increase in Japanese immigration to Mexico. The reports speculated that Japan was moving troops into Mexico in order to be able to wage an effective land war against the United States. President Roosevelt, however, thought the idea of a Japanese invasion via Mexico absurd. Nevertheless, Berlin succeeded in keeping Roosevelt’s distrust alive, and the president concluded that there was indeed a tendency toward war in Japan, but that it was no immediate threat. Partly because of Sternburg’s personal approach to diplomacy with his friend Theodore Roosevelt and his distorting reports home, the impression of U.S. nervousness about Japanese policy in China remained alive in Berlin. Indeed, the ambassador’s reports encouraged the German government to find out if the United States showed an interest in countering the Anglo-French-Japanese alliance in China. In autumn of 1907, a Chinese offer for cooperation with Germany arrived, and the Germans wanted to extend it to the United States. Indeed, the Germans had reason to

FAUPEL,WILHELM

believe in the success of their diplomatic maneuvers. At the end of 1907, preparations for the cruise of a U.S. battleship fleet around the world were in full swing. The cruise seemed to heighten the risk of war since the Japanese reaction was not easily predictable. But again the president expressed his polite but firm reserve toward the German offers, and again Sternburg’s reports created a very different impression in Berlin. Thus, although realizing that a formal alliance was impossible, German diplomacy hoped for at least a joint declaration about the integrity of China. Even this symbolic cooperation became unlikely when tensions between Japan and the United States gradually subsided. By the summer of 1908, chances of reaching the desired agreement had almost vanished. A decisive factor for Roosevelt’s rejection of the German scheme was his desire to keep peace with Japan and reach an understanding with that country. In late November the Root-Takahira agreement between the United States and Japan was concluded. An exchange of notes guaranteed the maintenance of the status quo in the Pacific Ocean and support for the open door as well as the integrity of China. Hence, the United States had basically concluded the same type of agreement with Japan as Russia and France had done earlier. Instead of cooperating with Germany against the rest of the world, Roosevelt had joined the camp of the opponents. Stefan Rinke See also Sternburg, Hermann Speck von; Venezuelan Crisis References and Further Reading Esthus, Raymond A. Theodore Roosevelt and the International Rivalries. Waltham: Regina Books, 1970.

331

Menning, Ralph R. The Collapse of “Global Diplomacy”: Germany’s Descent into Isolation, 1906–09. PhD diss., Brown University, 1986. Pommerin, Reiner. Der Kaiser und Amerika: Die USA in der Politik der Reichsleitung, 1890–1917. Cologne: Böhlau, 1986. Rinke, Stefan. “A Misperception of Reality: The Futile German Attempts to an Entente with the United States, 1907–08.” In Theodore Roosevelt: Many-Sided American. Ed. Natalie A. Naylor. Interlaken: Heart of the Lakes Press, 1992, 369–382.

FAUPEL,WILHELM b. October 29, 1873; Lindenbusch (Lower Silesia), Prussia d. May 1945; Berlin (?), Prussia German officer who was a crucial figure in military relations to Latin America in the period prior to and after World War I. As a right-wing political figure and president of the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut in Berlin, Faupel also gained publicity as the coordinator of Nazi cultural policy toward Latin America in the 1930s and 1940s. At age eighteen Faupel joined the German army and went through a typical military career, which lasted until the end of the nineteenth century. In 1900, however, because of his knowledge of Russian, he was commanded to translate for the German forces engaged in the Boxer rebellion in China. Four years later he volunteered to participate in the German colonial war of extermination against the Herero and Nama tribes in South-West Africa (1904–1906). After his return to Germany in 1907, Faupel was made general staff officer. In 1911 he joined a group of German military instructors for the Argentinean

332

FAUPEL,WILHELM

army. He stayed in Buenos Aires as instructor at the war academy until 1913. During World War I, Faupel served as a general staff officer. In May 1918, he was one of the organizers of the successful offensive of the “Chemin des Dames,” which killed thousands due to the massive use of toxic gas. For this achievement, Faupel was awarded the highest military decoration, Pour-le-Mérite, in August 1918. Immediately after the war, Faupel acted as a mediator between revolutionary soldiers and the army command. In addition, he became an important leader of the counterrevolutionary movement in Germany, founding the Freikorps Görlitz (or Freikorps Faupel) in January 1919, which actively participated in fighting against the Socialists in Munich and in the Ruhr region. Faupel also supported the abortive right-wing military coup against the Weimar Republic in March 1920. In 1921 Faupel had to leave the German army due to the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles and returned to Argentina. At the Río de la Plata, Faupel was informally hired as adviser by General José Félix Uriburu who, in 1923, was promoted to inspector general. Faupel managed to contract a group of old comrades willing to serve in Argentina despite the provisions of the peace treaty that prohibited German officers from serving in a foreign army. Until 1926, when he finally gained the rank of general in the German army, Faupel commanded these so-called informantes civiles. He was a crucial figure in the secret arms trade at the Río de la Plata. After the fall of Uriburu, Faupel had to leave Argentina but became inspector general of the Peruvian army a year later. Again, with the help of his traditional aides, he set out to reform the army structure, but again his

measures provoked the resistance of Latin American officers, who rejected the foreigners’ influence. In 1929, the German contingent under Faupel had to resign. Back in Germany during the Great Depression, Faupel held various positions in right-wing associations. After the Nazis’ rise to power, Faupel was appointed president of the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut in Berlin in 1934. From that position, Faupel became the chief coordinator of German cultural relations to Latin America. In 1936 Adolf Hitler sent him as ambassador to Franco’s Spain, but Faupel had to be recalled because of diplomatic difficulties a year later. Until the end of the war, Faupel continued to lead the Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut. His institution gradually lost importance due to the declining role of Latin America in Nazi strategic planning. In May 1945, together with his wife, Faupel probably committed suicide in Berlin. Stefan Rinke See also Argentina; Latin America, German Military Advisers in; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Treaty of Versailles References and Further Reading Gliech, Oliver. “Wilhelm Faupel: Generalstabsoffizier, Militärberater, Präsident des Ibero-amerikanischen Instituts.” In Ein Institut und sein General: Wilhelm Faupel und das Ibero-Amerikanische Institut in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Eds. Reinhard Liehr, Günther Maihold, and Günter Vollmer. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert, 2003, 131–279. Rinke, Stefan. “Der letzte freie Kontinent”: Deutsche Lateinamerikapolitik im Zeichen transnationaler Beziehungen, 1918–1933. Stuttgart: Heinz, 1996.

FEDERATION OF GERMAN WOMEN’S CLUBS see Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine

FEININGER, ANDREAS

FEININGER, ANDREAS b. December 27, 1906; Paris, France d. February 18, 1999; New York, New York Pioneer of photojournalism who became famous for his black-and-white photos of American metropolises such as New York City and Chicago. Feininger was the oldest of the three sons of the American painter Lyonel Feininger and his wife Julia Lilienfeldt. Two years after his birth, the family moved to Berlin-Zehlendorf. In 1919 a position was offered to Feininger’s father at the newly founded Bauhaus School in Weimar, which became the new home of the family for almost a decade. Weimar had a seminal influence on the younger Feininger. There he developed his love for nature and freedom and a dislike for compulsion and authority. As a sixteen-year-old he left grammar school and registered as a student at the Bauhaus, where he received his certificate as a cabinetmaker in 1925. Afterward he took up his studies in architecture at the Bauhaus, which had by then moved to Dessau. Here his interest in photography was awakened and his talent discovered. In 1929 Feininger graduated summa cum laude from his studies in architecture. Being an American and a Jew, it was not easy for him to find a job in Germany during the Great Depression. For a short time he worked in Dessau and later in Hamburg. In 1931 he ran out of work and traveled in his Opel sports car through Europe, taking pictures. With the help of a friend of his father, he finally found work in Paris. After it became impossible for him to continue his work in France, he settled in Stockholm, Sweden, for some years, where he held a position as architectural photographer. There he married the Swede Wysse

333

Hägg on August 30, 1933. In September 1935 their son was born. Once again, the political situation forced him to leave the country. Finally, in 1939, at the age of thirty-three, Feininger and his young family emigrated to New York, where his parents had already settled two years before. In the United States Feininger was lucky: regardless of his inability to speak English, and despite his old-fashioned photo equipment, he was hired by the Black Star Picture Agency as an all-round photographer for a guaranteed $20 a week. His pictures were sold to newspapers and magazines. This job enabled him to take pictures of anything he was interested in and to get to know New York City. After one year Feininger left the agency and accepted an offer to work as a freelance photographer for Life magazine. In January 1943 he became editorial photographer of the magazine, a position he held for almost two decades, until 1962. In that position, he had the opportunity to use the latest equipment and take advantage of the magazine’s laboratory, with its specially trained experts. Andreas Feininger produced almost 400 stories for Life magazine. After Feininger left Life magazine, he worked on his own, publishing several books and teaching at New York University in 1972. By the year of his death Feininger had published more than fifty books, many of which had been translated into other languages. He had received a great number of prizes and awards for his photography. His pictures have been and are still presented in uncountable solo and group exhibitions in many famous museums and public collections in the United States and Europe and are familiar to a large audience from motifs on posters, postcards, and calendars. Annette Hofmann

334

FESTIVITIES, GERMAN BRAZILIAN See also Bauhaus; Photography References and Further Reading Buchsteiner, Thomas, and Otto Letze, eds. Andreas Feininger: That’s Photography. Ostfildern-Ruit: Cantz, Hatje Verlag, 2004.

FESTIVITIES, GERMAN BRAZILIAN During the second half of the nineteenth century, German immigrants in Rio Grande do Sul created a system of celebrations rooted in German tradition. In 1863, the first Sängerfest (choir competition) was hosted by the Sociedade Orpheu in São Leopoldo. During the 1870s, the Kaiserfeier, which was dedicated to Emperor Wilhelm I, was added to the German calendar of festivities. Beginning in the 1890s, several associations, such as the Verband deutscher Vereine (Association of German Societies, created in 1886), the Turnerschaft von Rio Grande do Sul (Turner Societies of Rio Grande do Sul, originated in 1895) and the Deutscher Sängerbund Rio Grande do Sul (German Singing Association, founded in 1896) organized festivities on a regular, mostly annual, basis. Cities such as Porto Alegre hosted these events, which followed carefully detailed programs. Their formal, hierarchical character became obvious in the production of Festschriften (commemorative books on the occasion of an anniversary of an organization), which prescribed, regulated, and settled the organization of the festivities. From 1890 to 1941, the main celebrations were dedicated to Emperor Wilhelm II, Otto von Bismarck, and Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, who founded the Turnerbewegung (Gymnasts Movement). They included choir performances, shooting practice, and

gymnastics and celebrated historical events concerning both Germany and the German immigration to Brazil, among them January 18 and July 25. On March 22, 1872, the birthday of Wilhelm I, the first Kaiserfeier was organized in Porto Alegre. This celebration was dedicated to the German emperor and the unification of Germany in 1871. It was intended to create an emotional bond between German Brazilians and the newly formed German nation. This Kaiserfeier was held, with few interruptions, every March 22 from 1872 to 1887. It included popular parties (Volksfeste) on the Wilhelmshöhe, a small countryside property that belonged to the Hilfsverein (Aid Association), and dinner parties in hotels and other establishments owned by Germans. The climax of the Kaiserfeier came in 1887 with the celebration of the emperor’s ninetieth birthday. This event began with the sending of a congratulatory telegram to the monarch on behalf of Porto Alegre’s Germans, followed by a Protestant church service and a mass in the Catholic Church. Afterward, a festive procession brought the participants to the Wilhelmshöhe, where a concert was given, speeches in honor of the emperor were made, and patriotic songs, such as “Heil Dir im Siegeskranz” (Salute Dear Victory), “Wacht am Rhein” (Guard on the Rhine River), and “Was ist des Deutschen Vaterland?” (What Is the German’s Fatherland?), were sung. The celebration ended with the return of the procession and dinner parties in various societies, such as Gesellschaft Germania (Society Germania), Leopoldina, and Gemeinnütziger Verein (Mutual Help Society). After Wilhelm II was crowned emperor in 1888, the Kaiserfeier in Porto Alegre continued from 1889 to 1917. The cel-

FESTIVITIES, GERMAN BRAZILIAN

ebration, dedicated to Wilhelm II, occurred annually on January 27, Wilhelm II’s birthday. It consisted of concerts, dinner, and/or breakfast parties at the Salon Preussler. Many German societies, including the Germania, Gemeinnütziger Verein (Association for Mutual Benefit) and Deutscher Krieger-Verein (German Veterans Association), held parties to honor the emperor. As of 1900, the Verband Deutscher Vereine was in charge of organizing the Kaiserfeier according to the FestCommers (a guidebook that contains the rituals for these festivities) manner. These celebrations offered only men a chance to socialize. Women were invited to participate for the first time in 1916. The Fest-Commers followed a set agenda throughout the annual celebrations. It always started with a musical opening, a moment of saluting the guests, toasts (Trinksprüche) to the emperor, festive speeches to the person being honored and to Brazil, declamation of German patriotic poems, instrumental music and choir presentations, the singing of the Brazilian National Anthem, and the sending of a congratulatory telegram to Wilhelm II. The Kaiserfeier focused on the celebration and exultation of Emperor Wilhelm II, who was deemed the personification of German national unity. The speakers glorified Wilhelm II’s achievements in politics, economy, and foreign policy. The commemoration served to strengthen the ties of German Brazilians with Germany proper. To this end, Wilhelm II made donations for German schools in Brazil and stated that he considered Germans living abroad the pioneers of German commerce and culture. Between 1889 and 1917, Kaiserfeiern were held in Porto Alegre, São Leopoldo, Pelotas, and Rio Grande. From

335

1920 to 1922, the Kaiserfeier was organized as a festive commemoration by the Deutscher Krieger-Verein in Porto Alegre and again restricted to men. Its objective was to show loyalty to the abdicated emperor and to protest the Treaty of Versailles. The second most important event, held in Porto Alegre and São Leopoldo, was the Turnfest. Dedicated to gymnastics, this celebration was organized by the Turnerschaft of Rio Grande do Sul in the years 1896, 1899, 1901, 1903, 1907, 1921, 1929, and 1935. The 1935 Turnfest was integrated into the Turnerschaft’s fortieth anniversary celebration and into the festivities related to the Farroupilha Revolution centennial. The celebrations dedicated to gymnastics had as a central objective to revere a cultural practice that was considered an instrument for the formation of the German character and the maintenance of Germanity (Deutschtum). Gymnastics was believed to have a moral content: it was seen as reflecting seriousness and a sense of duty, two of the virtues that were part of the German identity. The organizers intended to promote solidarity among Germans and to tighten the ties with Germany through gymnastics. The creation and organization of the Turnfest was related to the role gymnastics societies and Turnvater (the father of gymnastics) Jahn played in the process of German unification. During the Napoleonic occupation of all of Germany, Jahn had revitalized gymnastics with the objective of strengthening the national conscience, thus preparing the youth to fight for Germany’s unification. The Turnfest usually started on a Friday and ended on a Monday. The protocol included the reception for the participating teams; the Fest-Commers; the sportive competition in different disciplines, among

336

FESTIVITIES, GERMAN BRAZILIAN

them floor and apparatus exercises, high jump and triple jump, rhythmic gymnastics, and fencing; and a dancing ball on Sunday, which included an awards ceremony and was followed by a Katerfrühstück (hangover breakfast). The Fest-Commers, which was usually scheduled for the Saturday, followed an official program determined by the organizing committee of the Turnfest and included a musical opening, a salute to the participants, festive speeches on behalf of Brazil and Germany, gymnastics and fencing performances, male choir presentations, and the performance German songs and poems. Even though women participated in the sportive competitions, the Fest-Commers was a strictly male event. Another kind of periodic celebration was the Sängerfest, organized by the Deutscher Sängerbund Rio Grande do Sul. This event took place in Porto Alegre in 1898; in São João do Montenegro in 1901; in Hamburgerberg (present-day Hamburgo Velho) in 1905 and 1909; in São João do Montenegro in 1912; in Hamburgerberg in 1916; in Porto Alegre in 1924, on the occasion of the festivities to celebrate the German immigration centennial; and in Novo Hamburgo in 1935. The Sängerfeste were established to celebrate and cultivate the tradition of choir singing and German folksongs. The Sängerfest lasted for two days, usually Saturday and Sunday, and its program centered on the competition among choirs. In general, the event began with the reception of the contestants, followed by a festive evening. Sunday was dedicated to the morning practice of the choirs, the fraternization lunch, the party opening, the festive speech, and the presentation and competition of the choirs. In

the evening there was the announcement of the winners and the award ceremony. In the 1920s the celebration of the Deutscher Tag (German Day) in Porto Alegre on January 18 became a permanent event of the festivities calendar. Its celebration occurred continuously from 1923 to 1937. The Verband deutscher Vereine was in charge of organizing this event, which was always held during the evening in the Turnerbund premises in Porto Alegre. The Deutscher Tag commemorated German unification and the foundation of the German Empire on January 18, 1871. It showed solidarity with Weimar Germany, which had been humiliated by the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The Deutscher Tag was celebrated according to the Fest-Commers. It began with a musical opening, normally a piece performed by an orchestra or sung by a choir; salutation to the guests; declamation of patriotic poems; the singing of the Brazilian and the German national anthems and, from 1934 on, the “Horst-Wessel-Lied” (Horst-Wessel Song); performance of the choirs from the singing societies; living pictures portraying German history (Germania, Otto von Bismarck, Friedrich II, Barbarossa, Hermann der Cherusker, and the river Rhine); festive speeches dedicated to Brazil and Germany; and gymnastics exercises on the bars and rhythmic dances. The past was explored in search of events and experiences that could be locally represented and used as identity traces and reference points of a common memory. The purpose of the Deutscher Tag was highlighted in the festive speeches, which focused on the desire to form a great German Empire based on German Volk (folk) and German blood. The belief in Germany’s re-

FESTIVITIES, GERMAN BRAZILIAN

birth and in the emergence of a führer (leader) who could lead the German people to their destiny was defended. During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler was glorified as a guide for both the people and German youth. Der 25. Juli: Unser Tag (The Twentyfifth of July: Our Day) was one of the annual festivities with the greatest geographical and public reach. Celebrated for the first time in 1924, it commemorated the arrival of the first German immigrants in São Leopoldo in 1824. It glorified German culture and German contributions to Brazilian economic development. In 1934, General Flores da Cunha decreed July 25 a state holiday in Rio Grande do Sul. From 1934 to 1941 the commemoration occurred in practically all places where German immigrants and their descendants had settled, among them Feliz, Novo Hamburgo, Panambi, Passo Fundo, Pelotas, Porto Alegre, São Leopoldo, Sapiranga, and Taquara. Die Kommission pro 25. Juli (The Committee for July 25), formed by the main German leagues and societies, such as Verband Deutscher Vereine, Riograndenser Synode (Organization of German Associations, Synod of Rio Grande do Sul), and Volksverein für die deutschen Katholiken in Rio Grande do Sul (Association for German Catholics), centralized the planning and organization of the celebration. According to the organizing committee, July 25 was to begin with a morning awakening with drums, songs, or bells; a festive church service; a fraternization lunch; a procession from the main street to the place of the event, which should be a wide open place; a march including the schools, the societies, and the gymnasts in order to hoist the flags; a salutation; gymnastics presentations, choir performances,

337

and several games; and an evening party at the ballroom with musical performances, choirs, declamation of poetry, festive speeches, plays, and/or movies. The pieces to be presented were to reflect the immigrants’ way of life and to awaken the participants’ curiosity about their origin. The program included plays, such as Deutsche Wandern nach Brasilien (Germans Emigrating to Brazil) by Clara Sauer, which tells the story of a German immigrant family from a rural area and their life in Brazil. All these events and commemorations contributed to the identification process of German immigrants and their descendants in Rio Grande do Sul. The celebrations were based on a unifying structure that congregated the participants around an assembly of symbolic forms and rites. For the celebrating community, the festival’s primary function was to remind them of their ethnic origin and heritage, thus ensuring and strengthening their feeling of ethnic belonging. Organizing events, singing, practicing gymnastics, and recollecting dates and personalities were not only a way to activate the memory and the culture but also a kind of representation and differentiation of the celebrating group from Brazilian society. Imgart Grützmann See also Brazil; German Unification (1871); Treaty of Versailles References and Further Reading Grützmann, Imgart. A mágica flor azul: A canção em língua alemã e o germanismo no Rio Grande do Sul. Doutorado em Letras, Faculdade de Letras, PUCRS, 1999. ———. “Do que tu herdaste dos teus antepassados, deves apropriar-te, a fim de possuí-lo”: O germanismo e suas especificidades.” Relatório de pesquisa recém-doutor apresentado à FAPERGS. Porto Alegre, Maio de 2001.

338

FILM AND TELEVISION (AMERICAN) AFTER WORLD WAR II, GERMANY Rambo, Arthur B. Reconstructing the Fatherland: German Turnen in Southern Brazil. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2001. Ramos, Eloísa Capovilla da Luz. O teatro da sociabilidade: Um estudo dos clubes sociais como espaços de representação das elites urbanas alemãs e teuto-brasileiras: São Leopoldo, 1850/1930. Doutorado em História, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, UFRGS, 2000. Silva, Haike Kleber da Silva. SOGIPA: Uma trajetória de 130 anos. Porto Alegre: Palotti, 1997. Tesche, Leomar. A prática do Turnen entre os imigrantes alemães e seus descendentes no Rio Grande do Sul: 1867–1942. Ijuí: Unijuí, 1996. Weber, Roswitha. As comemorações da imigração alemã no Rio Grande do Sul: O 25 de Julho em São Leopoldo 1924/1949. Mestrado em História, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, UFRGS, 2000. Wieser, Lothar. Deutsches Turnen in Brasilien: Deutsche Auswanderung und die Entwicklung des Deutsch-Brasilianischen Turnwesens bis zum Jahre 1917. London: Arena, 1990.

FILM AND TELEVISION (AMERICAN) AFTER WORLD WAR II, GERMANY IN Since 1945 American films, and later television, have mainly portrayed German people as Nazis, mad scientists, Communists, or some combinations of them. Given that Hollywood films and television programs have traditionally been much more influential in shaping American perceptions of historical events than any other media, Hollywood’s propagation of German culture in negative terms has cultivated a German legacy that remains largely negative to this day in the United States. This negative summation of Germany and Germans overlooks the crucial role Ger-

IN

mans have played in the growth of science, literature, music, and education throughout history while also ignoring the close cultural relationship between Germans and Americans dating back to the late 1600s. But Hollywood’s main goal has always been to entertain and not to educate, and since World War II the most entertaining portrayal of Germany has been that of Nazism. American portrayals of Nazism in film began before the United States even entered the war, when the Three Stooges lampooned Adolf Hitler in seven short films from 1937 to 1944. Charlie Chaplin produced the only full length anti-Nazi movie (The Great Dictator, 1940) before the United States declared war on Germany. Until the present, a steady stream of antiNazi movies have been produced, perpetuating the notion that all Germans are Nazis at heart regardless of the passage of time. The most numerous form of anti-Nazi films have been the many World War II battle films, which began in the mid1940s. Since then there have been over sixty full-length feature films focusing on the American and Allied struggle against Nazism. The 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s produced a roughly constant flow of anti-Nazi battle films, including The Desert Fox (1951), The Guns of Navarone (1961), The Dirty Dozen (1967), and A Bridge Too Far (1977). Given the extent of German war crimes, the violent blitzkrieg, and the memory of the Nazi death camps, the American image of Germany after the war was justifiably negative. But the sheer volume of anti-Nazi films produced over the years has, in the American mind, reduced the rich legacy of German culture spanning hundreds of years down to the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime, which spanned a mere twelve years.

FILM AND TELEVISION (AMERICAN) AFTER WORLD WAR II, GERMANY

Beginning in the 1960s, Hollywood began producing several films that combined the popular image of the Nazi with that of a new threat—German communism. The Berlin airlift (1948), the partitioning of Germany (1949), and the building of the Berlin Wall (1961) all helped foster the notion of a “good” capitalist West Germany and a “bad” Communist East Germany in American popular culture and, of course, in movies by the mid1960s. Although Nazism was still the dominant perception of Germans in that decade, it began to take on a secondary and often comical role as newer threats of German Communist spies and atomic annihilation predominated. In Dr. Strangelove (1964), for example, the title character is a former Nazi scientist advising the United States on nuclear arms matters while constantly having to curb his habit of saluting in Nazi fashion. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) combines the threat of Nazism and German communism. This theme resurfaced as late as 1991 in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, when a militaristic Klingon general argues, “We need breathing room!” to which the heroic Captain Kirk retorts “Hitler—1939.” In the same conversation the Klingon later remarks, “We are all cold warriors in space.” By the 1970s, serious films focusing on the threat of Nazism began to decrease, but many movies continued to be produced containing Nazi overtones. The most successful American movie series of all time, Star Wars, began in 1977 and contained strong Nazi themes. By the end of 2005 the Star Wars series will have included six major blockbuster films that follow the rise and defeat of an evil intergalactic empire led by an opportunistic chancellor who is only elected after he invents a military

IN

339

threat to an otherwise peaceful republic. The chancellor then declares emergency powers, names himself emperor, and creates an army of invading “Stormtroopers” to destroy any resistance to the empire. The 1970s also saw a spate of films about former Nazis in hiding after World War II, including The Odessa File (1974) and Marathon Man (1976). Nazi overtones are apparent in many popular 1980s and 1990s movies as well. In two of the three Indiana Jones movies, Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), the title character battles evil Nazis for possession of magical religious artifacts during World War II. The Oscar-winning Sophie’s Choice (1982) relates the story of a Jewish man’s and a female Polish Auschwitz survivor’s relationship in the postwar United States. Several 1990s movies were produced with direct anti-Nazi storylines, including Schindler’s List (1993), Saving Private Ryan (1998), and The Thin Red Line (1998). More recent movies such as Enemy at the Gates (2001) have kept anti-Nazism alive in twenty–first century United States culture. The second most popular American stereotype about Germany after Nazism is the idea that Germany is the home of the world’s worst mad scientists. This is the oldest stereotype about Germany in films, beginning with the first Frankenstein movie in 1909. Since then, scores of Frankenstein movies have emerged from Hollywood, including the classic Frankenstein (1931), The House of Frankenstein (1944), the comedic Young Frankenstein (1974), and the more recent Frankenstein (1994) starring Robert De Niro. Several other films set in the postwar period have combined the German mad scientist concept with the familiar Nazism threat. In They Saved Hitler’s Brain

340

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

(1963) and The Boys from Brazil (1978), for example, postwar Nazi scientists in hiding attempt to revive the Third Reich by reviving Hitler’s maniacal life essence. Similarly, in Splash (1984), a former Nazi scientist now living in the United States attempts to capture a beautiful mermaid for evil biological experiments. American television portrayals of Germany are similar to that in films in most regards, except that television programs about Germany have been more numerous and somewhat more lighthearted. As with films, the most popular German stereotype on television has been that of Nazism, but beginning in the late 1950s, several programs cast the Nazi threat in a comical light. From 1959 to 1973 the popular children’s cartoon The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle had as its main villain a character named “Fearless Leader” who sported latent Nazi insignia. The 1953 movie Stalag 17, a comedy about Allied prisoners of war (POWs) in World War II Germany, spawned a popular television series from 1965 to 1971 called Hogan’s Heroes, which lampooned Nazism by having the American POWs constantly outsmart the ignorant but loveable Colonel Klink and Sergeant Schultz. The most common type of programs dealing with Germany after 1945, however, has been the numerous television documentaries about World War II and Nazism. Portrayals of Nazism reached somewhat of a peak in the 1970s with the airing of Hitler: The Last Ten Days (1973) and Holocaust (1978). Fictional programs about Nazism have been less popular and include The Winds of War (1983) and Hitler’s Daughter (1990), both based on popular books. Although serious fictional and documentary programs about Nazism were more numer-

ON

ous than the few comedy series of the 1960s, the comedies were, in the long run, more influential in American culture, especially since they were immortalized in syndication and continue to air today. Jeff Stone See also Hollywood References and Further Reading Abramson, Abraham, project coordinator. New York Times Film Reviews. New York: New York Times, 1970–1975, vols. 3–7. Barclay, David E., and Elisabeth GlaserSchmidt. Transatlantic Images and Perceptions: Germany and America since 1776. Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 1997. Gorman, Lyn, and David McLean. Media and Society in the Twentieth Century: A Historical Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2003. Hanson, Patricia King, and Stephen L. Hanson. Film Review Index. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press, 1986, vols. 1–2.

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE ON German film, its images, and its institutes cannot be understood without reference to the international framework, in which the United States has held a principal role. Already before World War I, German filmmakers and distributors had imitated American technology and cinematic conventions and had struggled to distinguish their products from those made in the United States. The twofold endeavor of the German cinema—to recognize and adopt the “good” aspects of American film and to create a distinctive “German” film—continued into the Weimar Republic and the Nazi era. The privileged position of the American film industry in post–World War II West Germany increased the local filmmakers’ challenge. By

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

the 1990s, they needed to find a way into the hearts of German spectators, who had gradually become accustomed to American film conventions and eventually found it easier to identify with the consumer society’s cultural values promoted in American blockbusters. The significant work of local inventors and filmmakers such as the Skladanowski brothers, Oskar Messter, and Herman Foesterling notwithstanding, the German film and its cinematic imagery were always notably influenced by international practices and conventions. In its first decade (roughly, 1895–1906), German cinema was established, like its American equivalent, as an exhibition-led industry. Import, rather than production of films, was a common practice due to its comparatively low costs. American films and distinctive “American” genres—such as the Western— are reported to have been popular in Germany at the beginning of the 1900s (for example, Edwin S. Porter’s The Great Train Robbery, 1903). From this early stage on, American companies had shown great interest in the German film market and were concerned with satisfying it. Edison Manufacturing Company, for instance, had a representative in Berlin as of 1906. Concurrently with the international film industry, German film’s second decade witnessed two major institutional changes: the development of an efficient distribution system and the emergence of a featurelength narrative film. Both changes contributed to the establishment of a local production industry, which needed to struggle for its share against foreign imports. Already in this early stage, the American film industry was marked both as the most ferocious rival and as an ideal the Germans should follow.

ON

341

In the years before World War I, 25–30 percent of the films shown in Germany were American, whereas only 10 percent were German productions. (Saunders 1994, 20–21). In order to improve their products’ popularity, local filmmakers started to imitate American cinematic conventions (for example, the technique of cross-cutting parallel lines of action). Formulas from popular genres, as well as a “star” system, started to appear in the German film market. “Sauerkraut” Westerns, for instance, were being produced in Germany in accordance with Hollywood editing and plot-line conventions before World War I (unfortunately, very few traces of these films have survived; we know of films such as Viggo Larsen’s Der Pferdedieb [The Horse Thief, 1911] only from descriptions in the trade press). At the same time, filmmakers also sought to develop a distinctive “German” style, in order to distinguish their product from its foreign competitors. This strategy was compatible with the approach favored by contemporary intellectuals (mostly, though not exclusively, common among conservatives), who identified film as expression of non-German characteristics (e.g., American capitalism). Prewar German intellectuals often called for a construction of a new film, one that would help to build a (better) German nation. World War I had a decisive role in the way the German film industry developed; it also made a significant contribution to the nature of American influence. After declaring its neutrality, the United States continued to export films to Germany; until 1916 American moviemakers still referred to Germany as a “fruitful market.” Once its country was engaged in the war, the American film industry shifted its distribution efforts to the non-European world (a move

342

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

that promised its hegemony in the postwar international market). The administration of Woodrow Wilson attributed an important role in the war efforts to film and the images it distributed. “Film,” according to Wilson’s statement from 1916, “lends itself importantly to the presentation of America’s plans and purposes” (Thompson 1985, 94). Following his command, a Division of Film was launched, not only to make films that would present German soldiers as “a mass of Kaisers, primitive animals,” but also to fight the German film industry. When the division was closed in 1918, its administrator announced that it had achieved its goal—the “elimination of the German film.” The reality, however, was more complicated. Despite the severe crisis following World War I in the early 1920s, the German film industry was the strongest in Europe and the only one that sought to challenge Hollywood’s hegemony. One of the main reasons was the founding of Universal-Film-A.G. (UFA) in 1917. This production and distribution company was founded in collaboration with the military high command in order to help the war effort—to supply the Germans with means to counter American propaganda endeavors. When the German fight came to an end with a dreadful defeat, UFA was already a conglomerate of numerous film companies and filmmakers, including many of the greatest talents in Europe. These gifted men and women had another advantage: due to a ban on American movies declared by the German government, they could experiment with artistic styles and cinematic expressions—with a much lower risk of loss in the local market. The ban on Hollywood’s films, however, did not halt their influence on Ger-

ON

man cinema. American films were always a point of reference to filmmakers and moviegoers: the reputation of the American film, the constant writing about it in German magazines, and the small number of films that were screened in Berlin in spite of the ban were enough to maintain Hollywood as a real and unavoidable challenge. Interestingly, German films enjoyed sensational success in interwar America, before American films met a similar reception in Germany. American audiences’ enthusiastic response to Ernst Lubitsch’s Madame Du Barry (Passion, 1919) and Anna Boylen (Deception, 1920) and later on to Robert Wiene’s Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 1920) and Fritz Lang’s Der Müde Tod (Destiny, 1921), for instance, had a tremendous impact on the evolution of German film in the first half of the 1920s. During the postwar years, the high rate of inflation in Germany made the export of German films immensely more profitable than leaning on the profits of the local film market. Censorship and local tax policies made the need to sell German movies abroad exceedingly urgent. The necessity to find a profitable “niche” in the international market caused German filmmakers to look for a way to distinguish their products from Hollywood’s goods. The formula was found in films such as Caligari and Destiny (the slogan “this is the Germany we love” accompanied the latter’s screening in newspaper reviews all over the world). A “German” way of filmmaking was now identified with characteristics such as expressionist stylization; powerful, irrational protagonists; and often a departure from “classical” cinematic conventions. Thus, freedom to experiment and the urgent need to export were responsible, to a large

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

extent, for the peculiarities of German films of the early 1920s. It is important to note that the success of German films in the United States also had a destructive impact on the industry: many of the most talented German filmmakers left to find glory in Hollywood (Ernst Lubitsch, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, and Paul Leni are a small sample for this “first wave” of German filmmakers in the United States). In 1922, with the end of the ban, a flood of American films reached Germany—mostly cheap slapstick comedies and melodramas. The need to compete— again—with American products led local producers and artists to enhance their filmmaking and marketing strategies. Once again, classical conventions were adopted and imitated: by 1925, for instance, continuity editing, a Hollywood norm, was practiced constantly in German films. Also the drive to make “films [that] America would never do”—as Lang described the motivation for his celebrated Metropolis (1927)—was growing stronger. The alleged contrast between “American technology” and “German artistic skills,” which was observed by German filmmakers and intellectuals alike, served as a marketing strategy, as well as a persuasive argument in the discourse about the characteristics of German identity. Economically, however, this strategy failed; the appeal of the German film could never surmount Hollywood’s international attractiveness. In 1924, when the stabilization of the German currency started to diminish inflation, German exports were no longer lucrative; American exports to Europe became much more gainful. Under these circumstances—intensive struggle over market share with Hollywood, inside and outside Germany, and lower profit on

ON

343

exports—the German film industry found itself on the edge of bankruptcy. In Austria, for instance, the German market share decreased from 90 percent to one German film for every eight American ones (Thompson 1985, 104). Between 1923 and 1927, the American presence in the German film industry was immense. It reached its peak with the foundation of “Parufamet,” an agreement between UFA and the American studios Paramount and MGM. This collaborative contract relieved UFA from its enormous debts in exchange for American influence over the German distribution market. These occurrences contributed to the “Americanization” of the German moviegoers’ taste: Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, and Mary Pickford were adored equally by the masses and intellectual elites; American movie stars and filmmakers published their contemplations regularly in German magazines; and local movie “stars” were rated according to American standards (Harry Piel, perhaps the most popular German movie star in the 1920s, was known as “the German Fairbanks”). When Alfred Hugenberg, a conservative businessman, gained control over UFA in 1927, the collaboration with American studios gradually ceased. Hollywood continued to cherish the potential of the German market in the early 1930s, as seen in the intensive endeavor to solve technological and legal difficulties in order to facilitate screening of American sound films to German audiences. Hollywood’s efforts notwithstanding, state regulation and audience taste protected the German film industry from collapse. It is noteworthy that by the end of the 1920s, the German film industry was regaining significant popularity and had

344

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

registered remarkable artistic achievements. The American market share in Germany was comparatively low, about 30 percent, and some notable filmmakers and actors—for instance Paul Martin, Josef von Sternberg, and Emil Jannings—even came back from Hollywood to work in Berlin (the illustrious Blue Angel, released in 1930, was directed by Sternberg and starred Jannings). The rise of National Socialism caused a second wave of emigration from Germany. This group contained many filmmakers and actors, such as Fritz Lang, Billy Wilder, Marlene Dietrich, and Peter Lorre, who arrived in Los Angeles and eventually returned to Germany to make films after World War II. The Nazi rise to power was not, for many of them, the only reason for emigration to Hollywood, but they gained a reputation as “fugitives,” which helped them to develop their career in the United States, especially when Adolf Hitler was perceived as a global threat. Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, who adored American movies and were reported to watch them repeatedly, acknowledged the important influence film might have on public opinion. Goebbels gave film a crucial role in the new regime and declared his ambition to create “pure” German cinema. Nevertheless, the first years of the Nazi reign did not mark a clear rupture in American influence over the German film industry. Despite famous assertions by Goebbels, who declared that German films should not look like those of any other nation, Nazi cinema had consciously adopted Hollywood’s conventions. Film magazines continuously reported about American films, often in an enthusiastic tone. Contrary to official statements, the Nazi film industry continued Weimar’s tendency to

ON

emulate the stylistic and cultural conventions of the United States, as can be shown in films such as Glückskinder (Children of Fortune), made by UFA in 1936. As a result of the film industry crisis that year, calls to “learn from Hollywood” became ever louder. A close look at Nazi films reveals that imitation was common but limited to specific aspects of American films (such as escapist qualities and efficient marketing methods). Film scholars often indicate differences in emphasis between “classical” Hollywood films and popular genres in those of the Nazi era, which were expressed in esthetical choices (mise-enscène, camera movement, etc.) rather than in dialogues and plots. Until 1940—late into the National Socialist regime—American films could be seen in Berlin. During World War II, German films repeated the World War I production tendency on both sides of the Atlantic: films served as a way to distribute war propaganda and supply escapist entertainment. Two weeks after the war was over, regular screenings of movies started in the parts of Germany under American occupation. Both among the Western Allies and Germans themselves, the image of the Germans as “easily manipulated” by mass media was popular. This perception caused the United States to pay close attention to the German film industry and the imagery it distributed to the “weakminded” Germans. Once again, by the second half of the 1940s, a flood of Hollywood products found an enthusiastic audience. Interestingly, it was the United States that stopped Hollywood from completely taking over the German film market. The restrictions placed by American officials were meant to allow Germany a chance to develop a (con-

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

siderably) independent film industry. This “new” industry was to a large extent a continuation—in the personnel and the stylization—of the recent past. Certainly, essential changes were made in subject matters, and, in addition, American conventions and imagery were readopted. The spectators, now presented with American and German movies, crowded the cinema halls: by the mid-1950s theater owners sold 817 million movie tickets to Germans each year (Fehrenbach 1995, 118). In the middle of the 1950s a new movement of “angry young men” raised its voice against the residues of the Nazi era in German cinema. This movement, coming out of the “Cine-Club” of the big cities, combined the struggle against old Nazis with one against American influence. It called for the “purification” of German film from formulas created by “Hollywood or UFA.” The German film should (re)construct itself, according to this movement, by returning to its “essentials”— those of the “art film,” as opposed to the “popular” American film. The debate about the formation of a mass consumer society, symbolized by the United States, stood at the core of West German discourse on identity during the immediate postwar era. Within this context, the call for “genuine” German films came not only from the Left but also from conservatives. The German church, which had a significant role in the reconstruction of West German culture and politics, decried the American influence over German popular film. Despite the feelings they stimulated among conservatives and anti-capitalists, popular genres of West German cinema in the 1950s were not mere duplications of American conventions. Heimatfilme, for

ON

345

instance, a genre that traditionally presented the German countryside as the authentic opposition to the non-German modern city, continued to be remarkably fashionable. Moreover, American cinematic conventions were not adopted wholeheartedly even in distinctive “American” genres. The 1950s German melodramas, such as Erich Engel’s Liebe Ohne Illusion (Love without Illusions, 1955), for example, had some elemental differences— in visual stylization and the cultural values they promoted—from their American equivalents. Despite the unprecedented control of American studios over the West German film market, before the 1970s the popularity of local films, based on local cinematic traditions and cultural background, was higher than that of American ones. In the German Democratic Republic (GDR), the American influence was obviously weaker. Filmmakers were acquainted with American productions, at least until the 1960s, but the East German market was not controlled by Hollywood, and the Socialist administration encouraged manifestations of “Socialist” principles in stylistic and plot-line developments. The American way of moviemaking was a point of reference from which filmmakers were inspired and from which they also sought to differentiate themselves. Along with their enhancements of “Socialist genres,” these filmmakers also borrowed and modified American ones. Like its American counterpart, the extremely popular GDR Western, the Indianerfilm, portrayed the struggle between the American white man and the native “savage” on the frontier. Instead of telling the white man’s conquest story, however, the Indianerfilme depicted Native Americans as a harmonious, precapitalist

346

FILM (GERMAN), AMERICAN INFLUENCE

society that had to fight against (the white man’s) capitalism. In West Germany, where the American presence was a lot more evident, local filmmakers felt they should make a drastic break in order to distinguish themselves. In February 1962, during the West German festival of short films in Oberhausen, twenty-six young filmmakers declared the death of “the old film” and announced their belief in a new one. The New German Cinema, they proclaimed in the famous “Oberhausen Manifest,” would be free from “the usual conventions . . . from commercial influences . . . from the dominance of interest groups.” Though it was not their sole concern, the enemy that was indicated here was, mainly, American involvement in the West German film market. Once again, the inability to compete—economically—with Hollywood was combined in the New German Cinema with the conviction that American films were based on cultural conventions that were foreign to the essence of German identity. By the 1970s, the defeat of West German cinema by Hollywood was evident. Throughout the post–World War II era, Hollywood had taken advantage of American leverage in Germany to make it a most profitable export market, but until 1971 the German share of box office was higher than the American. Yet by the early 1970s, the German share had decreased dramatically. This shift is mainly due to the reorganization of Hollywood’s European distribution network in the late 1960s, the rise of television (which meant younger movie spectators), and the new dominance of “American” cultural values over traditionally “German” ones. The New German Cinema grew out of these unfortunate circumstances. It did,

ON

however, “free” itself from the constraints of the market to a certain extent. Governmental funding and television screenings freed German filmmakers from box office evaluation. The New German Cinema developed “art films” that sought to explore and undermine popular (Hollywood) cinematic conventions and to establish an essentially “German” film (which meant unAmerican). Art films were not the only reaction of German filmmakers to the rising appeal of American films. International cooperation, production of films that targeted teenagers, and sex-centered films participated in the endeavor to gain market share in the face of the latest changes in audiences’ nature and taste. Some West German films of the 1980s also adopted contemporary “American” conventions: Die Unendliche Geschichte (The Never Ending Story, 1984), for instance, presented a male protagonist with supernatural powers who pursues personal goals. These characteristics display the shift in cultural values from “German” selfsacrifice and the sense of duty and social responsibility to “American” self-fulfillment. At that time, an American-style “star” system developed in German mainstream cinema. After the international success of German popular and art cinema in the early 1980s, many German talents again left to work in Hollywood in the 1990s—e.g., Wolfgang Petersen (director, Air Force One, 1997), Roland Emmerich (executive producer, Independence Day, 1996). In the 1990s even Hollywood could not rely solely on its home market for profits. In addition to the efforts to sell in the international market, German producers realized they desperately needed to find an audience among television spectators and video store consumers. In order to compete in these

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

markets, German filmmakers often sought inspiration in new popular genres, such as the sitcom, which was influenced by American television conventions and proved to be popular among television spectators. Other films were shot especially for international distribution companies by integrating American themes, fitting (American) genre expectations, and occasionally using English titles and references to popular American films. The tradition of the “author film,” which was one of the major ideals of the New German Cinema, has reached beyond the 1970s. It is noteworthy, however, that American companies controlled the distribution of the films made by Werner Herzog, Volker Schlöndorf, and Wim Wenders and thus made profit from these allegedly independent film productions. The unification of Germany brought a larger local market for German productions. Typical “German” genres have gained a substantial share in the market since 1996. Nevertheless, American domination of the German film market was secure; during the 1990s, an American blockbuster could easily attract 4–5 million German spectators, whereas the most successful Autorenfilme— which supposedly maintained distinctive “German” characteristics—could expect less than one-tenth of this number. Ofer Ashkenazi See also Americanization; Consumerism; Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene; Herzog, Werner; Hollywood; Indian Films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft; Jannings, Emil; Lang, Fritz; Leni, Paul; Lorre, Peter; Lubitsch, Ernst; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Sternberg, Josef von; Wilder, Billy; World War I References and Further Reading Elsaesser, Thomas, and Michael Wedel, eds. A Second Life: German Cinema’s First Decades. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1996.

OF THE

UNITED STATES

IN

347

Fehrenbach, Heide. Cinema in Democratizing Germany: Reconstructing National Identity after Hitler. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995. Garncarz, Joseph. “Hollywood in Germany: The Role of American Films in Germany.” In Hollywood in Europe: Experience of a Cultural Hegemony. Eds. David W. Ellwood, Rob Kroes, and Gian Piero Brunetta. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1994. Krämer, Peter. “Hollywood in Germany/Germany in Hollywood.” In The German Cinema Book. Eds. Tim Bergfelder, Erica Carter, and Deniz Göktürk. London: British Film Institute, 2002. Saunders, Thomas J. Hollywood in Berlin: American Cinema and Weimar Germany. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Thompson, Kristin. Exporting Entertainment: America in the World Film Market 1907–1934. London: BFI Pub. 1985

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE OF THE UNITED STATES IN “American” landscapes and people have appeared repeatedly in German film from its emergence until today. The German cinematic depiction of the United States was grounded, from the very first stage, in the discourse of German cultural identity. Distinctive American scenery (skyscrapers, “Indian” raids) and characters (the gangster, the capitalist entrepreneur) were presented as a means to identify and create Germany’s image of itself. Cinematic imagery of the United States fluctuated throughout the twentieth century, as the U.S. role in international politics evolved and German identity was reconstructed after World Wars I and II. Several conventions are commonly found in German film portrayals of the United States throughout this time. They can be best described as a set of dualities

348

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

OF THE

within which the United States and Americans are described. First, the United States was envisaged both as the absolute “Other”—against which “Germanness” could be measured—and as a reflection of Germany’s essential characteristics. Second, in most cases, the United States and Americans were portrayed as an idea or a fantasy rather than as an actual reality. Usually this idea was illustrated as a utopian or a dystopian concept; in many cases, as we see below, the United States was envisaged as both utopian and dystopian at the same time. Third, the depiction of the United States was based on the duality of a hypermodern society (e.g., rush hours in the modern city, cars, airplanes) and a premodern society (the “tribal” way of life, the moral system of life on the frontier). Once again, many times the United States was represented as an ongoing tension between these two poles: primitivity was often detected within the ultramodern civilization. German filmmakers recognized the appeal of American images and made use of them since their earliest film productions (starting in late 1895). Frequently, they did so while imitating American conventions of representation and genre formulas. The German cinematic images of the United States, however, bore some essential differences from the American films they emulated. German Westerns, for instance, were arguably unique in emphasizing the male protagonist as a rebel against and liberated from respectable bourgeois values. These films, therefore, placed their protagonist within a premodern setting of the Wild West frontier, while providing him with ambitions that were a fundamental part of the ethos of modernity. The cinematic depiction of the United States became more momentous during

UNITED STATES

IN

and especially after World War I. When the United States became an influential world power and an international economy leader, the manner in which the United States was representated in the films of the defeated and economically dependent Germany became critical. Hereafter the dualities mentioned above are more visible. Fritz Lang’s Die Spinnen (The Spiders, 1919/1920) is a good example that uses all three conventions. The tensions between hypermodernity and premodernity, utopia and dystopia, and otherness and self-reflection can be seen in its depiction of his American protagonist, Kay Hoog, and his rivals, the criminal organization the “Spiders.” The tension between the modern and the primitive aspects of the United States is represented symbolically in the bandits’ headquarters, which is placed in tunnels underneath San Francisco: they are a dark force, invisible inside the modern city, threatening to undermine its stability. Furthermore, the “Spiders” employ Asian warriors who use premodern weapons and martial arts. Yet, being in the United States, the “Spiders” also use hypermodern technology, such as small, hidden cameras, within the primitive setting of the underground city. The utopian-dystopian axis is manifested, in one instance, in an American nightclub scene in the first part of the film. The Americans here—in sharp contrast with post–World War I Germans—seem almost pampered and concerned mainly with the results of a forthcoming sailing race. Into this modern capitalist heaven enters a most beautiful and dangerous woman—Lio Sha—one of the leaders of the Spiders, who intends to undercut this carefree civilization. Sha’s role in this scene is identical with the above-mentioned un-

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

derground city: an undetectable but almost omnipotent evil that transforms the heavenly appearance into a mere façade, a hell in disguise. German spectators, most likely, found it hard to identify with the oblivious Americans on the screen. Lang illustrates this lighthearted society, which was seen as the outcome of modern technology and a modern economic system, as devoid of morals, self-centered, and unable and unwilling to comprehend its surroundings. Despite their advanced technology and prosperity, the Americans seem to lack certain cultural qualities, which match the old German concept of Kultur, traditionally used to identify “German” characteristics. Kay Hoog, the male protagonist, seems to be an ideal mixture, however: he seeks a more “authentic” way of life while using the latest technological advances and his abundant wealth. This character might be read as an indication of the potential of the German individual in the modern, post–World War I era. The three concepts through which “America” was represented can be found in many films in the years following World War I. The sixth part of Joe May’s Herrin der Welt (Mistress of the World, 1920), for instance, is filled with images emphasizing the modernity of New York City: unprecedented architecture and especially rapid movement of cars, people, and information. In this film, while it is visually fascinating, the modernity of the United States is chaotic and irrational and therefore contains some characteristics that are typically “primitive.” A similar conception can be seen in Metropolis (1927). This film contains no indication of the place or the time of the events onscreen. Nevertheless, director Fritz Lang and producer Erich Pommer

OF THE

UNITED STATES

IN

349

describe their initial encounter with New York City’s skyline as they first approached by boat as the inspiration for this celebrated film. The utopian and dystopian aspects of the big city are envisaged in the coexistence of an upper-city (once more, a modern capitalist’s heaven), and an underground city (of the machine operators). A “heart” is needed in this city—according to Thea von Harbou’s script—in order to unite the ones who profit with the ones who suffer from the technological achievements. Without the “heart,” which is insinuated to be foreign to (American) civilization, the way to primitivity is short—as demonstrated in the violent uprising that almost destroys both the upper and the underground cities. American characters often appear on the German screen in the 1930s as tremendously rich people who have come to Germany seeking adventures and business opportunities. The wealth and beauty of the Americans are often combined with naïveté and incapability—as is the case with the young American girl in Harry Piel’s Jonny Stiehlt Europa (Jonny Steals Europa, 1932). When the Americans try to retrieve Europa, their stolen horse, they realize they cannot do it without the wit and strength of Jonny, the German protagonist. In the end, Jonny falls in love with the American girl, thus indicating how successful German and American cooperation is not only functional but also based on similarities in their nature. This film clearly demonstrates the symbolic value of the characters—the rich American capitalist and his daughter, the horse Europa, and the German male, Jonny: in the race to gain control over “Europa,” Germans and Americans should unite their cultural potential and acknowledge their similarities.

350

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

OF THE

The search for similarities and the representation of the tension between similarities with and differences from the United States, goes beyond the Weimar Republic era (1918–1933). In early Nazi films, such as Der Tunnel (The Tunnel, 1933) and Der Verlorene Sohn (The Prodigal Son, 1934), the encounters between Germans and Americans take place on American soil. In the former, German dynamite experts share an American engineer’s vision of advancing humanity (by digging a tunnel under the Atlantic Ocean). In the latter, the German protagonist finds himself sleeping on a street bench in New York City during the Great Depression, right next to an American World War I veteran. Quickly we learn that they share not only a comparable past but also a passive attitude toward war experiences and their duty to serve, and furthermore, their hopeless future seems to be the same. The portrayal of the United States in Luis Trenker’s Der Verlorene Sohn moves between utopia and dystopia. In the beginning of the film, the United States offers a promise of wealth and adventure: the German protagonist learns from his geography teacher and from visiting Americans about their enchanting homeland. When he is in New York, he is introduced to the images of skyscrapers and rapid movements, which the German moviegoer by now identifies with American hypermodernity. Soon, however, the German protagonist finds that this modern heaven hides misery and despair, hunger, and the loss of morality (he himself has to steal in order to eat). The hypermodernity is revealed to be a thin veil above the actual backward morals of everyday life and the primitive behavior needed to survive. Even when the protag-

UNITED STATES

IN

onist’s luck changes and he becomes rich and famous, he still recognizes his inability to cope with the American way of life and returns to his loved ones. It is important to note that he does not return to Germany as a whole, but to the village and to its premodern festival. In this film “America” seems to symbolize the alleged industrial modernity of any big city, even a German one, as opposed to the “genuine” German spirit, which manifests itself in the rural, lofty Heimat (a concept that relates both to the German national identity—the nation’s “homeland”—and to a manifestation of a nostalgic longing to and identification with the local community and its traditional way of life, which allegedly flourished in the “German” landscapes in the past). Der Verlorene Sohn and Der Tunnel, like other films of the Nazi era, continued one tradition of the Weimar era (of films such as Paul Martin’s Ein Blonder Traum [A Blond Dream], 1932): portraying the United States as a German object of desire. The protagonists in these films seek to find wealth and fame in the United States, and, particularly, a partner. Whether a lover or a business companion, the partnership is usually bound to fail; the German protagonist, who is willing to convert his lifestyle and values to American ones, discovers in the end the worthlessness of the American way of life. Only when the German protagonists stick to their Kultur do they find a compatible American companion. The cooperation of the German expert and the American engineer in Der Tunnel, against the workers’ demands for better working conditions, is a good example of such a partnership. The American partner, just like the German, can elevate himself above the values of the modern

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

mass culture (including Socialist protests and market rules of global capitalism)— together they create a covenant between two Übermenschen (Supermen). The United States and Americans continue to be symbols of a deceptive redemption in German film after World War II. In Wolfgang Staudte’s Die Mörder Sind Unter Uns (The Murderers Are among Us, 1946), the first German post–World War II feature film, a message of hope is delivered by an American. This message, however, arrives too late—after his recipient dies. Americans in the immediate postwar era are depicted both as a promise for an unknown, better world and as incompetent to fulfill this promise. Compared to the substantial presence of American soldiers on West German soil in the postwar years, their almost complete absence from German films is remarkable. Billy Wilder, a German filmmaker who emigrated to Hollywood before the war, put this GI presence at the core of his movie A Foreign Affair (1948). Though it was an American production dealing with conflicts in American society and designed for an American audience, this film also manifests some of the traditional characteristics of German cinema’s portrayal of “America.” The Americans here seem to be the main (maybe the only) hope for a better future; nonetheless, they are hypocrites and opportunists, easily manipulated and bureaucratic. Strangely enough, these are the same characteristics that Americans attribute to Germans. In order to improve the image of the United States in West Germany, several “educational” films were made in the late 1940s and early 1950s in which the fear from and the resentment toward Americans are discussed, and the essential

OF THE

UNITED STATES

IN

351

similarities between the Germans and the Americans are emphasized. Comments on the destructive and the constructive qualities of the United States, together with fundamental differences and similarities, continue to preoccupy the filmmakers of the West German New Cinema. In Im Lauf der Zeit (Kings of the Road, 1976), Wim Wenders famously coined the line “the Yanks have colonized our subconscious.” “America” here represents pop culture, as the protagonist cannot get the lyric of a pop song out of his head. We can read this line as a continuation of the traditional criticism in Germany of American society and its shallow cultural values and achievements. Nevertheless, this scene should be read also as an example of a more complicated image of the United States in the films of the generation of filmmakers who matured during the Adenauer era: after all, it was Wenders himself who called the same American popular music his “lifesaver” as an adolescent. According to Wenders, for his generation, American culture was both a refuge and liberator from the Nazi past and from the historical “amnesia” of older Germans. When the challenge of the recent past became more and more crucial to the reconstruction of German identity, the New German Cinema began to increasingly use the United States as an image that relates to memory and forgetfulness, guilt and forgiveness. In Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s Die Ehe der Maria Braun (The Marriage of Maria Braun, 1979), for instance, the killing of an American soldier serves as a means to win the protagonist’s husband’s forgiveness for her allegedly disloyal behavior during his captivity in Russia. The presence of Americans (on the screen and in the cultural consciousness) make it impossible

352

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

OF THE

to overlook the recent past. Other films stress the connection between Americans and the ability to forget. When Bruno Ganz awakes in a hospital with no recollection of how he got there in Reinhardt Hauff ’s Messer im Kopf (Knife in the Head, 1978), he says, “An American in my situation would probably take a gun and shoot blindly out of the window.” For him the “American” is an action hero of the movies—the lack of memory would not prevent him from functioning in his conventional manner. These two films envision the United States as a threat to the reconstruction of German identity. In Messer im Kopf the collective amnesia of the Germans regarding the circumstances that led to their present situation would render them eventually identical to the United States, which arguably acts without the burden of the past. Fassbinder’s film, on the contrary, criticizes the U.S. role in mastering Germany’s past. According to Fassbinder and others, such as Edgar Reitz, the educational and cultural efforts that were invested by the United States in postwar Germany have prevented the Germans from producing their own collective memories and narratives of their past and hence have limited their ability to construct their own identity. Like Wenders in his film Im Lauf der Zeit, Fassbinder argues in Die Ehe der Maria Braun that the American presence is truly redemptive because it is the sole replacement for the Germans forgetfulness; at the same time, this substitute is, eventually, illusive and foreign to the genuine German identity and needs. In presenting this dual message, Fassbinder’s film may resemble the films of the early 1930s. In early German films the United States was often a location for one episode

UNITED STATES

IN

in an adventure travel tour, a remote place—like India, South America, and other stops along the protagonist’s way— that emphasizes the protagonist’s uniqueness through encounters with foreign cultures. German characters continued to travel to the United States in the films of the New German Cinema. The encounter here is based on a closer acquaintance with Americans and, obviously, loaded with tension between antagonism toward and admiration of the American way of life. The travelers who come to the United States in Werner Herzog’s Stroszek (1977) look for salvation in what is supposed to be the ultimate “other” reality, compared to the one in Berlin. In the end they find in Wisconsin the same patterns as in Germany. Like other films of that period, Stroszek’s protagonists are not redeemed but enlightened: by noting the similarities between the United States and Germany, they gain a clearer view of themselves; the German identity, once again, can construct itself while gazing on its “American” reflection. The tendency to displace the discourse of German identity in the American arena was not unique to filmmakers of the “New German Cinema.” The highly popular Indianer Filme (German Westerns)—in West and East Germany alike— provided German film audiences with new imagery of the American Wild West and its inhabitants. This imagined American frontier gave way to reflections about the ideal qualities of individuals and their community, to which the Germans should aspire. Thus, for instance, East German Westerns emphasized the precapitalist’s qualities of the Native American community, which found itself in a fierce struggle against greedy, white capitalists. This emphasis also highlighted the indif-

FILM (GERMAN),THE IMAGE

ference of filmmakers to the actual reality in the Wild West, the actual way of life in the tribes and the differences between them. We should not overlook, however, the reflective quality of the images of the United States and Americans for the German filmmakers themselves, who were part of a national film industry that sought to differentiate itself from and associate itself with Hollywood’s success. We can understand those images as a displacement of their antagonism and competition with the American film industry on the one hand, and their need to rely on Hollywood’s cinematic conventions and distribution methods in a search for legitimization on the other. Films such as Wenders’s Der Amerikanische Freund (The American Friend, 1977) can be read easily in this vein: an American swindler convinces a German framemaker to betray his moral values (that is, to commit murder) by convincing him he is mortally ill and by promising him a great sum of money that would support his family in a way he would never be able to do otherwise. In order to stress the link between himself and the American “dreams industry,” the American friend dresses and talks like the hero of a Hollywood Western, and in his diary he cites a well-known American slogan—by now a cliché—“there is nothing to fear but fear itself.” Wenders uses it as if it was a superficial cliché, but, of course, it holds several layers of historical and cultural meaning, which cannot be discussed here. Only at the end of the film, after he murders for the American, does the German protagonist try for the first time to revolt and prove his own free will. His rebellion, nonetheless, is meaningless and lasts for only a few minutes, until his own

OF THE

UNITED STATES

IN

353

death. Evidently, Wenders has contempt for not only the intervention of Hollywood in the local film market but also for the superficial image of the United States that was established in German and international popular culture. Even if the motivation for the depiction of the United States and Americans was the struggle of the New German Cinema filmmakers for legitimization of their films, their products finally coincided with the discourse of German identity and its reconstruction in the second half of the twentieth century. The United States continued to be a unique “other,” one that could be a mirror for German identity. During the years before World War II, the United States was used often as a place that—fascinating as it was—gave a better assessment of the homeland’s superiority. In the second half of the twentieth century the United States continued to attract the confused protagonists, but the insights they gained through an encounter with “America” became more complex, in concert with the new complexities of German identity after the Nazi regime. Ofer Ashkenazi See also Indian Films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft; Lang, Fritz; Wenders, Wim; Wilder, Billy References and Further Reading Elsaesser, Thomas. New German Cinema: A History. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1989. Göktürk, Deniz. “How Modern Is It? Moving Images of America in Early German Cinema.” In Hollywood in Europe: Experience of a Cultural Hegemony. Eds. David W. Ellwood, Rob Kroes, and Gian Piero Brunetta. Amsterdam: VU University Press, 1994. Rentschler, Eric. “How American Is It: The US as Image and Imaginary in German Film.” Persistence of Vision, no. 2 (Fall 1985): 5–18.

354

FIRST MOROCCAN CRISIS

FIRST MOROCCAN CRISIS (1905–1906) German Weltpolitik (world politics) and U.S. expansionism brought a significant change to the relationship between Berlin and Washington at the turn of the twentieth century. The tradition of mutual sympathy gradually developed into a state of hostility. During the Venezuelan crisis of 1902–1903, friction between Germany and the United States reached a climax. After 1903, changes in the international power constellation, such as the shaping of the entente cordiale between Great Britain and France, made Washington’s goodwill more valuable for the German government. During the First Moroccan Crisis in 1905–1906, which developed from Franco-German rivalries in North Africa, German foreign policy was to a large degree based upon the belief in U.S. support. Until 1900, Germany’s economic interest in Morocco had been negligible, and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck repeatedly confirmed that Germany did not have any special claim on that country. Hence, French influence was allowed to grow steadily. The Moroccan sultans became dependent on loans from Paris, which led to talks about the acceptance of French predominance in Morocco by France, Great Britain, and Spain in 1902–1903, culminating in the conclusion of the entente in 1904. At this point, the German government gave up its traditional policy of noninvolvement in the matter and began to challenge French claims in Morocco. Berlin reacted to the demands of the pan-German Right and to the growing German economic interests in North Africa. In addition, Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow

hoped to thwart the threatening AngloFrench alliance. What Germany needed was a powerful backer, preferably one that could influence Great Britain. According to Bülow and his advisers, the cessation of English support would mean the breakdown of French policy. The United States seemed to be the ideal partner since it had shown interest in Morocco. Moreover, with Ambassador Hermann Speck von Sternburg, Germany seemed to have a direct channel to the U.S. president. In the negotiations that followed, fueled by the diplomatic dispatches of Sternburg, wishful thinking rather than rational estimations about U.S. willingness to risk involvement in Morocco determined German foreign policy. The belief in the president’s support became the “keystone” of German plans. By the middle of 1905, the specter of a Franco-German war over Morocco was looming large after Wilhelm II had personally visited Tangier and thus emphasized German claims on Morocco. Although the North African country was not really important for Germany, what mattered was to show the French that Germany was a decisive power in global politics and one that could not simply be bypassed—not even with British support. Under heavy diplomatic pressure, U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt finally agreed to mediate a conference with all powers involved in order to prevent a European war. Yet in spite of Berlin’s hopes, the president was determined to act as a neutral intermediary between the rivals. Roosevelt made it clear that he expected the Germans not to quibble over minor details. With the conference scheme secured, Ambassador Sternburg made the far-reaching commitment—presented in the form

FLÜGEL, JOHANN GOTTFRIED

of a personal message from the emperor to the president—that Germany would be willing to back up Roosevelt’s decision in case of Franco-German differences. The conference was scheduled to open in January 1906 in Algeciras. By that point, the German diplomatic situation had deteriorated to such a degree that the only aim of the German government now was to save face and avoid complete diplomatic isolation. Yet negotiations during the conference soon led to a deadlock because of the uncompromising French and German plans about how to reorganize the Moroccan police and financial systems. In February, when the whole conference threatened to fail and war seemed imminent, President Roosevelt reacted by using the former commitment of the German ambassador to force Germany into accepting the French proposal. Essentially, the results of the conference showed the failure of German diplomacy. Although Moroccan sovereignty and equal rights for all trading interests were confirmed, the country soon came into the formal sphere of French influence. More important, however, was the strengthening of the entente cordiale and the initiation of an Anglo-Russian rapprochement. Algeciras had openly demonstrated German isolation for the first time, and the term encirclement gained more currency with the German public. International conferences—this seemed to be the lesson for Germany—were obviously not a good idea. German indignation with the United States was at most short lived. If only because of Germany’s growing isolation in Europe, the illusion of a cordial German American relationship and possibly even an alliance continued. Stefan Rinke

355

See also Far East, U.S.-German Entente in the; Sternburg, Hermann Speck von; Venezuelan Crisis References and Further Reading Esthus, Raymond A. Theodore Roosevelt and the International Rivalries. Waltham: Regina Books, 1970. Larsen, Peter. “Theodore Roosevelt and the Moroccan Crisis, 1904–1906.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1984. Rinke, Stefan. “A Diplomat’s Dilemma: Ambassador Speck von Sternburg and the Moroccan Crisis, 1905/06.” Mid-America 75, no. 2 (April–July 1993): 165–196. Vagts, Alfred. Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten in der Weltpolitik. New York: Macmillan, 1935.

FLÜGEL, JOHANN GOTTFRIED b. November 22, 1788; Barby, Saxony d. June 24, 1855; Leipzig, Saxony German American merchant, philologist, and lexicographer. After a mercantile apprenticeship in Magdeburg, Johann Gottfried Flügel worked for several German trading companies and sailed to the United States in 1810, continuing his business activities on the banks of the Mississippi River. He obtained U.S. citizenship in New Orleans in 1819. Returning to Germany in the same year, Flügel settled in Leipzig, where he became lecturer (Lector publicus) in English at the University of Leipzig (1824–1837) and received his doctor’s degree (DPhil) in 1830. He was a laborious student of English, publishing a Grammar of the English Language (2 vols., 1824–1826), pamphlets, and critical essays that remain a noteworthy record of the earlier period of English philology in Germany. His Complete Dictionary of the English and German Languages (1830, 3rd ed., 1847), enlarged, updated, and newly edited by his son Felix,

356

FOLLEN, CHARLES

also contained a great number of Americanisms and became a standard work (15th ed., 1891). In January 1839, U.S. president Martin Van Buren appointed Flügel U.S. consul in Leipzig, thus succeeding the famous economist and Tübinger professor Friedrich List in that office. The U.S. consulate at Leipzig, founded in 1826, was of great importance for the commercial and intellectual interests of the United States in nineteenth-century Europe, since this city represented a commercial place of the first magnitude and harbored a first-rate university with a good number of American students. Its international fairs, regularly visited by American traders from New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New Orleans, had become a real bridgehead of east-west trade. Flügel was unremitting in his efforts to render service to American travelers, and by his untiring industry and zeal, he intensified Saxon-American business activities as well as transatlantic scholarly contacts. In 1846, only one year after its foundation, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., made Flügel agent of its international exchange service for central Europe. The regents of this famous institution of learning held their German agent in high esteem for his contribution to establishing its renown throughout northern and central Europe. After his death, his son, Vice-Consul Dr. Felix Flügel (1820–1904), was put in charge of exchange matters between Germany and the United States. Subsequently, exchanges between the United States and AustriaHungary and also Switzerland were conducted through the Leipzig agency. Eberhard Brüning See also American Students at German Universities; List, Friedrich; New Orleans

References and Further Reading Brüning, Eberhard. Das Konsulat der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika zu Leipzig. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Konsuls Dr. J. G. Flügel (1839–1855). Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Phil.-hist. Klasse. Vol. 134, no. 1. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994.

FOLLEN, CHARLES (KARL) b. September 4, 1796; Romrod, Hesse d. January 13, 1840; near Long Island Sound, New York The first German instructor and professor of German language and literature at Harvard University (“the first American Germanist”), Charles Follen played a significant role in introducing the German language, literature, and culture to the educated elite in the United States, especially in the Boston area. Arriving in the United States in 1824 after fleeing his native Germany in the wake of his involvement in the student movement (Burschenschaft), Follen taught at Harvard College for a decade. As he commenced his teaching career, he began writing his own German grammar, initially published in 1828. It was the first to be used widely in American schools and eventually appeared in over twenty editions in the next three decades. In order to facilitate his teaching of literature, he published Deutsches Lesebuch für Anfänger (A German Reading Book for Beginners, 1828), which included selections from the writings of numerous authors, including Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Christoph Martin Wieland, Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg), and Friedrich Schiller. This work, too, was used for several decades in American colleges. Follen was particularly suc-

FOLLEN, CHARLES

cessful in fostering a fuller appreciation of Schiller in the United States, where he had been known almost exclusively for his early work, Die Räuber (The Robbers, 1781). Follen’s numerous criticisms of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe were at least partially responsible for diminishing the reputation of the poet in the United States. In addition to his public lectures on German literature and philosophy, Follen promoted German culture in his social contacts with the Boston elite, including the Transcendentalists. At the same time he briefly taught ethics at the Harvard Divinity School and introduced Harvard to the German gymnastics movement. Dismissed from his academic post in 1835, partly because of his support of student protests against the college president and partly because of his involvement with the antislavery movement, Follen became a Unitarian minister. In this role he became intensively involved in the antislavery movement. Upon his appointment to the Harvard faculty, occasioned by the recommendation of the Marquis de Lafayette to George Ticknor, Follen soon acquired a wide audience as a cultural intermediary between Germany and his adopted country. As an instructor and then professor of German language and literature after 1830, he experienced increasing enrollments and received positive testimonials from students and faculty. In public addresses and his inaugural address as professor, he promoted German literature from the Minnesänger (Minnesingers) to contemporary authors, including Goethe, in spite of his criticism of the poet’s perceived aloofness and perceptible lack of political commitment. At the same time he defended German poets and thinkers against accusations that they were skeptical, materialistic, and atheistic.

357

Follen also founded the Harvard German Society in 1828, which included such prominent figures as George Ticknor. In addition to his numerous public lectures on Schiller, Follen wrote an introduction to a newly published American edition of Thomas Carlyle’s Life of Schiller. He also assisted in the introduction of German philosophers and theologians to American audiences, especially Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Ernst Schleiermacher, and Wilhem De Wette. At the same time, he also promoted German scholarship in history and psychology. On a personal level Follen had an influence on prominent Boston literary and cultural figures such as Theodore Parker, William Ellery Channing, Ralph Waldo Emerson, George Ripley, and Margaret Fuller. Follen’s life on both sides of the Atlantic was marked by his strident, uncompromising promotion of freedom and nationalism. As a student at the University of Giessen and an instructor at the University of Jena, his views had become increasingly radical to the point of advocating political assassination and terrorism. With some reason, German authorities had suspected him of encouraging the student Carl Sand in his assassination of August von Kotzebue. Shortly after his arrival in the United States, Follen joyfully embraced American nationalism and liberties, becoming a citizen and changing his name to Charles. After he had noted that American freedom was marred by slavery, he became a militant abolitionist and ally of William Lloyd Garrison, actively participating in national, state, and local antislavery organizations. Follen stopped short of advocating slave rebellions, in spite of his earlier espousal of violence. However, until his untimely death in 1840, his dogmatic and uncom-

358

FORD, HENRY

promising commitment to freedom brought him into conflict with those of more moderate views. His life was cut short when his passenger ship caught fire and sank on his return trip to Boston. John T. Walker See also Fuller, Margaret; Muench, Friedrich; Ticknor, George; Transcendentalism; Turner Societies; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Pochmann, Henry A. German Culture in America: Philosophical and Literary Influences, 1600–1900. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1957. Spevack, Edmund. Charles Follen’s Search for Nationality and Freedom, 1796–1840. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Spindler, George W. The Life of Karl Follen: A Study in German-American Cultural Relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917. Vogel, Stanley W. German Literary Influences on the American Transcendentalists. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955.

FORD, HENRY b. July 30, 1863; Dearborn, Michigan d. April 7, 1947; Dearborn, Michigan Most frequently associated with revolutionary Fordist production methods, Henry Ford also exerted considerable influence on German culture as a person. His immensely successful autobiography Mein Leben und Werk (My Life and Work), published in German in November 1923, left a strong impression on German culture. With more than 200,000 copies sold already during the first two years after publication, it was one of the great bestsellers in Weimar Germany and, beyond that, a canonical statement for the Weimar stabilization period, promising the transforma-

tion of “the wasteland of industry into a blooming garden.” Henry Ford was born on a prosperous farm near Dearborn in southeastern Michigan. His grandfather, John Ford, a Protestant English tenant farmer, came to the United States from Ireland in 1847. In 1879, he left his father’s home and began working as an apprentice machinist in Detroit. After he married Clara Bryant in 1888, Ford became an engineer with the Edison Illuminating Company in 1891. Two years later, Ford was promoted to chief engineer. This new position gave him sufficient time to invent his self-propelled vehicle—the Quadricycle. This invention paved the way for the creation of the automotive industry. In 1903, Ford established the Ford Motor Company, which in 1908 began producing the Model T. About ten years later, Ford produced half of all American cars. To meet the growing demand, the Ford Company expanded and opened a new production facility in Highland Park, Michigan (1910). Three years later, Ford introduced the continuous moving assembly line in this outlet. His autobiography helped to create a mythical, iconical, rather than factual Henry Ford, representing an ideal that others aimed to emulate. German businesspeople and engineers traveled to Detroit to understand how one person had created this economic empire. Their travelogues were published in Germany along with numerous other popular books on Henry Ford. German readers were primarily interested in the person and his success instead of the abstract principles of Fordism. In these books they found not only portrayals of Ford as an engineer and businessman but also as a philosopher, a visionary, and even a messiah of the modern era. His ethics of

FORD, HENRY

359

Celebrating his 75th birthday, Henry Ford receives the Grand Cross of the German Eagle (highest Nazi award to a foreigner) for industrial accomplishments, July 31, 1938. (Bettmann/Corbis)

social service became a shining model of humane and moral behavior. Ford assured his readers that his social system would end the attractiveness of revolution and communism for workers. This corrupted image of Ford—some people in Germany regarded it as a “Ford psychosis”—basically survived even the Great Depression. Long before the Nazis came to power in Germany, many of its members and sympathizers were highly interested in Henry Ford. Already in the early 1920s, Adolf Hitler was an admirer of this engineer and businessman. He repeatedly mentioned Ford in his speeches and later also in Mein Kampf (My Battle). This interest was in part due to Ford’s business success and

philosophy but also to another publication of his, Der Internationale Jude (The International Jew), published in Germany in 1921, even before his autobiography. In 1922 this collection of blatantly antisemitic articles was already in its twenty-first printing. An abridged edition of Der Internationale Jude later became a standard work of Nazi propaganda. In 1938 Hitler awarded Ford the Verdienstkreuz Deutscher Adler (Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle) in recognition for his contribution to the motorization of the masses. Ford was the first recipient of this highest award of the Nazis for foreigners. Bernd Essmann

360

FORDISM See also Business, U.S.–Third Reich; Fordism; Great Depression References and Further Reading Baldwin, Neil. Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate. New York: Public Affairs, 2001. Klautke, Egbert. Unbegrenzte Möglichkeiten: “Amerikanisierung” in Deutschland und Frankreich (1900–1933). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003. Sward, Keith. The Legend of Henry Ford. New York: Atheneum, 1975.

FORDISM Fordism is a set of principles that includes technological measures, especially mass production on the assembly line, as well as economic strategies such as supporting mass consumption by lowering prices and increasing wages. Even though this set of principles was the result of a group effort at the Ford Motor Company, it is usually associated with Henry Ford. In Germany Fordism is often considered synonymous with the modernization and the “Americanization” of German industry in particular and German culture in general. There is, however, a significant gap between the cultural and economic acceptance of Fordism. Its economic impact was mostly embraced with much enthusiasm, whereas cultural consequences were often met with strong resistance. The economic influence of Fordism was already considerable in the Weimar Republic. In the second half of the 1920s, studies and travelogues by German observers carried the message that the American economic miracle was built on a new form of industrial organization. Especially businesspeople and engineers, but also trade unionists visited Highland Park and

River Rouge, the main production sites of the Ford Motor Company. Almost all of them returned convinced that Fordism was a revolutionary concept that should be adopted in Germany. This “second discovery of America” propagated the image of the United States as a modern society with peace between labor and capital, steadily rising wages, rapidly increasing consumption, and a hitherto undreamed-of prosperity, virtually creating a classless society. Fordism seemed to be the answer to the class conflicts and overall instability in post–World War I Germany. The success of Henry Ford and the Ford Motor Company appeared to present irrefutable evidence for the validity of this “white socialism.” It was convincing not only for those afraid of Soviet-inspired “red” socialism, but also for most of the trade union leaders, who were especially impressed by the Fordist wage policy. Weimar Germany’s economic reality in the 1920s, however, was different. The country was not sufficiently developed to apply Fordist principles in the same way that had been done in the United States. After 1933, the Nazis applied some Fordist ideas in designing their car for the masses, the Volkswagen. But even here, it was not until after World War II that Fordism played a key role in the German Wirtschaftswunder (economic miracle), with the Volkswagen Beetle, the German Model T, as its iconic example. Just as West Germany can be interpreted as a Fordist success story, the absence of a Fordist automobile industry had a negative effect on East Germany. As in the Weimar Republic, the lack of an appropriate economic basis for the development and production of special machines

FORDISM

inhibited the evolution of a modern industrial structure. Even though Fordist production methods were also important in the German Democratic Republic, for example, in shipbuilding and the serial-style (prefabricated buildings, mostly high-rise) construction of apartment blocks, Fordism never became a dominant feature in the East German economy. Even though the economic consequences of Fordism were generally embraced and considered necessary, the resulting cultural changes met with strong resistance in Germany. In the Weimar Republic, the hope for a technological revolution was accompanied by strong fears about the loss of the German cultural tradition. The modernization that attended the introduction of Fordist principles was interpreted as Amerikanisierung (Americanization) and invoked the fear of soulless rationalization, mass society, and mass culture, which was perceived as a threat to German Kultur (high culture). One typical response to that fear was that the Old World could and should adopt American technology, yet the American technological muscle needed to be purged of its soulless, materialist capitalism. Instead it should be infused with aesthetic, philosophical, and spiritual values to establish a German culture that would be superior to the modern civilization of the United States. In contradistinction, there were also intellectuals and artists who believed that the United States was leading the world into a uniquely modern era. They considered Fordism as a cultural opportunity for Weimar Germany. One of the leading personalities was Walter Gropius, founder and director of the widely and lastingly influential Bauhaus. Representing an important

361

branch of modern architecture, later known as the international style, Gropius was one of those European pioneers who used machine and industrial metaphors to express their aesthetic commitment. One of his main projects was to mass-produce machine-made houses in order to fulfill the dream of inexpensive, attractive, and healthy homes for the masses. What Ford did for the automobile, Gropius attempted with his assembly-line housing, which Sigfried Giedion called a Wohnford (Home Ford). It was particularly the chaotic post–World War I situation in Germany, with its fear of unrest and social catastrophe, that influenced Gropius’s architectural style. However, Gropius was not simply applying Fordism. His aim was not only to create a mass product but also to infuse American technical forms with European culture, thereby aesthetically “filtering” the directness of American technology. When Gropius left Nazi Germany for the United States, aspects of an American technological style that had been transformed into a European architectural style thus were reimported into the country where Fordism originated. Bernd Essmann See also Americanization; Bauhaus; Ford, Henry; Gropius, Walter Adolph; Volkswagen Company and Its VW Beetle References and Further Reading Berghahn, Volker R. “Fordismus und westdeutsche Industriekultur, 1945–1989.” In Deutsch-amerikanische Begegnungen: Konflikt und Kooperation im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Eds. Frank Trommler and Elliott Shore. Stuttgart, München: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 2001, 188–204. Hughes, Thomas P. American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870–1970. New York: Viking, 1989.

362

FOREIGN POLICY, WEST GERMANY Klautke, Egbert. Unbegrenzte Möglichkeiten: “Amerikanisierung” in Deutschland und Frankreich (1900–1933). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003. Trommler, Frank. “The Rise and Fall of Americanism in Germany.” In America and the Germans: An Assessment of a ThreeHundred-Year History. Eds. Frank Trommer and Joseph McVeigh. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985, 332–342.

FOREIGN POLICY (U.S., 1949–1955), WEST GERMANY IN The Strategy of Integration Between 1949 and 1955 German-U.S. relations were characterized by the step-bystep transition from military occupation to partial sovereignty. Within a short time span, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), founded in 1949, achieved legal sovereignty, joined the Western Alliance on almost equal terms, and completed the transition from occupied territory to ally, which marked a huge advance in Germany’s return to the international community of nations. This remarkable change in Germany’s position within the international postwar system was to a large degree the result of Washington’s strategic approach toward Europe in the context of the East-West confrontation. The upgrading of the FRG from occupied to allied status was the logical outcome of America’s strategy of containing its Soviet adversary by uniting the non-Communist world in a system of alliances under U.S. hegemonic leadership. In Western Europe, Washington was confronted with the simultaneous chal-

IN

lenges of preventing the extension of Soviet power into Central and Western Europe and ensuring that Germany would never again become a threat to world peace. The U.S. response to this dual challenge was to advance the integration of the Western European states. By increasing the economic and military strength of Western Europe, integrating it politically, and revitalizing it psychologically and ideologically, the United States hoped to prevent both the expansion of the Soviet Union and the uncontrolled resurgence of Germany. This approach met the desire of many European governments to form part of a European economic and security system under U.S. leadership, a process that Norwegian historian Geir Lundestad has described as “empire by invitation” (Lundestad 1986, 263–277). At the point of intersection between the two plans—the strategy of integration and the policy of containment—lay the German question. The U.S. policy toward Germany had two main objectives: protection against Germany and protection against the Soviet Union. These aims were conceptually interwoven and formed the basis of an approach that is now called dual containment. In order to prevent any resurgence of German militarism, West Germany was gradually but tightly integrated into the political, economic, and military structures of an emerging North Atlantic community under American leadership. At the same time, however, the integration of the young FRG also served to contain the Soviet Union. The economic and military potential of West Germany was to give the ailing western half of Europe a shot in the arm to bolster its defenses. Political scientist Wolfram Han-

FOREIGN POLICY, WEST GERMANY

rieder appropriately described this dual strategic approach as “the containment of the Soviet Union at arm’s length and of West Germany with an embrace” (Hanrieder 1992, 195). The transformation of the FRG from occupied territory to ally was thus built into the conceptual framework of the U.S. containment strategy. The fact that the change took place in a relatively short period was attributable to the U.S. interests embodied in that strategy and to the increasing polarization of the international system from 1950 on.

The Politics and Economics of Integration The founding of the West German state in May 1949 and the conversion of the Allied military governments to civilian high commissions ended the occupation period and prepared the way for the step-by-step transformation of German-U.S. relations. Although Americans and Germany’s European neighbors harbored suspicions about the extent of democratization and reform achieved in West Germany during those first years, the strategy of integration required that the FRG be granted increased room for maneuver, coupled with the insistence on the strict political, security, economic, and cultural/ideational integration of the new German state into the Western community of nations. The Occupation Statute underwent a first revision in the Petersberg Agreement of November 22, 1949. The dismantling of German industrial plants was restricted, and the FRG received the right to establish consular relations with foreign nations and to join international organizations. At the same time, it was to conclude a bilateral

IN

363

economic agreement with the United States on Marshall Plan aid and join the Council of Europe as an associate member. By October 1949 the FRG became a member of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC), and the Marshall Plan agreement between West Germany and the United States was signed on December 15. By July 1, 1950, West Germany joined the Council of Europe. A comprehensive revision of the Occupation Statute, effective from March 6, 1951, not only brought virtually complete internal self-government but also permitted the establishment of a foreign ministry. In addition, the FRG was one of the six founding states of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established in Paris on April 18, 1951. Political integration was accompanied by the reintegration of West Germany into the world economy. The European Recovery Program (ERP), commonly referred to as the Marshall Plan after the project’s initiator U.S. secretary of state George C. Marshall, was implemented between 1949 and 1952. The United States and sixteen European nations participated in a program whose financial volume of $14 billion would equate $70 to $90 billion in 2005 prices. Although West Germany received only 10 percent of the program’s foreign aid, the ERP helped to stabilize the country’s balance of payments and enabled the import of urgently needed foodstuffs and raw materials for the reemerging industry. The Marshall Plan thus made a significant contribution to West Germany’s foreign trade balance and also helped to foster a long-term recovery into the growth periods of the 1950s and 1960s. Unemployment figures gradually decreased and

364

FOREIGN POLICY, WEST GERMANY

the economy achieved regular export surpluses. The ERP thus helped to lay the foundations for sustained economic growth, full employment, foreign trade equilibrium, and price stability. Most importantly, in West Germany the Marshall Plan had a political symbolic value that far exceeded its economic importance, as it was interpreted and is still remembered by West Germans as a sign that the United States and the Western powers were committed to the political and economic reconstruction and integration of West Germany. With the intensification of the cold war, and in particular during the war in Korea (1950–1953), economic stabilization became an important tool of U.S. security strategy. The Marshall Plan was consequently integrated into the Mutual Security Program as West German rearmament took on priority over reconstruction. The war in Asia accelerated the transitional relationship between West Germany and the United States as it demonstrated to the Allies the urgent need for a West German contribution to European defense. After the fall of 1949, the Soviet Union possessed a nuclear capability and its superiority in conventional weapons in Europe was now seen as an even greater threat. The founding of NATO in the same year had brought no immediate improvement in the situation as far as the West was concerned, and the military now concluded that the imbalance could be redressed only with the aid of German divisions. Another factor in favor of rearmament was that it would ease the financial burden on the West European allies. The most compelling political argument, however, was that the complete

IN

integration of the FRG into the Western Alliance would prevent, once and for all, any return to a German policy of walking the tightrope between East and West. From the summer of 1950, the question was no longer whether West Germany would be rearmed, but what form rearmament would take. The analogy between the Korean and German situations—a distorted analogy, yet suggestive—helped to reduce gradually the reluctance of the Western powers, and of public opinion within them, to accept a German defense contribution. The West German government, especially Konrad Adenauer, saw a unique opportunity under these circumstances to gain, through a defense contribution, sovereignty and the standing of an equal partner within the Western community of nations considerably earlier than had been expected. The French prime minister, René Pleven, put forward a plan in October 1950 in which a supranational organization, the European Defense Community (EDC), would cushion the threat West German rearmament posed to the West. The aim of the Pleven Plan was to enable West German troops to be raised without creating a West German national army. The resulting negotiations were tough and protracted and the French, in particular, took a hostile position toward the idea of West German troops that was overcome only by considerable pressure from Washington. Not until May 9, 1952, was a draft treaty finalized. While this treaty was being negotiated, the occupying powers and the FRG, whose policy naturally linked a defense contribution to the issue of sovereignty, drew up what later came to be known as the Paris Treaties, which pro-

FOREIGN POLICY, WEST GERMANY

vided for the end of the occupation and promised the West German state its sovereignty, apart from some residual Allied rights. However, the failure of the EDC also delayed the coming of West German sovereignty. The treaty establishing the European Defense Community was signed by the foreign ministers of the participating states in Paris on May 27, 1952, but on August 30, 1954, the French National Assembly refused to ratify it. Two years of hard work, by Europeans and Americans alike, to create a European military force had come to nothing. But just three months later, in October 1954, the NATO foreign ministers agreed to accept the FRG as a member of NATO. On May 5, 1955, the Paris Treaties, which included slight modifications to the 1952 agreements, came into force. West Germany was now a sovereign state and a member of NATO. Personalities played an important role in bringing about this quick turn of events and the rapid integration of a former enemy into the Western community of nations. In particular West Germany’s chancellor Konrad Adenauer provided the U.S. side with a steadfast partner and guarantor against what they (and he) regarded as the dangerous German policy of swinging between East and West. The chancellor made complete integration with the West a cornerstone of policy and rejected all Soviet blandishments about reunification. In addition, the “Old Man” personified the spirit of European integration, pursuing reconciliation with France and lending his support to the plans for a European Defense Community. Adenauer’s close ties with the United States gave him a steadily growing influence on American policy dur-

IN

365

ing the 1950s as relations between the two governments were particularly close in the years 1953 through 1955.

The Cultural and Ideational Foundations of Integration From the outset, the functional integration of the FRG into the political, economic, and military structures of the Western world went hand in hand with a program designed at ideational and cultural integration. The main instrument of this intellectual reorientation was a comprehensive program of democratization beginning in 1946 and 1947. Yesterday’s enemy was now to be transformed into an allied democracy on the Western model. Thus, the objective of social reform was another integral part of the strategy of dual containment. From the U.S. point of view, it was important for the sake of a stable international system—and hence for the sake of America’s own national security—that West Germany should be welcomed back into the fold of the Western democracies. The foundations of this German-U.S. success story had been laid earlier with the end of the war and the events of the early postwar years. The United States was seen to be magnanimous in victory, an image far removed from that portrayed in National Socialist propaganda. The Germans, hungry and defeated, soon came to trust the GIs, whose behavior was far different from the excesses of the Red Army. These early impressions, encouraging for the most part, were then further strengthened by the massive economic aid provided under the Marshall Plan. The United States therefore addressed the West German people directly, through the largest cultural relations programs

366

FOREIGN POLICY, WEST GERMANY

worldwide designed to encourage Germans to commit themselves to the West without reservation. The programs were designed to bring about profound changes in West Germany through a wide range of cultural diplomacy and propaganda, including educational exchange, information centers, media programs, exhibits, and concerts. Between 1947/1948 and 1955 almost 12,000 Germans visited the United States (Schumacher 2000, 160). High school and university students, scholars, and professionals toured America to study the workings of a democratic society in action and return with a largely positive attitude vis-àvis the United States and a desire to transfer insights derived from the stay overseas. The various programs were complemented by more than 1,600 U.S. experts who toured Germany during the same time period and contributed to fields ranging from municipal administration to prison reform to educational reform. For those who could not participate in the overseas exchange programs, information centers, the so-called Amerika-Häuser (America Houses), developed into a highly popular window into the New World. By 1951 and 1952 there were 48 of these centers and more than 110 reading rooms in West Germany. The libraries played an important role, as they provided Germans with the literature that had been banned during the years of Nazi dictatorship. But the centers also offered exhibits, films, concerts, lectures, seminars, English-language instruction, and special interest programs for women, teachers, and other groups. They became cherished institutions that not only spread knowledge about the United States but also provided a framework within which Germans and Ameri-

IN

cans could reconstruct the ideational dimension of mutual friendship. Despite the enormous success of those cultural programs, Americans were often unsure about the West German people’s basic attitude to foreign policy. The major West German controversies of the 1950s— rearmament, neutrality, integration with the West, and reunification—confronted the United States with the dilemma that the newborn spirit of democracy might seriously jeopardize the strategy of dual containment. The gradual relaxing of the Western Allies’ control over the FRG between 1949 and 1955 and the subversive and propagandistic activities of the Soviet Union in West Germany deepened the concerns of U.S. leaders. They reacted to this challenge with a massive propaganda offensive designed to boost the political, economic, and military integration of West Germany. This public-relations effort by the United States thus helped bring about the controlled transformation of West Germany from occupied territory to ally. In its promotion of European integration, U.S. propaganda focused on establishing a causal relationship between German unity and European unification. Intensive individual campaigns stressing the economic, security, and cultural aspects of integration were intended to defuse the reunification dilemma as a potential disruptive force in German-U.S. relations. Enthusiasm for Europe, it was hoped, would provide the public with a psychological substitute for the deep-seated desire for national unity. As was logical, then, the Americans also supported Adenauer, who like them rejected any notions of neutrality and was committed to the wholehearted allegiance of Germany to the Western pow-

FOREIGN POLICY, WEST GERMANY

ers. The Eisenhower administration intervened in various ways in the 1953 Bundestag election campaign to improve the chancellor’s prospects. At the same time, an extensive advertising campaign to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy was designed to establish the United States in the public mind as a force for peace, relieve the widespread fears of war, and neutralize criticism of Washington’s security policy. A similar purpose was served by the deliberate contrasting of the U.S. and Soviet models of society, which stressed the fundamental community of interests of the “free world” and left no doubt as to the superiority of its moral values and concept of civilization over those of communism. In one way or the other, most West German citizens experienced American propaganda during the 1950s—through exhibitions, books, radio broadcasts, posters, or leaflets. Regular surveys designed to monitor the effect on public opinion kept the U.S. government informed of the progress of its program for Germany. The Truman and Eisenhower administrations both believed that U.S. political propaganda in West Germany played a substantial part in bringing the West German public onto the side of the West and keeping it there. The active public-relations campaign pursued by the Americans, the broad concurrence of interests between Bonn and Washington, the polarization of the international system, the activities of outstanding figures on both sides, and the United States’ strategic interest in raising the status of the FRG transformed the country, within a very few years, from occupied territory to ally and so laid the foundation for more than half a century of German-U.S. cooperation. Frank Schumacher

IN

367

See also Fulbright Program; Reconstruction of West Germany (1945–1949); Stalin Note References and Further Reading Berghahn, Volker R. America and the Intellectual Cold Wars in Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2001. Buchheim, Werner. Die Wiedereingliederung Westdeutschlands in die Weltwirtschaft, 1945–1958. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1990. Diefendorf, Jeffrey M., et al., eds. American Policy and the Reconstruction of West Germany, 1945–1955. New York: Cambridge University, 1993. Ermarth, Michael, ed. America and the Shaping of German Society, 1945–1955. Providence, RI: Berg, 1993. Hanrieder, Wolfram F. “The FRG and NATO: Between Security Dependence and Security Partnership.” In Emil Kirchner and James Sperling (eds.), The Federal Republic of Germany and NATO. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. 194–220. Junker, Detlef, ed. The United States and Germany in the Era of the Cold War. A Handbook, Vol. 1, 1945–1968. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2004. Large, David Clay. Germans to the Front: West German Rearmament in the Adenauer Era. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996. Lundestad, Geir. “Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945–1952.” Journal of Peace Research 23 (1986): 263–277. Rupieper, Hermann-Josef. Der besetzte Verbündete. Die amerikanische Deutschlandpolitik, 1949–1955. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1992. ———. Die Wurzeln der westdeutschen Nachkriegsdemokratie: der amerikanische Beitrag, 1945–1952. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1993. Schumacher, Frank. Kalter Krieg und Propaganda. Die USA, der Kampf um die Weltmeinung und die ideelle Westbindung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 1945–1955. Trier: WVT-Verlag, 2000. Schwartz, Thomas. America’s Germany: John J. McCloy and the Federal Republic of Germany. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1991.

368

FORSTER, BERNHARD

FÖRSTER, BERNHARD b. January 31, 1843; Delitzsch, Saxony d. June 3, 1889; San Bernardino, Paraguay German teacher, antisemitic agitator, and founder of a failed colony in Paraguay. Bernhard Förster studied history at the universities of Göttingen and Berlin. As a student he participated in the AustroPrussian War of 1866 and the FrancoPrussian War of 1870 to 1871. After 1871 he worked as a teacher in Berlin. During the 1870s, he became fascinated with the German composer Richard Wagner, intensely studying his life and works. In the late 1870s Förster blended his nationalistic imaginations of Wagner with radical antisemitism, cultural despair, anticapitalism, and vegetarianism into a diffuse Weltanschauung. He was a cofounder of the antisemitic Deutscher Volksverein (German People’s Association) in 1881 and a leading initiator of the 1880–1881 Antisemitenpetition (Antisemites’ Petition), which called for revoking the emancipation of Jews in Germany and was enacted in 1871. The petition attracted more than 250,000 signatures. After insulting Jewish passengers in a Berlin streetcar, Förster was dismissed from his job as a teacher in 1882. A short time later, he called for founding an “ideal Germany” (without Jews) in South America. He embarked on a two-year trip to Uruguay, Argentina, and Paraguay in 1883 to find a suitable location for the “new Germania.” After returning to Germany in 1885, he married Elisabeth Nietzsche (1846–1935), whom he had first met in the early 1880s. Her brother, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, detested Förster’s radical antisemitic leanings. Shortly after the wedding, Förster published Denkschrift

über die Anlage deutscher Kolonien in dem oberen Laplata-Gebiete (Manifest on the Establishment of German Colonies in the upper La Plata Region), in order to attract potential settlers. In 1886 Förster and his wife left for South America. The Paraguayan government provided Förster with land about 150 miles north of the capital Asunción, in a wilderness area, but asked for securities and the promise that he would attract at least 140 settler families. Förster carried the full financial responsibility for the project. By the end of 1887, a number of German settlers had arrived in Neu Germania (Nueva Germania), among them several families from Saxony. A year later, in the summer of 1888, Förster was still optimistic, although the number of settlers was below the target he had promised to the Paraguayan government. By then, it had become apparent that the project was badly organized. Förster’s antisemitic utopia lacked investors and thus a realistic long-term perspective. Among the settlers were several pensioners who were ill-prepared for the primitive conditions and the climate. Only a few settlers were trained farmers. In 1889 the colony ran into serious difficulties, and Förster had to ask for a large loan. At the same time, he faced an increasingly impatient government. Several disillusioned settlers threatened to sue him. In June 1889, Förster committed suicide in San Bernardino near Asunción. His widow Elisabeth unsuccessfully asked the German government for help. In 1891 the colony went bankrupt. In 1892, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche moved back to Germany. She cared for her brother Friedrich, who had suffered a mental breakdown in 1889. During the 1890s, Förster-Nietzsche emerged as a central fig-

FORTY-EIGHTERS

ure of the avant-garde art scene in Weimar. She closely guarded access to Nietzsche’s papers and was thus responsible for a distorted view of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Förster-Nietzsche received radical nationalists, among them Adolf Hitler, in her Weimar home. She died in 1935, at almost ninety years old. Tobias Brinkmann See also Antisemitism; Paraguay References and Further Reading Diethe, Carol. Nietzsche’s Sister and the Will to Power: A Biography of Elisabeth FörsterNietzsche. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2003.

FORTY-EIGHTERS The Forty-Eighters were political refugees from the failed democratic revolutions of 1848–1849 in Germany. Realizing that true popular reform would never take root after the crushing of those revolutions and aware of the danger posed to their persons and careers by remaining in Germanspeaking Europe, Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel, Friedrich Hecker, and most of the other civilian and military leaders of the democratic forces emigrated to other countries. Many originally chose Switzerland or England, but by the mid-1850s nearly all the prominent Forty-Eighters had settled in the United States, attracted by its republican government, endless supply of jobs and natural resources, and already sizable German immigrant population. Numbering no more than perhaps a few thousand, these erstwhile revolutionaries strove to ensure in their adopted homeland what had failed in their old one: the triumph of personal freedom, democratic government,

369

and true equality among citizens. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century the Forty-Eighters exerted considerable political and social influence over their fellow German Americans, particularly in the Midwest, but also significantly influenced the course of American political fortunes in general. Their importance in the creation and evolution of the Republican Party was especially noteworthy and remained their most enduring legacy. Upon arriving in the United States, most Forty-Eighters took whatever jobs were available to them in either the port city they entered or their immediate destination. Nearly all of these men were educated in German universities and infused with the spirit of liberalism, but the exigencies of simply making a living in their new home forced many of them to temporarily set aside their intellectual and political aspirations. Franz Sigel, for instance, taught school in St. Louis for several years, and Friedrich Hecker tried his hand as a farmer in Illinois. But men such as these found themselves easily frustrated by the day-to-day routine and quickly sought out the company of other like-minded immigrants in more invigorating venues. In the larger cities, Forty-Eighters quickly assumed control of the more prominent German societies, such as the Turnverein (Turner Societies), Liederkranz (Singing Society), and Deutsche Gesellschaft (German Society), and began to take over the leadership of the German American press. They were not always welcome in these efforts; in the 1850s the Forty-Eighters, derisively called the “Greens” by the 1830sera immigrants, whom they in turn labeled the “Grays,” contended with German speakers from earlier immigration periods

370

FORTY-EIGHTERS

for leadership of the German American communities. The Forty-Eighters’ zealous belief structure, including agnosticism, abolitionism, and various societal reforms, often conflicted with the more conservative—and Americanized—values of earlier German immigrants, such as the Grays. Especially in the eastern cities of New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, the more liberal Forty-Eighters were forced either to compromise their heretofore radical beliefs with those of the conservative Germans or move elsewhere where their beliefs were more welcome. The midwestern cities of St. Louis and Chicago quickly became havens for the more outspoken among them, and by the time of the Civil War, it was apparent that the Forty-Eighter-dominated midwestern German enclaves were more radical politically than the “Little Germanies” in the East, sustaining even those who advocated socialism and communism. Forty-Eighters such as Schurz quickly gravitated to the Whig Party, which in the early 1850s represented the spirit of reform in the United States. But as the Whig Party disintegrated over the slavery controversy in the mid- to late 1850s, the FortyEighters coalesced almost to a person behind the nascent Republican Party. In the Republicans the German Forty-Eighters saw the political embodiment of most of the ideals they had fought for back in Europe: economic freedom, empowerment of the average citizen, resistance to aristocratic pretensions (in Republican parlance, the “slaveocracy” of the South), and a hatred of African slavery and the society it had spawned. For the German Forty-Eighter, slavery was especially odious; it represented a threat to immigrant labor should it expand westward into the territories, pro-

vided for the existence of an aristocratic planter class, and simply repudiated the ideal of human freedom. No wonder that nearly all Forty-Eighter newspaper editors converted their papers into organs of the Republican Party and campaigned assiduously for it in the national elections of 1856 and 1860. Whether or not the Forty-Eighters were successful in converting their fellow German Americans into Republicans is a weighty question, but most historians now believe that the elemental differences between the former revolutionaries and immigrants who arrived earlier in the United States were enough to keep a high percentage of average German immigrants from voting Republican. Additionally, older immigrants tended to be Democrats and preferred the security of the party that had traditionally welcomed and protected immigrants to the new and boisterous Republican Party, which had taints of nativism and temperance, two issues that consistently frightened immigrants in the nineteenth century. It now appears that the famous “Myth of 1860”—that the German Americans, led by their Forty-Eighter leaders, voted en masse for Abraham Lincoln and secured his election—was indeed nothing more than a myth. But there is little doubt that the Forty-Eighters were instrumental in the creation and growth of the Republican Party in several key states, especially Wisconsin (where Schurz actively campaigned), Illinois, Michigan, and Missouri. During the Civil War and afterward, Forty-Eighter Republicans succeeded in toning down the stigmas of temperance and nativism in their party and thus drew thousands of German American voters away from the Democrats and behind the banner of Lincoln.

FORTY-EIGHTERS

Forty-Eighters, by virtue of their leadership status in German American social, cultural, and political life, quickly became involved in the Civil War on the Union side. For them, the secession of the southern states was nothing more than an illegal, traitorous act by slaveholding aristocrats who wished not only to continue the enslavement of the black race but also sought the virtual enslavement of free laborers, including immigrants. Friedrich Hecker, Franz Sigel, Ludwig Blenker, Alexander Schimmelpfennig, Augustus Willich, and a host of others who had seen military service in Europe enthusiastically formed ethnically German regiments in 1861–1862 and offered them, with themselves and like-minded friends as officers, to the federal service. Because these regiments were composed not only of Forty-Eighters and Republicans but also contained Democratic Germans and those opposed to Forty-Eighter dominance, however, intraethnic squabbling often handicapped their leadership. Moreover, the AngloAmerican Republican leadership in Washington felt obliged to the Forty-Eighters for their help in the recent election and frequently commissioned pure politicians, such as Schurz, as colonels and generals in the Union army. The record of FortyEighter military leadership in the Civil War was therefore a mixed one. Sigel, for all his experience as a commander of the rebellious Democratic forces in 1848–1849, clearly underperformed at the battles of Wilsons Creek in 1861 and New Market in 1864 and managed to resign his command of the strongly German American 11 Corps, due to a piqued ego, on the eve of the Battle of Chancellorsville. Ludwig Blenker, one-time commander of an entire division of ethnically German regiments in

371

the East, embroiled himself in political controversies with colonels under his command as well as his commander in chief, George B. McClellan, and was even accused by other Germans of indulging in extravagant luxuries while in camp. Schurz, for having no previous military experience, fared reasonably well, despite being blamed for the Union defeat at Chancellorsville in 1863, and compiled an honorable record by the end of the war. Alexander Schimmelpfennig, Augustus Willich, and Peter Osterhaus were all promoted to high command by the end of the war, the latter two playing critical roles in the final campaigns of the western theater of operations, including Sherman’s March to the Sea. After the war, Forty-Eighters resumed many of their positions of civilian leadership among the German American communities and in the Republican Party. They continued to exert a noticeable influence in national politics, especially in the later 1870s when the liberal Republicans temporarily bolted from the Republican Party out of dissatisfaction with Reconstruction in the South, among other issues. Schurz vehemently decried the abandonment of radical Reconstruction policies, particularly those that left blacks at the mercy of their former masters. In the fields of education, business, and the arts, Forty-Eighters made viable contributions to their new homeland by introducing and popularizing the kindergarten; founding private academies and supporting both German- and English-language schools; establishing the most successful (and most long-lived) breweries, piano factories, and German-language newspapers; and publishing hundreds of volumes of books on subjects as diverse as history, medicine, physics, and German literature.

372

FRANCKE, KUNO

A few, such as Friedrich Kapp, returned to Germany after spending several years in the United States, but even he and other reverse-émigrés agreed that German Americans would ultimately have to acculturate and amalgamate with the greater AngloAmerican population. One of the last major contributions of the Forty-Eighters was their almost unilateral insistence, expressed in countless books, newspapers, and speeches, on the necessity of German immigrants becoming Americanized and blending their unique talents and gifts with those of other American citizens. Even in this philosophical crusade the Forty-Eighters were opposed by members of their own ethnic group, but in the end their prophecy triumphed. Christian B. Keller See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Griesinger, Karl Theodor; Hecker, Friedrich; Kapp, Friedrich; Kindergartners; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Osterhaus, Peter J.; Schimmelpfennig, Alexander; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz; Verein; Willich, August (von) References and Further Reading Brancaforte, Charlotte, ed. The German FortyEighters in the United States. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Hochbruck, Wolfgang, Ulrich Bachteler, and Henning Zimmermann, eds. Achtundvierziger/Forty-Eighters: Die Deutsche Revolution von 1848/49, die Vereinigten Staaten und der Amerikanische Buergerkrieg. Muenster: Westfaelisches Dampfboot, 2000. Miller, Randall M., ed. Germans in America: Retrospect and Prospect. Philadelphia: German Society of Pennsylvania, 1984. Wittke, Carl. Refugees of Revolution: The German Forty-Eighters in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1952. Zucker, A. E., ed. The Forty-Eighters: Political Refugees of the German Revolution of 1848. New York: Columbia University Press, 1950.

FRANCKE, KUNO b. September 27, 1855; Kiel d. June 25, 1930; Cambridge, Massachusetts German American professor at Harvard University who promoted the teaching of German culture in the United States. Kuno Francke was on the faculty of Harvard University’s German Department (changed to the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures in 1897) from 1884 to 1930. Along with Hugo Münsterberg, Francke was recognized widely as the foremost cultural ambassador of higher education between Germany and the United States. Unlike Münsterberg, however, Francke became an American citizen and closely identified himself with German Americans. Francke’s most significant accomplishment was the formation of the Germanic Museum at Harvard (since 1950, the Busch-Reisinger Museum). He conceived of the museum as a visual experience by which Americans could learn of German cultural achievements. In 1899 and 1900, he related his ideas to the German ambassador (and friend of Hugo Münsterberg) Theodor von Holleben and University of Berlin professor Hermann Grimm. The timing of Francke’s proposal could not have been better. Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow and Emperor Wilhelm II received the proposal enthusiastically because they wished to improve relations with the United States in the wake of the Manila Bay incident (1898) during the SpanishAmerican War. Wilhelm II took a personal interest in the project and donated plaster casts of German statues and cultural objects. During the winter of 1902, Wilhelm’s eldest brother, Prince Henry, made a

FRANKFURT AM MAIN CITIZENS

two-week visit to the United States. During the royal tour, Harvard president Charles W. Eliot awarded Prince Henry with an honorary doctorate among much fanfare. Across the Atlantic Ocean and concurrent with these ceremonies, Francke met with Wilhelm II, himself no stranger to pomp and circumstance. The museum, dedicated in November 1903, took many years and much fundraising on Francke’s part to materialize. The Germanic collection was housed for many years in a former gymnasium. On June 8, 1912, the cornerstone was laid for a new building, but World War I delayed the opening of Adolphus Busch Hall (named after its main benefactor, the famous St. Louis German beer magnate) until April 1921. Designed by German Bestelmeyer, the hall combined Renaissance, Gothic, and Romanesque styles to highlight the history of German architectural achievements. Francke wished to broaden the focus of the museum to Germanic peoples (a desire that had been reflected in the transformation of the Harvard German Department itself ); however, such a desire proved too ambitious given financial and spatial constraints. He did, however, continue to travel to Germany in order to procure more plaster casts for the collection. He remained the honorary curator of the museum until his death. Kevin Ostoyich See also Münsterberg, Hugo; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Goldman, Guido. A History of the Germanic Museum at Harvard University. Cambridge: Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University, 1989. Keller, Phyllis. States of Belonging: GermanAmerican Intellectuals and the First World War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979.

IN THE

UNITED STATES

373

Lenger, John. “Busch-Reisinger Marks a Century: The Art Museum Named for a St. Louis Brewing Family Has Weathered the Storms of Two World Wars.” Harvard Gazette, November 6, 2003. Ungern-Sternberg, Franziska v. Kulturpolitik zwischen den Kontinenten: Deutschland und Amerika; das Germanische Musuem in Cambridge/Mass. Cologne: Böhlau, 1994.

FRANKFURT AM MAIN CITIZENS IN THE UNITED STATES The historical ties that bound Frankfurt and the Americas were numerous and diverse. In 1494 the letters of Christopher Columbus were printed for the first time in an illustrated volume in Basel. They were distributed at the Frankfurt fairs, which were attended by visitors from all over Europe. Frankfurt publisher Theodor de Bry’s account of conquistador Hernando de Soto’s exploration in 1539 of the region leading up to the Mississippi River also appeared at these fairs. De Bry created an impressive volume that included numerous illustrations and presented it at Frankfurt to a wide European audience. After the American declaration of independence from Great Britain in 1776, Frankfurt also attracted many American traders, who wanted to keep abreast of the latest products as well as purchasing goods that were in demand in America.

Texan Independence But Frankfurt was not only a marketplace for information and a magnet for trade with the New World; there were also Frankfurt citizens who emigrated to the United States. Some of these citizens ended up playing an important role in American society. For example, in the 1830s a group

374

FRANKFURT AM MAIN CITIZENS

IN THE

of Frankfurters took part in the Texan war for independence from Mexico. One of them was Gustav Bunsen. Born in Frankfurt in 1804, he was the son of an established family. His father served as director of the Frankfurt mint, and his brother Georg was regarded as a famous educator and man of liberal convictions. His second brother Karl set up a medical practice, and Gustav followed in his footsteps when he started studying medicine at the University of Würzburg. During his studies, he became enthusiastic about the ideas of the July Revolution in France as well as the idea of Germany’s unification in 1830. Instead of completing his studies in Heidelberg, he traveled to Warsaw and was engaged in the Polish upheaval of that year. He did not come back to Frankfurt until 1832. Back at home, he immediately joined the democratic Preß- und Vaterlandsverein (Association for Press and Nationality) and, together with Gustav Körner and Franz Gärth, took one of the leading positions within it. Facing a ban on their organization, Körner, Gärth, and Bunsen initiated a revolution. On the evening of April 3, 1833, during a period of heightened political tensions, a group of Frankfurt students and academic figures attacked Frankfurt’s main police station. Lacking popular support, the attack failed and resulted in repressive measures by the authorities. Gustav Bunsen and Adolph Berchelmann escaped punishment by emigrating to the United States. Several weeks after their revolt, both friends arrived in St. Clair County in Illinois. There Bunsen met some old acquaintances from Frankfurt, who had succeeded in purchasing fertile land in the Shiloh valley. Life was not easy for these German settlers. Not only did

UNITED STATES

they experience culture shock as well as the difficulties of learning the English language, but also they had to get by with a limited amount of resources and a much lower degree of comfort. In this regard it is easy to see why the simple agrarian life was hard for well-educated academics. For this reason, after a short while, Bunsen left the little German village, although his brother and the sister of his friend Berchelmann arrived in 1834. Berchelmann’s sister was married to Bunsen and both went to Cincinnati, Ohio, which at that time was considered to be the center of German culture in the midwestern states. However, Bunsen’s life as an established physician did not satisfy his political ambitions. He became increasingly interested in the conflict between the English-speaking settlers in Texas, which was then a part of Mexico. In 1835 this conflict escalated. The Texas farmers elected a provisional government led by Sam Houston. As leader of the movement for independence, he asked for the help of the Union and proclaimed that anyone who was willing to fight for their cause would be not only justly but also richly rewarded. Bunsen joined the rebel army and traveled into the crisis area in November 1835. He took part in the siege of the capital of the province that had been occupied by the Mexican army. After the settlers had successfully conquered San Antonio, Bunsen joined the rather hopeless campaign against Mexico. In spite of the harsh criticism, by members of the rebel army, sixtyfour rebels, including Bunsen, voted for this military action, which ended in a fiasco. For the man who several years before managed to attack the German Union with only fifty amateurish revolutionaries, sixtyfour well-armed riders seemed sufficient

FRANKFURT AM MAIN CITIZENS

enough to attack the Mexican Republic. Not surprisingly, their expedition failed, and Bunsen lost his life right at the beginning of this battle.

The Forty-Eighters The immigration of the so-called Latin farmers of the 1830s was only the advance guard of a much larger wave of emigration that followed after the failed revolution of 1848–1849. Numerous radical democrats decided to leave for the United States. One was Gustav Adolph Roesler, the man who had arranged a short ceasefire during the bloody street fights in Frankfurt in September 1848. After his dramatic escape, he reached New York in 1850 and settled together with his family in Milwaukee. There Roesler published a political magazine that supported the Whig Party and agitated against slavery. He later moved to Quincy, Illinois, and established another local newspaper before he fell victim to cholera in 1855. To help people from the Frankfurt region in their transatlantic migration, influential Frankfurt citizens founded the Frankfurter Verein zum Schutz der Auswanderer (Frankfurt Association for the Protection of Emigrants) as a branch of the Nationalverein für deutsche Auswanderung und Ansiedlung (National Association for German Emigration and Settlement) on December 12, 1848. Its purpose was to organize individual as well as group emigration in a safe and modest way, preferably via a German harbor. Furthermore, the association aimed to help the emigrants in every step of the process toward their final settlement. Some of the more well-known members of the Frankfurt association were the liberal lawyer Wilhelm Stricker, the geographer and pub-

IN THE

UNITED STATERS

375

lisher Georg Varrentrapp, and the freemason Heinrich Franz Rosalino. In the very first stages of the association they supported the project of Consul Fleischmann for colonization and the creation of a depot for emigrants in “Mitschigan” (Michigan). Fleischmann not only demanded farming settlements but also industrial ones because he believed that in the long run they would require less support in terms of materials and goods. He therefore initiated the emigration of craftspeople under the assumption that their labor would prove beneficial to economic progress in the United States. In his opinion, their contribution would be greatest if organized into small factories or larger associations of handicrafts. Between 1850 and 1870 the association supported the emigration of more than 500 people each year. The majority of them were journeymen. Economic considerations spurred an interest in the United States among Frankfurt bankers, who established business connections and branches in American cities. There were three distinct phases in the process of establishing financial connections between Frankfurt and the United States. The first phase was in the 1820s and 1830s, when the Rothschilds successfully installed representatives of their banking house in New York City. From 1833 onward, August Belmont took over this role. Belmont had learned the banking business under his original name of August Schönberg in the banking house of the Frankfurt Rothschilds. When he went to New York, he changed his name to French to distinguish himself from the crowd of German Jews already living in Manhattan. Belmont established the firm of August Belmont and Company. Backed by the Rothschild family, August Belmont rose to power and

376

FRANKFURT AM MAIN CITIZENS

IN THE

influence in the business and social life of New York. He gave opulent dinners and extravagant feasts, displayed his wealth, drove an elegant coach, invested in racehorses, and was among the founders of the racecourse at Jerome Park. As befitted one of his station, Belmont bought a luxury palace on Fifth Avenue, was accepted as a member of the Union Club, and gained a leading position in the Democratic Party. Moreover, Belmont became an Austrian consul general. But above all, he successfully managed the Rothschild’s investments in cotton, tobacco, Union and state bonds, railways, and a broad spectrum of industrial loans. The second phase came in the 1860s, when Frankfurt banking houses financially supported the Union in the Civil War. This was a major turning point for the Frankfurt bankers. While London banking houses sympathized with the South and took over the majority of the Confederate issues, Frankfurt became the second-largest outlet for U.S. government bonds in Europe. Frankfurt banking houses with strong business ties to New York held nearly 40 percent of the debts incurred by states of the Union, which rose from $90 million to $2.74 billion between 1860 and 1865. Among these banking houses were Seligmann & Stettheimer, Lazard SpeyerEllissen, Philipp Nicolaus Schmidt, Karl Pollitz, and M. A. Gruenebaum & Ballin. By the time the Union won the upper hand, its bonds were quoted at an astonishing 73 percent and upon redemption brought “hundreds of millions” in profits to their shareholders, providing the basis for many of the city’s latter-day great fortunes. Among these companies, it was J. and W. Seligman that benefited the most from their American business investments.

UNITED STATES

Based on the model of the Rothschild family, the Seligmans founded branches of their bank in London, Paris, and New York and led eventually to them being referred to as the “American Rothschilds.” The third phase of established financial ties between Frankfurt and the United States came after the business in governmental loans. Investors who had immigrated to the United States from Frankfurt changed their strategy and invested heavily in American railroad construction. The huge rail network of 300,000 kilometers stretched across the American capital market, and it soon became clear that the input of European capital was a necessity. Once again Frankfurt’s banking houses and their branches in the United States led by emigrants played an important role in this part of finance business. One such success story is that of Charles Hallgarten, who began his career in financing railroads and then returned to Frankfurt as a wealthy banker. There he initiated numerous philanthropic projects. He founded, for example, the Aktiengesellschaft zum Bau kleiner Wohnungen (Joint Shareholder Association for the Construction of Small Tenement Housing). Another Frankfurt American was Wilhelm Bonn. At the age of twenty he was sent to New York to familiarize himself with the American finance market and to sell U.S. war bonds on the German market. He speedily built up his career in New York, ending up as director of the banking house of Speyer and Company, which was a subsidary branch of Lazard SpeyerEllissen. Later on he founded his own banking firm, Ruette and Bonn, which successfully financed the transcontinental railway lines. Like Hallgarten he returned to Frankfurt at the age of forty-two and

FRANKFURT AM MAIN CITIZENS

settled in a luxury villa in the Frankfurter Westend, located in the same neighborhood as Hallgarten. The most important Frankfurt banker in New York was Jacob Schiff, who gained a leading position in the investment banking house Kuhn, Loeb, and Company. Coming from an old Jewish Frankfurt family, he went to school at the Jewish Reform school “Philanthropin” and afterward to the Orthodox Realschule (secondary modern school) of the Israelitischen Religionsgesellschaft (Jewish Religious Association). He completed his courses in business and trade and then emigrated to the United States in 1865. There he became an employee of the New York banking firm Frank and Gans. But Schiff was ambitious, obstinate, and a tough opponent in his business dealings. Two years later, together with Henry Budge, he founded the banking firm Budge, Schiff, and Company. But his real career began when he entered the banking house of Salomon Loeb. In the beginning he served as speaker of the company and recognized the tremendous importance of transportation for the industrial development of the United States. He gained entry into the railroad business in his own unique way. He becme an expert not only in railroad financing but also in the daily business and technical matters of railroads. When he had reached the point where he could fully grasp all the details of running a railroad company, he felt the time had come to begin competing with John Pierpont Morgan, who was the top banker in the U.S. banking hierarchy at that time. Schiff succeeded in gathering together the necessary capital for the speedy industrialization of the United States by making use of his strong ties to

IN THE

UNITED STATERS

377

Europe and Germany. After a while he controlled the Great Northern, Union Pacific, Pennsylvania, Illinois Central, Chicago, and Milwaukee railroad companies. Under the leadership of Schiff, Kuhn and Loeb developed into the second-largest investment banking house in the United States behind the Morgan trust. Schiff ’s life was characterized by a deep religiosity, modesty, impatience, punctuality, and respect for hierarchy. In the realm of politics he voted for the Republican Party. More important than his political leanings in the United States were his ties to his German Jewish heritage. Like many of the migrants from Frankfurt, including Seligmann, Speyer, and Hallgarten, Schiff regarded himself as a German Jew, a “Yahudim.” They sent their children to German universities and employed German tutors and German doctors. They married German, and they went, with the help of the Hamburg-AmerikanischePaketfahrt-Aktien-Gesellschaft (HAPAG) (Hamburg-American Parcel Shipping Joint Stock Company), to Germany every year and met each other in the German spas of Baden-Baden, Karlsbad, and Marienbad. Although Jacob Henry Schiff remained a Frankfurt citizen at heart, he stayed in the United States for the rest of his life and committed himself to working for American Jews as well as for American culture. Schiff spent no less than $100 million on philanthropic and political reform, making large donations to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Natural History Museum in New York, and the Bronx Zoo. He financed professorships at Harvard, Cornell, and Columbia universities, enabled the Public Library of New York to establish a Judaica collection, and initiated

378

FRANKFURT SCHOOL

both the creation of the Jüdische Gesellschaft für Geschichte (Jewish Society for History) and the Jüdische Publikations Gesellschaft (Jewish Publication Society) in 1892. In addition, he also founded the Hebrew Union College and Talmud-Thora schools on New York’s east side and in downtown New York. At the end of his life, he donated a professorship for German culture at Cornell University. Jacob H. Schiff ’s career was a symbol of the growing importance of American Jewry in American society. Ralf Roth See also American Civil War, Financial Support of Frankfurt Bankers for; German Jewish Migration to the United States; Koerner, Gustave Philipp; Milwaukee; New York City; Schiff, Jacob Henry References and Further Reading Arnsberg, Paul. Jacob H. Schiff: Von der Judengasse zur Wallstreet. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Waldemar Kramer, 1969. Hale, Douglas. “Ein Frankfurter Revolutionär im texanischen Unabhängigkeitskrieg.” Archiv für Frankfurts Geschichte und Kunst 57 (1980): 151–166. Heyn, Udo. Private Banking and Industrialization: The Case of Frankfurt am Main, 1825–1875. New York: Arno Press, 1981. Katz, Irving. August Belmont: A Political Biography. New York: Columbia University Press, 1968. Kirchholtes, Hans-Dieter. Jüdische Privatbanken in Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Waldemar Kramer, 1969. Lustiger, Arno. Charles Hallgarten: Leben und Wirken des Frankfurter Sozialreformers und Philantropen. Frankfurt am Main: Societäts Verlagsanstalt, 2003. Roth, Ralf. Stadt und Bürgertum in Frankfurt am Main: Ein besonderer Weg von der ständischen zur modernen Bürgergesellschaft 1760 bis 1914. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1996.

FRANKFURT SCHOOL Friedrich Pollock and Max Horkheimer founded the Institute of Social Research in Frankfurt am Main in 1923. Through an inheritance from his father, Felix Weil contributed 120,000 deutsche marks to the new institute, which was affiliated with the Johann-Wolfgang Goethe University. Its first director was Kurt Albert Gerlach, who was succeeded by Carl Grünberg in the first year of the institute’s existence. Grünberg was a professor of political and legal studies at the University of Vienna. While there, he edited the Archive for the History of Socialism and the Workers’ Movement for a while. He supported the institute’s desire for an interdisciplinary approach to the problems found in bourgeois society. In his opening address, he emphasized that the institute would pursue research over instruction, unlike most German universities, and would use a Marxist methodology in its studies. As time passed, the group began to incorporate new members: Karl August Wittfogel, Franz Borkenau, and Julian Gumperz, all of whom were Communists. Around the end of the twenties, Leo Lowenthal and Theodor Adorno joined Horkheimer and Pollock as members of the institute. Later, Erich Fromm, through his friendship with Lowenthal, also joined the group. In 1927 Grünberg stepped down as director due to physical ailments. Horkheimer became the new director in 1930 and was given a chair in social philosophy at the university. He created a journal for the institute, the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (Journal for Social Research). In the first issue, Horkheimer reiterated the interdisciplinary nature of the institute. He

FRANKFURT SCHOOL

looked at the fissure of knowledge and blamed it on the current social situation. Horkheimer claimed the monopolistic nature of capitalism was at fault and believed it could be overcome only by a sociological understanding of current historical conditions. He believed a social science was needed to create a method to help overcome the current social forces. Increasingly aware of the possibility of exile due to the political situation, Horkheimer, with the financial support of Albert Thomas, opened an office in Geneva, which Lowenthal was in charge of establishing. In 1932, Herbert Marcuse joined the group and helped with the creation of the Geneva office. By February 1933, the Geneva office had twenty-one members, and the name of the group was changed to the International Society for Social Research. Its main members included Horkheimer, Lowenthal, Pollock, Franz Neumann, Fromm, Adorno, and Marcuse. In April 1933, Horkheimer was released from his duties at Frankfurt University. Afraid the Nazis would soon take over Geneva, he journeyed to New York in May 1934 to meet with several of his friends at Columbia University. Soon thereafter, they allowed the institute to be affiliated with the university and even donated a building for its work. At the same time, Felix Aldan, the publisher of the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, discontinued its publication due to his fear of the Nazis. He moved his operations to Paris in September 1933 and continued publishing the journal even when the Nazis took over Paris in 1940. The institute was able to maintain its identity because of the money Felix Weil contributed when he arrived in New York in 1935. There, he donated another

379

$100,000 so that the institute could remain secure and free from any obligations throughout the 1930s. Gradually, all the important members of the group began to move to New York, including Marcuse, Lowenthal, Pollock, Fromm, Neumann, and Adorno. In the United States the institute began work on a new methodology for studying cultural, social, and economic structures. This methodology became known as critical theory, a materialist theory based on the premise of social praxis, where theory is put into action. Horkheimer, who had been studying Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche, realized the dangers of systematic philosophy. In his study of Kant, he came to see how the individual must never be lost in his or her relation to the totality. He began to question the existence of the absolute and even the notion of identity itself. In Hegel, he found that thought exists only in the socioeconomic conditions of human beings. His encounters with Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche helped Horkheimer to develop critical theory. Unable to see individuals as free, he saw them instead as entities controlled by various forces. Because of these beliefs, he claimed critical theory saw social realities as a process that can never be finished, nor could there ever be a definitive social being. For Horkheimer, critical theory became a critique of bourgeois society that would examine social realities rather than the current façade they fashioned. Horkheimer and Adorno saw the regulated and automated aspects of modernity as a step toward the abolition of all that is human. Lowenthal believed the entertainment industry and consumer culture were

380

FRANKFURT SCHOOL

destroying the identity of the masses. Marcuse, influenced by both Sigmund Freud and Marx, felt that the major institutions of modern capitalist society were destroying the autonomy of the individual and believed only art and aesthetics could save the world from false consciousness. For even though art may not create revolution, it is, nevertheless, a work of unending rebellion against the status quo. For the majority of the Frankfurt group, Auschwitz revealed the progressive stages of science and reason. It showed them how the world is moving toward barbarity rather than the authentically human. They felt contempt for the bourgeois life because of its indifference to the madness of the times. For them, the end of Enlightenment thought was technological progress and the mastery of nature, which led to the illusion that there was no other possibility for living. After achieving control over nature, human beings’ attention would naturally turn to the conquest of humanity. With reason tied to technology, social technology would soon follow. Seeing the problems associated with capitalism, along with the disintegration of liberal thought and the beginning of the authoritarian threat to society, they continued to develop a social philosophy throughout the 1930s. In the 1940s, Horkheimer began to look first at Hegel’s influence on Marx, especially the belief that Hegel’s dialectic was materialist in nature. Through his studies of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, Horkheimer came to doubt Hegel’s notion of absolute truth. He opposed Hegel’s systematic philosophy, with its belief that identity is found in the dialectic of subject and object. Instead, he believed the totality could eliminate subjectivity altogether. Most of all, he stressed the importance of

reason and action. However, reason was not to be used to find a transcendental truth. It was not absolute and could only be found in social realities. Moreover, praxis, or social action, must come first, for truth was relative and could not be identified or classified as a static concept. Like Horkheimer, Adorno was also influenced by existential philosophy. Adorno’s first publication was on Søren Kierkegaard’s aesthetic. Referring to Kierkegaard’s definition of aesthetics as the relationship between subject and object and not merely the study of art, Adorno could no longer fathom absolute truths, nor could he conceive of a systematic philosophy. For Adorno, truth could only be found in the dynamics of subject and object. Like Horkheimer, Adorno believed truth could only be found in contingent social relations. He felt that it was only there that the subject could be saved from complete annihilation. Studying Martin Heidegger yet firmly committed to Marx, Marcuse found that Heidegger looked carefully at contingency and historicity in its relation to social realities and found that these realities create within the self a desire to realize authenticity through action. However, Marcuse found that Heidegger overlooked how social conditions could hinder the self ’s ability to realize its own authenticity. Turning to Marx, he realized that the upper classes were the only ones who could act decisively in the way Heidegger described this form of action, and as a result, only revolution would make possible a world in which everyone could act authentically. Capitalism made this new society impossible. As Marx explained, revolution was not only about economic conditions but also about the awareness of true essences. And perhaps

FREDERICKSBURG,TEXAS

more importantly, it was through labor that these essences could be discovered. Although the influence of the members of the Frankfurt School on American critical theory has not been fully examined, there is evidence of their influence. For instance, Adorno had essays printed in The Kenyon Review and The New Left Review. Horkheimer has had important parts of his writings translated into English, and at the same time, he wrote numerous essays in the Studies of Philosophy and Science. There have also been numerous essays written about both the school and its members in Commentary, Dissent, Sewanee Review, Daedalus, and Salmagundi. Many of their ideas now have been introduced to contemporary American thought through the writings of Frederick Jameson, Terry Eagleton, and others. While living in the United States, the members of the Frankfurt School continued to publish their writings in German, especially in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung, and as a result their influence seemed negligible. If for no other reason, however, the Frankfurt School gained considerable influence through the writings of Marcuse, Fromm, and Neumann, each of whom had his own set of followers. Their influence can also be felt in their attempt to help refugees coming into the country during the 1930s and 1940s. Many of these refugees were intellectuals, and many of them became professors at American universities. Finally, their work and ideas have had a considerable influence on German philosophical and sociological thought. Through this influence, they were able to teach a whole new generation of German students. Some, like Jürgen Habermas, would become members of the institute and build on its former members’

381

work to create their own important and influential theories. After the war, the Frankfurt School’s writings became of considerable importance to German students and intellectuals. Horkheimer himself was asked to return to Frankfurt University in 1947, and on July 13, 1949, he accepted a position as chair of philosophy and sociology, the same chair he lost in 1933 when Adolf Hitler came to power. All the original and remaining members of the institute gradually returned to Frankfurt, except for Leo Lowenthal, who remained in the United States with his new wife and his new position with the Voice of America. Jim Varn See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Frankfurt am Main Citizens in the United States; Horkheimer, Max; Intellectual Exile; Marcuse, Herbert; New York City References and Further Reading Friedman, George. The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981. Held, David. Introduction to Critical Theory: From Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990. Martin, Jay. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950. Boston: Little, Brown, 1973. Schirmacher, Wolfgang, ed. German TwentiethCentury Philosophy: The Frankfurt School. New York: Continuum, 2000. Wolin, Richard. The Terms of Cultural Criticism: The Frankfurt School, Existentialism, Post-structuralism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.

FREDERICKSBURG,TEXAS Established in August 1845 as a way station for German immigrants en route to the colonial lands granted by the Republic of Texas to the Society for the Protection of

382

FREDERICKSBURG,TEXAS

German Immigrants in Texas (Adelsverein for short). Located approximately 70 miles west of Austin, Fredericksburg is situated on the southern edge of the Texas hill country. The commissioner-general of the Adelsverein, John O. Meusebach, felt that the organization’s principal community of New Braunfels was too far away from the actual colonial lands to serve as an adequate starting point for would-be settlers. Thus he sought to establish another village in closer proximity to the lands intended for colonization. Meusebach dubbed this new settlement Fredericksburg, in honor of Prince Friedrich of Prussia, a leading member of the Adelsverein. Meusebach chose as the site of Fredericksburg lands at the confluence of two creeks on the southern edge of the Adelsverein’s cession. These two creeks drained into the Pedernales River, some 5 miles distant, and were later named Baron’s Creek, after Meusebach, and Town Creek. The land, which Meusebach purchased on credit, offered ample natural resources upon which to found a community. The town was surveyed by Hermann Wilke in the fashion of those found in the Rhineland. The Adelsverein’s colonial experiment was never a practical affair. The society greatly underfunded the enterprise, and the bourgeoisie noblemen that led the organization poorly equipped the settlers for life on the Texas frontier. Despite harsh conditions and rampant disease among the settlers, by August 1846 Fredericksburg had a population of 1,000 immigrants. Under the leadership of Meusebach, these first settlers quickly went to work building a community. In the fall of 1846 an interdenominational church was erected. Officially

named the Vereins-Kirche, the structure was built in the shape of an octagon, each side of the church measuring 18 feet long with walls 18 feet high and topped off by a cupola with an octagonal roof. Due to the odd shape of the building, the VereinsKirche was often referred to as the Kaffeemuehle (Coffee Mill). Regular services began immediately. The church was shared by Protestants and Catholics alike, serving this purpose as well as that of school, fortress, and meeting hall for some fifty years. Today a replica of the Vereins-Kirche stands on the site of the original. Although the new community was located deep within the territorial lands of the Comanche, the settlers remained relatively unmolested during their first two years of activity. However, Meusebach was keenly aware that if progress were to be made in moving settlers onto their land grant within the actual bounds of the colony, some form of treaty would have to be made with these nomadic Indians. The Comanche had thus far proved to be the most tenacious impediment to Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo colonization in Texas. After negotiations on March 1 and 2, 1847, held deep within Comanche territory, principal chiefs came to Fredericksburg on May 9, 1847, to sign an official treaty with Meusebach, ensuring that German settlement could take place in the Texas hill country with relative safety. Meusebach had wisely chosen his location for Fredericksburg. By the time he stepped down as commissioner-general of the Adelsverein on July 20, 1847, the town had a population of 2,000, a wagon road had opened to Austin, and more than fifteen stores were in operation. The following year saw the establishment of the federal garrison at nearby Fort Martin Scott.

FREDERICKSBURG,TEXAS

383

Old St. Mary’s Catholic Church, San Antonio Street, Fredericksburg, Gillespie County, Texas, 1934. (Library of Congress)

The presence of U.S. troops only 2 miles east of Fredericksburg provided both security to the populace and a ready market for their dry goods and surplus agricultural products. Despite a recent outbreak of cholera, in 1849, the year after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, Fredericksburg’s prosperity was further bolstered when the U.S. government established one of only four roads to the Rio Grande River valley through the burgeoning community. In December 1847, 150 residents of Fredericksburg drew up a petition requesting that the Texas legislature create a new county out of massive Bexar County, with Fredericksburg as its seat. Originally planners thought to name the county Germania, but finally requested that the legislature call it Pierdenalis, after the Pedernales River. Legislators, instead, created Gillespie

County on February 23, 1848, named for Robert A. Gillespie, who died in the Mexican-American War at the Battle of Monterrey. All the officers of this new county were initially German immigrants with one exception: the county clerk, who was from Kentucky. Life in Fredericksburg throughout the nineteenth century was typified by the population’s commitment to religion and education. As Fredericksburg became a regional community center, prosperous farmers from throughout the area began building so-called Sunday houses so that they might have lodgings when coming into town for church services. In 1848 the Catholic congregation of the Vereins-Kirche formed their own church, which was supplanted by the Marienkirche (St. Mary’s Church) in 1860, one of the most prominent land-

384

FREDERICKSBURG,TEXAS

marks in Fredericksburg. The Methodist congregation formed their own church at about the same time. In 1852 the Lutheran congregation formed Zion’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, the first Lutheran church in the Texas hill country. Johann Leyendecker, a professional teacher from Nassau, established the first school in the Vereins-Kirche in the fall of 1847. Classes were taught in German, at a tuition rate of $1 per quarter. The VereinsKirche was a drafty classroom ill-suited to learning, and the rapid succession of teachers were forced to hold other jobs in order to earn a livelihood. In 1856 a formal, citysponsored public school was formed with a regular teacher’s salary and classes taught in English. By this time Catholic and Lutheran parochial schools had also been established. In 1876 the German Methodist Church founded Fredericksburg College. Intended as an institution of higher learning, it served the community for only a brief period, with its campus incorporated into the Fredericksburg Independent School District in 1884. In 1909 St. Anthony’s College was established under the auspices of the Catholic congregation for the continuing education of young boys. It was dissolved in 1923 when the establishment of St. Mary’s High School rendered it obsolete. Despite its relative prosperity, Fredericksburg remained an isolated community throughout the nineteenth century. The peace sustained through this isolation was broken by the onset of the Civil War. Like many American communities, the hill country Germans were divided by secession and war. Although most Germans were opposed to slavery and remained loyal

to the Union, several notables, including Charles Nimitz, grandfather of Admiral Chester Nimitz, sided with the Confederacy. Nimitz came to prominence in 1852 with the founding of the Nimitz Hotel on the main street in Fredericksburg, which today serves as the National Museum of the Pacific War. In contrast to Nimitz, who served with honor and distinction, a group of Confederate irregulars known as Die Haengebande (Hangman’s Band) emerged around ringleader J. P. Waldrip. Waldrip and his gang terrorized the community in the name of the Confederacy, stringing up those who resisted. They even targeted Nimitz when he attempted to draft Haengebande members into the regular service. James M. Duff also troubled hill country Germans. As the head of a group of Confederate irregulars, he conducted raids into the hill country and was responsible for the massacre of German Union loyalists at the Battle of the Nueces near present-day Comfort, Texas, on August 10, 1862. Fredericksburg regained much of its isolation after the close of the Civil War. German remained the principal language spoken throughout Gillespie County. The county’s first newspaper, Wochenblatt (Weekly Sheet), established in 1877, was in German only. However, population growth, the advent of the railroad, and finally the onset of World War I served to open up the community once and for all. World War I, more than any other historical event, forced the hill country Germans to break their ties with the Old World, largely for good. They quickly moved toward English-only schools and newspapers and sought to aid the war effort in any way possible as a demonstration of their patri-

FREIHEIT

otism, even making the ultimate sacrifice. The first American killed in France in World War I, Lieutenant Louis Jordan, was a native of Gillespie County. Today Fredericksburg is best known for its cadre of annual festivals, sponsored by the numerous clubs common in German communities, such as the Easter Fires Pageant, Founders Day, A Night in Old Fredericksburg, Oktoberfest, and Weihnachten. Since the 1970s descendants of the original German immigrants in Fredericksburg have created a revival of German culture in the community. The Fredericksburg Heritage Foundation and Gillespie County Historical Society have been founded to further this mission. Visitors are treated to a Maibaum (maypole) on the town square illustrating prominent events in Fredericksburg’s history. A plethora of “Sunday houses” and other original structures complete with Old World Fachwerk (framework) architecture are scattered throughout the town, which has become a tourist Mecca to those visiting the Texas hill country. In 2000 the population of Fredericksburg was 8,911. Jerry C. Drake See also Adelsverein; Meusebach, John O.; New Braunfels, Texas; Nueces, Battle of the; Texas References and Further Reading Biesele, Rudolph Leopold. The History of the German Settlements in Texas, 1831–1861. Austin: Von Boeckman Jones, 1930. Biggers, Don H. German Pioneers in Texas: A Brief History of their Hardships, Struggles, and Achievements. Fredericksburg: Fredericksburg Publishing, 1925. Department of History, Southwest Texas State University. Fredericksburg: Guidebook to the Historic German Hill Country. San Marcos: Southwest Texas State University Press, 2003.

385

King, Irene Marschall. John O. Meusebach: German Colonizer in Texas. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1967. Newcomb, W. W., Jr. The Indians of Texas: From Prehistoric to Modern Times. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1961. Roemer, Ferdinand. Texas with Particular Reference to German Immigration and the Physical Appearance of the Country. Trans. Oswald Mueller. San Antonio: Steward Printing Company, 1935. Zelade, Richard. Hill Country: Discovering the Secrets of the Texas Hill Country. Austin: Texas Monthly Press, 1983.

FREIHEIT (FREEDOM) Freiheit was one of the longest-running anarchist periodicals. For over thirty-one years, from 1878 to 1910, Freiheit was the foremost exponent of German-language transatlantic radicalism, first in London and then in New York. Its pages chronicled the ideological shifts occurring within the German American radical movement. Freiheit was largely the work of one man, Johann Most (1846–1906), an outspoken anarchist speaker and headstrong editor who rarely minced words in his call for revolutionary insurrection. Freiheit came into being in the wake of Germany’s Anti-Socialist Law of October 19, 1878, which resulted in a sweeping suppression of all Socialist activities—including publications. Hundreds of rankand-file Socialists were expelled from Germany or emigrated voluntarily. Most ended up in London, where they organized political clubs. It was this community that pursued the need for a German propaganda paper to be smuggled back home. Exiled radicals increasingly criticized the Socialist Party leadership, which was effectively muzzled by the German government,

386

FREIHEIT

for being unwilling to resist the state. The exiles eventually lost faith in the ability of parliamentary action to hasten social change and so turned to underground action and journalism. In December 1878, Johann Most was expelled from Germany and sought refuge in London. A fierce critic of the Socialist elders and an experienced editor, he was persuaded by the exiles to stand at the helm of the newly founded paper Freiheit. The first issue appeared on January 4, 1879. Although the paper was initially a straightforward Social Democratic organ, Socialist deputies in Berlin nevertheless objected to it on the basis that it was founded without party approval. From 1880 to 1882, Freiheit shifted from a Social Democratic paper to a social revolutionary paper, one that advocated decentralized activism and that no longer shied away from the rhetoric of insurrectionary violence. This shift reflected the development of the exile community itself, especially the editorial circle around Most. Russian revolutionaries, Blanquists, and Bakuninists strongly influenced this new course for Freiheit. On September 2, 1880, for example, readers were treated to the full text of Sergei Nechaev’s Revolutionary Catechism. As a well-edited mouthpiece for the Socialist exile community, Freiheit grew in popularity, with its circulation climbing to 1,800. It reached German and Austrian subscribers through a precarious smuggling system. Sheets were shipped in tin cans, mailed as letters to border agents, or were simply hidden in luggage. Editors further confounded customs officials by renaming each issue. Still, participation in the radical exile community was extremely dangerous.

London clubs had been infiltrated by German detectives, and some smugglers were shadowed. In March 1881, Freiheit came under fire when it published an article entitled “Endlich!” (“At Last!”) celebrating the recent assassination of Czar Alexander II. British prosecution of the paper landed Most in jail. Released in October 1882, he decided to move the paper (and himself ) to New York, where the first American issue appeared on December 9. He assumed complete control over the magazine, aided by a core group of assistants, including Moritz Schultze, who served as interim editor whenever Most was in prison. Most traveled across the United States to recruit subscribers, hire agents, and stage fundraising events. Circulation expanded from 5,000 in 1885 to 8,000 in 1887. The bulk of those issues were still bound for Europe. A fair number also went to German American workers. In addition, the paper counted readers among Czech and Jewish anarchists in the United States. In the early 1880s, the tone had become decidedly anarchist and revolutionary, featuring articles on class warfare and the evils of American capitalism. In July 1885, the paper increased to eight pages, including advertisements for saloons, brewers, and artisans. In addition, a separate four-page European edition was published. By this time, however, many radicals felt the paper had lost its rebel spirit. Certainly, the rhetoric of violence subsided, and by 1892 Most firmly denounced individual acts of terror, although he continued his fiery idiomatic style of writing laced with tongue-in-cheek humor and High German slang. Other than news and announcements, Freiheit addressed Communist anarchism,

FREUND, ERNST

the labor movement, and syndicalism, transforming itself from a militant, combative paper into a more intellectual magazine. Among the featured authors were Jean Grave, Rudolf Grossmann, Elisée Reclus, and Helene Most, some in firsttime translation. There was also room for poetry from such German Americans as Georg Biedenkapp and Martin Drescher. During the 1890s, Freiheit was mired in financial difficulties mainly caused by a drop in subscriptions and rising production costs. From 1897 to 1898, Most was forced to move to Buffalo and team up with a local labor paper to save his paper. Still, Most was somehow able to keep Freiheit afloat. In September 1901, just moments after the murder of President William McKinley, Most unwittingly printed an old essay, “Mord contra Mord” (“Murder vs. Murder”), which supported political assassination. As a result of this unhappy coincidence, the aging Most was thrown in jail. After Most’s death on March 11, 1906, a conference was called to decide the future of Freiheit, now in its twenty-seventh year. A Freiheit Publishing Association was set up, which included Henry Bauer and Max Baginski. In November 1907, the association agreed to continue the paper fortnightly with Baginski as editor. Despite these last attempts, Freiheit finally folded for good on August 17, 1910. It was seen by many as the end of an era, the final breath of German-language radicalism in the United States, although a few other periodicals appeared until 1914. Tom Goyens See also Anarchists; Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Buffalo; Most, Johann; New York City; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States

387

References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl and May Olson, comps. Deutschamerikanische Zeitungen und Zeitschriften, 1732–1955: Geschichte und Bibliographie. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer, 1955. Eberlein, Alfred. Die Presse der Arbeiterklasse und der sozialen Bewegungen: Von den dreißiger Jahren des 19.Jahrhunderts bis zum Jahre 1967. Berlin (East): AkademieVerlag, 1968. Porter, Bernard. “The Freiheit Prosecutions, 1881–1882.” The Historical Journal. 23 (1980): 833–856. Rocker, Rudolf. Johann Most: Das Leben eines Rebellen. Berlin: Der Syndikalist, 1924. Glashütten im Taunus: Detlov Auvermann, 1973.

FREUND, ERNST b. January 30, 1864; New York, New York d. October 20, 1932; Chicago, Illinois German American jurist. Ernst Freund was born in New York City when his parents, Ludwig A. Freund and Nannie Bayer, were visiting the United States. He grew up in Germany, but upon completion of university studies in 1884, returned to the country of his birth. Freund was one of the pioneers in the field of administrative law in the United States and a founder of the University of Chicago Law School. Freund brought a perspective that was influenced by German law and legal education. From 1875 to 1881 Freund attended gymnasium (high school) in Dresden and Frankfurt am Main. He then studied law, principally at the Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, which awarded him a doctorate of civil and canon law (JUD) in 1884. He also spent two semesters at the Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin,

388

FREUND, ERNST

where he attended lectures of comparative public law scholar Rudolf von Gneist. After his law studies in Germany, Freund went to New York City. There he attended Columbia University from 1884 to 1885 and studied public law in the department of Frank Goodnow and John W. Burgess. From 1886 to 1894 he practiced law in New York City. In 1892 and 1893 he also taught public law at Columbia University while doing graduate work that led to a PhD in public law in 1897. In 1894 he went to Chicago to join the faculty of political science at the University of Chicago. He remained at that university until his death. Freund is remembered principally as one of the two pioneers—along with Goodnow—of the field of administrative law and also for his role in legal education. When Freund returned to New York in 1884, administrative law as a field of study was unknown in the United States and was in its most nascent of stages in Germany. Freund and Goodnow made administrative law a field of law separate from constitutional law. Freund’s vision of administrative law was based on a system of statute laws. It thus had to overcome not only the common law’s suspicion of administrative law but also the common law’s focus on process and case law development. In 1902 when the University of Chicago created its law school, Freund was the university president’s principal adviser in the project. Harvard Law School was helping establish the school, but its dean, John Barr Ames, and the professor it was to loan to be the new dean at the University of Chicago, Joseph H. Beale, insisted on doing so exclusively in the Harvard way. That meant the teaching of law pure and simple and strictly by the study of cases. Freund

and the University of Chicago president wanted something different: legal studies as an instrument of liberal education that included subjects Harvard regarded as political science and that allowed for systematic and comparative jurisprudence. Ames felt that Freund’s belief in the general methods of the German universities predisposed him against Harvard’s methods. Although the University of Chicago Law School went ahead largely on Harvard’s terms, German legal education through Freund had a “significant impact on the definition of American legal education” (Ellsworth 1977, 92). Today Freund’s ideas about legal education find considerably more resonance than they did a century ago. In his ideas about both administrative law and legal education, Freund juxtaposed in one person the conflicting methods of the American common law and German legal science. He wrote as an American, but with a German’s perspective (Lepsius 1997, 8). From his earliest days in professional life, he extolled to Americans the virtues of systematic legislation such as was found in Germany (see, e.g., “The Proposed German Civil Code.” American Law Review 24 (1890): 237–254. James R. Maxeiner See also Burgess, John William References and Further Reading Ellsworth, Frank L. Law on the Midway: The Founding of the University of Chicago Law School. Chicago: Law School of the University of Chicago, 1977. “Ernst Freund—Pioneer of Administrative Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 29, 755 (1962). Kraines, Oscar. The World and Ideas of Ernst Freund: The Search for General Principles of Legislation and Administrative Law. University: University of Alabama Press, 1974.

FRIEDMAN, PERRY Lepsius, Oliver. Verwaltungsrecht unter dem Common Law: Amerikansiche Entwicklungen bis zum New Deal. Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1997. Reitz, John C. “The Influence of Ernst Freund on American Law.” In Der Einfluß deutscher Emigranten auf die Rechtsentwicklung in den USA und Deutschland. Eds. Marcus Lutter, Ernst C. Stiefel, and Michael H. Hoeflich. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993, 423–435.

FRIEDMAN, PERRY b. September 25, 1935;Winnipeg, Manitoba d. March 16, 1995; Berlin, Germany Canadian folksinger and immigrant to the German Democratic Republic (GDR), where he deeply influenced East German musical culture. After a shattered childhood, Perry Friedman was dismissed from school without a degree in 1952. Soon after his seventeenth birthday, he decided to move around North America seeking work. He left home carrying his birthday gift, a newly made banjo, with him. On his trips, deeply influenced by the famous American folk singer Pete Seeger, he started his career as a folk musician. In 1959 he gave a concert on the occasion of an international meeting of Communist parties in London. After the show, he was invited to live in East Germany by the GDR government. Friedman agreed and migrated to the GDR at the age of twenty-four. As a guest of the government, Friedman introduced typical elements of the North American musical culture to the public culture of East Germany. He became the icon from which the youth

389

learned techniques to play the guitar and the banjo. Furthermore, he demonstrated the impartial exposure to traditional music. Because of his high profile and his popularity, he was the ideal adviser for the Central Committee of the Freie Deutsche Jugend (FDJ, or Free German Youth). Inspired by Friedman’s person and music, a new youth movement, the Singebewegung, emerged at the beginning of the 1960s. This new popular music inspired the youth of East Germany with lyrics relating to problems of East German society. Seven years after his emigration, on February 15, 1966, Friedman founded the Hootenanny-Klub Berlin, which was later renamed the Oktoberklub. This club was a concertlike event consisting of a group of singers and musicians improvising live on stage. Since the day of his immigration, Friedman preached this mode of collective musicmaking in the GDR. The Hootenanny-Klub quickly became very popular and at the same time it was integrated into official ceremonies of the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED, or Socialist Unity Party of Germany) and GDR. Because of this popularity, the FDJ channeled these activities and youth movements into a new component of the cultural policy of the SED. In 1971 Friedman returned to Canada to work for a broadcasting station, but he stayed for only five years, when East Germany’s leaders invited him to the “Festival of the Political Song” in 1976. However, it was not easy for Friedman to tie into his old success. Because of changed attitudes in the East German government, he no longer received invitations to festivals. He toured West Germany, gave concerts at labor union meetings, participated in the

390

FRIEDRICH, CARL JOACHIM

Ostermärsche (Easter March) movement, and played at concerts organized by the Socialist Youth, the youth organization of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD, or Social Democratic Party). In cooperation with the FDJ he toured the GDR in the early 1980s. This successful annual event took place every October until 1987. In spite of never losing his North American accent and because he lived for over three decades in East Germany, the GDR became his second home. His last concert took place in the Berlin Club Möwe on November 2, 1994, where he once started his career with his first concert in the GDR in 1959. Alexander Emmerich See also Reed, Dean References and Further Reading Friedman, Perry. Wenn die Neugier nicht wär: Ein Kanadier in der DDR. Berlin: Karl Dietz Verlag, 2004.

FRIEDRICH, CARL JOACHIM b. June 5, 1901; Leipzig, Saxony d. September 19, 1984; Lexington, Massachusetts German-born scholar, most of whose long career was at Harvard University, but who spent much time in Germany before and after the Third Reich. Through Carl Friedrich, German scholarship in the humanities and social sciences was introduced to the United States for several decades, and after World War II, he brought American approaches to politics and government to Germany— but with strong, generally unacknowledged, German roots. Best known for his work in the field of comparative politics

and government, Friedrich’s many books include (with Taylor Cole) Responsible Bureaucracy: A Study of the Swiss Civil Service (1932), Constitutional Government and Democracy (1941), and (with Zbigniew K. Brzezinski) Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy (1956). Friedrich’s father was professor of surgery at the University of Leipzig. His mother, a von Bülow, came from an aristocratic family. He was the oldest of four children. World War I dealt a severe blow to the Friedrichs. The father died in a military hospital, apparently overworked by his surgical duties. Friedrich began his university studies in medicine but switched after a few semesters to social sciences and economics. He was active in the bourgeois German youth movement, a powerful force in Germany from the 1890s into the 1930s. In 1922 he undertook a trip to the United States in order to establish contacts with American academic youth. His experiences in the United States led to the founding of a major precursor of the German Academic Exchange Service. Returning to the United States the next year, he was soon to spend more time there than in Germany. In 1924 he married an American, Lenore Pelham. In 1925 he submitted his doctoral dissertation at Heidelberg University. His mentor was Alfred Weber, sociologist, economist, political scientist, and prominent brother of the great Max Weber. Friedrich hoped for a position at Heidelberg, but his ambitions were blocked by a series of problems, of which one was that he was not actually granted the doctorate until 1930. In the meantime, his contacts in the United States secured him an untenured post in Harvard University’s Department of Government.

FRIENDS

His academic rise there was rapid; he became a full professor while still in his midthirties. Often Friedrich is incorrectly assumed to have been a refugee from Nazi Germany. Since he was neither Jew nor leftist—and many émigrés from Nazi Germany were both—he was not automatically considered an opponent by the Nazis. But like numerous other German-born scholars in the United States during World War II, many of whom were émigrés, he was involved in the war effort in a way that drew upon his special skills. Beginning in 1943, he taught in a school to train U.S. personnel for military government in Germany and Japan, and later he was involved in postwar military government. He has been credited with participating in the drafting of the Marshall Plan (1947). He returned frequently to Europe, especially Heidelberg, to lecture and teach. Germans have often seen him as one of the founders—or refounders—of empirically based political science in Germany. He is best known for his exposition of the conservative theory of totalitarianism: that the similarities between Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia far outweigh the differences. This thesis has led to much heated debate, some of it very fruitful. The fame of his book on totalitarianism and the important role played by this concept in the cold war have unfortunately diverted attention from some of Friedrich’s most interesting and challenging work: his early scholarship on the political theorist Johannes Althusius (1557–1638) and his mid- to late career work on the concept of the “baroque.” Althusius is important in the early modern development of the notion of the sovereignty of the people, a concept used retrospectively to justify the revolt of

OF THE

NEW GERMANY

391

the Netherlands against the Habsburgs in the sixteenth century. Friedrich’s scholarship on Althusius includes editions of his works. When Friedrich began working on Althusius, “baroque” was a label applied mainly to the history of architecture and the visual arts, but eventually the term was to be applied, as the great nineteenthcentury historian Jacob Burckhardt did with his concept of the “Renaissance,” to almost every aspect of European activity, culture, thought, music, art, and politics. We are indebted to Friedrich for a masterly exploration and synthesis of attempts to describe every major aspect of an epoch as “baroque.” This achievement is embodied in his Age of the Baroque, 1610–1660 (1952), published in the famous series “The Rise of Modern Europe,” edited by the prominent Harvard historian William L. Langer. Walter Struve See also American Occupation Zone; Foreign Policy (U.S., 1949–1955), West Germany in References and Further Reading Daalder, Hans, ed. Comparative European Politics: The Story of a Profession. London: Pinter, 1997. Lietzmann, Hans J. Politikwissenschaft im “Zeitalter der Diktaturen”: Die Entwicklung der Totalitarismustheorie Carl Joachim Friedrichs. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 1999.

FRIENDS OF THE NEW GERMANY Nazi organization in the United States from 1933 to 1935. The Friends of the New Germany (FONG) originated in July of 1933 with a Nazi salute. Rudolf Hess, the deputy führer of Germany, approved the ambition of

392

FRIENDS

OF THE

NEW GERMANY

Heinz Spanknöbel, a Nazi leader from Detroit, to lead a new Nazi organization in the United States. From the beginning, the association embodied the grandiose foreign policy of Nazi Germany in the United States, and the willingness of immigrant leaders to comply with the aims of this policy. The history of FONG subsequently was tied to the interests of Adolf Hitler’s new government. Germany’s Nazi government funded the organization, played the role of kingmaker, and eventually succeeded in discrediting the group in the fall of 1935, after it had become a liability. The first front man of Nazi Germany in the United States was a brash and elusive figure. An unnaturalized immigrant, Spanknöbel posed as a Seventh-Day Adventist itinerant. He was also the former leader of the Detroit office of the GauUSA, a branch of Hitler’s National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP). Spanknöbel won an audience in Berlin with Hess shortly after Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. The Gau officer convinced the deputy führer that he could lead an organization that would be both subservient to Hitler and winsome to Americans. He returned with a document that no other aspiring Nazi leader in the United States could gainsay: official authorization that he was now the American führer. Spanknöbel achieved many of his goals. His “process of coordination,” which delegated the right of threatening violence to the toughest of Nazis, forced the remnants of other Nazi groups such as GauUSA, the Teutonia Association, and the Swastika League to dissolve into FONG. Spanknöbel’s larger association was then structured strictly along the lines of the NSDAP in Germany. Like the NSDAP, FONG practiced the leadership principle

and maintained an Ordnungs-Dienst (OD, or Uniformed Service), an elite section of uniformed guards. As with Germany’s NSDAP in the 1920s, FONG began to intimidate opponents, particularly in the New York City area. After threatening German American leaders with reprisals if they did not submit to him, Spanknöbel personally visited the offices of Victor and Bernard Ridder of the New Yorker StaatsZeitung (New York Public News). The leader of the FONG intimated that even the Ridders would not escape the rage of local Nazis if they did not prove more sympathetic to Hitler. Victor Ridder, however, demanded that Spanknöbel leave his office, and called the police. The notoriety of the “Spanknöbel affair” had a contradictory effect. Though the rough approach to well-known German Americans created many enemies, FONG also grew in the midst of their notoriety. By October 1933, the organization was publishing newspapers in five major cities (New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, and Cincinnati). It had about 5,000 members and would attract more in the coming years. Though FONG, like its successor, the German American Bund, aspired for national renown, its main strength was in the New York City area. There, a large, unchurched, immigrant German population had daily contacts with the still-larger Jewish community of greater New York. The Friends of the New Germany hoped that rising hatred for the Jews would abet their infiltration of German societies, and foment a tolerance for Nazi leadership. Spanknöbel and his allies became activists in the United German Societies (UGS) of New York and nearly gained control of that organization, causing four Jewish groups to

FRIENDS

leave the federation. When it appeared, however, that a Nazi takeover of the UGS would turn German Day events (October 29, 1933) into a celebration of Nazism, Mayor John O’Brien of New York refused to grant a permit to allow German Day in 1933. FONG succeeded all too well in inspiring hatred. During a FONG rally in Newark, the OD initiated a brawl with a crowd of hecklers. Crudely painted swastikas soon defaced a number of Jewish synagogues in the New York City area. Jews of New York began a boycott of Germanmade goods, and FONG served local German merchants in organizing a more conspicuous counterboycott of Jewish stores. When it became evident that the strongarmed tactics of FONG served only to alienate Americans, the foreign-affairs section of Germany’s NSDAP revoked Spanknöbel’s credentials, and he fled back to Germany in October 1933. In March of 1934, Congress passed a resolution sponsored by Representative Samuel Dickstein of New York City, funding a committee to investigate un-American activities, particularly those of FONG. FONG survived its first year, as Nazis on both sides of the Atlantic still saw its existence as necessary. The foreign section of Germany’s NSDAP chose a replacement for Spanknöbel, Fritz Gissibl, and nearly shelved him in turn when the group failed to shed its image as a fifth column. Gissibl, a founder of an earlier Nazi group, the Teutonia, proved less compliant than Spanknöbel. Gissibl proved willing to curtail his own power if the German Nazis insisted, but rather than leaving the country like Spanknöbel, Gissibl got a naturalized American, Hubert Schnuch, to pose as the group’s new leader. Throughout 1934

OF THE

NEW GERMANY

393

FONG saw self-proclaimed führers rise against Gissibl for real control of the organization, but the latter, who could claim some support from the Fatherland, remained in control. One challenger named Ignatz Griebl, for instance, was eased out of contention by German officials who hired him as a member of the Abwehr, the intelligence section of the German armed services. The irony about FONG from beginning to end was that though vetted by German Nazis, the society did little but tarnish Germany’s image in the United States. Under Gissibl, FONG supported Bruno Hauptmann’s unpopular effort to get a fair trial after he was accused of killing the baby of Charles and Anne Lindbergh. They opened camps, drilled young boys, chased invasive journalists from the grounds, and blared propaganda from movies and loudspeakers. By 1934, the group’s presence created a stir wherever sizable numbers of recent German immigrants were found. In Buffalo, for instance, a journalistic exposé of FONG in 1934 showed that the key figure in the local effort was Gerhard Kiessow, a German consular agent. The reports spoke of power struggles; the efforts of local Nazis to take over the Volksfreund (People’s Friend), the last German daily in the city; and a recent local rally held by the traveling Fritz Gissibl. When interviewed, Frank X. Schwab, a recognized leader of the local German community, castigated the Nazi front. He saw FONG as a German variation of the Ku Klux Klan and warned that if they tried straight-armed tactics in Buffalo, that he would die, if necessary, in the fight against them. The decline of FONG was more related to German decisions overseas than to any cowardice or fear of unpopularity

394

FRITZ, SAMUEL

among recent German immigrants. In 1934, as Gissibl warred against competing factions, German consular agents withdrew financial support. In 1935, when Gissibl sent his brother Peter and front man Hubert Schnuch to Germany for help, Nazi officials claimed that they would do nothing to interfere in American affairs. Actually, they would interfere, but not in the way Gissibl had hoped. By this time, German ambassador Hans Luther and other observers of the American scene, such as Theodore Hoffmann, head of the Steuben Society, had convinced leading Nazis— even, it seems, Hitler—that FONG was not even kindling the enthusiasm of the rooted German American element for the new Germany. If the Nazis wanted American neutrality for a future European war, FONG was not going to be very helpful. Aware that the Dickstein committee at this time was helping to smear Germany’s reputation in the eyes of Americans, Nazi officials decided that a complete renunciation of their American organization was in their best interests. In October 1935, the Gissibl brothers and OD elite were startled to learn that the German Foreign Ministry had proscribed membership in FONG for all German nationals. This meant that a large fraction of the organization’s membership would either have to quit the group or face the future confiscation of their passports and the revocation of their German citizenship. When Peter Gissibl stormed into the German consulate in Chicago and warned that his brother would personally confront Rudolf Hess about the edict, he was told that if his brother tried to go to Germany, he would be thrown into a concentration camp. Fritz Gissibl, nevertheless, booked a berth to Germany at this time and did meet with

German officials. However, his trip served only to help extend the deadline for the new edict to December 31, 1935. Gissibl, ultimately true to the party who had chosen him, resigned his post and returned to Germany. He did not consign the American movement to oblivion, however, for he handpicked a successor who would become the most infamous and effective Nazi leader in American history, Fritz Kuhn. In March 1936 Kuhn reorganized FONG into the German American Bund. Andrew Yox See also Antisemitism; Buffalo; German American Bund; Kuhn, Fritz Julius; Lindbergh, Charles Augustus; New Yorker Staats-Zeitung; Schwab, Frank X.; Steuben Society of America References and Further Reading Berninger, Dieter. “Milwaukee’s German American Community and the Nazi Challenge of the 1930s.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 71 (Winter 1987–1988): 118–142. Canedy, Susan. America’s Nazis: A Democratic Dilemma. Menlo Park, CA: Markgraf, 1990. Diamond, Sander. The Nazi Movement in the United States, 1924–1941. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974. Jenkins, Philip. Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925–1950. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997.

FRITZ, SAMUEL b. April 9, 1654;Trautenau (Eastern Bohemia), Austria d. April 20, 1725; Jéveros, Peru Jesuit who worked as a missionary in the Amazon and produced the first accurate map of the Amazon River. In 1673, Samuel Fritz joined the Societas Jesu (Jesuits). In 1685, after an ardu-

FROMM, ERICH

ous two-year journey, he arrived in the Spanish colonies on the upper Amazon (Marañón) to work as a missionary among the Omaguas and Yurimagua tribes. Until 1689 he did missionary work in a vast territory between the Rio Napo and Rio Negro and founded about forty reducciones (secure villages where Jesuits attempted to resettle forest-dwelling natives in order to convert and train them while protecting them from attacks). While traveling into Portuguese territory in order to complain about the raids on his settlements, he was held in custody in Pará for eighteen months. Upon his return, he endeavored for over twenty years to protect his mission from Portuguese raids, but he received no support from the Spanish administration. Finally, in 1714, he was transferred to Jéveros, where he worked for another eleven years as a parish priest. The settlements and mission stations established by him were largely destroyed by the Portuguese. His scientific significance stems from the results of his trip in the Portuguese-controlled section of the Amazon. The manuscript map he drew on his return trip in 1691 accurately depicts, for the first time, the course of the stream from the headwater region to the mouth. The map was first published in 1707 in Quito in an altered form. In 1743, the French mathematician Charles Marie de la Condamine (1701–1774) brought the original to the National Library in Paris, and it was reproduced in 1893 by Gabriel Marcel. Heinz-Peter Brogiato See also Brazil References and Further Reading Egghardt, Hanne. Österreicher entdecken die Welt. Forscher, Abenteurer, Idealisten. Vienna: Pichler, 2000: 72–84.

395

Gicklhorn, Renée. “Fritz Samuel.” Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1961, 5:632–633. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983, 2:296–298.

FROMM, ERICH b. March 23, 1900; Frankfurt am Main d. March 18, 1980; Muralto, Switzerland Eminent German psychologist, psychotherapist, philosopher, and academic teacher in the United States. Fromm studied Jewish law and religion and graduated from Heidelberg University with a doctorate on the Jewish diaspora. He trained in psychology at the University of Munich and at the Institute of Psychoanalysis in Berlin. His Jewish family background did not play a particular role in his later professional life but necessitated emigration to New York in 1934 after employment with the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research. In the United States, Fromm once more joined that reopened institute, set himself up as a psychoanalyst, and lectured at Columbia University. Fromm was granted U.S. citizenship in 1940 and was invited to teach at Bennington College in Vermont as well as at Yale University. He had already been inspired by the writings of Karl Marx, Johann Jakob Bachofen, and Sigmund Freud but took issue with the latter’s preoccupation with unconscious drives and the supposed neglect of the importance of social factors in human psychology. In 1951, Fromm moved to Mexico City and obtained a professorship of psychoanalysis at the National Autonomous University. He subsequently

396

FUCHS, KLAUS

became engaged in the U.S. peace movement directed against forced nuclear armament and the Vietnam War. On retiring in 1965, he edited, together with Ernst Bloch, Herbert Marcuse, and others, Humanist Socialism, a programmatic collection of essays establishing a connection between humanist values established in fifteenthcentury Europe, like tolerance, the right to an education, and the right to free development of the mind, and Socialist thought of the time. The conclusion was, with Marx, that genuine humanism would follow from socialism. Over the years, Fromm had developed a strong anticapitalist stance. He criticized the notion of progress as measured and evaluated by economic growth alone. In the face of technology and mechanization, informed humanist reasoning as well as unselfish love served as a counterbalance leading toward a more humane society, which, ideally, would be free of psychological oppression (The Art of Loving, 1956 and The Revolution of Hope, 1968). Work, if it dominates over humanity, is seen as an oppressing and alienating factor responsible for psychological troubles like neuroses and sadism. Fromm had studied such negative drives in history as well as in clinical practice and published his conclusions in The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness in 1973. In To Have or to Be (1976), he analyzed the surplus society according to the American model, which, according to Fromm, favored “having” over “being.” The consumption mode in combination with the emergence of mass culture and the dominance of business over private life had led, so went his line of argument, to modern human beings losing touch with life. As a result, people “have” everything but “are”

nothing. The individual remained passive and turned to consumerism and toxic substances as means of compensating for existential fears of alienation and spiritual void. Fromm interpreted the manifold distractions offered by the entertainment industry and the growing sense of numbness as indicators of the longing to be reunified with one’s self as well as with nature. Markus Oliver Spitz See also Frankfurt School; Intellectual Exile; Marcuse, Herbert; Mexico References and Further Reading Burston, Daniel. The Legacy of Erich Fromm. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991. Funk, Rainer. Erich Fromm: His Life and Ideas. New York: Continuum International, 2003. Funk, Rainer, ed. The Erich Fromm Reader. With a foreword by Joel Kovel. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1994.

FUCHS, KLAUS b. December 29, 1911; Rüsselsheim, Hesse d. January 28, 1988; Berlin (East) German nuclear physicist who participated in the British and American projects to produce an atomic bomb and who spied for the Soviet Union. Klaus Fuchs came from a Protestant and Social Democratic–oriented family. His father was the well-known theologian Emil Fuchs. In 1928, Fuchs finished school and began to study physics and mathematics at the University of Kiel. In 1930, he became a member of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) and in 1932 of the Communist Party (CP). After the Reichstag fire in late February 1933, he actively participated in the resistance against the Nazi dictatorship before he left Germany in the summer for Paris. By fall, he had emigrated to England, where he con-

FUCHS, KLAUS

tinued his education at the University of Bristol. There he worked with Nevill Mott, the cofounder of modern solid-state physics and later Nobel Prize winner. In 1936, Fuchs defended his doctoral dissertation on the electron theory of metals. Following his supervisor’s recommendation, Fuchs went to the University of Edinburgh to work with Max Born, also a German émigré. In 1939, Fuchs defended his second doctoral dissertation in mathematics. After the outbreak of World War II, he was interned as an enemy alien in Canada. It was in the internment camp that he came again into contact with the CP—a connection he would not give up again. Thanks to the support of influential colleagues, Fuchs was released from the internment camp early. He became an assistant to Rudolf Peierls at the University of Birmingham. There, Fuchs was introduced to modern nuclear physics. Peierls’s research was the center of the British project to produce an atomic bomb (“Tube Alloy”). After Fuchs went through several background checks and had become a British citizen, he was invited to participate in this project in 1941. Two years later he was sent to the United States, where he worked first in New York and later in Los Alamos for the Manhattan Project. He was a member of the theoretical group headed by Hans Bethe. Fuchs made essential contributions to the development of the atomic bomb and was given a general overview of the entire project. Furthermore, he participated in the first discussions about a superbomb (the hydrogen bomb). Together with John von Neumann, he invented an important principle for its detonating device. In the summer of 1945, Fuchs witnessed the first successful test of an atomic bomb as well as the dropping of

397

the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the fall of 1945, Fuchs left Los Alamos and returned to England, where he took over the theory department in the newly established nuclear research center Harwell. There, his work focused on the development of mathematical methods for nuclear research. Before he went to the United States in 1941, Fuchs had sought contact with the Soviet secret service. He was convinced that the Soviet Union needed his support in its struggle against Nazi Germany since the Western Allies seemed temporarily unwilling to back the Soviets. Fuchs offered to disclose information about the construction of an atomic bomb acquired during his involvement in the Manhattan Project. It is still not clear how important his knowledge was for the Russian project and how much of his knowledge he transmitted to the Russian side. Nevertheless, the knowledge from the British and American projects helped the Soviet Union to acquire atomic weapons more quickly. In December 1949, the British secret service realized that Fuchs was a spy, and he was sentenced to fourteen years in prison. A year later, he lost his British citizenship. Once released from prison in June 1959, Fuchs left England for the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In East Germany, Fuchs was warmly welcomed and was able to continue his career as a physicist. He was appointed deputy director of the GDR’s nuclear research center in Rossendorf, near Dresden and in 1972 became a member of the Academy of Science. In 1967, he became a member of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party (SED)—an honor bestowed on only a very small number of scientists. During his years in East Germany,

398

FULBRIGHT PROGRAM

Fuchs’s research focused on nuclear physics. He was one of the most vocal proponents of the fast-breeder reactor technology, which in the end could not be realized because of economic shortages and political pressure from Moscow. Dieter Hoffmann See also Braun, Wernher von; Stalin Note References and Further Reading Goodman, Michael S. “The Grandfather of the Hydrogen Bomb? Anglo-American Intelligence and Klaus Fuchs.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 34, no. 1 (2003): 1–22. Moss, Norman. Klaus Fuchs: The Man Who Stole the Atom Bomb. London: St. Martin’s Press, 1987. Tschikow, Wladimir, and Gary Kern. Perseus: Spionage in Los Alamos. Berlin: Verlag Volk und Welt, 1996. Williams, Robert Chadwell. Klaus Fuchs, Atom Spy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987.

FULBRIGHT PROGRAM Established in 1952, six years after the foundation of the international Fulbright program, the German American Fulbright program has so far facilitated the bilateral exchange of more than 30,000 German and American students, instructors, professors, researchers, and professionals. The Fulbright program is the only successful international exchange venture that has a clear philosophical foundation, resulting from a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the global vision of the international political leadership. In the late 1920s, J. William Fulbright, a long-term U.S. senator from Arkansas, had a series of formative experiences in both Great Britain and east-central Europe that led him to believe that it

would be necessary “to see the world as others see it.” Fulbright discounted cultural and ideological differences as incidental and acquired by accident of birth and advocated programs and a mix of cognitive and personal experiences to come to understand the relativity of cultural patterns of thinking. This belief in international education as a vehicle toward peaceful global development has kept the Fulbright program largely unscathed by political developments and ensured its status as a liberal and independent force in German American relations. Fulbright’s correspondence with his friend Mike Fodor, reporting to him from Berlin, shows the senator’s special interest in divided, post–World War II Germany and thus also in the German Fulbright program. Although the initial impetus of the program was certainly connected with reeducation and/or reorientation, the preamble of the 1952 agreement stressed the “mutual understanding between the peoples of the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany by a wider exchange of knowledge and professional talents through educational contact” (Tent 2003). This binational balance is reflected both in the funding procedures (each side funds 50 percent of the program) and in the composition of the Fulbright board, on which both countries are equally represented. The high level of representation of Germans on the board led to a strong commitment toward the Fulbright program by many relevant German decision-makers. The presence of such organizations as the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), various ministries, and the German University Rectors Conference also

FULBRIGHT PROGRAM

turned the Fulbright board into a forum for dialogue and exchange in the area of the development and reform of higher education in Germany. The impressive example of the program’s founder, J. William Fulbright, has resulted in the emergence of a number of strong personalities internationally who, embodying the program, have been able to help it along in their various national contexts. The German Fulbright program has been favored by the long tenure of several well-informed officials, such as the Germans Ulrich Littmann and Rainer Rohr and the American Carl G. Anthon. Beyond its outstanding leadership, the Fulbright program has generated a large number of personalities in both countries who have brought the intercultural academic knowledge gained in the course of their stay in the partner country to bear on a specific area of expertise, whether economics, politics, or the natural sciences. However, the most important effect of the Fulbright program has been on the bilateral cooperation in the area of higher education. Most notably, the Fulbright program has contributed decisively to the establishment of American studies as an independent field at German universities and thus helped to break the virtual monopoly English philology had on the training of secondary school teachers of English. The interdisciplinary interests of many Fulbright appointees at German universities have also extended to other areas and helped to inspire such areas as women’s studies and multicultural studies. In the United States, the German American Fulbright program contributed toward the study of Germany; the German Studies “movement,” although largely American in origin, was

399

greatly assisted by special Fulbright appointments. On all levels, the Fulbright program has intensified the educational exchanges between the United States and Germany. Many key partnerships between U.S. and German universities were established as a result of Fulbright contacts, and many of the reform initiatives in the German university system came about for the same reason. Many of the most gifted junior scholars from Germany (“excellence” being a central selection criterion) decide to stay in the United States following the completion of their “Fulbright experience.” They have become some of the most productive faculty members at American research universities, and at the same time, they remain academic ambassadors for Germany in their adopted country. Indeed, junior scholars have been the most consistent focus of the German Fulbright exchange, and participation in the program was often the promising beginning of a later university career both in the United States and Germany. The Fulbright program has thus been stimulating innovative research in both countries and in many different areas. Given Germany’s previous location at the ideological dividing line between “East” and “West,” it is not surprising that the German Fulbright program has always had a strategic position in European American academic relations. The “Berlin Week,” established in the mid-1950s for participants throughout Germany, has gradually developed into an all-European forum for American Fulbrighters in Europe and a correspondingly interesting venue for creative dialogue and exchange. A separate Fulbright program with the German Democratic Republic (GDR) had

400

FULLER, MARGARET

been established just prior to the disassembly of the Berlin Wall in 1989. It reflected the GDR’s interest in improving its relationship with the United States on all levels, especially in view of the fact that support by Mikhail Gorbachev’s USSR had become uncertain. However, the program was set up as an intergovernmental agreement and did not use the model of the binational commission that characterized the program in West Germany and other Western countries. The Fulbright program, with a pragmatic all-German appeal, proved to be one of the few areas in the German establishment of higher education where there was more of a spirit of cooperation than aggressive takeover and carpetbagging. It is therefore not surprising that in recent years, the German Fulbright program, now headquartered in Berlin, has also focused on the challenges connected with the accession of new members to the European Union and the dialogue with other, non-EU countries in Eastern Europe. The example the program has set in logistics, selection procedures, and philosophy has served as a trailblazer for the development of intra-European exchanges such as ERASMUS or SOCRATES and now needs to redirect its own work from a binational to the new European framework. Beyond its traditional clientele of students and professors (the former making up the heart of the German program to the United States, the latter of the American program to Germany), the German American Fulbright program also serves assistant language teachers in secondary schools and at the college level, administrators in international education, education experts, and journalists. Added to these professional exchanges is a focus on German universities of applied sciences, the Fachhochschulen,

which represent an important and growing segment of German higher education. Together with its active alumni association, the German Fulbright program thus continues to be the key institution in the relationship between Germany and the United States in the area of higher and professional education and an important player in the relationship between the two countries at large. Walter Grünzweig See also German Students at American Universities; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Fulbright at the Start of a New Millennium. Bonn: Fulbright Kommission, 1998. Littmann, Ulrich. Gute Partner—Schwierige Partner: Anmerkungen zur akademischen Mobilität zwischen Deutschland und den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika (1923–1993). Bonn: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, 1996. Tent, James F. “The Beginning of the German-American Fulbright Program 1952.” The First Class of Fulbrighters. Berlin: Fulbright Kommission, 2003.

FULLER, MARGARET b. May 23, 1810; Cambridgeport, Massachusetts d. July 19, 1850; near Fire Island, New York One of the best-known female writers of her century, Margaret Fuller played a significant role in introducing German literature to her friends and associates in the Transcendentalist circle, above all to her close friend Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882), as well as to the educated elite in New England and beyond. Influenced by the English writer Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) and Charles Follen

FULLER, MARGARET

(1796–1840), she began an intensive and systematic study of German literature, while virtually teaching herself the language. From 1834 to 1838 Fuller shared what had become a passionate interest in German culture with her students at Bronson Alcott’s (1799–1888) Temple School. During that time, she became increasingly immersed in her studies of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, whom she came to regard as the greatest German writer, overcoming her initial preference for Friedrich Schiller. In 1839 her translation of Johann Peter Eckermann’s (1792–1854) Conversations with Goethe in the Last Years of His Life (Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens, 1823–1832, 1836– 1848) was instrumental in creating a more favorable image of the poet in the United States, who was now presented as a serene and mature thinker rather than the fiery, youthful author of The Sorrows of the Young Werther (Die Leiden des jungen Werthers, 1774), a long-standing American perception. Fuller furthered this reevaluation in her preface, in which she wrote a spirited defense of Goethe and a thoughtful discussion of his strengths as an artist and literary critic. Fuller’s ultimate goal was to write a biography of Goethe, a task to which she devoted her prodigious energies for a number of years but never came close to completing. However, she made further contributions to a positive reception of Goethe in articles and translations she wrote for the Dial, a journal associated with the Transcendentalists that she cofounded and edited for two years. In addition, she published translations and wrote articles on other German poets and writers. On the local level she regularly spoke about Goethe and other German writers in the lectures (her “Conversations”) she gave to

401

One of the best-known female writers of her century, Margaret Fuller played a significant role in introducing German literature to her friends and associates in the Transcendentalist circle. (Library of Congress)

the women of the Boston elite from 1839 to 1844. After 1844 her public role as an advocate of German literature came to an end, as she began her career as one of the first female journalists in the United States with her employment by Horace Greeley’s (1811– 1872) New York Tribune. To Fuller, Goethe towered above all the German writers and poets. She defended him from the usual charge of immorality, which emerged especially from his Die Wahlverwandschaften (Elective Affinities, 1809), by maintaining that the work was indeed moral but that Goethe had framed it in accord with his personal moral code rather than that of religious authorities. She argued that he presented the world as it was, rather than as it should be,

402

FULLER, MARGARET

and those who were inclined to an ideal world should turn to Schiller, whom she continued to admire. Fuller presented Goethe as the best stylist in the German language, an acute observer of human beings, and an ardent believer in continuous human development. She viewed Faust as the summation of the great ideas of his life, and asserted that the Wilhelm Meister novels (Wilhelm Meister’s Apprentice Years, 1795–1796, and Wilhelm Meister’s Travels, 1821) were among one of the most significant educational works ever produced. Fuller also extolled Goethe’s portrayal of various feminine figures in his works in her book Woman in the Nineteenth Century (1855). In spite of her decade of study of Goethe’s works, and the voluminous notes she produced, she was unable to realize her dream of writing his biography. She eventually concluded that she could not undertake the task until she could travel to Germany and interview those who had known him. However, personal circumstances prevented her from ever visiting the land of Goethe and those poets and writers she so ardently admired. Fuller promoted these other German poets and authors, as well as additional aspects of German culture, in her articles, reviews, and translations. She developed considerable enthusiasm for the German romantic poets and authors, especially Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg, 1772–1801), whose mysticism and spiritualism appealed to a prominent aspect of her

complex personality. Fuller especially praised his Heinrich von Ofterdingen (1802) and his Die Lehrlinge zu Sais (The Apprentices of Sais, 1798). She was also fascinated by the extravagant language and exotic themes of Jean Paul Richter (1763–1825), whose Titan (1800–1803) she particularly admired. Fuller also translated poems by Schiller, Karl Theodor Körner (1791–1813), and Johann Ludwig Uhland (1787–1862). Her long article on the ballads of the Rhineland increased American interest in German folk poetry, the Volkslied. She communicated her intense involvement in German music, especially that of Ludwig van Beethoven, through a series of sketches of German composers published in the Dial. Realizing that her interests were more literary and artistic than metaphysical, she focused her prodigious energy on literary criticism and her translations, thereby encouraging others to follow in her footsteps. Fuller died July 19, 1850, at sea near Fire Island, New York. John T. Walker See also Follen, Charles; Transcendentalism References and Further Reading Capper, Charles. Margaret Fuller: An American Romantic Life: The Private Years. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pochmann, Henry A. German Culture in America: Philosophical and Literary Influences, 1600–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978. Vogel, Stanley. German Literary Influences on the American Transcendentalists. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955.

G GEISEL, ERNESTO b. August 3, 1907; Bento Gonçalves, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil b. September 12, 1996; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil The son of German emigrants who entered the Brazilian military, was promoted to general and finally became president of Brazil in 1974. Ernesto Geisel’s father, Wilhelm August Geisel, left Herborn, Hesse, for Brazil in 1890 and worked as a teacher, first at a school in the Protestant community in Estrela and later at a government school in Bento Gonçalves. Ernesto and his brother, Orlando, attended the Escola Militar do Realengo, the military academy in Rio de Janeiro, and became officers in the Brazilian army. After the 1930 revolution, Geisel accepted the position of civilian administrator in the regional government of northeastern Brazil (1931–1934). Afterward, he reentered the military and was promoted to the rank of general in 1960. In 1964, Geisel participated in the military putsch against the government of President J. Goulart and was appointed head of the new military junta under its first ruler, Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco. Later, he became the president of the state-owned oil concern

Petróleo Brasileiro Sociedade Anonima (PETROBRAS). While his brother, Orlando, took over the defense ministry in 1969, Ernesto was chosen president in 1974. Under his presidency (1974–1979), a slow and gradual transformation of society toward democracy occurred. This reform process ended in 1985 with the transfer of power from the military to democratically elected president José Sarney. René Gertz See also Brazil References and Further Reading Castro, Celso, and Maria Celina Araujo, eds. Dossiê Geisel. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2002.

GEORGIA Evidence of German-speaking peoples in Georgia is traceable back to the seventeenth century, with the arrival of Spanish missionaries from St. Augustine, Florida. The first significant numbers, however, arrived from the Palatine region during the “Great Migration” of 1709–1710. The establishment of the Georgia colony in 1733 by James Oglethorpe provided new opportunities for emigration from Europe. In 1731 over 30,000 German Lutherans living in the Tyrol region

403

404

GEORGIA

were forced into exile by the archbishop of Salzburg, Count Leopold Firmian. Roughly 20,000 of them moved to Prussia. A smaller number took advantage of a fortuitous opportunity that manifested itself when King George II of England (himself of German descent through the House of Hanover) decreed in 1732 that the territory south of the Carolinas should be settled by “worthy immigrants.” Individuals were provided free passage, 50 acres of land, and provisions for one year. Afforded with the prospect of starting a new life in British North America, these “Salzburg Germans” arrived in Charleston South Carolina in March 1734 before continuing on to Savannah. Their arrival marks the beginning of German settlement in Georgia. Of note concerning Germans in colonial Georgia is the fact that, although Germans lived in many colonies, it is only in Georgia that they actually participated fully in the planning of the territory. Oglethorpe and the other trustees stated that Georgia was founded not only as a place for the English but also for “the distressed Salzburgers and other Protestants.” Present at the creation of the colony, these Germans proved instrumental in its establishment, survival, and growth for the next fifty years. The first German settlement in the region, Ebenezer, was established in 1734 at a spot 25 miles upriver from Savannah. As with most new settlements, this one encountered hardship, but over the next two years grew modestly under the leadership of the Reverend John Martin Bolzius and Reverend Israel Christian Gronau. Growth was also aided by the arrival of more Germans from the Old World, culminating in the “Great Embarkation” of 1736.

Oglethorpe originally wanted to send the new arrivals to Frederica on St. Simon’s Island. However, since most wanted to settle in Ebenezer with their fellow Salzburgers, the governor allowed them to do so. Shortly thereafter, the decision was made to move the settlement to a region 4 miles below present-day Springfield, Georgia. Named New Ebenezer, the community benefited from the arrival of another ship in 1741, which included not only “Salzburgers” but also German-speaking people from Switzerland and Rhineland-Pfalz. Besides Ebenezer, Germans established settlements in Acton, Bethany, and Vernonburg. Many also remained in Savannah, the largest group being the Moravians, who arrived in 1735. Their time in Georgia was short, however, because as pacifists they declined to take up arms during the conflict with Spain in 1737. One of the leading Moravians in the colonies, Bishop August Spagenberg, petitioned for the group to be allowed to relocate to Pennsylvania, a request granted by the trustees of Georgia. By the middle of 1738, most Moravians had left the colony for the north. As previously stated, attempts were made to settle Georgia’s coastal islands. Germans figured prominently in the history of one of these efforts. The story of the Germans of Frederica is not widely known but yet is of vital importance to the survival of not only the Georgia colony but of British settlement in general in the southern colonies. Frederica was originally established in the late 1730s as an outpost for the defense of the Georgia coast and the Carolinas against a Spanish invasion. In German American history, its importance rests on

GERMAN ALMANACS

participation by the Germans of Frederica at the Battle of Bloody Marsh in July 1742. By stopping the Spanish invasion, they helped end the threat to Georgia and the Carolinas. Without this threat, there was little need to maintain a military force at Frederica. Oglethorpe’s decision to withdraw the regiment prompted a rapid decline in Frederica’s population, and by 1747 the town was all but abandoned. Its legacy, however, is preserving British rule in the southern colonies, without which American history would be radically different. The influence of the German element in Georgia during the colonial period began to wane as the American Revolution approached. No one single reason accounts for this. Increased immigration by nonGermans into Georgia, Germans leaving for other colonies, and decreases in population brought about by disease are just some of the reasons that led to the abandonment or decline of most German communities in Georgia. Even Ebenezer did not escape this fate: the original German settlement in Georgia was abandoned by the end of the American Revolution. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, most Georgia Germans took little notice of the growing independence movement. When war arrived in 1775, first-generation Germans tended to remain nominally loyal to the king but made little effort to openly support the Loyalist cause. Secondgeneration Germans, one of the most famous being William Jasper, embraced the cause of independence. Sergeant Jasper distinguished himself at the Battle of Fort Sullivan in Charleston harbor before becoming a guerrilla fighter after the fall of Charleston and Savannah. When a combined French and American force assaulted

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

405

Savannah in 1779, Jasper led a charge in which he was mortally wounded. A monument commemorating the moment of his death stands in downtown Savannah. Like Jasper’s, the many contributions of Germans to the creation of Georgia cannot be questioned. In agriculture and animal husbandry, the British valued their skills as farmers and cattle raisers. Germans figured prominently in the establishment of the fledgling wine and silk industries. Many arrived possessing skills in baking, bricklaying, carpentry, ironworking, leatherworking, shoemaking, and tailoring, just to name a few. Charles T. Johnson See also Pennsylvania References and Further Reading Faust, Albert B. The German Element in the United States. Vol. 1. New York: Steuben Society of America, 1927. Fries, Adelaide. The Moravians in Georgia. Baltimore: Genealogical Research, 1967 (c. 1905). ———. The Germans of Frederica. St. Simon’s Island, GA: Fort Frederica Association, 1996. Jones, George Fenwick. The Georgia Dutch: From the Rhine and Danube to the Savannah, 1733–1783. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1992.

GERMAN ALMANACS GRANDE DO SUL

IN

RIO

From 1855 to 1941 Rio Grande do Sul possessed a rich German-language press that provided German immigrants and their descendants with newspapers, didactic books, and almanacs (Kalender). The first almanac, the Deutscher Kalender (German Calendar), was published in 1855 in Porto Alegre. The most popular form of

406

GERMAN ALMANACS

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

these almanacs was the Volkskalender (Popular Calendar), which contained a very diverse array of topics, including history, politics, literature, medicine, and homemaking, and was intended to entertain the reader, especially those living in the countryside, for whom the almanacs were often the only available books. There were various types of almanacs: political, historical, religious, and regional. One of the very first almanacs was Der neue hinkende Teufel: Deutscher Volkskalender für das Jahr 1856 für die Provinz S. Pedro do Sul (The Limping Devil: German Popular Calendar for the Year 1856 for the Province of S. Pedro do Sul, 1856–1858), compiled by the journalist and teacher Carl Jansen from Cologne, and printed, in Porto Alegre, in the Druckerei von Carl Jansen. The Deutscher Volkskalender (German People’s Calendar, 1862–1870), published by the editors of the Deutsche Zeitung (German Newspaper) in Porto Alegre, also belonged to this type of almanac. The most important such almanac was Karl von Koseritz’s Koseritz’ deutscher Volkskalender für die Provinz Rio Grande do Sul (Koseritz’ German People’s Calendar for the Province of Rio Grande do Sul), later renamed Koseritz’ deutscher Volkskalender für Brasilien (Koseritz’ German People’s Calendar for Brazil, 1874–1918; 1921–1938), printed first by Gundlach, and from 1901 to 1938 by Krahe. Another important almanac was the Kalender für die Deutschen in Brasilien (Calendar for Germans in Brazil, 1881–1918; 1920– 1941) or simply Rotermund-Kalender, created by Wilhelm Rotermund in São Leopoldo. During its first decades, the Evangelische Buchhandlung (Protestant Bookstore), established by Rotermund in 1877, which later became the publishing

house Rotermund and Co., published this almanac. Since Rotermund opposed atheism, freethinkers, and Koseritz’s materialism, this almanac initially had a strong religious and doctrinaire character. The Rotermund-Kalender was also the most successful almanac. With 30,000 issues published as of 1923, it had the highest circulation of all almanacs. There was also the Musterreiter’s neuer historischer Kalender (Musterreiter’s New Historical Calendar, 1885–1887; 1901– 1918), published by Cäsar Reinhardt, who purchased the Deutsche Zeitung in 1883. In 1917 a new popular almanac, the VolksKalender (People’s Calendar, 1917–1918; 1927–1931), was published in Porto Alegre by the company Ludvig and Irmãos. Ernst Reinhold Ludwig, who had a law degree and was the son of the German writer Otto Ludwig, was editor of this publication. He also worked as a writer and editor at the Riograndenser Vaterland (Riograndenser’ Fatherland), which had been circulating since 1903. A second type of almanac was characterized by a historical perspective on events and a religious overtone. These almanacs, in fact, propagated religious doctrines. Such periodicals carried a strong didactic-pedagogical and moralizing tone and provided moral and religious guidance to families. One of the first such almanacs was Der Familienfreund Katholischer Hauskalender und Wegweiser (The Friend of the Family: Catholic Home Calendar and Signpost, 1912–1918; 1920–1942). The very first volume was arranged by Leopoldo Petry, but after the creation of the Volksverein für die Deutschen Katholiken (Association of German Catholics) in Rio Grande do Sul in 1912, this association took over the responsibility for this

GERMAN ALMANACS

publication in 1915. It was produced by Hugo Metzler. in Porto Alegre, the printer of the Deutsches Volksblatt (German Popular News), which had been created by Jesuits in 1871. The Catholic orientation also permeated the Riograndenser MarienKalender (Mary-Calendar of Rio Grande, 1917–1918; 1920–1938), edited and printed by Livraria Selbach, a bookstore established in Porto Alegre and owned by J. R. da Fonseca. This was meant to be an almanac for German Catholics, and its main purpose was the veneration of the Virgin Mary. Also of Catholic orientation was Die Fahne des Heiligen Ignatius— Kalender des Jesuiten-Kollegs in Parecy-Novo für Schüler, Freunde und Wohltäter (The Flag of Holy Ignatius—Calendar of the Jesuit College in Parecy-Novo for Students, Friends, and Benefactors, 1934–1941), organized by Father Alfons Hans, SJ, from the Church of Saint Joseph, and printed in the Tipografia do Centro, both located in Porto Alegre. The almanac, which was free for the readers, was produced for the parents who sent their children to the Seminário Menor, a Jesuit institution, and its benefactors. The almanac served as an advertisement for the teaching methods at this school as well as to attract new candidates to the priesthood. Protestant readers were targeted by the Kalender für die deutschen evangelischen Gemeinden (Calendar for German Protestant Communities, 1922–1941), which was printed in Porto Alegre by Mercantil Tipografia under the supervision of the regional synod. Several pastors functioned as editors for this almanac, among them Franz Sauer, Hermann Dohms, Rudolf Becker, Karl Heinrich Oberacker, and Erich Knäpper. Following the same concept was the Luther-Kalender für Sü-

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

407

damerika (Luther Calendar for South America, 1925–1941), printed in Porto Alegre by Casa Publicadora Concórdia. Among its editors were Pastor Ludwig Kaminski, Pastor Albert Lehenbauer (from the United States), and Pastor G. Kramer (from Guatraché, Argentina). The American pastor W. Schelp was in charge of selecting the contributions, and W. Goerl, who was the administrator of Casa Publicadora Concórdia, supervised its printing. Casa Publicadora Concórdia, a publishing house connected to the Fifteenth District of the German Lutheran-Evangelic Synod of Missouri, Ohio, printed the almanac. The third type of almanac (Heimatkalender) was made for a specific community or region, which often was named in the title. Most of them were short lived. The very first attempt to create such an almanac was the Deutsches Handbüchlein für Pelotas und Umgebung für das Jahr 1917 (German Booklet for Pelotas and Surroundings for the Year 1917), organized by Rudi Schäfer and printed by Nelle, Hergesell. Schäfer was also the editor of the newspaper Deutsche Wacht (German Guard), which was published in Pelotas from 1914 to 1917. The almanac included an address book (names, professions, and addresses) of all German immigrants and their descendants living in Pelotas and surrounding areas. Another Heimatkalender was the Illustrierter Familien-Kalender “Siedlungshort” (Illustrated Family-Calendar “Settlement Place,” 1924–1927). Edited by Friedrich Brüggemann, who owned both a publishing house and a bookstore in Santa Cruz do Sul, this almanac provided a very idealized description of the geographical and cultural peculiarities of Santa Cruz do Sul, Panambi, and communities located northeast of Rio

408

GERMAN ALMANACS

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

Grande do Sul, especially Palmeira and Cascalho, in order to attract future settlers. In addition, Brüggemann published the NeuWürttemberger Illustrierter Familienkalender “Siedlungshort” (New Württemberg Illustrated Family Calendar, 1925–1926) in Neu-Württemberg (now Panambi). Using pictures and texts, it informed newly arrived immigrants about the peculiarities of and life conditions in Panambi and the settlements of Porto Feliz and Xingu. Der Heimatbote-Kalender für die Deutschen Süd Brasiliens, speziell für Central Rio Grande do Suls (The Home Messenger Calendar for the Germans of South Brazil, especially for Central Rio Grande do Suls, 1935; 1937–1938) was published in Vila Tereza with a similar goal. In spite of this variety among almanacs, all of them had a similar structure. Besides the normal timetable for the year and general information, such as measurements, weight tables, interest rates, international currency quotation, mail and telegraphy fees concerning Brazil and other countries, and train and boat schedules and itineraries, these almanacs contained sections for specific topics. They had sections specially designed for women, containing advice on how to run the house, usually named Für Haus und Hof (For House and Garden), with tips concerning food preparation and preservation; cleaning of clothes, shoes, furniture, and appliances; small mending and dyeing of clothes; and prevention and eradication of domestic bugs. This section was dedicated to such “female” traits as frugality, neatness, temperance, and moderation. In some almanacs this section had a secondary part called Kinderpflege und Erziehung (Childrearing and Education), which discussed prenatal care and hygienic care of

babies and children, as well as giving advice on and practical tips for the upbringing of children, including their conduct within the family, at school, and in society. The almanacs also gave room for home medicine, generally under the title Der Hausarzt (The Home Doctor), which provided advice about the production of home medicine; descriptions of the most common diseases and their symptoms; first-aid procedures, most of them regarding poisoning, insect- and snakebites, and fractures and burns; and hygiene. Advice on home medicine was very important for readers living in the countryside, since they did not always have access to physicians and medical care. Instruction about agriculture and cattle breeding could be found in the section on Landwirtschaftliches (Agriculture), which was complemented by a calendar for agricultural and cattle gestation purposes. Under the heading Rechtsbelehrung (Legal Education) the almanacs reprinted civil law information regarding marriage, deeds, and estate. Some almanacs also printed examples of petitions, power of attorney documents, wills, and promissory notes in Portuguese. The Koseritz’ Kalender and the RotermundKalender listed the names and address of consulates, schools, and German associations. Religious almanacs provided a complete list of priests, pastors, and teachers working in Rio Grande do Sul. The Deutscher Volks-Kalender and the Koseritz’ Kalender published lists of professionals, factories, industries, stores, hotels, and restaurants owned by Germans in Porto Alegre. This section functioned as a phone directory for that time. Most popular, religious, and regional almanacs had a section usually called Jahresrundschau (Reminiscences), reserved

GERMAN ALMANACS

for a summary of the national and international events of the previous year. The first almanac to have that section was Musterreiter’s. The Koseritz’ Kalender and the Rotermund-Kalender added such a section only after 1900. During World War I, the almanacs used this section to cover news about the war. Another task of almanacs was to introduce readers to literature, mainly poetry, short stories, soap operas, and reminiscences or (Erinnerungen). The almanacs played an important role in promoting German Brazilian literature. The Koseritz’ Kalender was the first periodical to publish poetry. Poets such as Adolf Ringwald, Alfred Funke, Arthur Spindler, Carl Jansen, Ernst Niemeyer, Georg Knoll, Karl von Koseritz, Mathias Gansweidt, Wilhelm Wustrow, and Wolfgang Ammon contributed nearly all their works to the almanacs published in Rio Grande do Sul. The Rotermund-Kalender, furthermore, published German authors from Argentina, among them Wilhelm Rhenius and Gil Til. Musterreiter’s published lyric productions by German authors from the United States, among them Konrad Krez and Konrad Nies. And the Koseritz’ Kalender offered literary works from German authors (in Germany), mainly Frida Schanz, Heinrich Sohnrey, Jeremias Gotthelf, Peter Rosegger, Ricarda Huch, Theodor Storm, and Tim Krögger. Almanacs also included entertainment, such as anecdotes, jokes, cartoons, and comic strips, in the sections Heiteres (Amusing) and/or Humoristische Ecke (Amusing Corner), but the humor was not always meant to entertain. Many almanacs had a clear purpose, especially the Catholic almanacs, which showed scenes that were contrary to the religious and social code of conduct. In the art of humor

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

409

the Brummbär-Kalender (The Bear Calendar, 1931–1935; 1938) stood out. Most of its texts were written in the German dialect spoken in the Hunsrück. It was a very popular periodical with the German immigrants living in Rio Grande do Sul, who had come mostly from this area in Germany. Its playfulness was ensured by jigsaw puzzles, enigmatic letters, riddles, crosswords, and graphic enigmas, with solutions provided either at the end of the volume or in the following year’s almanac, a strategy to guarantee the continuing purchase of the periodical. Each almanac reflected a certain set of political and religious ideas. Der neue hinkende Teufel had a Socialist tendency. In its first years, the Koseritz’ Kalender was characterized by its anticlerical and freethinking stance, as well as by discussion of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. The Illustrierter Familien-Kalender published texts on theosophy and esoteric. Der Heimatbote spread ideas that belonged to the Brazilian Fascist Party of the 1930s and its committees located in Central Rio Grande do Sul. The Rotermund-Kalender and the Kalender für die deutschen evangelischen Gemeinden in Brasilien propagated the superiority of the German way of life. The Catholic almanacs, finally, were connected to the project of Catholic restoration, based on the Catholicism originated in Trento and reinforced by the First Vatican Council. Imgart Grützmann See also Koseritz, Karl von; Printing and Publishing; Rotermund, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl J. R., and May E. Olson. Die deutschsprachige Presse der Amerikas, 1732–1968: Geschichte und Bibliographie. Pullach/München: Verlag Documentation, 1973.

410

GERMAN AMERICAN BUND Grützmann, Imgart. “‘Deus, germanidade, pátria’: a presença do germanismo no Kalender für die deutschen evangelischen Gemeinden in Brasilien.” 500 anos de Brasil e Igreja na América Meridional. Ed. Martin N. Dreher. Porto Alegre: EST, 2002, 308–334. ———. “O almanaque (Kalender) na imigração alemã na Argentina, no Brasil e no Chile.” Imigração and Imprensa. Eds. Martin N. Dreher, Arthur B. Rambo, and Marcos J. Tramontini. Porto Alegre: EST; São Leopoldo: Instituto Histórico de São Leopoldo, 2004, 48–90. ———. “Leituras sob o céu do Cruzeiro do Sul: Os almanaques em língua alemã no Rio Grande do Sul (1855–1941).” Às sombras do carvalho. Ed. Antônio Sidekum. São Leopoldo: Nova Harmonia, 2004, 177–254. ———. “O almanaque Der Heimatbote: Histórias, informações e notícias em língua alemã.” Anais do VI Seminário Nacional de Pesquisadores da História das Comunidades Teuto-Brasileiras. Eds. Isabel Cristina Arendt and Marcos Antônio Witt. São Leopoldo: Oikos, 2004, 160–177. Silva, Heike Kleber da. “Representações do humor no imaginário teuto-brasileiro.” Representações do discurso teuto-católico e a construção de identidades. Eds. Heike Kleber da Silva and Isabel Cristina Arendt. Porto Alegre: EST, 2000, 7–96.

GERMAN AMERICAN BUND (AMERIKADEUTSCHER VOLKSBUND) Nazi organization that operated in the United States from 1936 to 1941, successor to the Friends of the New Germany (FONG). The German American Bund (GAB) was officially founded on March 28–29, 1936, in Buffalo, New York, by Fritz Kuhn. In contrast to the FONG, which had many German nationals among its members, the GAB insisted that its mem-

bers had to be American citizens of German origin. The GAB was part of Germany’s supposedly cultural work in the United States, which was thought would provoke less opposition. Thereafter, the coordination of German American groups was to be carried out by cultural, rather than political organizations; namely by the Nazi-coordinated Deutsches-AuslandInstitut (German Foreign Affair Institute) in Stuttgart rather than by the Foreign Organization of the Nazi Party. Nevertheless, the goal remained the same: converting German Americans to Nazism. Although the GAB was originally designed to organize American citizens under the auspices of a social and cultural organization so as not to endanger diplomatic relations, it was hard for German Nazis to control the ambitions of the German American leadership. Under the leadership of Fritz Kuhn, the GAB quickly turned into an even more visible political agent than its predecessor and became an annoyance to the German Nazis, who sought a slower pace and less publicity for their continuing political aims. The GAB’s antisemitism, as expressed in the boycott movement, and its anticommunism were outspoken and visible. Likewise, its open cooperation with other anti-Communist, racist, and Fascist groups (including the German American Business League, the Fichte-Bund, the German National Alliance, the Ku Klux Klan, the Silver Shirts of America and William Dudley Pelley, Italian Fascist groups, André Anastase Vonsiatsky and the All-Russian National Socialist Labor Party, the Ukrainian Hetman Organization, the Christian Front, Gerald L. K. Smith, George Van Horn Moseley, Father Coughlin, and the American Nationalist Association) was publicly known.

GERMAN AMERICAN BUND

411

German American Bund parade in New York City on East 86 Street, October 30, 1939. (Library of Congress)

With an estimated 30,000 followers, subdivisions, a number of GAB-owned training and recreational camps, and a weekly newspaper, Deutscher Weckruf und Beobachter (German Wake-Up Call and Observer, circulation: 10,000 copies) the GAB turned into the largest national German American organization. It successfully coordinated several larger German American umbrella organizations, which increasingly suffered from the GAB’s political interference in their function as cultural organizations and as spokespeople of an apolitical German American ethnic group. Both the American public and administration increasingly perceived the GAB as a threat to the American idea of a multiethnic and democratic nation. However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Consti-

tution guaranteed free speech even to hate groups such as the German American Bund. Although 1934 introduced the “Special House Committee to Investigate the Extent, Character, and Objects of Nazi Propaganda in the United States,” and its successor, the “Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities,” delivered important evidence on the functioning of the Nazi network in the United States, it took until June 8, 1938, when the McCormack Act could be passed, to register “Agents of Foreign Principals” and thus outlaw alien political activists in the United States. The Hatch Act, the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, and the Selective Service Act subsequently helped to identify alien propagandists. The case of Fritz Kuhn is illustrative of the difficulty faced by the

412

GERMAN AMERICAN CLUBS

authorities in controlling the GAB’s activities. Kuhn could be tried only for tax evasion and the misappropriation of GAB funds, not for the spreading of hate propaganda. However, Kuhn was sentenced to a two-and-a-half to five-year sentence on December 5, 1939, in New York. The removal of its charismatic leader serious hurt the GAB. It was left under the leadership of Gerhard Wilhelm Kunze, who could only administer its dissolution and decline into illegality. On June 28, 1940, with the passing of the Alien Registration Act, the Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798 were reactivated, and aliens were registered. At the same time the GAB caught the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the G-2, and the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). With Germany’s declaration of war on the United States on December 8, 1941, all German nationals and those classified to be in the service of an enemy nation in the United States automatically fell under the control of the Department of Justice and special legislation. Organizationally this constituted the end of the GAB, although underground groups continued to exist, as intelligence reports proved. They also indicate that only a few German American Nazis became involved with German intelligence and sabotage activities in the United States, of which Operation Pastorius (1942) is the best known. In that case, German Nazis used German Americans and Nazi sympathizers who had recently returned to Germany from the United States as agents for acts of sabotage in the United States and landed them in two groups by submarine on the shores of Long Island and Florida in June 1942. However, mainly due to their lack of professionalism and training, these men were soon caught,

and six of the eight were sentenced to death. Cornelia Wilhelm See also Antisemitism; Buffalo; Friends of the New Germany; Kuhn, Fritz Julius References and Further Reading Canedy, Susan. America’s Nazis: A Democratic Dilemma. Menlo Park, CA: Markgraf Publications Group, 1990. Diamond, Sander A. The Nazi Movement in the United States, 1923–1938. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974. Wilhelm, Cornelia. Bewegung oder Verein? Nationalsozialistische Volkstumspolitik in den USA. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998. ———. “Nazi Propaganda and the Uses of the Past: Heinz Kloss and the Making of a German America.” American Studies 47 (2002): 55–83.

GERMAN AMERICAN CLUBS (IN WEST GERMANY) Within five years after the end of World War II, the role of the U.S. armed forces in Germany had been transformed from occupiers to allies and protectors. Along with this changed role, public affairs officials and commanders attempted to foster a spirit of friendship between American military communities and their German hosts. German and American communities sponsored parades, concerts, Christmas singalongs, Easter services, and other public entertainment attended by civilians and military personnel. Much of this centered around music, a convenient way to overcome language barriers. For most Germans and Americans, occasional concerts or festivals were the only contact they had with each other, but some people sought more intensive interaction, joining clubs whose purpose was to allow friendship to develop. The first German American club, the Bad Kissingen Cosmopolitan Club, was

GERMAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS

founded in the summer of 1946 by Captain Merle Potter, a local military governor who saw the need for friendly interaction between victor and vanquished. When they learned of it, military authorities ordered Potter to disband the club, but Potter persisted, and he convinced General Lucius Clay, head of military government in the American Occupation Zone, that German American friendship should be encouraged. Clay assigned Potter to develop a network of German American friendship clubs throughout the American Occupation Zone. The first national conference of German American clubs took place in Heidelberg in September 1947, with delegates from seventeen clubs. The following year, the clubs decided to ensure their independence by forsaking official military sponsorship and forming an umbrella organization of their own, the Federation of German American Clubs. Since then, there have been dozens of German American clubs, most of them established between 1945 and 1955. Many were founded as men’s or women’s clubs; in 1947 only two of the seventeen clubs were exclusively for women, but by 1950, there were more women’s clubs than men’s. For almost 60 years, German American clubs have provided an opportunity for Germans and Americans to become acquainted in an informal, nonpolitical way. Many of the clubs’ early efforts focused on charity work for impoverished European families and children; the Pfennigparade or March of Dimes was a popular charitable cause for many clubs, for example. Other activities included discussion groups; theater, music, or sightseeing trips; and socializing around holidays. German American clubs have long organized student ex-

413

change programs and youth groups. They were also the original sponsors of German American Friendship Week, first held in 1952, during which musical performances, exhibits, lectures, and social activities were organized for the public. In later years, the public affairs offices of military communities took over the task of coordinating the friendship weeks, but club members continued to be a mainstay of participation. In the 1950s and 1960s, German American clubs sponsored formal balls and casino nights with the proceeds going to charity, but as entertainment and recreation tastes changed in the 1970s, many of these activities fell out of favor. Today, many clubs organize annual flea markets to raise money for their activities. Although the original membership of German American clubs came from the U.S. forces stationed in Germany, more recently, clubs have included American and British men and women with no connection to the U.S. forces in Germany. Anni Baker See also American Occupation Zone; GIs in West Germany; U.S. Bases in West Germany References and Further Reading Hawkins, John Palmer. Army of Hope, Army of Alienation: Culture and Contradiction in the American Army Communities of Cold War Germany. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. Nelson, Daniel J. A History of U.S. Military Forces in Germany. Boulder: Westview Press, 1987.

GERMAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS German American women created a wide spectrum of organizations during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Just

414

GERMAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS

like their male family members, many firstgeneration immigrant women started or joined organizations soon after their arrival in the United States. Many had acquired organizational know-how back in their home country and felt that activities beyond the immediate concerns of the home and the family would help them accommodate to their new situation. Whereas the first generation of immigrant women established mostly those kinds of organizations that they had been familiar with in Germany, later generations of German American women were inspired by both their mothers’ activities and Anglo-American models of organizations. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, German American women with increasing frequency sought the cooperation of Anglo-American women and interacted with women of other ethnic groups. By then, cooperation with German American men in many organizations had been practiced successfully for decades. The numbers of women’s organizations varied according to the size of the German community in which they originated. In smaller communities like San Francisco or San Antonio, about two dozen women’s organizations existed at the beginning of the twentieth century, but in big centers of German settlement like New York, Chicago, and Milwaukee, over 100 organizations were active. First to appear in most German communities in the United States were women’s church groups. They formed an important part of both Catholic and Lutheran congregational life. Catholic women could join Christian mothers’ societies or courts of the Women’s Catholic Order of Foresters or become members of mutual support groups. The Christian mothers’ societies, which were often the

largest groups with up to several hundred members and were designed to organize all married women in a congregation, concerned themselves mostly with religious education. Assuming women’s special religious calling, they looked to them as educators of future generations of faithfully Catholic German Americans. In that respect they were similar to Lutheran women’s organizations, which based their activities on a very conservative reading of gender relations, limiting women to the home as mothers, educators, and faithful supporters of their husbands and the church. The work of women’s groups in either church evolved around altar services, care for the young, sociability, and fundraising. Cut off as they were from tax revenues, unlike congregations in Germany, both the Catholic and the Lutheran churches heavily depended on fundraising contributions from women’s groups. Women turned out to be avid fundraisers, exploring such unfamiliar techniques as door-to-door solicitation. Women’s church groups also engaged in charitable work. They shared their concern for the poor, sick, and underprivileged with the many secular women’s charity organizations that could be found in almost any German American community. Depending on the cause they had chosen, these organizations existed for only a short span of time or were long-lasting ventures. Different groups profited from their endeavors. The women who were affiliated with the Deutsche Gesellschaften (German Societies) exclusively provided aid to members of their own ethnic group. They distributed food and fuel to new arrivals and helped them find housing and employment. Other organizations ignored the ethnic background of their clientele and pro-

GERMAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS

vided financial and material support to poor families, widows, orphans, veterans and sick people, or the institutions that sheltered them (orphanages, hospitals, soldiers’ homes, etc.). In some instances, German American women’s charitable activism was triggered by events in Germany: during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) and World War I, women organized nationwide to support victims of the war both on the home front and the battlefield. Whether providing help at home or abroad, German American women’s charity work was informed by the discourse on professionalization and reform, and it helped lay the groundwork for the American welfare state. Besides helping others, German American women expressed an interest in selfimprovement and leisure activities. The last quarter of the nineteenth century saw the start of reading circles and debating societies, which served as arenas to discuss women’s concerns and reform issues. Few, however, evolved into women’s clubs similar to those that formed the General Federation of Women’s Clubs. At the same time, the numbers of organizations that focused on leisure and sociability increased dramatically, especially in cities that had big German communities like New York, Chicago, and Milwaukee. Women started groups that engaged in playing games—card and board games especially—dancing, and travel; they became interested in physical education; and they joined musical societies, singing clubs, and choirs, often in cooperation with German American men. In many American cities, those women who were affiliated with the group of political refugees who left Germany after the revolution of 1848–1849 became active in a network of organizations that included

415

support groups of schools and kindergartens, freethinkers’ women’s clubs, and ladies’ auxiliaries of Turner associations. The school and kindergarten groups sought to popularize the idea of bilingual education in German and English, not only among German immigrants but also throughout American society. Highly critical of American teaching methods, they helped establish schools in which German curricula—including physical education— were taught and hoped that Anglo-American schools would copy their example. Many members of these groups believed that as mothers of a generation of children that was born in the United States, they should work for the cause of education and serve as custodians of German educational traditions and as mediators between two different cultures. The most progressive groups, like the women who supported Mathilde Franziska Anneke’s TöchterInstitut in Milwaukee, also favored equal access to educational institutions for girls and boys. Their activism was based on the notion that both men and women were equal, and that, as a consequence, they should be endowed with equal rights and equal access to any area of American society. The freethinkers’ women’s clubs shared this conviction. As part of the religious and political opposition in prerevolutionary Germany, they had fought for women’s emancipation, which they included in a larger reform agenda. In the United States they continued their struggle, focusing on the issue of suffrage, just as the Anglo-American women’s rights movement did after the Civil War. Freethinking women, in fact, established close ties to the movement. The most prominent German American suffragist, Mathilde Anneke, who was a member of

416

GERMAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS

the women’s club of the Freie Gemeinde of Milwaukee, served as vice president of the National Woman Suffrage Association and as the organization’s link to the German American community in the country. Largely ignored in the past, German American freethinking women have to be considered as the spearheads of women’s rights activism in that community and as the core of a German American women’s movement in the United States. The Turner movement had originally shared much of the radicalism so characteristic of the freethinkers—their motto called for a sound mind and a sound body as prerequisites of democratic citizenship. However, after their migration to the United States, the Turners became increasingly conservative, both intellectually and politically. Turner women seemed to share this conservatism, which expressed itself most visibly in their reading of gender relations. They did not seek involvement in the movement as men’s equals but accepted the role of men’s supporters. Excluded from full membership in the Turnvereine (Turner societies) well into the twentieth century and seldom encouraged to physically exercise, Turner women organized themselves into ladies’ auxiliaries. The efforts of these auxiliaries focused on fundraising—most of the Turnvereine would have been in dire straits without the financial support of their women—the promotion of sociability within the Turner community, and the preservation of German cultural traditions. Their ethnic background as Germans induced other women to join the Socialist movement. Socialism had made its way to the United States in the cultural baggage of German immigrants, and German Americans were among its supporters as early as

the 1850s. Parties like the Workingmen’s Association of the United States granted full membership rights to women and included the call for the equality of men and women in their platform. Women were encouraged to join the party and organize either in branches that included both sexes or establish separate women’s sections (Frauensektionen). Either way, they were able to make their voices heard in matters of party policy and in political decisionmaking processes. Like members of the freethinking women’s clubs, women who joined the Workingmen’s Association were eager to fight for women’s equality. First on their agenda of demands was women’s full political emancipation: women’s right to vote and hold office. Other demands included the call for women’s economic emancipation, which the social revolution was supposed to bring about eventually. The Socialist Party, which was founded in 1901, was less enthusiastic about the contributions women could and should make to party politics. The party relegated women mostly to its auxiliary organization (Frauenclubs), where in many cities German American women were segregated from women of other ethnic backgrounds. Auxiliaries mainly offered political education. Their female members were not encouraged to join other women’s organizations in the fight for women’s rights and suffrage. The class struggle was to have priority over matters of gender equality. German American women therefore shied away from coalitions with suffragists and restricted themselves mostly to the more traditional role of faithful supporters and fundraisers for the party. Last to appear in the spectrum of German American women’s organizations were trade unions as well as lodges of secret so-

GERMAN AMERICAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS

cieties and fraternal orders. The first of these organizations sprang up during the 1880s. Inspired by the example set by Anglo-American women, mainly German American women with second- or thirdgeneration immigrant backgrounds began to explore forms of activism that their mothers had been unfamiliar with in Germany. It was their status as members of American society and not so much their ethnic background as Germans that induced them to do so. German American women who joined or founded trade unions were concerned about their rights as members of the working population in general and their status as women wage earners in particular. Rapid industrialization and access to formerly male jobs not only exposed them to the capitalist market economy but also frequently put them at odds with their male colleagues. Unionization promised group support and enabled women to bargain for their rights collectively. At stake were women’s economic independence, equal pay for equal work, a reduction of working hours, and an increase in pay. During years of heavy strike activity, women’s union membership rose. In 1886, for instance, Milwaukee’s German American seamstresses organized, asking for the eighthour workday at ten hours’ pay and complete equality with their male colleagues. They chose to affiliate themselves with the Knights of Labor and the Central Labor Union, both of which accepted female members. Women also organized in many other American cities like New York and Chicago, in part encouraged by the Women’s Trade Union League, which strove for women’s unionization and cooperation among laboring women of different ethnic backgrounds.

417

Those German American women who joined lodges of secret societies and fraternal orders were part of a larger national trend. At the beginning of the twentieth century, more than 6 million Americans held memberships in organizations like the Freemasons, the Odd Fellows, the Ancient Order of Foresters, or the Knights of Pythias, to name but a few. Even before German Americans flocked to these orders, they had created their own ethnic organizations: the Sons of Hermann (1840) and the Order of Harugari (1847), both of which followed a secret ritual and excluded women. Just like Anglo-American women had done before the Freemasons and Odd Fellows opened to women’s participation, German American women started to press for the right to organize as female members of the orders during the early 1880s. Gender roles were slowly changing toward a more equal relationship between the sexes, they argued, and called on the orders to accommodate to these changes. Both eventually gave way and granted membership rights to women in women’s lodges. Unmarried, widowed, and gainfully employed women with working-class backgrounds made up the majority of those who joined for, besides encouraging sociability, the Daughters of Hermann and the Hertha Degree provided for the mutual support of their members. Their services included health, work, and life insurance. These were crucial benefits that provided for women’s social security and economic independence at a time when the American welfare state was still in its infancy. Like their male relatives, German American women were fond of organizing. At a time when German communities in the United States reached their greatest extension and complexity, these women were

418

GERMAN CATHOLIC CENTRAL-VEREIN

involved in a wide variety of activities, appropriating for themselves all types of organizational forms. By building their own organizations, German American women proved their ability to create their own spaces in which they could come together outside the home and invest their energies in projects beyond the immediate concern of the family. Even though some areas of activity, like the different reform movements, were almost completely ignored, it can safely be argued that by organizing and becoming involved, German American women were able to realize their potential as social agents and to make crucial contributions to community-building processes. At the same time they were able to move beyond the gender role of wife and mother that had restricted them for so long. Anke Ortlepp See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; Forty-Eighters; Kindergartners; Milwaukee; Sons of Hermann; Turner Societies; Verein References and Further Reading Blascke, Monika, and Christiane Harzig. Frauen wandern aus: Deutsche Migrantinnen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Bremen: Universität, 1990. Häderle, Irene. Deutsche kirchliche Frauenvereine in Ann Arbor, 1870–1930. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997. Harzig, Christiane. Familie, Arbeit und weibliche Öffentlichkeit in einer Einwanderungsstadt: Deutschamerikanerinnen in Chicago um die Jahrhundertwende. St. Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae, 1991. Herminghouse, Patricia. “‘Sisters, Arise!’ The Intersections of NineteenthCentury German and American Feminist Movements.” The GermanAmerican Encounter: Conflict and Cooperation between Two Cultures, 1800–2000. Ed. Frank Trommler and Elliott Shore. New York: Berghahn Books, 2001, 49–60.

Ortlepp, Anke. “Auf denn, Ihr Schwestern!” Deutschamerikanische Frauenvereine in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1844–1914. Stuttgart: Steiner, 2003. Scott, Anne F. Natural Allies: Women’s Associations in American History. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991.

GERMAN CATHOLIC CENTRAL-VEREIN The most important national association embodying the tripartite identity of German American Catholics. The German Catholic Central-Verein was founded in 1855 and still exists in vestigial form. Originally organized as a confederation of parish-based mutual aid societies, it was at first oriented toward the social, economic, and religious needs of first-generation immigrants. In response to the emerging predominance of the second generation, the Central-Verein (CV) reorganized itself between 1900 and 1905, established a national headquarters in St. Louis, and made the promotion of social reform according to Christian principles its official raison d’être. Thanks to these changes, membership reached its peak (125,000) in 1916, and the CV enjoyed its period of greatest visibility and influence among American Catholic societies. U.S. entry into World War I marked the end of its flourishing. In the postwar decade, membership declined rapidly, the language shift accelerated, social reform lost its timeliness as an organizational mission, and the social commentary of the CV’s leaders modulated into an alienated critique of modern culture. The remnant of the organization that survives today is distinguished more by its commitment to a conservative version of Catholic orthodoxy than to the vestiges of German ethnicity.

GERMAN CATHOLIC CENTRAL-VEREIN

The CV came into existence when delegates representing seventeen local societies from four states and the District of Columbia met in Baltimore to form Der Deutsche Römisch-Katholische CentralVerein von Nord-Amerika in April 1855. The immediate spark for its founding was the healing of tension between two German Catholic parishes in Rochester, New York, but the intense anti-Catholic nativism of the 1850s reinforced the drive for unity among the nation’s German Catholics. The CV’s constituent units were mutual benefit societies of the sort typically found among immigrant groups, whose individual members had to be practicing Catholics affiliated with a German parish. Numbering about 12,000 such members in 1866, it grew to 50,000 by 1900. Initially concerned mainly with routine organizational matters, the CV soon involved itself in issues of general interest to the ethnic group, such as support for Catholic parochial schools, a special interest of Henry J. Spaunhorst, its president from 1873 to 1891. Aid for newly arrived immigrants began in 1868 and continued in various forms for many years. Expanding the scope of its activities was a natural development, but it embroiled the CV in the controversies that wracked American Catholicism in the 1880s and 1890s. “Nationality” was a prominent feature in battles pitting liberals against conservatives: the former, also called “Americanizers,” urged accommodation of the Catholic religion to the national culture; the latter, strongly supported by the Germans, believed that such a course imperiled religious faith. Though not the most militant of German groups, the CV suffered during this era of “storm and stress,” especially when its plan to establish

419

a German chair at the Catholic University of America fell victim to partisan infighting at that institution. As the ideological strife subsided in 1900, the CV awoke to an organizational crisis, the basic cause of which was a sharp decline of immigration from Germany and the emergence of a predominately secondgeneration clientele no longer in need of the social cushioning provided by its constituent societies. More immediately, the Widows and Orphans Fund, a life insurance subsidiary whose membership was individual and voluntary, was teetering on the verge of a collapse that threatened the continued existence of the parent organization. In addition, “state leagues” of German Catholic societies had developed independently of the CV, and the newly formed American Federation of Catholic Societies (AFCS), which was ethnically inclusive, seemed poised to absorb them and perhaps the CV’s member societies as well. The CV’s leaders met these challenges by severing its connection with the Widows and Orphans Fund, incorporating the state leagues as constituent units in the national organization, and establishing itself within the AFCS as the corporate representative of German Catholics. These moves greatly strengthened the CV, doubling its membership by 1907, but the organization still lacked a mission calculated to appeal to the more Americanized second generation. The choice of social reform as its official raison d’être, surprising as it might seem in view of the German Catholics’ earlier conservatism, made sense for several reasons. First, it was in keeping with the reforming spirit of the Progressive Era. Second, it drew inspiration from papal social teaching and more particularly from Germany, where social

420

GERMAN CATHOLIC CENTRAL-VEREIN

Catholicism flourished and where the Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland (Popular Union for Catholic Germany) furnished an organizational model. Third, the conviction that liberal Catholic “Americanizers” denied the existence of “the social question” sharpened German Catholics’ sensitivity to the need for reform. Finally, the CV’s leaders believed that commitment to social reform would stimulate new vitality among its member units. Although Nicholas Gonner Jr., made an abortive attempt during his term as president (1899–1903), the social reform mission was not successfully introduced until after the CV completed its organizational restructuring. Two men new to the CV played key roles in the accomplishment of that goal from 1908 to 1909: Peter E. Dietz, a pioneering “labor priest,” pressed for decisive action to translate the formally accepted mission into a practical program; Frederick P. Kenkel, a highly respected German Catholic journalist, became director of the newly established Central Bureau in St. Louis and editor of its new bilingual monthly, Central-Blatt and Social Justice (CBSJ). Dietz’s participation was short lived, but Kenkel became the dominant figure in the organization until his death in 1952. The social reform mission did, indeed, energize the CV’s member units. AntiSocialist agitation was its most popular feature, since socialism was portrayed as antireligious and German radicals were prominent in the movement. CBSJ published much on this subject while strongly supporting the American Federation of Labor’s “pure and simple” unionism. It also endorsed many progressive measures, such as worker’s compensation laws and the

Federal Farm Credit Act of 1916. The Central Bureau also oversaw the founding of a day nursery in St. Louis, which the CV’s auxiliary, the National Catholic Women’s Union (est. 1916), took on as a special project. These activities placed the CV at the forefront of socially minded Catholic organizations in the Progressive period. The traumatic shock of U.S. entry into World War I not only delivered a body blow in organizational terms, but also brought about a shift in the CV’s social reform stance. Kenkel, a romantic medievalist at heart, had always believed that true social reform required a fundamental restructuring of society along corporative lines. In the prewar decade, he was content to work for piecemeal reforms in line with the “meliorist” approach followed by the German Volksverein. The war, however, convinced him that modern society was too sick to be cured by “stopgaps” or “poultices” and that liberal reform measures actually made matters worse by strengthening the illegitimate power of the state. But Kenkel’s vision of an “organic” corporative society had little relevance to existing conditions, and the reforms he recommended as preparing the way for its coming—primarily credit unions and cooperatives— were patently unequal to the task. As a result, his social commentary had an air of unreality and took on an increasingly negative cast. Organizational decline in the postwar years reinforced Kenkel’s personal alienation from modern society. In 1930, the CV still had 86,000 members, but that was down almost a third from the prewar peak. The fading of German ethnicity was likewise reflected in the accelerating language shift: CV proceedings were published in English after 1928, for its leaders under-

GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC STUDIES

stood that continued insistence on German would doom the organization itself to rapid extinction. But the CV still commanded the loyalty of a faithful few, and a fund drive in the 1920s put the Central Bureau on secure footing. Despite the continuing erosion of its ethnic base, the CV was able to carry on its activities, including the publication of CBSJ, which was renamed Social Justice Review (SJR) in 1940. Kenkel at first welcomed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s energetic attack on the Great Depression but soon came to the conclusion that his policies were not, as some Catholic reformers argued, in line with the corporative vision outlined in Pope Pius XI’s encyclical (Quadragesimo Anno 1931). As it developed, the New Deal confirmed Kenkel’s fear of centralized state power, the ultimate end of which was communism in Russia and Nazism in Germany. The CV rejected all forms of totalitarianism but denied that the German people were collectively guilty of the crimes of the Hitler regime. Though Kenkel held to the ideal of corporatist reform, it was not systematically promoted in the 1940s and was all but forgotten after his death. While still avowing its commitment to the reform of society, SJR’s concentration on the evils of communism and secularism, on national cultural decadence, and, since the 1960s, on growing religious liberalism among American Catholics, has given the CV’s message an unmistakable cast of ideological conservatism. On the practical level, the CV provided financial support for relief efforts in central Europe after World War II, aided in the resettlement of displaced persons and other refugees, and developed a program of financial assistance for Catholic missionaries. The Central Bureau, which

IN THE

UNITED STATES

421

remains the nerve center of what is now known as the Catholic Central Union of America, also maintains an important research library dealing with social issues and German Catholic Americana. The bureau has had three directors since Kenkel’s death: Monsignor Victor T. Suren, 1952– 1962; Harvey J. Johnson, 1962–1986; and John Heinrich Miller, CSC, 1986 to the present. However, the national organization, which now numbers perhaps 2,000 members, is a mere shadow of the proud German American Catholic society that embarked on its campaign of social reform a century ago. Philip Gleason See also Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr.; Kenkel, Frederick P. References and Further Reading Barry, Colman J. The Catholic Church and German Americans. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1953. Curran, Charles E. American Catholic Social Ethics: Twentieth-Century Approaches. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1982. Fox, Mary Harrita. Peter E. Dietz: Labor Priest. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1953. Gleason, Philip. The Conservative Reformers: German-American Catholics and the Social Order. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.

GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC STUDIES IN THE UNITED STATES These mostly interdisciplinary studies on the German Democratic Republic (GDR) originated in German studies and research on Eastern Europe in respect first to literature and later to politics in the 1960s. From the establishment of the GDR in 1949 to the 1960s, the research topic GDR

422

GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC STUDIES

was relatively unknown to American scholars and not represented in the curriculum of American universities because the country was treated neither in West European studies, where the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was covered, nor in East European studies. The building of the Berlin Wall in 1961 served as catalyst for the slowly evolving academic interest in research on the GDR. Before the mid-1960s, participation of East German scholars in conferences in Western Europe and North America was nearly impossible because of the travel restrictions imposed by the East German government. Propelled by John Dornberg’s The Other Germany (1968), Jean Edwards Smith’s Germany beyond the Wall (1969), and David Childs’s East Germany (1969), research on the GDR took off in the time of détente, starting with an increased interest in literature. At the end of 1973, the interdisciplinary journal New German Critique was founded, with a special issue on the GDR being published in the following year after U.S. recognition of the GDR as a sovereign state. The 1974 annual conference of the American Association of Teachers of German was the first academic conference that focused exclusively on GDR topics; followed by a symposium on GDR literature in St. Louis, Missouri, “The Humanities and Socialism: The GDR in the 1960s and 1970s”; and a GDR symposium at the World Fellowship Center in Conway, New Hampshire, which grew into an interdisciplinary, annual symposium. The proceedings of the Conway symposiums were published as GDR Studies in Culture and Society each year. Washington University’s German Department founded the GDR Bulletin, which updated the growing number of those researching on GDR topics on recent

IN THE

UNITED STATES

developments in this field. The University of Kansas even installed an area studies program focusing on the GDR. Public financial support increased after U.S. recognition of the GDR in 1974. The International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), which was founded in 1968 by the American Council of Learned Societies to negotiate exchanges with Socialist and other countries, supported study trips to the GDR from 1975 onward. The East German Academy of Sciences signed a treaty with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1978. Universities agreed to establish exchange programs (RostockBrown, RI; Leipzig-Kent, OH; East Berlin–Minneapolis; Jena–Colby College). A 1977 survey lists 140 German departments that offered GDR literature and/or GDR culture. By then, the GDR was fully integrated into the syllabus of most German departments. Changes in the relations between East and West, along with Erich Honecker’s “coalition of reason” and moderate attempts for a more independent policy, attracted the interest of the U.S. government and strengthened the GDR among American researchers. In 1983, the year of the celebration of 300 years of German emigration to the United States, the first international social sciences conference presenting a comparative perspective on the GDR was convened by Charles R. Foster (Conference Group on German Politics) and Michael Sodaro (George Washington University/ Washington, D.C.). The immediate result of this conference was the founding of the German Democratic Studies Association of the United States. With the support of the FRG, the American Institute for Contemporary Studies was opened at Johns Hopkins University, which targeted the study of

GERMAN HISTORICAL INSTITUTE

the FRG but included studies of developments in the GDR. Despite cuts in the federal funding of the study of Eastern Europe and the GDR in the mid-1980s, the study of GDR literature was blooming at Ohio State University, Rutgers University, and the universities of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois, mostly places with large German-speaking communities. Christiane Rösch See also Berlin Wall; Fulbright Program; German Students at American Universities References and Further Reading Mallinckrodt, Anita M. Research on the GDR ‘auf English’: Research of East German Affairs and Their Studies in English-Language Countries. Washington: Mallinckrodt Communications Research, 1984. McCarthy, John M. “German Studies in the USA.” The USA and Germany in the Era of the Cold War: A Handbook. Ed. Detlef Junker. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

GERMAN HISTORICAL INSTITUTE IN WASHINGTON, D.C. Founded on November 18, 1987, in Washington, D.C., as an institute for advanced study in history, the German Historical Institute (GHI) belongs to a long line of German institutions for humanistic study abroad. The German Archaeological Institute was established in Cairo in 1829. It was followed by the German Historical Institute in Rome (1888), the Institute for Art History in Florence (1897), and the Bibleotheca Hertziana Library in Rome (1913). Initially, the GHI was administered by a foundation that also oversaw the German Historical Institutes in London (1976) and Warsaw (1992). Since 2002, the German Historical Institute in Washington, D.C., has been part of the Bonn-

IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

423

based Stiftung Deutsche Geisteswissenschaftliche Institute im Ausland (Foundation for German Humanities Institutes Abroad, or DGIA). The DGIA also oversees the Oriental Institute in Beirut (1961); the German Institute for Japanese Studies in Tokyo (1988); and the German Historical Institutes in Rome, Paris (1958), London, Warsaw, and Moscow (2003). Although the GHI receives most of its funding from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Bonn, it is completely independent in its scholarly activities. It receives guidance from an advisory council of German and American scholars, and it reports to the board of trustees of the DGIA. On the American side, the Friends of the German Historical Institute offer scholarly guidance as well as assistance in securing funding from outside sources. Between 1987 and 2003, the GHI has organized approximately 200 international seminars, symposia, and conferences. More than 3,000 scholars from more than 700 universities and institutes have participated in GHI programs. Many of the institute’s events are aimed toward a broad audience in Washington, D.C. Between 1987 and 2003 the GHI organized more than 200 public lectures and symposia. The institute’s four book series—published in collaboration with Cambridge University Press (New York), Franz Steiner Verlag (Stuttgart), Berghahn Books (New York), and Rowman and Littlefield (Lanham)—have made important contributions to scholarly debates on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. About fifty volumes have grown out of conferences organized by the GHI. Published twice a year, the Bulletin of the German Historical Institute includes scholarly articles, lecture transcripts, and information on institute-sponsored

424

GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH

events and research initiatives. More than 6,000 copies of each issue are printed. Additionally, the GHI publishes a series of archival and bibliographic “Reference Guides” that are aimed at facilitating research in German and U.S. history. Research stands at the center of the GHI’s activities. In addition to helping organize institute programs, GHI research fellows generally pursue postdoctoral projects. Their topics have ranged from the Moravian Indian Mission during the American Revolution to the role of Henry Kissinger in U.S. foreign policy, from the history of philanthropy in Germany and the United States to technology transfer in the postwar period, from the beginnings of democracy in the United States to the politics of European integration, and from the history of the bourgeoisie in Germany to the history of consumerism in the United States. During its history, GHI has awarded close to 300 travel grants to German and American doctoral students and postdoctoral researchers. The institute attaches central importance to the continuous exchange of ideas between young researchers from Germany and the United States. It hosts an ongoing series of transatlantic seminars on various historical periods (from the medieval era to the present day) and topics (e.g., American cultural history, the history of religion, war, the environment, and transatlantic history); the GHI’s Summer Seminar helps American doctoral students prepare for undertaking research in Germany; and each year, the GHI and the Friends of the German Historical Institute award the Fritz Stern Dissertation Prize to two North American historians. The institute has sought from the outset to support a diverse range of research

projects while at the same time giving particular attention to select topics and issues. Each of the directors of the GHI has also set an area of concentration. During the tenure of founding director Hartmut Lehmann (1987–1993), emigration from Europe and flight from persecution were central topics in the GHI’s research program. Under Detlef Junker (1994–1999), the institute’s focus shifted to the cold war and international relations. Current director Christof Mauch has made environmental history and comparative German American history the focus of the institute’s research. Christof Mauch See also American Students at German Universities; German Democratic Republic Studies in the United States; German Students at American Universities References and Further Reading Junker, Detlef, ed. The German Historical Institute, 1987–1997: A Ten-Year Report. Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 1998 (GHI Reference Guide No. 10). Wersich, Rüdiger B. “German Historical Institute.” USA-Lexikon: Schlüsselbegriffe zu Politik, Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft, Kultur, Geschichte und zu den deutschamerikanischen Beziehungen. Ed. Rüdiger B. Wersich. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 1995, 321–322. Zischke, Birgit, ed. The German Historical Institute Washington, D.C.: An Overview of Activities and Programs. Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 2004.

GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH The origins of the German Reformed Church in North America lie in the overseas movement of people from Calvinist territories of central Europe in the eighteenth century. Although radical pietists and anabaptists had dominated the earliest

GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH

migrations to the American colonies, the majority of German speakers crossing the Atlantic from 1717 to 1775 were Lutherans and German Reformed. Withstanding the lure of the numerous sectarian groups in the tolerant religious climate of Pennsylvania, which became their major destination, Lutheran and Reformed settlers organized congregations on their own initiative. German Reformed pastors began to arrive in larger numbers in the 1740s, and ecclesiastical authorities in Holland exerted considerable influence over the colonial church until the end of the eighteenth century. The first ordained German Reformed minister to arrive in Pennsylvania was the Swiss Samuel Güldin in 1710, but Güldin had become a separatist and did not accept a pastorate. A Reformed pastor also accompanied a group of miners from NassauSiegen to Virginia in 1714. In 1725 three congregations in present-day Philadelphia and Montgomery counties called the schoolmaster and farmer John Philip Böhm (Boehm) (1683–1749) as their pastor. Böhm subsequently extended his activities to the Tulpehocken and Conestoga settlements. Georg Michael Weiss (1700–1761), who had been ordained in Heidelberg prior to his arrival in Pennsylvania in 1727, organized congregations in Philadelphia and Germantown and preached in the backcountry, where he challenged Böhm’s ministry. In 1729, the Classis of Amsterdam as the governing body of the Reformed Church in Holland declared the call that Böhm had received from his congregations valid and asked the Dutch Reformed ministers in New York to ordain him. Weiss returned to Europe in 1730 and later settled in New York, but Böhm remained the mainstay of the German Reformed Church in Pennsylvania

425

until the mid-1740s. A staunch defender of Calvinist orthodoxy, he accepted the Classis of Amsterdam as the colonial church’s ecclesiastical superior, supplied it with detailed information about Pennsylvania, and refuted the ecumenical initiatives of the Moravians. His organizational efforts were hampered, however, by his conflicts with younger colleagues. Disregarding the Reformed tradition of a trained, ordained ministry, several congregations accepted “irregular,” unordained preachers out of expediency. After Böhm had repeatedly asked for more pastors, the synods of North and South Holland sent Michael Schlatter (1716–1790) from St. Gall to Pennsylvania in 1746 in order to organize the church there. Initially Schlatter proved extremely successful: within a year he had visited the major congregations, settled a lengthy property dispute, and organized the resident Reformed pastors into a coetus. The coetus accepted the Heidelberg catechism as its confessional basis and adopted a “church order” (Kirchenordnung) in 1748. In 1751 Schlatter traveled to Europe, where his report on conditions in America was printed in Dutch and German and elicited financial help from public and private sources. When he returned to Pennsylvania in 1752, Schlatter was accompanied by six young pastors he had recruited in Herborn. Despite increased support from Holland, the coetus was weakened by internal conflicts, and several pastors left the body or were expelled. The most prominent of these was Michael Schlatter himself, whose early successes had been followed by a series of setbacks. As early as 1749 the Philadelphia congregation, incensed by his authoritarian style of leadership, had dismissed him, and although a

426

GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH

committee of arbitrators vindicated Schlatter, the majority of his parishioners would not accept him back. Moreover, his colleagues in the coetus resented his ambition and influence. During a second trip to Europe, he was dismissed from pastoral service in Pennsylvania at his own request, and after brief periods as supervisor of the “charity schools” established to assimilate the children of German immigrants and as British army chaplain in the French and Indian War, Schlatter spent the rest of his life as an independent minister. Continuing central European immigration fueled the expansion of the German Reformed Church. In 1748 there were 46 congregations in Pennsylvania, 4 in New Jersey, 3 in Maryland, and 2 in Virginia. By 1776 the number of congregations had increased to 123 in Pennsylvania, 9 in New Jersey, 19 in Maryland, and 16 in Virginia. Most congregations also established parochial schools. Although the Holland church authorities sent 29 university-trained pastors to America between 1748 and 1776, the supply did not match the demand for ministerial services, and “irregular” preachers only partly filled the void. In numerous places Lutherans and Reformed used the same church building (union churches). Several Reformed pastors also found their way to the southern colonies. John Joachim Zubly (1724–1781), a native of St. Gall who pursued an independent ministry in Savannah, emerged as Georgia’s leading political pamphleteer during the imperial crisis of the 1760s but rejected the idea of American independence and ended his life as a loyalist. After the American Revolution the Reformed coetus initially sought to strengthen its ties to the Holland church authorities. Because the number of minis-

ters arriving from Europe after 1783 was insufficient and proposals for the establishment of a theological seminary in America were rejected in Holland, the coetus formally severed its European connection in 1793 and constituted itself as the Synod of the German Reformed Church in the United States of America. By the latter year, 43 Reformed pastors were serving 236 congregations in Pennsylvania and neighboring states. At the time of the Second Great Awakening, Philip William Otterbein (1726– 1813) synthesized continental European pietism and English methodism into a distinct strand of evangelical revivalism. Trained at Herborn and recruited for the American ministry by Michael Schlatter, Otterbein had served several congregations in Pennsylvania and Maryland before becoming pastor in Baltimore in 1774. Influenced by the Methodist Francis Asbury, Otterbein and his Reformed colleague Benedict Swope established Methodiststyle classes in several Maryland congregations. Although he retained his allegiance to the German Reformed Church, Otterbein and the Mennonite bishop Martin Boehm began organizing meetings with like-minded preachers in 1789 and eventually ordained men for the ministry. These activities resulted in the formation of a new denomination, the Church of the United Brethren in Christ. Around 1830 John Winebrenner, a former Reformed pastor at Harrisburg, organized a primitivist evangelical denomination called the Church of God. Even as the Reformed Church continued to grow in the nineteenth century, its history was marked by conflicts over language, ministerial training, revivalism, and liturgy. The adoption of English in worship

GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH

services was opposed by many German laypeople, and the language question split several congregations. After the synod had voted to establish a theological seminary and hire an English-speaking professor in 1821, numerous congregations in eastern Pennsylvania seceded and formed the “Free Synod.” Proponents of both sides subsequently waged a pamphlet and newspaper battle over their respective understandings of ecclesiastical authority, local liberty, and ethnic identity. In 1836, the year before the two synods reunited, the Free Synod counted twenty-three ministers and eighty congregations. Meanwhile, the Ohio Classis had formed its own synod in 1824. The first theological seminary of the German Reformed Church was eventually opened in Carlisle in 1825. It was later transferred to York in 1829, Mercersburg in 1837, and eventually to Lancaster in 1871. In the 1840s Mercersburg became the center of an extended controversy when two recently appointed professors, John Williamson Nevin (1803–1886) and the Swiss-born Phillip Schaff (1819– 1893), began to criticize evangelical revivalism and stress the importance of institutional church life, formal liturgy, and the sacraments. They denounced sectarianism and promoted a return to the ancient ecumenical creeds, which they hoped would eventually lead to the restoration of a unified church. Opponents of the Mercersburg theologians, who became known as the Old Reformed, regarded these views as heretical and emphasized traditional Calvinist doctrine. In reaction to a proposed new liturgy influenced by the Mercersburg theologians, the Old Reformed organized a convention in Myerstown, Pennsylvania, in 1867. To promote their cause, the Old Reformed began to publish

427

their own journal and founded Ursinus College. After its General Synod of 1878 the Reformed Church took steps to restore harmony between the two parties, and thirty years later a new church constitution was approved that allowed both sides a large measure of freedom in matters of liturgy and doctrine. Under the leadership of George W. Richards, the Reformed Church of the United States pursued an ecumenical course after World War I. In 1934 it merged with the Evangelical Synod of North America into the Evangelical and Reformed Church. The new denomination counted some 800,000 members in 1957, when the Evangelical and Reformed Church and the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches formed the United Church of Christ. Mark Häberlein See also Georgia; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; Pietism; Schaff, Phillip References and Further Reading Glatfelter, Charles H. Pastors and People: German Lutheran and Reformed Churches in the Pennsylvania Field, 1717–1793. 2 vols. Breinigsville: Pennsylvania German Society, 1979–1981. Good, James I. History of the Reformed Church in the U.S. in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Board of Publication of the Reformed Church in America, 1911. Hinke, William J. Ministers of the German Reformed Congregations in Pennsylvania and other Colonies in the Eighteenth Century. Lancaster, PA: Historical Commission of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, 1951. Nolt, Steven M. Foreigners in Their Own Land: Pennsylvania Germans in the Early Republic. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001. Wentz, Richard E. John Williamson Nevin: American Theologian. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

428

GERMAN SCARE

GERMAN SCARE The term perigo alemão (German scare) was employed by Brazilian politicians from the 1870s to World War I. Since German-speaking migrants had moved to southern Brazil in 1824, Portuguese speakers distrusted this new ethnic group that settled in exclusive and homogeneous communities. The Germans were expected to contribute largely to the economic modernization of the country and to the branqueamento (the “whitening” of the population). Branqueamento refers to the governmental policy to limit and decrease the influence of the darker-skinned population of African descent in Brazilian society. By encouraging immigration from Europe, the number of lighter-skinned people would gradually increase and thus the population of Brazil would become “whiter” than before. Even though German-speaking immigrants were seen as playing an important role in the branqueamento, they appeared to resist integration and assimilation into Brazilian society, thus refusing to contribute to the branqueamento. Subsequently, Brazilian nationalists called the German communities quistos étnicos (ethnic ulcers) and branded them as obstacles to national unity. After German unification in 1871, this discourse became more important since Brazilian nationalist politicians suspected Germany of seeking colonies in South America—especially in southern Brazil. German Brazilians living in the southern provinces of Brazil were seen as the fifth column of the German Empire that would eventually help Wilhelm I to establish colonies in Brazil. René Gertz See also Brazil

References and Further Reading Gertz, René E. O perigo alemão. Porto Alegre: Editora da Universidade, 1991.

GERMAN SOCIETY PENNSYLVANIA

OF

Founded in Philadelphia in 1764 with the purpose of protecting new immigrants, the German Society of Pennsylvania evolved slowly into an organization for the preservation of German culture in the United States. The membership of the society seldom exceeded 1,000, yet it has often served as a leader in integrating Philadelphia’s disparate organizations of Germans. Founded in the schoolhouse of the German Lutheran church in Philadelphia, the German Society declared as its mission the relief of the German “redemptioners,” who were often exploited by ship captains who sold their indentures. The first meeting of the society sought legislation from the Pennsylvania Assembly to enforce better conditions on immigrant ships. In 1781 the society received a charter from the new Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The charter named the organization the “German Society Contributing to the Relief of Distressed Germans in the State of Pennsylvania.” The society continued to use the Lutheran schoolhouse as its meeting place until 1806, when it constructed a building of its own. Immigration to the United States declined considerably during the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars (1789–1814). When the flow of immigrants revived after 1815, the traffic in indentured servants had virtually disappeared, rendering the original purpose of

GERMAN SOCIETY

the German Society less necessary. Although the society continued to welcome new immigrants, it began to turn inward in its activities. In 1817 it established a library, which would develop over the next century as an important collection of Germanlanguage materials. But the membership fell below 200 and remained stagnant during the years from 1820 to 1850. The second generation of German immigrants and their offspring began to dominate the society’s affairs, and the use of German as the society’s official language declined. In the growing tide of German immigrants after 1848, the German Society began once again to tend to the needs of newcomers, and the membership was augmented by new first-generation immigrants. In 1859, the society began again to use German as its official language. After the Civil War, new federal and state agencies began regulating immigration, which made the society’s work of aiding new immigrants less necessary. Increasingly, the society focused upon the preservation and celebration of German culture. It developed its library and archival collections and sponsored language classes both in English and in German. It began to foster festivals in celebration of German culture and, to some extent, to coordinate the activities of Philadelphia’s numerous German organizations. In 1888 the society moved to a new spacious three-story building, still in use, housing meeting rooms, an auditorium, and the expanded library. The membership reached a peak of 1,040 in 1878, then leveled off at 700 to 800 for the rest of the century. On the eve of World War I (1914), the society’s members numbered 624. In 1900 Charles James Hexamer, a fierce advocate of German nationalism and

OF

PENNSYLVANIA

429

culture, became president of the German Society. During his tenure he led the effort to organize the National GermanAmerican Alliance, which sought to organize all German organizations within its structure. In its early years, the alliance devoted itself mostly to fighting liquor-prohibition laws. By the advent of World War I, however, it had become an advocate of the German view of European affairs. When the United States entered the war in 1917, the alliance suffered from its previous activism, as did the German Society and many other German organizations. The society emerged from the war diminished in numbers. It now avoided political involvement and turned its efforts to postwar relief projects in Germany. By the time of the Great Depression, it devoted itself mostly to social and cultural events for its members. There were few newcomers in the 1920s and 1930s to offset the declining membership. When World War II arrived, the society contributed to various relief and charitable activities but generally kept a low profile. By 1945, the membership was 350. The second half of the twentieth century saw some slow revival of the society, but it clearly now was a heritage organization devoted to preserving the German cultural tradition. It hosted social events, concerts, and lectures and took part in folk festivals like the annual “Steuben Day.” Perhaps most significant was the project undertaken in the 1990s to restore the library. Assisted by contributions from European foundations, the library’s physical facilities were renovated, many rare books and manuscripts were preserved, and the holdings were catalogued anew. James M. Bergquist

430

GERMAN SOCIETY

OF THE

CITY

OF

See also German Society of the City of New York; Hexamer, Charles J.; National German-American Alliance; Pennsylvania References and Further Reading Kazal, Russell A. Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004. Miller, Randall M. “German Society of Pennsylvania.” Invisible Philadelphia: Community through Voluntary Organizations. Eds. Jean Barth Toll and Mildred S. Gilliam. Philadelphia: Atwater Kent Museum, 1995, 86–88. Pfund, Harry W. A History of the German Society of Pennsylvania: Bicentenary Edition, 1764–1964. Philadelphia: German Society of Pennsylvania, 1964. Seidensticker, Oswald, and Max Heinrici. Geschichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft von Pennsylvanien, 1764–1917. Philadelphia: Graf and Breuniger, 1917.

GERMAN SOCIETY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Founded in 1784 by early German inhabitants of New York City after the model of the German Society of Philadelphia to aid German immigrants to New York. It all began on August 23, 1784, when thirteen men gathered informally to discuss the need for and advisability of founding a German society to relieve the local German churches of some of their charitable burdens and to take effective steps to deal with problems arising from the expected influx of immigrants from Germanspeaking lands. The first meeting was attended by representatives of the Lutheran, Moravian, and Reformed congregations, leading businessmen, and two Revolutionary War army officers. The small gathering decided to contact the German Society of Philadelphia for advice and for a copy of their charter and constitution. An organiz-

NEW YORK

ing committee was entrusted with preparing the basic rules to be submitted to a more formal meeting. Six weeks later, everything was ready and a public appeal to the Germans of the city brought out thirtyfour men for the founding meeting on October 4, 1784. The purpose of the German Society of New York was the encouragement of immigration from the German states, the assistance of needy German immigrants in New York City, and the dissemination of useful knowledge among the German community in the New World. Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the German hero of the American Revolution, became the second president of the German Society. He formed a committee entitled to draft a petition to the New York State legislature for the incorporation of the society. The legislature passed the bill in 1785. Two years later, the society’s basic rules were revised, and a new version was adopted in November 1787. It placed less emphasis on encouraging emigration from Germany. After Steuben’s death, public interest in the German Society decreased. However, by 1828 the number of new members and also of new immigrants grew. Already three years earlier, in 1825, the society had been incorporated through the legislature in Albany. In March 1828 Philip Hone was elected president. From then on, the members convened at the Bank Coffee House on Pine Street, the gathering place of the well-heeled in town whose roots were not with the Anglo-Dutch ruling class. Hone, mayor of New York City from 1825 to 1827, was typical of this newly emerging group of self-made men who climbed the social ladder. During his presidency, the society made an appeal for funds to all citizens of German birth or de-

GERMAN SOCIETY

scent to collect money for the society. Because of the increased German immigration and the multiple problems immigrants faced in their new country, the German Society decided to react. In January 1833 it ordered 2,000 copies of a pamphlet printed under the German title Wohlgemeinter Rath der Vorsteher der Deutschen Gesellschaft in New York an Deutsche, die nach den Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika auszuwandern beabsichtigen (Well-Intended Advice of the President of the German Society of New York for those Germans who intend to immigrate to the United States). The copies were sent to Germany for distribution in places where emigration originated. The annual meeting on March 1, 1837, elected John Jacob Astor as the new president. He had been a nominal member since 1787, with often less than a mild interest in the fate of his fellow immigrants. Now, at the age of seventy-three, the richest man in the country had agreed to lead the German Society. For four years, Astor’s keen and far-sighted sense of financial reality served it in good stead, until his health forced him to withdraw. During his presidency, Astor came forward with gifts totaling $20,000. But when he presented the first partial check, it was with the idea that the society would use his money to establish a permanent office with paid staff, where immigrants could turn for help. Astor’s example encouraged others to contribute money to the society. From the 1840s onward, the number of German immigrants stagnated at a very high level. In order to shield the new arrivals, the German Society and its Irish counterpart persuaded state emigration commissioners to look for a suitable recep-

OF THE

CITY

OF

NEW YORK

431

tion center. The commissioner suggested using Castle Garden, the former opera house at the tip of Manhattan, and transformed it into the immigration office of New York in 1855. This was the main entrance for German immigrants during the second half of the nineteenth century. From 30 percent and at times much more between 1840 and 1880, the share Germans made of total immigration had dropped to 15 percent and less in the 1880s. In 1890 the Board of Emigration Commissioners was dissolved, and on the last day of the same year, Castle Garden closed its gates. Along with these events, the direct involvement of the German Society in the formulation and execution of immigration policy in New York ended. For thirty-five years Castle Garden had met all demands concerning immigration. When during the 1880s, the number of immigrants to New York increased again, the City of New York decided to build a new immigration office on Ellis Island in the harbor of New York, where the German Society also had its representatives. An important task of the German Society was its legal protection of new immigrants. However, the agency’s protection was subsequently transferred to others, and in 1890 the German Society became part of the Legal Aid Society of New York and is still active as a welfare society for German Americans. Alexander Emmerich See also Astor, John Jacob; German Society of Pennsylvania; New York City; Steuben, Friederich Wilhelm von References and Further Reading Cronau, Rudolf. Denkschrift zum 150: Jahrestag der Deutschen Gesellschaft der Stadt New York, 1784–1934. New York: German Society of the City of New York, 1934.

432

GERMAN STUDENTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES The German Society of the City of New York. Charter and By-laws of the German Society of the City of New York. New York: G. B. Teubner, 1852. Wust, Klaus. Guardians on the Hudson: The German Society of the City of New York, 1784–1984. New York: German Society of the City of New York, 1984.

GERMAN STUDENTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES In 1999 almost 10,000 German students spent part or all of their studies at American universities. This high number was the result of a process of gradually intensifying German American academic relations in the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century only a handful of German students had found their way to American institutions of higher education, but by the 1990s, the United States were the host country most frequently chosen by German students. The roots of German American student exchange programs go back to 1923, when the Heidelberger Austauschstelle (Heidelberg Exchange Center) was founded to further academic contacts between the United States and Germany. The impulse for its foundation came from a group of German students who had been invited to the United States by American students the year before. Two years later, the Heidelberger Austauschstelle was renamed the American German Student Exchange and was made a partner organization of the Institute of International Education in New York (IIE). It promoted student exchange primarily as a means to end the academic isolation Germany had suffered since World War I. Its supporters hoped that German students visiting the United States would create ties between

German and American universities that would serve as a starting point for closer academic relations. From 1924 to 1925 thirteen German students were sent to the United States, a number that rose to sixtysix in 1930. Similar numbers of Americans visited Germany. Since 1925 the exchange program had been organized by the newly founded Akademischer Austauschdienst (AAD, or Academic Exchange Service), which was later renamed Deutscher Akademische Austauschdienst (DAAD, or German Academic Exchange Service). In those early years only a few German students attended American universities for the whole of their degree course. Although numbers remained small, the impact on individual students nevertheless proved sweeping. One example was Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who spent 1930 to 1931 at the Union Theological Seminary, an experience that, as he claimed, shaped his life and convictions decisively. After the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, official exchange programs continued, though on a relatively small basis. From 1933 to 1938 the DAAD sent between forty-eight and seventy-eight German students to the United States each year. During the same period, a much larger number of German students fled to the United States as refugees. This situation caused conflicts within the IIE because it cooperated with the DAAD and thus with official Germany at the same time as it organized help for refugee students. In 1939, the war put a stop to emigration as well as to official exchanges, but refugee students and scholars formed an important part of the American academic community for all the 1940s. First steps to renew contacts were made in 1946, when a delegation of the

GERMAN STUDENTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

American Council on Education visited Germany. It recommended inviting German students who were considered suitable for future leadership positions in education to American universities. Furthermore, it suggested extending the Fulbright Act, which had been ratified the same year, to Germany. The delegation’s proposals gave an important impetus to reestablishing German American academic relations after the war. At the same time, American professors who formed part of the Educational and Cultural Relations Division of the U.S. Office of Military Government in Germany played an important role in promoting contacts between universities. Their work was supported by Herman B. Wells, president of Indiana University, who served as adviser on cultural affairs to General Lucius D. Clay, military governor of the American Occupation Zone. Wells declared cultural exchange to be one of the keystones of the reeducation program, a conviction that was to guide the High Commission’s policies in the following years. Influenced by Wells, Clay endorsed educational exchange as an important means to offer the German youth the experience of democracy. From 1948 to 1949 more than 200 German students were invited to attend U.S. institutions. Their travel costs were paid by the military government; American private and religious organizations contributed funds for their maintenance. Colleges and universities contributed by offering free board and/or tuition waivers. For most of these organizations, the primary aim of the exchange program was to strengthen democratic convictions among German students by offering them the opportunity to experience American democracy. The program was generally regarded

433

to be a success and was received with great enthusiasm in West Germany. In 1950 the DAAD was reorganized as an organization for educational exchange. Although politicians as well as academics in both countries heartily supported exchange programs, the number of participants remained relatively low because of restricted funds. Only American organizations were able to provide the necessary funds; the Ford and Rockefeller foundations in particular played an important role in financing exchange scholarships for German and American students. The majority of German students in the United States in the 1950s as well as in later periods financed their stay by private means. Only from 1957 onward was the DAAD able to support more than 100 German students per year in the United States. The Fulbright program, enacted in 1952, provided the basis for a significant increase in the numbers of German students at American universities. During the 1950s, about from 170 to 200 German students per year went to the United States with Fulbright scholarships, and a similar number of American students was invited to Germany. For successful applications, both the academic and personal qualifications of the applicants were important. In 1961 a survey among 650 former Fulbright grantees gave an insight into the motivations and experiences of German students in the United States: most grantees mentioned the academic possibilities as the main reason for their wish to travel to the United States. American universities were perceived to be better equipped with both technical instruments and books. The amount of work done by American students was almost universally regarded to be higher than that of German students. Only

434

GERMAN STUDENTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

the lesser freedom in choice regarding the curriculum was sometimes seen as a negative experience. Between 1960 and 1970 the number of German students at American universities doubled, from 1,000 to about 2,000. In 1970 roughly 20 percent of all German students studying abroad attended American institutions. However, all Europeans together formed only a small minority, about 10 percent, of all foreign students in the United States. The increasing number of German students attending American universities and colleges was mainly due to the creation of multiple ties between German and American universities: many new exchange programs were initiated on a local basis. Professors who had visited the United States at an earlier stage of their career, often through one of the exchange programs, now used their contacts to create institutional links with American universities. Still, the growing number of German students choosing U.S. universities has to be seen against the background of rapidly rising student numbers in Germany. The percentage of German students studying abroad did not grow significantly until the late 1980s. German American student mobility during the later 1960s affected the student movement of these years in several ways. Many ideas of the American student movement came to Germany via exchange students, be they American or German. Forms of protest such as sit-ins or teach-ins were imported from American universities. Petra Kelly is only one example of a German politician whose convictions had been shaped by the experience of the American civil rights movement. The counterculture of the 1960s stimulated the interest of German students in the United States, al-

though German campuses were at the same time characterized by a prevalence of critical attitudes toward the United States. Unwilling to import critical and left-wing political attitudes, the American government in 1966 tried to compel grantees sponsored by U.S. government funds to abstain from political activities as well as from expressing political opinions on U.S. politics. The Fulbright Commission in Bonn did not accept this infringement on students’ rights but asked grantees not to express opinions on political topics in the name of the Fulbright program. The end of the decade saw drastic reductions of American funds for educational exchanges, which caused budget problems within the Fulbright program until 1974, when the program was again put on a more secure financial basis. Still, the 1970s witnessed further expansion of German American student exchange; particularly the number of German students traveling to the United States rose. In 1971 a DAAD branch was established in New York, which added new life to the traditional ties with the IIE and created close contacts with many American universities and colleges. The experiences and impressions of individuals, as given in surveys and interviews, were similar in the 1980s to those from earlier periods. Apart from the quality of teaching, the internationality of American universities and the experience of campus life left long-lasting impressions. Between 1975 and 1999 the number of German students in the United States rose from approximately 1,700 to almost 10,000. But still in the 1980s and 1990s, the German students at American universities were not representative of the German student population as

GERMAN STUDENTS AT AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

a whole: Students from lower-middle- and working-class backgrounds chose much less often to spend a year abroad than students from upper-middle-class and upper-class backgrounds. In 1986 the German Educational Support Law was changed to allow the use of entitlements for studying in the United States, a measure that opened the path to a year abroad to a new group of students. However, the new European exchange programs, above all the ERASMUS program, directed the interests of many students toward European countries rather than the United States. In addition, a new American tax law, which made scholarships and tuition waivers a form of taxable income, and a reassessment of German university education by American educators produced misgivings between the German and American academic communities. Both issues were finally resolved with the mediation of the Fulbright Commission in 1989–1990. In the 1990s the reunification of Germany opened new possibilities for German American academic exchanges. In the beginning only a few East German students went to the United States, but they quickly caught up with their West German counterparts. As a consequence of repeated budget cuts in German universities since the 1990s, the United States has become an increasingly important job market for young German scholars. This has produced new fears of a “brain drain,” a fear that has since dominated the debates about university reform in Germany. For most of the German students who have crossed the Atlantic since 1945, studying in America meant studying in the United States. Still, there has always been a

435

small percentage of German students in Canada—about 300 per year in the 1980s. The quality of university education in Canada, attractive conditions for admission at Canadian universities, and the availability of scholarships were among the main motivations named by students for choosing Canada. But also Canada’s reputation as a “peaceable kingdom” was cited by a large proportion of students as a decisive reason for choosing Canada. In the 1980s, the democratic transition occurring across Latin America drew the attention of German students to the southern part of the American continent and exchanges with Latin American countries since have grown significantly. In 1994, 2.7 percent of German students studying abroad went to Latin America, a relatively high percentage in the light of the fact that Spanish is generally taught only as an optional third language in German secondary education. In 1999, 21.4 percent of all German students studying abroad chose the Americas: 13.8 percent went to the United States, 4.9 percent studied in Latin America, and 2.7 percent chose Canada As part of the antiterrorist measures in the United States in response to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, U.S. visa regulations have been tightened. It thus became more difficult for German students to obtain student visas, a fact that led to a slight reduction in the number of German students in the United States. In 2002, Germany came eleventh in the list of countries sending students to the United States. Sonja Levsen See also American Occupation Zone; American Students at German Universities; Bonhoeffer, Dietrich; Fulbright Program; Kelly, Petra

436

GERMAN UNIFICATION (1871) References and Further Reading Altbach, Philip G., and Jing Wang. Foreign Students and International Study: Bibliography and Analysis, 1984–1988. Lanham: University Press of America, 1989. Isserstedt, Wolfgang, and Klaus Schnitzer. Internationalisierung des Studiums: Ausländische Studierende in Deutschland, deutsche Studierende im Ausland. Bonn: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2002. Littmann, Ulrich. Partners—Distant and Close: Notes and Footnotes on Academic Mobility between Germany and the United States of America, 1923–1993. Bonn: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, 1997. Schultze, Rainer-Olaf, Jürgen Ender, and Martin Thunert. German Students in Canada: An Empirical Evaluation. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1989.

GERMAN UNIFICATION (1871) Prussian chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s policy toward the United States was one of friendly cooperation, and he demonstrated a willingness to avoid diplomatic and military confrontation with the United States. After the outbreak of the American Civil War, Bismarck, rejecting all rebellion on principle, issued an immediate declaration against the Confederacy and assured the U.S. minister in May 1861 that his government would be one of the last to recognize the Confederacy. He even instructed Baron Friedrich von Gerolt, the minister in Washington, D.C., not to follow the example of his French colleague in approaching the government in Montgomery on the question of neutral rights. Prussia, looking to a future showdown with France, was anxious to cultivate American friendship. As early as April

1867, Bismarck inquired of Gerolt whether it would be possible, in case of war with France, to purchase armed vessels in the United States and to find crews there. Although the minister thought that unlikely, he promised to make inquires and assured his superior that if war came, the sympathy of the United States would be on the side of Germany. When that sympathy seemed threatened by American press reports that the commander of the German corvette Augusta had attempted to buy or lease territory for a naval station in Costa Rica, Bismarck hastened Gerolt to assure the government in Washington that he regarded maintenance of good relations with the United States as more valuable than any territorial acquisition. When exConfederate captain Raphael Semmes offered his services to the Prussian navy, Bismarck took pains to clear the matter with American authorities and turned down Semme’s request for a commission when informed he was one of the most objectionable men in the South. Even more important, Prussia moved to satisfy a long-standing American request for the settlement of problems that had arisen with respect to naturalized Americans who returned to their native Germany. By the so-called Bancroft Treaties of February 1868, the North German Confederation recognized a five-year residence in the United States as sufficient for the acquisition of American citizenship and thus for the voiding of prior military obligations to Germany. Naturalized citizens returning to their homeland were to be exempted from military service for two years, after which time it was to be assumed that they had reestablished residence in Germany and in effect renounced their American citizenship. Although the interpretation of

GERMAN UNIFICATION (1871)

these treaties caused problems for several decades, there can be no doubt that Bismarck regarded the treaties as a serious attempt to accommodate the United States. The treaties marked an auspicious beginning of relations between the United States and the North German Confederation and virtually ensured further American support for Bismarck’s unification plans. In the Franco-Prussian War (1870– 1871), the United States declared its neutrality, but the American course during the war tended, within the limits prescribed by this neutrality, to favor the cause of Prussia. The astute Bismarck continued to cultivate the goodwill of the United States. He went to extraordinary pains to keep Washington informed of German plans and actions during the war and to thank the United States for any and all gestures of friendship. Moreover, he also adopted a remarkably restrained attitude in the case of the one American action that worked to the detriment of Germany. Since the close of the Civil War, the U.S. government had sold surplus war material to private domestic munitions firms. With the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War, a number of these firms began to trade with France; as a result, rifles and other equipment bearing the imprint of the U.S. government arsenals found their way into the hands of the French army. Although these incidents produced enough controversy to lead to a congressional investigation, no German protest was ever lodged. Bismarck not only recognized the limitations that the American federal system imposed on the possibilities for the control of private arms traffic but also rightly judged that the gain that might result from the official protest would be more than offset by the possible damage to good relations with the United States.

437

His sensitivity to American opinion even led him to recall Friedrich von Gerolt, when that venerable and respected German became too outspoken in his assertion that Germany’s real purpose in seeking the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was not the safeguarding of her borders but the destruction of the power of France. Bismarck’s solicitude reinforced American predispositions. Throughout the winter of 1870–1871, George Bancroft continued to send his glowing reports of the imminent establishment of the “United States of Germany,” which was certain to be the most liberal government in Europe. Bancroft’s views gained official acceptance. For nearly a decade these expectations seemed to approach fulfillment, and relations between the two countries remained harmonious and serene. The United States was occupied with problems of Reconstruction and less inclined than ever to pay serious attention to matters outside its borders. Germany, meanwhile, concentrated on securing its new position in Europe by negotiating a series of alliances designed primarily to isolate France. Under the continued guidance of Bismarck, Germany entertained no colonial ambitions, was not yet embarked on a policy of naval expansion, and was not likely to come into direct conflict with the United States. Michael McGregor See also Bancroft, George; German Unification (1990) References and Further Reading Gazley, John G. American Opinion of German Unification, 1848–1871. New York: Columbia University, 1926. Howe, M. A. DeWolfe. The Life and Letters of George Bancroft. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1908. Lessing, Otto E. Germany and the United States of America during the Era of Bismarck. Reading, PA, 1937.

438

GERMAN UNIFICATION (1990)

GERMAN UNIFICATION (1990) After the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9, 1989, the United States was the first country that unconditionally supported German unification. President George Bush recognized that a unified Germany, integrated into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), would enlarge the American sphere of interest into east-central Europe and weaken the Soviet-dominated Warsaw Pact. Because of rising fears in Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union that a unified Germany could again challenge the security of Europe, Washington emphasized and eventually convinced them that the full integration of a unified Germany would guarantee both the continual relevance of the Atlantic treaty and the established Western security system. After the onset of the cold war, Washington regarded the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) as a Western bulwark against communism. With the foundation of the FRG in May 1949, West Germany became an important partner in the construction of a liberal world economic system and a cornerstone in the security policy within NATO. Unification of East and West Germany was not an intrinsic objective of U.S. foreign policy during the early years of the cold war. Integration of West Germany into NATO and Western Europe was seen as more important than a unified but neutralized German state that would serve as a buffer zone between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Subsequently, Konrad Adenauer was able to convince the American government to reject the offer made by Joseph Stalin in 1952 (the Stalin note), which offered unification under the condition of neutralization (the blueprint followed in the case of Austria just three years later).

The specter of a neutral Germany seemed to reappear after Willy Brandt became the first Social Democrat to be elected chancellor of West Germany (1969). He embarked on a very ambitious Ostpolitik (change through rapprochement) and achieved several agreements between both German states. It was the Soviet Union, however, that opened the door to a new era of consultations and negotiations when Mikhail Gorbachev was elected leader of the Soviet Union in 1985 and engaged in a large-scale reform of state socialism (perestroika and glasnost). He initiated a policy of personal contacts with Ronald Reagan that culminated in a disarmament treaty governing intermediate-range nuclear weapons in 1987. This policy led to the end of the East-West conflict and the fall of the Berlin Wall. During his speech on June 12, 1987, on the occasion of Berlin’s seven hundred and fiftieth anniversary celebrated at the Brandenburg Gate, Reagan called upon Gorbachev “to tear down this wall.” Just two years later, the peaceful revolution in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) caused the fall of its Communist regime and the opening of the Berlin Wall. The initial demands of East Germans for liberty and democracy soon changed into calls for unification with the prosperous West Germany. Helmut Kohl, taken by surprise by the speed of transformation in East Germany, recognized that the call for immediate unification in the East could provide a chance for his party (the Christian Democratic Union) to win the next elections. On November 28, 1989, Kohl presented his Ten-Point Program to the West German parliament (Bundestag), in which he proposed the incremental creation of a confederation between both states. Kohl did not

GERMAN UNIFICATION (1990)

consult with the Western allies before he presented this plan. However, he immediately became the main protagonist in the process of German unification by setting the terms for the international discussion about the future of Germany. Considering the dangerous destabilizing situation in Europe, President George H. W. Bush met Gorbachev at the beginning of December 1989 in Malta. Both leaders looked for a peaceful solution within the framework of the Helsinki process (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, founded in 1972). On December 4, 1989, Bush set out four principles for the German unification process during the NATO Summit in Brussels: first, the right for German selfdetermination; second, the membership of a unified Germany in NATO and the European Community; third, that German unification had to be a gradual process; and fourth, the recognition of the Oder/Neisse border with Poland. Reasserting occupation rights, Moscow called for a meeting of the ambassadors of the World War II Allies on December 11 to emphasize that German unification was neither feasible nor desirable. Just one day later in a speech made in West Berlin, Secretary of State James Addison Baker declared officially that Washington had given a “green light” for German unity, in spite of skeptical objections from London and Paris. On February 7, 1990, the West German government decided that the GDR should be absorbed into the FRG on the basis of Article 23 of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz). The speed of German unification caught all former World War II Allies by surprise. During the Open Skies Conference in Ottawa on February 13, the former Allies agreed to start with the Two-

439

Plus-Four Talks, which were to provide the international framework of German unification. Moreover, the occupying powers Great Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union promised both German states that they would not interfere in their domestic affairs. The United States saw German unification and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany as an opportunity to enlarge its sphere of influence into eastcentral Europe. However, Gorbachev, afraid of losing too much influence in Eastern Europe, and his Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze demanded that a united Germany would be, at least initially, a demilitarized, neutral country. For a transitional period after unification, Germany would remain in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In February, in a meeting at Camp David, Helmut Kohl and George Bush agreed that East Germany would get a special military status according to the security interests of the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the foreign minister of West Germany, assured Gorbachev that NATO troops would not move into the former East Germany. On March 18, 1990, the first free elections to the East German parliament (Volkskammer) took place. The Alliance for Germany (which included the Christian Democratic Union, German Social Union, and Democratic New Beginning) won the election by promising a speedy German unification. Gorbachev, who had already denounced the Brezhnev doctrine in July 1989, accepted the outcome of these elections and the subsequent drive for German unification. Eventually, he accepted Germany’s full membership in NATO at the beginning of June 1990. The Nine Assurances, a collection of various guarantees

440

GERMANISM

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

provided to Moscow, presented by James A. Baker to Gorbachev in May, convinced him that the newly united Germany would not pose a threat to the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Gorbachev considered German integration into the international community as an important condition for further cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States. A first success was the affirmation of the Atlantic treaty partners during the NATO Summit in London in July 1990, in which they promised friendship with the members of the Warsaw Pact (later it was transformed into the “partnership for peace”) and the revision of the nuclear strategy. Furthermore, Gorbachev believed that the $6 billion paid by the German government, a kind of compensation for the withdrawal of the Soviet Army from East Germany, would help the recovery of the Soviet economy. The Soviet Union agreed with Germany’s membership in NATO in return for Western assurances that no NATO forces and nuclear weapons would be stationed on former GDR territory. The German armed forces had to be reduced to 370,000 within three to four years. Both Germanies agreed that the rivers Oder and Neisse would mark the permanent border with Poland after unification. On September 12, 1990, the six foreign ministers of East Germany, West Germany, France, Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union signed the Two-Plus-Four Accord in Moscow. On October 1, the status of Berlin was settled in New York when the occupying powers signed an agreement in which they relinquished their rights and responsibilities, and Germany was accorded full sovereignty on October 3. Thomas Cieslik

See also Berlin Wall; German Unification (1871); Stalin Note; West Berlin References and Further Reading Baker, James. The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War, and Peace, 1989–1992. New York: Putnam, 1995. Rice, Condoleezza, and Philip Zelikow: Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995. Zoellick, Robert. “Two Plus Four. The Lessons of German Unification.” The National Interest (Fall 2000): 17–28.

GERMANISM DO SUL

IN

RIO GRANDE

The term Germanism is used to designate an ideology with an ethnocentric and conservationist tone that focused on the construction and consolidation of the German identity and on the discussion about the position of German immigrants and their descendants in Brazilian society. It was a reaction to discourses among nationalist Brazilian intellectuals and politicians who demanded that immigrants and their descendants should fully integrate into Brazilian society and culture. The construction of a Brazilian national identity went hand in hand with the sudden appearance of the perigo alemão (German scare). These discussions culminated in the attempt to “nationalize” all groups of “foreign” origin. In such an attempt, Getúlio Vargas closed German schools and banned German-language papers and German associations after he proclaimed the creation of the Estado Novo (1937–1945). The cultural categories chosen to identify and distinguish Germans from others included language, literature, virtues, customs and habits, festivities, and “blood.” Germanism formed the theoretical basis for and shaped

GERMANISM

the practices of Deutschtumspflege (cultivation of Germanity), which began in Rio Grande do Sul under the influence of the journalist Karl von Koseritz during the 1860s. This movement gained momentum in the last two decades of the nineteenth century and peaked in the 1920s and 1930s. Its mentors were mainly universityeducated men who had come to Brazil before 1880. Among them were journalists (Arno Phillipp, Karl von Koseritz, Martin Fischer), physicians (Bruno Künne, Josef Steidle), pastors (Emil Gans, Erich Knäpper, Hermann Gottlieb Dohms, Karl Heinrich Oberacker, Rudolf Becker, Wilhelm Rotermund), and directors of community associations (Jakob Aloys Friedrichs). Most of them resided in Porto Alegre and São Leopoldo. In general, the Germanists occupied leadership positions within the German community and formed an intellectual group that used the German press to advertise their concepts of German identity. In short, Germanism had as its main objective the awakening and strengthening of an ethnic identity. Its aim was the promotion of an “authentic German” identity and the creation of a cohesive, homogeneous, and visible German ethnic group in Brazil. This group, it was hoped, would resist any attempt of Verwelschung (deGermanization) and absorption into Brazilian society. Germanists fought against interethnic marriages, the frequent use of the Portuguese language, the schooling of German children in public schools, the migration to urban centers, the mercantilist conception of life, and the lack of interest in one’s origins. Proponents of this Germanism considered Germans to be culturally and socially superior. From the 1920s onward, they promoted the concept

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

441

of the Volksgemeinschaft (ethnic community), which was to be constituted by all German descendants living inside and outside Germany proper. Germanism had as its basis the romantic-nationalist concept of the people, conceived as an organic unity based upon the principle of descent and united by cultural ties that transcended the political borders of Germany. Thus Germans abroad were considered part of the German people. In such an interpretation, people (nations) were not defined by social and political but by cultural and emotional categories. Using these romantic-nationalist notions of national character, the Germanists advocated the idea that the immigrants and their descendants carried a collective national ethnic identity that was considered a product of their origin, “blood,” and destiny and could best be subsumed in the concept of Germanity. Since the German people were not defined by geographical and political borders, the German language and songs became an integral part of the definition of Germanness. Germanists believed that the language and songs embodied and reflected the essence of German culture and tradition. Patriotic songs (Vaterlandslieder) and folksongs (Heimatlieder) were published in songbooks (Liederbücher), almanacs, didactic books, and memorial brochures and were sung in choirs. German songs were part of parties and celebrations, which started to be regularly organized by the end of the nineteenth century with the purpose of stimulating Germanity. Among the most famous are the Kaiserfeier (celebration of the emperor), the Deutscher Tag (German Day), the Sängerfest (singing competition), the Turnfest (gymnasts’ competition), and the Schützenfest (marksmen’s competition).

442

GERMANISM

IN

RIO GRANDE DO SUL

Furthermore, Germanists attributed certain characteristics, such as diligence, frankness, seriousness, loyalty, perseverance, braveness, and simplicity, to the German people. Among these virtues, loyalty was the one most frequently used to describe the German national character, understood as their trademark, as well as the very basis of their moral constitution and social action. The German Protestant Church in Rio Grande do Sul championed a close relationship between Deutschtum (Germanity) and religion. In 1929, it even entered into an affiliation with the German Federation of Protestant Churches, which became part of the German Protestant Church in 1933. Allegiance to German culture, however, also resulted in the creation of a market for German goods in Brazil—German-language papers, almanacs, and didactic books (produced in Brazil), as well as products imported from Germany by merchants and industrialists in Porto Alegre. This economic aspect coincided with the imperialist and colonialist interests of Wilhelm II, who, in the last decades of the nineteenth century, paid more attention to Germans living abroad. For Germany, these groups became a welcome basis for commercial expansion. From the 1880s onward, the Germanlanguage press was the place for the discourse on the purpose and image of Germanism. The press was not only the main instrument for discussing the German identity but also the mechanism used by the Germanists to influence the identity formation of immigrants and their descendants. In this endeavor the following newspapers stood out: Deutsche Zeitung (German Newspaper, 1861–1917) and Koseritz’ deutsche Zeitung, later renamed Neue

deutsche Zeitung (New German Newspaper, 1881–1917; 1919–1941), both printed in Porto Alegre; and Deutsche Post (German Mail, 1880–1917; 1919–1928), published in São Leopoldo. Specialized papers and magazines also participated, among them Allgemeine Lehrerzeitung für Rio Grande do Sul (General Teachers’ Newspaper for Rio Grande do Sul, 1902–1917; 1919–1938) and the Deutsche Evangelische Blätter für Brasilien (German Evangelical News for Brazil, 1919–1938). The advertising and consolidation of Germanism’s representations also ran through the almanacs (calendars), especially Koseritz’ deutscher Volkskalender für Brasilien (Koseritz German People’s Calendar for Brazil, 1874–1918; 1921–1938), Kalender für die Deutschen in Brasilien (Calendar for Germans in Brazil, 1881–1918; 1920–1941), and Musterreiter’s neuer historischer Kalender (Musterreiter’s New Historical Calendar, 1885– 1887; 1901–1918). Imgart Grützmann See also Brazil; Dohms, Hermann Gottlieb; German Almanacs in Rio Grande do Sul; German Scare; Koseritz, Karl von; Rotermund, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Dreher, Martin Norberto. Igreja e germanidade. São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 2003. Gans, Magda. Presença teuta em Porto Alegre no século XIX(1850–1889). Porto Alegre: UFRGS; ANPUH/RS, 2004. Gertz, René Ernaini. O perigo alemão. Porto Alegre: UFRGS, 1991. Grützmann, Imgart. A mágica flor azul: A canção em língua alemã e o germanismo no Rio Grande do Sul. (Doutorado em Letras), Faculdade de Letras, PUCRS, unpublished doctoral thesis, 1999. ———. “Do que tu herdaste dos teus antepassados, deves apropriar-te, a fim de possuí-lo”: O germanismo e suas especificidades. Relatório de pesquisa recémdoutor apresentado à FAPERGS. Porto Alegre, maio de 2001.

GERMANTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA ———. “O carvalho entre palmeiras: representações e estratégias identitárias no germanismo.” História-Unisinos 7, no. 8 (2003): 115–169. Meyer, Dagmar E. Estermann. Identidades traduzidas: cultura e docência teutobrasileira-evangélica no Rio Grande do Sul. Santa Cruz do Sul: Edunisc; São Leopoldo: Sinodal, 2000. Seyferth, Giralda. “A Liga Pangermânica e o perigo alemão no Brasil: análise sobre dois discursos étnicos irredutíveis.” História: questões e debates. Curitiba 10, nos. 18–19 (1989): 113–155.

GERMANTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA Founded in 1683, it became a borough within the county of Philadelphia in 1707 and in 1854 an administrative district within the city of Philadelphia. Although this progression marks the decline of its importance as a center of German life and culture, Germantown has continued to be regarded as the symbolic birthplace of German settlement in America. The three hundredth anniversary of its founding was celebrated with a designation by the U.S. Senate as the “Tricentennial Anniversary Year of German Settlement in America” and by a visit from Karl Carstens, president of the Federal Republic of Germany, in October 1983. Germantown’s reputation as one of the most historic communities in colonial Pennsylvania rests principally on three events. One was the Protest against Slavery issued by the Germantown Quaker Meeting in 1688 and thought to be the first such formal document arising from a white institution. The second was the Battle of Germantown on October 4, 1777, one of the benchmark battles of the Revolutionary War and a defeat that caused

443

George Washington to retreat with his troops to Valley Forge for the winter. The third was the temporary appointment of Germantown as the capital of both federal and state governments during the yellow fever epidemic of 1793. There were, of course, many German speakers in the colonies before 1683, including families and individual settlers from Silesia, Brandenburg, Nuremberg, and Switzerland. Governor Johan Björnsson Printz of the Swedish settlement on the Delaware, established in 1643, was a Holsteiner. Germantown, however, was the first self-conscious attempt to create an ethnic enclave. As a direct result of William Penn’s promotional visits to Europe and his promises of both land and religious toleration, two groups from continental Europe had purchased land in Pennsylvania: one was the Frankford Land Company, which sent no settlers but deputized Francis Daniel Pastorius to represent the company; the other was a group of thirteen Dutch Quaker families from Crefeld who arrived in Philadelphia and agreed to have Pastorius act for them as well. On October 24, 1683, Penn’s surveyorgeneral laid out the primary plot plan for the township. He situated it on 5,700 acres (8.81 square miles) of high, hilly, rocky ground just over 5 miles from Philadelphia, a strategic location in the growth and development of Germantown throughout the century. The grant was bisected by an Indian trail that became the Germantown Road, connecting the town to both Philadelphia and the rich, fertile farmland beyond. The three creeks that flowed through the township (the Wissahickon, Cresheim, and Winghocking) were not navigable, but they were well adapted to industrial uses such as mills and tanneries.

444

GERMANTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

Pastorius and the Crefeld settlers envisioned their community as a “Germanopolis” or “little German city,” and the lots, mostly too small to be viable for farming, were laid out along the Germantown Road to encourage craft production and commerce. Within two years of its settlement, families of German immigrants began to flood into Germantown. By 1709, a clear German majority was established with a hegemony that lasted up to the nineteenth century, but although predominantly German, the township was never a homogeneous community. Added to the Dutch first-comers and the Germans were many families of British origin, as well as a sprinkling of French, Swiss, Swedes, Irish, Africans, and African Americans. The Germans themselves encompassed a wide variety of backgrounds, beliefs, and dialects, coming as they did from the dozens of semi-autonomous little German-speaking states of seventeenth-century Europe. True to Penn’s promise, no church was established, and five main religious groups— Quakers, Lutherans, Reformed, Mennonites, and so-called Dunkards (German Baptists)—were joined by a smattering of Roman Catholics, separatists, Schwenkfelders, and Hermits of the Wissahickon and a substantial minority of freethinkers or nonbelievers. A large increase in residents of British background by the end of the century led to the establishment of a Methodist Church in 1796, followed soon after by congregations of Presbyterians and Episcopalians. The population of Germantown did not grow smoothly throughout the eighteenth century, but rather in a series of incremental leaps followed by periods of relative stagnation. Increase was largely the product of immigration; natural increase

was uncharacteristically low for colonial America, and out-migration was high. From an initial population of 42 people in 13 families at the time of settlement in 1683, the town grew to well over 2,000 by the time of the Revolution, making it the fourth-largest population center in Pennsylvania. The U.S. Census of 1800 listed 3,200 people in about 550 families. The largest surge came between 1745 and 1767, during which time housing stock increased from about 100 to 350 dwellings and Germantown was discovered by wealthy Philadelphians as a place to build their estates or rent apartments for the summer. As a result of the yellow fever epidemics of the 1790s, many city dwellers, middle as well as upper class, relocated permanently to the healthier “suburbs,” followed by branches of the shops and businesses that serviced them. Each of the population spurts brought an influx of newcomers to the town who were ethnically and culturally different from each other and from the longtime inhabitants. Although outsiders saw the town as being German in character, it was actually an amalgam of old and new, as well as a mix of the many ethnic groups represented in the populace. The earliest houses were small and continental in design— half-timbered, with high-pitched or gambrel roofs and casement windows. By the mid-1700s, the typical house had incorporated English Georgian style while retaining certain elements from the older tradition, such as the arched cellar windows, pent roofs between the first and second floors, “Dutch” doors, and front stoops. What set them apart as uniquely Germantown was the stone of which they were built; a “glimmer-stone” sparkling with mica, found only in a very limited area

GERMANTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA

around Germantown and known by the scientific name of Wissahickon schist. This kind of mixed acculturation could be found in daily life in even more significant ways than in the choice of consumer goods. Within a generation or two, it was mainly newcomers who still spoke and wrote in German, at least in public. English gradually became the common language of longtime residents of the township, although it was often written in German script, interlaced with German words, and pronounced with a German accent. From the mid-1700s, schools offered both English and German instruction, and it was not uncommon for German families to translate or anglicize their surnames as well as their given names. The original Dutch Quaker families assimilated so thoroughly that within a few decades they were often seen as part of the escalating English population. Growing numbers of non-Germans after midcentury increased the impact of the outside world and its ways on the development of the township’s institutions and lifestyle. Churches, schools, and a market were built; a library and a fire company, in imitation of the ones in Philadelphia, were organized; numerous taverns opened; regular stagecoaches ran along the Germantown Road, stopping over at the local inn; and a potter’s field was established, joining the two town cemeteries and several church burying grounds already present. One of the most noteworthy features of eighteenth-century Germantown lay in its economic development. The history of America has always emphasized the nation’s growth from a commercial base to an industrialized, manufacturing nation in the nineteenth century: the story of the colonial period has generally been told in terms of agricultural communities involved in the

445

commerce of raw or minimally processed goods. As the founders had envisioned, however, Germantown operated as an industrial center almost from the very beginning. It was craft and processing, elevated to a complex and sophisticated level, rather than commerce and trade that formed the backbone of the economic system. Unlike the single-industry system of European towns of the period, Germantown was involved in the production of a broad mix of market goods. Over sixty-four separate occupations were listed in the township during the century. Although many of the crafts lay in the area of primary processing of agricultural products, such as butchering and milling, many more were involved in creating finished manufactured items employing the use of several skilled craftspeople in different aspects of manufacturing. The workshops, except for the mills, relied on human power, giving them the atmosphere of the preindustrial world, but an assembly-line style of production and specialization of tasks marked them as being on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution. Two of the principal economic networks in eighteenth-century Germantown were built around cattle and flax. Butchers formed the first step in the cattle network; tanners and skin dressers were the next craftspeople who participated; from there the product was distributed to breeches makers, bookbinders, harness makers, saddlers, cordwainers (shoemakers), and carriage- and chairmakers (small personal transportation vehicles), all of whom employed leatherworkers in some capacity. The chair “factories,” in turn, also required blacksmiths and wheelwrights from the metalworking trades. The flax network was based on a locally grown product and was primarily focused on the

446

GERT,VALESKA

production of linen goods. This included separate craftsmen (and occasionally women) who spun thread, wove fabric, and bleached, dyed, and starched it. Although a great deal of yarn for the retail market, as well as yard goods, was produced, the principal products were stockings, woven or knitted. The most famous offshoot of the flax network was the paper industry, a major contributor to Germantown’s reputation as one of the most historic communities in Pennsylvania. William Rittenhouse had set up the first paper mill in the British colonies in 1690 on the Wissahickon. Christoph Sauer’s printing press, begun in 1738, was one of the largest in the colonies, and his German Bible was the first to be printed in a European language in America. One of Sauer’s employees, Jocob Bey, was the first to manufacture printing type. Full production required ink manufacturing and bookbinding, which were in full operation in the town by midcentury. The binding of books in leather brought the economic system full circle, back to the leather/cattle complex, and the links between the paper and book industries of Germantown and Benjamin Franklin reinforced the ties of the growing town with its overpowering neighbor, Philadelphia. Stephanie Grauman Wolf See also Pastorius, Francis Daniel; Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Sauer, Christoph; Schwenkfelders References and Further Reading Hotchkin, S. F. Ancient and Modern Germantown, Mount Airy, and Chestnut Hill. Philadelphia: P. W. Ziegler, 1889. Keyser, Namaan H., et al. History of Old Germantown. Germantown: Horace F. McCann, 1907.

Tinkcom, Harry M., Margaret B. Tinkcom, and Grant Miles Simon. Historic Germantown from the Founding to the Early Part of the Nineteenth Century: A Survey of the German Township. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1955. Wolf, Stephanie Grauman. Urban Village: Population, Community, and Family Structure in Germantown, Pennsylvania, 1683–1800. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976. ———. “Hyphenated America: The Creation of an Eighteenth-Century German American Culture.” America and the Germans: An Assessment of a ThreeHundred-Year History. Eds. Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985, 1:66–84.

GERT,VALESKA b. January 11, 1892; Berlin, Prussia d. March 16 (?), 1978; Kampen, Schleswig-Holstein German dancer and actress best known for her socially critical pantomime dances who emigrated to the United States in 1939. Born Gertrude Valesca Samosch, Valeska Gert was a dancer whose Weimarera subjects included prostitutes, mummies, and death. She manipulated her body into grotesque, clownlike, obscene, desperate, and lusty shapes and poses. Notable dances include Canaille, Tod (Death), Gruß aus dem Mummenkeller (Greetings from the Mummy’s Cellar), Tanz in orange (Dance in Orange), Negertanz (Negro Dance), and Kupplerin (Procuress). Her performances were also marked by innovative costume choices, which alternately made her body appear disfigured, alluring, or a grotesque combination of sexual and repulsive. She appeared in a number of no-

GERT,VALESKA

table cabaret venues in the 1920s, including Max Reinhardt’s Schall und Rauch (Sound and Smoke) and Bertolt Brecht’s Die Rote Zibebe (The Red Raisin). In 1932 she briefly ran her own cabaret, the Kohlkopp (Cabbage Head). Gert had moderate successes on film as well as stage. She played Puck in the 1924 version of Ein Sommernachtstraum (A Midsummer Night’s Dream) directed by Hans Neumann. In 1925, she appeared in Georg Wilhelm Pabst’s Die Freudlose Gasse (Joyless Street) as Mrs Greifer. Pabst also directed the 1931 film version of Die Dreigroschenoper (The Threepenny Opera), in which Gert played Mrs. Peachum. She wrote for a number of publications, including Die Weltbühne (The World Stage) and the Berliner Tagezeitung (Berlin Daily Paper), and contributed passages, interviews, and a general sensibility to Fred Hildenbrandt’s 1928 biography, Die Tänzerin Valeska Gert (The Dancer Valeska Gert). Targeted for both her Jewish background and her objectionable dance subjects, Gert was featured in a number of pamphlets about the Jewish presence on the German stage. She left Germany in 1933, dancing in Budapest, Paris, and London. Her 1936 marriage to second husband Robin Anderson was by her own admission largely to gain British citizenship. While in London she continued working, playing the maid in the 1934 film Pett and Pott, and appearing in the unsuccessful 1937 musical It’s in the Bag! Gert came to the United States in 1939, where she performed in Hollywood, at the Assistance Playhouse League Theater, but failed to find onscreen success. She spent the summer of 1940 in Provincetown, Massachusetts, working as an artist’s model and

447

dishwasher. In October, she moved to New York City and performed at the Cherry Lane Theater. She opened her cabaret, the Beggar Bar, in 1941. Her performances were met with wartime criticism from both the American Jewish Weekly Aufbau (Construction) and the local authorities, yet the cabaret remained open until 1945, when she returned to Provincetown and opened her second American cabaret, Valeska’s, which offered “Different food, different entertainment.” In 1947 Gert returned to Europe. She settled briefly in Zurich, where she opened a performance café, Café Valeska und ihr Küchenpersonal (Café Valeska and her Kitchen Staff ) in 1948. She then returned to Berlin, where she opened the Hexenküche (Witches’ Kitchen), which operated from 1950 to 1956. Gert’s autobiographical works include Mein Weg (My Way, 1930), Die Bettlerbar von New York (The Beggar’s Bar of New York, 1950), Ich bin eine Hexe (I Am a Witch, 1968), and Katze von Kampen (Cat of Campen, 1973), as well as the 1977 film Nur zum Spass, Nur zum Spiel—Kaleidoskop Valeska Gert (Only for Fun, Only for Play—Kaleidoscope Valeska Gert). Gert was also active onscreen later in life. Films include Federico Fellini’s Giulietta degli spiriti (Juliet of the Spirits, 1965), Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s television miniseries “Acht Stunden sind kein Tag” (Eight Hours Are Not a Day, 1972), and Volker Schlöndorf ’s Der Fangschufl (Coup de grâce, 1976). Gert died between March 15 and 18 (most likely on the sixteenth), 1978, in Kampen, Germany. Erika Elizabeth Hughes See also Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt; Reinhardt, Max

448

GIS

IN WEST

GERMANY

References and Further Reading Gert, Valeska. Ich bin eine Hexe. München: Franz Schneekluth Verlag, 1968. Peter, Frank-Manuel. Valeska Gert: Tänzerin, Schauspielerin, Kabarettistin. Berlin: Edition Hentrich, 1987.

GIS

IN WEST GERMANY U.S. military personnel arrived in Germany in October 1944 when they occupied the border city of Aachen. In the final seven months of World War II, troops of George Patton’s Third Army made their way through towns and cities in southern Germany, eliminating opposition and establishing skeleton military governments before moving on. After the war ended in May 1945, the Americans remained as occupiers and governors in the American Occupation Zone, comprising the postwar states of Bavaria, Hesse, and BadenWürttemburg (later, U.S. forces would be stationed in Rhineland-Palatinate as well). They maintained security with curfews and travel prohibitions; provided supplies for thousands of survivors of the Nazi camps; implemented U.S. policies, including denazification and demilitarization; and reconstructed institutions such as the police, courts, schools, media, and government. They encouraged the development of American-style democracy through America House reading rooms, German Youth Activities (GYA), lectures, and workshops. The American occupation was not a friendly liberation; the official policy of nonfraternization remained in place until the fall of 1946, and prohibitions against criticizing or insulting the military government lasted for years. Hotels, office buildings, and private homes were requisitioned by U.S. military and civilian personnel,

causing great hardship to residents of bomb-damaged cities. Moreover, at the conclusion of hostilities, the morale and discipline of the United States forces suffered a catastrophic collapse. A year after the defeat of the Nazis, GIs were bartering American cigarettes for jewelry, antiques, and sexual favors; a huge informal prostitution industry had emerged; although, unlike in the Soviet sector, mass rape did not occur. GIs were known for their intemperate drinking, casual violence, and, occasionally, spectacular criminal behavior, such as the theft of the Hessian crown jewels by two army officers. In 1946, in order to combat the wave of criminality, U.S. military governor General Lucius Clay allowed military family members to move to Germany. Wives and children contributed a sense of decorum but also added to the burden of requisitioning as more homes and schools were taken for use by military families. In 1948, the Berlin Airlift added further numbers of military personnel, albeit in a cause supported by the civilian population. By 1950, however, after the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was established, the number of GIs in Germany had diminished to 75,000, and many expected the U.S. presence in Germany to end in the near future. With the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic realized that a U.S. military presence in West Germany was vital to European defense against the Soviet Union. In addition to the two army divisions already in Germany came four additional divisions by the end of 1951; until the 1990s the V and VII Corps of the U.S. Seventh Army and the Twelfth Air Force (later the Seventeenth Air Force) of the U.S. Air Forces, Europe (USAFE) were stationed in West

GIS

Germany. By 1955 the number of U.S. troops in Germany rose above 300,000. Army and air force personnel, under the United States European Command (USEUCOM), were no longer occupation forces but alliance forces in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). For the next forty years, Department of Defense records show that approximately 25 percent of all U.S. personnel worldwide were stationed in West Germany. Rather than continuing to hold requisitioned buildings for the use of U.S. personnel and families, the U.S. forces in the early 1950s began constructing extensive housing and shopping areas for their own use. These “little Americas,” which included post exchanges (PXs), commissaries, clubs, chapels, sports facilities, and schools, were funded by the German government but used by the Americans. The German government paid all occupation costs until 1957. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of 1951 regulated the legal status of U.S. forces in Germany. By 1955, German American relations had evolved from war enmity to a cordial alliance. Regular contact between military commanders and town officials occurred in German American Council meetings, where issues of concern such as noise, traffic, and construction were negotiated. In the 1950s, public affairs offices sponsored German American Friendship Weeks celebrating cooperation and friendship between the two countries. German American men’s and women’s clubs proliferated, and both German towns and American military communities organized frequent public events highlighting German American friendship. German records show that marriages between Germans and Americans, mostly German women and Ameri-

IN WEST

GERMANY

449

can soldiers, comprised up to 15 percent of the marriages recorded in German city halls. Like their civilian counterparts in the United States, the U.S. armed forces experienced the 1950s baby boom, and by the end of the decade larger military communities (over 20,000) boasted six or more elementary schools, several middle schools, a large high school, and special education facilities. Activities for military children mimicked those in the United States, including Boy and Girl Scouts, sports, summer camps, and clubs. Military wives did not usually work outside the home but had a number of options available to them: classes in cooking, dancing, bridge, or German; wives’ club activities; luncheons and teas, social evenings, and balls. Family members and military personnel attended college courses through the extension programs of American universities, borrowed books and magazines at base libraries, and traveled throughout Europe, either on their own or on tours organized by base recreation centers. Although much of the social life and cultural offerings on military bases in Germany attempted to mirror that found back home, military communities were not, in the end, replicas of American towns. In the mid-1960s, ballooning foreign exchange deficits and the cost of the Vietnam War forced military communities to tighten their belts and eliminate many programs that had been taken for granted. To make matters worse, the success of the West German postwar reconstruction brought a nationwide labor shortage, hitting military bases hard. By the late 1960s, necessary repairs and maintenance were neglected, and military personnel lived in more straitened circumstances than they had in the past. When President Richard Nixon took the

450

GIS

IN WEST

GERMANY

United States off the gold standard in 1972, the value of the dollar in relation to the deutsche mark plummeted, further impoverishing U.S. forces. The Vietnam War devastated the GIs in Germany. Approximately 60,000 U.S. troops were transferred to Vietnam, and by 1968 most army units were missing more than half their authorized number of officers. At the same time, combat veterans who had one year left of their two-year military commitments were sent from Vietnam to Germany, with little or no adjustment; after twelve months in the jungle, they had trouble adapting to peacetime military discipline. Racial violence erupted on and off base, and drug abuse, in large part a spillover from Vietnam, plagued barracks and housing areas. Germans, seeing the rise in drug use in their own communities, blamed the trend on U.S. soldiers, not without reason. Crimes committed by soldiers, including muggings and rape, became so common that Germans wondered publicly if the U.S. presence had become a blight on the country. The transition from a draft to a volunteer army in 1973 did not immediately improve the situation; the only segment of the armed forces who could be said to be well trained and disciplined were female soldiers, who increased in numbers in the 1970s but still comprised a small minority of all U.S. troops. German leaders wondered whether an army filled with women could really protect Europe, but female soldiers kept the volunteer experiment from falling apart during its first years. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1980, Congress had already agreed to increase defense spending, but Reagan made support of the military a cornerstone

of his administration. He instituted several hefty military pay raises, increased troop levels, and allocated funds for base construction programs. In Germany, the dollar gained strength, and long-delayed base improvements finally proceeded. By 1985, military morale and readiness was at an alltime high. Paradoxically, the gains came at a time of decreasing support for defense in Germany, especially among German youth. The deployment of Pershing II nuclear missiles provoked a storm of protest, some of it anti-American, and the U.S. forces were the targets of periodic terrorist attacks from the left-wing Red Army Faction (RAF). In November 1989, the Berlin Wall abruptly fell, along with the governments of most Eastern bloc nations. Suddenly the rationale for maintaining large numbers of U.S. troops in Germany disappeared, and the Department of Defense planned a massive Reduction in Force (RIF). Throughout the 1990s installations closed, and the numbers of troops in Germany diminished. By 1995, 100,000 troops remained, and four years later, U.S. forces in Germany totaled only 58,000. In 2002 the commander of the U.S. forces in Europe began to examine the possibility of moving most GIs out of Germany, sending them back to the United States, from where they would be deployed for short periods to bases in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, or other eastern European nations. The new bases, which have not yet been built, would not be “little Americas,” but rather “forward operating bases” (FOBs), resembling the stripped-down temporary bases in the Balkans, Central Asia, and the Middle East. German critics assert that the plan was embraced by the

GLASSMAKING

Department of Defense in retaliation for Germany’s opposition to the U.S. war in Iraq, but such a transformation had been hinted at in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. The ongoing war in Iraq has complicated plans to close bases in Germany, as they have played an important role in support and logistical operations for the conflict. Nevertheless, barring some unforeseen calamity, the U.S. military presence in Germany will continue to shrink almost to nonexistence. Anni Baker See also African Americans; American Occupation Zone; Denazification; German American Clubs (in West Germany); Halvorsen, Gail S.; U.S. Bases in West Germany; West Berlin References and Further Reading Höhn, Maria. GIs and Fräuleins: The GermanAmerican Encounter in 1950s West Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. Nelson, Daniel J. A History of U.S. Military Forces in Germany. Boulder: Westview Press, 1987a. ———. Defenders or Intruders? The Dilemmas of U.S. Forces in Germany. Boulder: Westview Press, 1987b. Seiler, Signe. Die GIs: Amerikanische Soldaten in Deutschland. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1985.

GLASSMAKING German glassmakers played a significant role in the establishment of the industry in North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although most of the glass needed in the colonies was imported from England, English glassblowers were reluctant to migrate overseas, and central European craftspeople, who were more inclined to cross the Atlantic on account of economic conditions and traditions of mi-

451

gration, manned most of the dozen or so glasshouses established before 1776. Thus German glassmakers have been identified in Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the New World, and manufacturers from central Europe organized several important glassworks in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. Their works produced basic items like bottle and window glass as well as fine tableware, the remaining examples of which have become high-priced collector’s items and are exhibited in major American museums. Of the eight Germans who arrived in Virginia in 1608, five were glassmakers. A glasshouse was built about a mile from Jamestown fort, and some glass was shipped back to England at the end of the year. Production seems to have increased in 1609 but then was disrupted by high mortality among the Jamestown settlers, lack of provisions, and the infant colony’s first war with the local Powhatan Indians. During the winter of 1609 to 1610, the European population dropped from about 500 to 60, and most of or all the glassmakers were among the casualties. More sustained efforts to establish glass manufacturing in British North America were undertaken in the eighteenth century. In 1738 Caspar Wistar (Wüster), an immigrant from the Palatinate who had become a successful Philadelphia merchant, purchased a tract of land in Salem County, New Jersey, and financed the migration of four master glassmakers to America. It has been suggested that Wistar learned about the requirements for glassmaking during his youth in the Heidelberg area, where his father, in his capacity as the Palatine elector’s chief huntsman and forester, had monitored the supply of

452

GLASSMAKING

building materials and fuel to the Peterstal glassworks. Wistar and the German glassmakers formed a partnership, the United Glass Company, and started to produce bottles and windowpanes. The products of the Wistarburg works, which also included tablewares and electrical tubes like the ones Benjamin Franklin and David Rittenhouse used for their scientific experiments, were sold in Wistar’s Philadelphia store. Additional glassmakers were subsequently recruited through Wistar’s business associates in Germany. At the time of his death in 1752, Wistar left one of the largest estates in the middle colonies. His son Richard, who also imported glass of superior quality from England, continued the enterprise until the Revolutionary War, when his fortunes rapidly declined. Although some glassmakers from Wistarburg established their own businesses, others went on to work for other manufacturers. A quarter century after Wistar, Henry William Stiegel, who had arrived in Pennsylvania in 1750 and was operating an iron furnace in Elizabeth Township, Lancaster County, in partnership with the merchants Charles and Alexander Stedman, established his own glassworks. Five German glassblowers, at least one of whom came from Wistarburg, began producing bottle and window glass on the site of Elizabeth Furnace in 1763. After a trip to England on which he may have recruited additional workers, Stiegel built a glasshouse in the new town of Manheim near Lancaster, which he himself had founded two years earlier, in 1764 to 1765. After the British Parliament levied high duties on English glass imports in the 1767 Townshend Act, Stiegel expanded production and increasingly focused on high-quality tablewares that consciously imitated English styles.

With the help of the English craftsman John Allman, Stiegel was the first American manufacturer to produce lead glass (“flint glass”) around 1770, and he hired the Jewish engraver Lazarus Isaac to decorate his glassware in the latest English styles. Although Stiegel extensively advertised in colonial newspapers and marketed the products of his American Flint Glass Manufactory through merchants and shopkeepers in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and several Pennsylvania backcountry towns, mounting debts caused him to declare bankruptcy in 1774. At the time of American independence, glassworks were still rare in the United States, and growing demand not only stimulated rising imports from Germany and Bohemia but encouraged men like the brothers Amelung to venture into glass production there. In 1773 Anton Christian F. Amelung had leased the elector of Brunswick’s mirror glass manufactory “am Grünenplan” (on the green field) and his brother Johann Friedrich was working there as technical director. The Amelungs expanded production, increased the workforce from 48 to 116, and exported a considerable part of their products to Russia. Since 1783, however, increasing competition and higher Russian tariffs had brought the enterprise into financial difficulties, and Johann Friedrich journeyed to the United States to inquire about business opportunities there. Upon his favorable report, two merchant firms in Bremen agreed to cofinance the migration of glassmakers to America and the establishment of a glassworks. Armed with letters of recommendation from Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams, Johann Friedrich Amelung selected New Bremen in Frederick County as the site of the

GOETHE, JOHANN WOLFGANG VON, AND THE UNITED STATES

works. He recruited craftsmen from Thuringia, Saxony, and Bohemia, but when he extended his activities to Lower Saxony the Brunswick government prohibited emigration in 1784, and Amelung was temporarily imprisoned. Despite official harassment, he was able to lead 68 workers to Baltimore. The Bremen firms put $10,000 and American investors an additional $15,000 into Amelung’s glassworks. The enterprise ran into difficulties within a few years because the Bremen merchants had overextended their means and American demand for the high-quality glassware that Amelung produced was still limited. After the U.S. Congress rejected Amelung’s request for a loan in 1790, production fell off and ceased some time afterward. Some of New Bremen’s employees subsequently founded their own workshops, and others worked for John Nicholson’s manufactory near Philadelphia (1794–1797) and Albert Gallatin’s New Geneva works in western Pennsylvania (1797–1807). Mark Häberlein See also Mining References and Further Reading Beiler, Rosalind J. “Peterstal and Wistarburg: The Transfer and Adaptation of Business Strategies in Eighteenth-Century American Glassmaking.” Business and Economic History 26 (1997): 343–353. Harrington, J. C. A Tryal of Glass: The Story of Glassmaking at Jamestown. Richmond, VA: Dietz, 1972. Heiges, George L. Henry William Stiegel and His Associates: A Story of Early American Industry. Manheim, PA: n. p., 1948. Lanmon, Dwight P., and Arlene M. Palmer. “John Frederick Amelung and the New Bremen Glassmanufactory.” Journal of Glass Studies 18 (1976): 9–136. Palmer, Arlene. “Glass Production in Eighteenth-Century America: The Wistarburgh Enterprise.” Winterthur Portfolio 11 (1976): 75–101.

453

GOETHE, JOHANN WOLFGANG VON, AND THE UNITED STATES Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749– 1832), who had never visited the United States, played host to numerous visitors from the United States beginning in 1810. Among the many American visitors were the mineralogist Joseph Green Cogswell, the historian George Bancroft, and the classical philologist Edward Everett. Conversations with these individuals, as well as reading pertinent books they recommended and presented to him, became the major sources for Goethe’s extensive knowledge on the scientific, geographical, ethnographical, economic, and social aspects of American life. Goethe, furthermore, liked the novels of James Fenimore Cooper, the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, and Washington Irving’s Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon (1819–1820) and the History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (1828). Goethe’s friendship with Alexander von Humboldt provided him with essential news about the South American continent as well. Goethe was fascinated by the New World and considered North America to be the future of mankind after he had been disillusioned by events in central Europe. The French Revolution, which gave birth to Napoleon’s dictatorial rule and European-wide wars, as well as the reconstruction of Europe after Napoleon was defeated by Europe’s great powers, caused Goethe to doubt that Europe would have a future. The United States with its lack of a feudal past seemed to Goethe the perfect place for the development of a free bourgeois society. In his poem “Den Vereinigten Staaten” (“To the United States,” 1827) Goethe wrote “Amerika, du hast es besser, hast

454

GOETHE, JOHANN WOLFGANG VON, AND THE UNITED STATES

keine Basalte, keine Schlösser” (America, yours is a better lot, you have no basalt rocks nor castles) because the country had no longing to return to a romantic period and no intellectual debates. In his often quoted conversation with Johann Peter Eckermann on February 21, 1827, Goethe predicted the construction of the Panama Canal and characterized the United States as an expanding world power oriented toward the future. The United States occupied an important symbolic place in Goethe’s writing. In his great Wilhelm Meister (Wilhelm Master) novels, in Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, 1795) and in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Travels, first version 1821, second version 1829), the United States is the place where Goethe’s heroes accomplish parts of their social and political visions. In his Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, Lothario, the noble estate owner, returns to his home in Germany after fighting in the American Revolution in order to abolish feudal structures on his estates and to establish a free society. Here the United States is seen as a model for social reforms. Furthermore, it is discussed as a preferable countermodel (evolutionary change) to the destructive and bloody French Revolution. Lothario declares at the end that “Hier und nirgend ist Amerika!” (Here and nowhere else is America!) In Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre, the estate of the uncle, whose grandfather had joined William Penn in his American endeavor while still longing for European culture, represents the attempt to form an American European synthesis in which welfare capitalism is united with religious tolerance and a desire to work and share in the communal good.

In the same novels, the United States appears as the desired place for emigration. The Turmgesellschaft (Castle Society) in Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre propagated emigration to North America. In Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, Goethe already discussed emigration as an option to flee revolution and social upheaval. While working on his Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre, Goethe read the travel journal of [Carl] Bernhard von Sachsen-WeimarEisenach, who had traveled the United States from 1825 to 1826. The author was the son of Duke Carl August von SachsenWeimar-Eisenach, who was Goethe’s patron. This book provided Goethe with all the information he used in his description of the utopian Turmgesellschaft, with their social relations and their emigration project. [Carl] Bernhard visited Robert Owen’s colony “New Harmony” and Georg Rapp’s colony “Economy” and described both utopian-Communist settlement projects in detail. Fascinated by these accounts, Goethe integrated several characteristics of New Harmony and Economy into the description of his own ideal utopian society. Religious tolerance, the system of justice, the idea of a comprehensive pedagogy, and the ban on taverns all go back to [Carl] Bernhard’s travel account. However, Goethe did not share Owen’s and Rapp’s Communist ideas about common property and democratic participatory administration of the settlements. Furthermore, he rejected industrialization and its new technologies, such as the spinning jenny and the mechanical loom. In fact, the emigrants fled a society dominated by machines. Emigration thus became the escape from an Old World and the arrival in a New World in which

GOLDSCHMIDT, RICHARD BENEDICT

one could start over from the beginning. For Goethe, the United States represented a society free from history and social burden. Leaving Europe became the attempt to travel back in time to a precivilized stage. Klaus F. Gille See also Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward; Harmony Society; Humboldt, Alexander von; Literature (German), the United States in; Panama; Pennsylvania; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Bahr, Ehrhard. “Amerika.” Goethe Handbuch. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1998, 4/1:30–33. Beutler, Ernst. “Von der Ilm zum Susquehanna: Goethe und Amerika in ihren Wechselbeziehungen.” Essays um Goethe. Ed. Ernst B. Beutler. Auflage, Wiesbaden: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1946, 1/3:462–520. Gille, Klaus F. “‘Amerika, du hast es besser’— Goethe und die Neue Welt.” Weimarer Beiträge, no. 2 (2005). Kriegleder, Wynfried. “Wilhelm Meisters Amerika: Das Bild der Vereinigten Staaten in den Wanderjahren.” Jahrbuch des Wiener Goethevereins 95, 1991, 15–31. Lange, Victor. “Goethes Amerikabild: Wirklichkeit und Vision.” Amerika in der deutschen Literatur. Eds. Sigrid Bauschinger, Horst Denkler, and Wilfried Malsch. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1975, 63–74.

GOLDSCHMIDT, RICHARD BENEDICT b. April 12, 1878; Frankfurt am Main d. April 24, 1958; Berkeley, California Eminent German biologist and zoologist who did pathbreaking research in the field of evolution and who emigrated to the United States in 1936.

455

Richard Goldschmidt came from an old German Jewish bourgeois family in Frankfurt. He was raised in that city and received a classical comprehensive education with emphasis on Latin, Greek, history, literature, and science. After a long career, he is now remembered as one of the most controversial biologists of the twentieth century. Goldschmidt went to the gymnasium in Frankfurt, planning to study natural sciences after having finished school. In 1896 he enrolled at the University of Heidelberg, and in 1898 he moved to the University of Munich. Here Goldschmidt completed his education in the German morphological tradition under Richard Hertwig (1850–1937). In 1902 he defended his thesis, and in 1904 he became a Privatdozent. Goldschmidt was Hertwig’s assistant until 1913. In that year he was appointed director of the genetics department of the newly established Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute for Biology in Berlin. He held this position until 1935, when he was forced to leave Germany. Goldschmidt was known as a zoologist, biologist, and geneticist of exceptional ability. His topics of research can clearly be differentiated. He started with research in cytology, fertilization, and embryology in trematodes and nematodes before he turned his attention to the experimental study of genetics. Goldschmidt undertook a series of tests on the moth Lymantria, developing theories on physiological genetics and sex determination (1911–1920). In this process, Goldschmidt pointed out the existence of intersexuality: he was able to obtain different degrees of intersexuality in this moth up to a complete inversion of the genetic sex

456

GOLDSCHMIDT, RICHARD BENEDICT

into the opposite. He also performed research on evolution. His studies of the geographical variation of Lymantria led him to propose two mechanisms for evolution (ca. 1918–1935): (1) systemic mutations, which meant large rearrangements of the chromosome; and (2) developmental macromutations, which happened in developmentally important genes and led to large phenotypic effects. Finally, Goldschmidt shifted his object of research to the fruit fly Drosophila. He studied its physiological genetics and in 1938 proposed an unorthodox theory on the nature of the gene rejecting its corpuscularity. Like some of his earlier ideas, this proposition aroused violent reactions among his contemporaries because it stood against the accepted, prevailing concepts. Goldschmidt’s relation to the United States underwent different phases. He was fascinated, disappointed, and again attracted. Just after he had become director of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Institute and while he was on a research trip to Japan, World War I started. Because of the British sea blockade Goldschmidt feared being captured and imprisoned on the journey home. American friends suggested that he should come to the United States so as not to be imprisoned by the British. Goldschmidt followed this suggestion and landed in New Haven, where he immediately commenced new research projects, tried to integrate into the scientific community (by spending the summers in the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole), and made new friends (among them Jacques Loeb). Goldschmidt’s wife and children were able to follow their husband and father in 1915. However, the situation changed when the United States entered the war in 1917. Goldschmidt as

well as his family were detained as German citizens in custody, and publishers refused to print his papers, fearing boycotts of their journals for publishing German authors. Frustrated and disappointed, Goldschmidt left the United States at the first possible moment after the war ended on a transport of imprisoned sailors and civilians in 1919. Back in Germany, Goldschmidt soon realized that the economic crisis after the Treaty of Versailles made research almost impossible. Furthermore, he noticed a growing antisemitism threatening him and his family. These circumstances made him look for a position in the United States again, although friends like Jacques Loeb told him that due to the animosities in the United States against Germans, this plan would be almost impossible to accomplish. Goldschmidt stayed in Germany until 1935, when the National Socialist regime made work impossible for him. He received offers from England and Turkey but accepted a professorship at the University of California. In 1936 he left for Berkeley, where he remained until his death in 1958. Heiner Fangerau See also Intellectual Exile; Loeb, Jacques; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in References and Further Reading Dietrich, Michael R. “On the Mutability of Genes and Geneticists: The ‘Americanization’ of Richard Goldschmidt and Victor Jollos.” Perspectives on Science 4 (1996): 321–345. ———. “Richard Goldschmidt: Hopeful Monsters and Other Heresies.” Nature Reviews Genetics 4 (2003). 68–74. Piternick, Leonie Kellen, ed. Richard Goldschmidt: Controversial Geneticist and Creative Biologist. Basel: Birkhäuser, 1980.

GONNER, NICHOLAS E., JR.

GONNER, NICHOLAS E., JR. b. July 8, 1870; Cape Girardeau, Missouri d. December 2, 1922; Milwaukee, Wisconsin The son of a prominent midwestern Luxembourg American newspaper editor and publisher, Nicholas E. Gonner (1835– 1892), Nicholas Jr. was himself a leader of the Catholic press, national leader of German-speaking American Catholics, and pioneer in applying Catholic social thought. Gonner took over the Luxemburger Gazette on the death of his father in 1892, editing it and another Germanlanguage Catholic weekly until 1918 through the Catholic Publishing Company (CPC) of Dubuque, Iowa. The CPC also published the Catholic Tribune and the Daily Tribune, the latter the only Catholic daily ever published in the United States. For his work in the Catholic press, Gonner was made a Knight of St. Gregory by Pope Pius X. Gonner was also a prominent national leader of mutual aid societies, serving as president of the German Catholic CentralVerein (1899–1903) and as an officer of the American Federation of Catholic Societies. Gonner’s parents emigrated from Luxembourg in 1866, settling in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, where his father, an exLuxembourg military officer, entered the construction business with his brothers-inlaw. Relocating to Dubuque, Iowa, Gonner Sr. assumed ownership of the financially troubled CPC in 1872, and due to his efforts the Luxemburger Gazette and Die Iowa became regionally important Germanlanguage weeklies and the CPC a thriving multigenerational family enterprise. Educated at St. Mary’s school in Dubuque and at Luxembourg City College, where he probably became interested in social re-

457

form, Nicholas Jr. returned to the United States to become editor and publisher of CPC newspapers in 1892. Nicholas Jr. renamed Die Iowa the Katholischer Westen (The Catholic West) and edited and published it and the Luxemburger Gazette from 1892 until 1918. His hard-hitting editorials, often critical of President Woodrow Wilson for his stance toward World War I, raised doubts about the genuineness of U.S. neutrality. Cumbersome U.S. government censorship requirements for German-language publications caused him to discontinue both German papers. He also edited and published a third newspaper, the Catholic Tribune, in weekly (1899–1915), semiweekly (1915–1919), and triweekly (1919–1920) editions, which eventually became the Daily American Tribune (1920–1922), all of which were printed in English. An ardent supporter of Catholic education and personal devotion to the eucharist, Nicholas Jr. saw the newspaper enterprise as more than a business; he saw it as an apostolic activity of service to the church. It was a means of introducing Catholics to the best thinkers by popularizing their ideas. The press could also serve to reinforce family values and to propagate Catholic moral and social teachings. It could contribute to the solution of social problems by the application of Christian principles to contemporary challenges. German-language publications were especially important organs for faith and cultural preservation and for combating what Gonner identified as the chief social dangers: religious indifference, socialism, anarchism, and extreme political and economic liberal individualism. Influenced by Pope Leo XIII’s social encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891) and by German social reformers, Gonner wanted

458

GONNER, NICHOLAS E., JR.

to combat the chaos of anarchism, the class antagonism of socialism and greed, immorality, and indifference of modern liberal secular society with a more corporate order of Catholic vocational associations. German influences included the reform tradition of Bishop Von Ketteler of Mainz, the Center Party and associated Christian trade unions, and the Volksverein für das Katholische Deutschland (Popular Union for a Catholic Germany), with its Central Bureau in München-Gladbach and its leaders, Ludwig Windthorst and Ernst Lieber. As president of the German Catholic Central-Verein and after, Gonner was instrumental in reorganizating the association and in turning it toward social reformism. What had been a loose federation of state organizations, existing primarily for ethnically based insurance and mutual benevolence purposes, became a much more structured organization with an active social reform purpose. The 1901 CentralVerein convention adopted a program of social political action, its first ever. Gonner borrowed both name and structure when he established the Volksverein für Amerika (Popular Union for America) in 1902 as the social reform arm of the Central-Verein. Like its German model, it had a Central Bureau in Chicago that spread Catholic social teachings through pamphlets for distribution in parishes. In addition, it sponsored special presentations and social study courses. Gonner envisioned the Central-Verein, enlivened by social reformism, leading all Catholics toward a comprehensive, authentically Christian social reconstruction. All would participate in vocational associations that would safeguard each citizen’s interests while avoiding class antagonism and

contributing to natural social organicism a communal rather than an individualist society. Gonner’s final major contribution to the Central-Verein was to establish a committee to prepare young lay Catholics for leadership positions. He then focused on his other major ambition, a series of daily U.S. Catholic newspapers. Nicholas unionized employees of CPC and professionalized the office. Together with his brother, John, he initiated an expansion and development drive, initially by increasing editions of the Catholic Tribune and eventually by founding the Daily American Tribune. Despite discussions with Dubuque archbishop James J. Keane, the Gonners were unable to receive the bishop’s permission to make the paper an official diocesan publication. Gonner, recognizing that he would need additional circulation and advertising revenues, sought relocation possibilities in the urban areas surrounding Dubuque after Archbishop Keane started his own paper in 1921. Archbishop Sebastian Messmer of Milwaukee granted Gonner permission to move the paper to Milwaukee and combine it with the Catholic Herald, the official Milwaukee diocesan publication. While traveling to Milwaukee, Nicholas was killed in a freak auto accident along with his daughter, Anna, and a Marquette University student. His death meant that neither of his most ambitious efforts was ever fully realized. No other Catholic daily was ever founded, and the Central-Verein’s social reformism had little influence beyond its membership. David L. Salvaterra See also German Catholic Central-Verein; Kenkel, Frederick P.

GÖTTINGEN, UNIVERSITY References and Further Reading Beck, Anthony J. “Nicholas E. Gonner: Lay Leader and Publicist.” America 28, December 23, 1922: 225–227. Faber, Mary de Paul, OSF. “The Luxemburger Gazette: A Catholic German Language Paper of the Middle West, 1872–1918.” MS thesis, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 1948. Gebhart, Daniel Francis, OFM. “A History of the Catholic Daily Tribune.” MA thesis, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, 1953. Gleason, Philip. The Conservative Reformers: German-American Catholics and the Social Order. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968.

GÖTTINGEN, UNIVERSITY

OF Between 1810 and the American Civil War, the University of Göttingen served as a de facto graduate school for many scholars who later gained prominence in American life. Attracted by an extraordinary research library and eminent professors such as the theologists Gottlieb Jakob Planck and Karl Friedrich Stäudlin, the legal scholar Karl Friedrich Einhorn, the physicist Wilhelm Weber, the mathematician and astronomer Carl Friedrich Gauß, the chemist Friedrich Wöhler, the classicists and linguists Karl Friedrich Hermann, Ernst Ludwig von Leutsch, Heinrich Ritter, and Friedrich Wilhelm Schneidewin, and the German philologist Georg Friedrich Benecke, American male students enrolled at the University of Göttingen as early as 1782. Those who traveled the path to Göttingen included William B. Astor (1792–1875), businessman and investor; George Bancroft (1800–1891), historian, diplomat, and Transcendentalist; Edward Everett (1794–1865), public speaker; Basil L. Gildersleeve (1831–

OF

459

1924), classics professor at Johns Hopkins University; George Ticknor (1791–1871), professor of French and Spanish at Harvard; Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (1807–1882), poet and Ticknor’s successor at Harvard; and William Dwight Whitney (1827–1894), linguist and Sanskrit scholar. As leaders in American intellectual life, these men encouraged others to study in Germany. They are credited with helping to introduce and popularize German literature, philology, and philosophy in the United States. The year 1837 would mark the beginning of troubled times for the university. After the death of Wilhelm IV in July of that year, the royal tie to England ended, and Ernst August I, the new king of Hanover, reigned over Göttingen. The new king soon announced his intention to revoke the Hanoverian constitution adopted by Wilhelm IV in 1833. Seven Göttingen professors, including Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, compelled by the oath they had sworn to uphold this constitution, signed a protest against the intentions of the new king. The protest met with widespread support, and the king had all seven professors dismissed. Although two of the professors returned to the university after the 1848 revolution, it took several decades for Göttingen to rebuild its reputation for academic freedom and excellence and for enrollment numbers to rise again. In some fields, such as philology, it was impossible for the university to make up for the loss of its leading scholars. The enrollment of American male students also dropped off after 1837 and would not pick up again until the 1850s. Enrollment numbers continued to increase through the 1890s and then dropped off again at the beginning of the new century.

460

GREAT DEPRESSION

Göttingen also played a significant role in higher education for American women. Göttingen, along with Heidelberg, was one of the first German universities to grant doctoral degrees to women. Göttingen was famous for having granted a PhD to seventeen-year-old Dorothea Schlözer in 1787 and to the remarkable Russian mathematician Sofia Kovalevskaia in 1874. Certain professors at Göttingen became known for encouraging and supporting the work of women scholars, even before women could officially enroll at the university. These professors included Felix Klein in mathematics, Max Lehmann in history, Georg Elias Müller in experimental psychology, Hermann Walther Nernst in physical chemistry, Moriz Heyne in German, Lorenz Morsbach in English, and Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorf in classical philology. The first American woman to receive a doctoral degree from a German university was Margaret Eliza Maltby, who completed her degree in physics at Göttingen in 1895. The following year, Mary Frances Winston completed her PhD at Göttingen and became the first American woman to earn a doctoral degree in mathematics at a foreign university. In the twentieth century, a new connection between Göttingen and the United States was born out of tragedy. In the early twentieth century, Göttingen became known throughout the world for the remarkable research in theoretical and experimental physics conducted there by scientists such as Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Maria Göppert-Mayer, James Franck, and Robert Pohl. This community of scientists was destroyed when the Nazi government forced leading Jewish scientists at Göttingen into exile. Several of these distinguished researchers, including James Franck, found

a new home in the United States. The prominent mathematicians Emmy Noether and Richard Courant were also forced to give up their positions at Göttingen and reestablished highly successful careers in the United States. Sandra Singer See also American Students at German Universities; Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward; Intellectual Exchange; Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth; Ticknor, George References and Further Reading Böhme, Ernst, and Rudolf Vierhaus, eds. Göttingen: Geschichte einer Universitätsstadt. Vol. 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2002. Jarausch, Konrad H. “American Students in Germany, 1815–1914: The Structure of German and U.S. Matriculants at Göttingen University.” German Influence on Education in the United States to 1917. Eds. Henry Geitz, Jürgen Heideking, and Jürgen Herbst. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 195–211. Singer, Sandra. Adventures Abroad: North American Women at German-Speaking Universities, 1868–1915. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003. Thadden, Rudolf von, and Günter J. Trittel, eds. Göttingen: Geschichte einer Universitätsstadt. Vol. 3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1999.

GREAT DEPRESSION Deepest crisis of the capitalist economy in the twentieth century, lasting from 1929 to 1933. Economic and financial relations between the United States and Europe and in particular between the United States and Germany played a major role in the crisis, both with respect to its causation and with regard to the impact of the crisis, as both Germany and the United States were the two countries hardest hit by it. Furthermore, the Great Depression marked a wa-

GREAT DEPRESSION

tershed in twentieth-century history, and as such its significance lies beyond the socioeconomic events. The economic crisis stimulated major political changes in the United States and Europe and contributed significantly to the political radicalization and the breakdown of parliamentary democracy in Germany. Despite being characterized by a series of contractions and expansions, the American economy experienced overall growth in the 1920s. In fact, during this decade the American economy was strong enough to pull the advanced western European economies on a growth path with it. Thus, the Great Depression was preceded by an economic boom that was particularly strong in the United States and in Germany. During the early 1920s, Germany suffered from inflation and in 1923 even from hyperinflation, but by 1925, the economy had recovered, and Germany entered a period of relative stabilization. However, having experienced the difficulty of stopping inflation from spinning out of control had made German politicians predisposed toward anti-inflationary policies. After World War I, Germany was required to make significant payments to the European Allies as war reparations. France and Great Britain in turn used a significant portion of these payments to repay their war loans to the United States. Since Germany had completely exhausted its financial resources in the war, it depended on capital streams from the United States to meet its obligations under the reparations regime. However, this triangular financial relationship had a major weakness: U.S. loans to Germany were given to German commercial banks as mediators on a revolving but short-term basis. Even as the German banks distributed and invested the

461

capital primarily through long-term loans, they were refinancing themselves largely through short-term loans. In fact, during the 1920s, about 50 percent of net investments in Germany were financed through capital from the United States. As long as the financial streams were not interrupted, this system functioned well enough because the short-term loans from the United States were continuously renewed. Although the German economy had already been inching toward a recession before the fall of 1929, the Great Depression as a global crisis was triggered by successive stock market crashes in the United States in 1929. Overspeculation ended suddenly with news of higher interest rates and slower economic growth prospects. Starting with very heavy sales on October 23, a panic developed very quickly on October 24 (“Black Thursday”). Massive intervention by commercial banks achieved a temporary stabilization of the market toward the end of the week. But on October 28 (“Black Monday”) and primarily on October 29 (“Black Tuesday”), the stock market collapsed completely. On the last day alone, more than 16 million stocks were sold at the New York Stock Exchange. Due to the time difference, the effects at the German stock markets were felt with only a short delay. The major stock market crash in Germany happened on October 25 (“Black Friday”). The initial shock was followed by a protracted crisis, which resulted in a decline of stock prices by more than 3 quarters over the following three years. Given the fact that many lenders could no longer service their debt because their collateral—stocks—had decreased dramatically in value almost overnight, the stock market crash quickly created a major banking and financial crisis.

462

GREAT DEPRESSION

Very rapidly the financial crisis turned into a global economic crisis and spread to Europe, which was tied to the U.S. economy through a financial arrangement that was centered on Germany. With the financial crisis in the United States, American lenders called their money back in two waves: In the immediate aftermath of the stock market crash in New York and again after the German election of 1930, in which Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) made significant gains, American creditors did not renew their loans to German banks but withdrew their capital instead. The cumulative effect of this policy and the quickly developing American banking crisis was the collapse of the international financial arrangement, which led to a serious aggravation of the economic crisis. The first bank to collapse in Europe was the Austrian Creditanstalt in May 1931. However, since its financial practices had been similar to those of its German competitors, a run at all major German banks ensued, with depositors attempting to withdraw their funds immediately. This response was in no small part caused by the German experience of hyperinflation not even a decade before. Under those circumstances, deposits with a bank would loose their value very quickly. The only option left to most was to withdraw their money and invest it in durable goods. The immediate and collective withdrawing of a significant percentage of the deposits following the stock market crash in October 1929 created a genuine banking crisis in Germany and aggravated the overall economic crisis even further. The stock market boom that had preceded the crash in October 1929 had par-

tially masked a fundamental economic problem: the structural deficit in demand. As long as the stock market boom continued, speculation generated capacity for demand. But once the system of overspeculation collapsed, it exposed four major forces that combined to bring the whole economic system to a crushing halt. First, for years investors had been overly optimistic regarding the market for durable consumer goods. Overestimating the demand in this field had fueled the stock market boom to a good part. Companies that produced— or at least claimed to produce—modern durable consumer goods were generally considered to have significant economic upside, and their stocks soared accordingly. Second, during the post–World War I recovery, an overall optimism prevailed and led to the buildup of additional productive capacity on top of the already significant and ongoing improvements in efficiency, which were achieved by rationalization. Due to the overall assumption of further economic growth, the increased capacity was very quickly transformed into additional production. The buildup of overcapacity was, third, not limited to industrial production but also affected the agricultural sector in Europe and the United States. Here too, rationalization and increased capacity led to overproduction. Fourth, significant tariff increases and policies of protectionism on both sides of the Atlantic meant to stabilize the national economies actually worsened the global economic crisis, as world trade volume decreased by one-quarter between 1929 and 1932. High protective tariffs brought whole export industries to a standstill. This was particularly fateful for Germany, which had relied on its exports not the least to the

GREAT DEPRESSION

United States to generate foreign currency revenue for reparations and to finance its debt payments. Moreover, high tariffs also translated into high market prices, which were exactly the opposite of what was needed, according to prevailing economic theory. The recession was supposed to bring the prices down to a new market clearing price. High tariffs, however, kept the prices at an artificially high level. With a structural imbalance between demand and supply, the global capitalist system collapsed, reinforcing the economic crisis on either side of the Atlantic. In the wake of the crisis, the American and German banking systems collapsed, and industrial production contracted dramatically. In fact, Germany and the United States were the hardest hit by the decline in industrial production among the major industrialized countries. As a result, countless companies had to close or significantly reduce hours of operation and cut their workforce, which in turn generated high unemployment. At the high point of the unemployment crisis in 1933, over 6 million Germans were officially unemployed (over one-third of the total workforce). In the United States, 13 million were registered as unemployed in 1933—an unemployment rate of almost 25 percent. Economically, these high unemployment rates widened the gap between supply and demand as millions of households lost part or all of their income. Socially, the impact of the Great Depression remains immeasurable, as whole societies were thrown into turmoil. The political developments of the 1930s in the United States (the New Deal) and Germany (the rise of fascism) can be linked in part to the situation produced by the Great Depression.

463

The initial political responses to the crisis, both in Germany and the United States, were delayed and flawed. Past experience with periods of economic depression as well as economic dogma suggested to U.S. president Herbert Hoover to simply wait for the next upturn in the business cycle. His lack of decisive action was thus not passivity but rather a conscious policy choice. Nonaction was considered the best policy in this particular situation. Still, given the magnitude of the crisis, Hoover did not refrain completely from intervening. Although designed to alleviate the situation and stimulate a recovery, the policies that the United States implemented actually worsened the crisis. Raising tariffs (most significantly with the so-called Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930) was certainly intended to support the U.S. economy; but by artificially raising prices and contributing to further price rigidity, the policy actually prevented prices in the United States from coming down and reaching a new market-clearing price. Only with the Roosevelt administration (1933–1945) did the United States change its economic policy fundamentally toward government intervention and deficit spending. In Germany, a policy similar to Hoover’s was chosen by the Brüning government (1930–1932). Viewing the crisis as economically necessary (Reinigungskrise), Berlin pursued a policy of nonintervention, rejecting a policy of deficit spending to create demand and thus trigger an economic recovery. Given the still recent experience with hyperinflation in Germany, an anti-inflationary policy seemed to make particular sense. Furthermore, one of Heinrich Brüning’s

464

GRIESINGER, KARL THEODOR

major foreign policy objectives remained to renegotiate the Young Plan of 1930, which had settled German reparations payments. In order to achieve this goal, he favored an anti-inflationary policy of tightening expenses in times of economic crisis. Hence, not only did German policymakers see good economic sense in a policy of nonintervention, they had additional political reasons to not act in a countercyclical way. Thus, Brüning’s response actually aggravated the crisis. The Papen and Schleicher governments that succeeded Brüning benefited from a slow improvement in the economic climate but initiated more constructive policies at the same time. Given the severe social repercussions of the economic crisis, a labor program made economic as well as social sense. And although Franz von Papen aimed at stimulating private investment by supporting the supply side, Kurt von Schleicher focused more on the demand side by utilizing public expenses. In fact, Germany had already left the low point of the Depression behind and was getting on the road to recovery when Adolf Hitler gained power in January 1933. Matthias Maass See also Brüning, Heinrich; Dawes Plan References and Further Reading Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Great Crash, 1929. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. Harold, James. Deutschland in der Weltwirtschaftskrise, 1924–1936. Stuttgart: DVA, 1988. ———, ed. The Interwar Depression in an International Context. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2002. Kindleberger, Charles P. The World in Depression, 1929–1939. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986. McElvaine, Robert S. The Great Depression: America, 1929–1941. New York: Times Books, 1993.

GRIESINGER, KARL THEODOR b. December 11, 1809; Kirnbach, Württemberg d. March 2 1884; Stuttgart,Württemberg One of numerous authors who for political reasons emigrated with high hopes to the United States after the failed revolution of 1848. On his return he published accounts and narrative texts for those who stayed behind, in which he chiefly described working life in New York. After reading theology in Tübingen, Karl Griesinger became a curate in Trossingen in 1832, advancing a year later to deanery curate in Freudenstadt. However, it was not long before he decided to devote himself entirely to writing. With this aim in mind, he moved to Stuttgart, where he edited the Württembergische Landboten (Württemberg Country Herald) and, from 1839 to 1841, published satirical news and observations about the press, social conditions, individual personalities, and comical events in his magazine, Der Schwäbische Humorist (The Swabian Humorist). To earn a living, he assisted at a bookshop from 1841 onward. Like his democratic colleagues Albert Dulk and Robert Prutz from the prerevolutionary period of the Vormärz, Griesinger also concerned himself with the Jud-Süß theme. In 1848 he spoke out in favor of radical political and social change, propagating his ideas in his democratic publication Die Volkswehr (The People’s Defense). His radical views provoked accusations of high treason and a two-year prison sentence at Hohenasperg fortress. When he was acquitted in the wake of an extensive amnesty, Griesinger spent several troubled years before emigrating with his family to the United States in 1852. He became acquainted with the liv-

GRIESINGER, KARL THEODOR

ing conditions of the German Americans in New York City until 1857 when, after struggling to adapt to his new surroundings, a disappointed Griesinger returned to Stuttgart. A year later, his book on the United States, Lebende Bilder aus Amerika (Living Images of America, 1858) appeared, featuring portrayals of characters primarily modeled on occupational groups. For potential German emigrants at home, Griesinger’s informative reports on little Germany’s role as an economic and cultural center for migrants shed light on the most successful professions and, above all, trades and the working methods and opportunities available, which greatly differed from those in Germany. He also described new professions and social problems (prostitution, pickpocketing). In his Emigrantengeschichten (Emigrant Stories, 1858) he illustrated what life was like in the United States and, above all, how the Germans living there behaved. In Land und Leute in Amerika (Land and People in America, 1863) Griesinger once again described life in New York’s little Germany. He claimed that his fictional texts were authentic in that their characters lived the typical problems and lifestyles of immigrants. At the same time, he illustrated the differences in the political, judicial, and social climate of the United States and Europe and reproduced themes common in travel literature: the competitive American society in which social advancement was possible versus the entrenched hierarchical society in Europe based on nepotism and personal connections. Griesinger also referred to the perils of emigration. In Fahrten und Abenteuer eines Marinesoldaten (Travels and Adventures of a Marine), he criticized the policy of numerous German governments of deporting criminals to the United States. He also dis-

465

cussed the issue of unemployment among German emigrants. The informative character of Griesinger’s narrative texts is also demonstrated by the numerous explanations of the English language and translations of specialist terminology for tradespeople in particular. In spite of Griesinger’s unsuccessful stay in the United States, he created in literary models hypothetical stories of German American reconciliation and German emigrants who made great careers for themselves in the United States. In Hochzeiter wider Willen (The Unwilling Bridegroom) he developed a utopia of German American families bringing up bilingual children and a synthesis between spirit and strength. In the narrative text Germania in Amerika (Germania in America, 1858) Griesinger portrays how an attempt to establish a German home (Heimat) in the United States ends in financial disaster. The text does not, however, culminate in the failure of this dislodgement project, propounding instead the virtues of integration. The mayor of Germania moves with his followers to a small American town called Littlefalls, which is expanding into a large trading center. As the process of integration progresses, the ties with Europe are severed. Contrary to his future-oriented integrational models in his fictional texts, Griesinger failed in the United States and returned to Europe. Back there, he was careful not to repeat his early critical political views nor to publish his liberal and democratic convictions. Instead, Griesinger concentrated on humorous observations of working life, customs, and fashions from Württemberg (Silhouetten aus Schwaben [Silhouettes from Swabia]). His writings are cultural historical documents describing social and technical change. In the postrevolutionary period of the

466

GROPIUS,WALTER ADOLPH

Nachmärz, he mostly wrote historical novels portraying the history of Württemberg from the Middle Ages to the modern age within the ruling circles of society (Die letzten Zeiten der Grävenitz; Ida: Gräfin von Salmandingen; Cagliostriana; Friedrich von Zollern). Griesinger was awarded the gold medal for art and science by the king of Württemberg in recognition of his literary accomplishments in general and the book entitled Württemberg nach seiner Vergangenheit und Gegenwart (Württemberg after Its Past and Present) in particular. Claude D. Conter See also Forty-Eighters; New York City; Novel, German American; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Conter, Claude D. Jenseits der Nation—Das vergessene Europa des 19. Jahrhunderts: Die Geschichte der Visionen und Inszenierungen von Europa in Literatur, Geschichte und Politik. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2004. Deutsches-Literatur-Lexikon: Ein biographisches und bibliographisches Handbuch. Ed. Wilhelm Kosch. Bern: Francke, 1949, 732. Krauss, Rudolf. “Karl Theodor Griesinger.” Allgemeine deutsche Biographie (1904): 348–350.

GROPIUS,WALTER ADOLPH b. May 18, 1883; Berlin, Prussia d. July 5, 1969; Boston, Massachusetts Father of the famed Bauhaus who became a leading catalyst for modernism in the United States. Son of a government architect, Gropius studied architecture in technical institutes in Munich (1903–1904) and Berlin-Charlottenburg (1905–1907) as well as the University of Munich. After travels to Spain in 1904 and 1905 and service in the German Imperial Army Hus-

sars, he completed his education at the University of Berlin in 1907. He immediately joined the office of pioneering architect Peter Behrens (1868–1940) and until 1910 allied himself with fellow firm members Ludwig Mies van der Rohe and the Swiss French architect Le Corbusier (née Charles-Edouard Jeanneret). He struck out on his own in 1910 in Berlin, going beyond architecture to design of furniture, wall hangings, and railroad cars. Teaming with Adolph Meyer, he designed the Fagus Works (1911) in Alfeld-an-der-Leine and other model factory and office buildings in Cologne in 1914. World War I interrupted his activities, when Gropius was conscripted into the German Army from 1914 to 1918. Amid it all in 1916, Gropius married the divorced wife of famed composer and conductor Gustav Mahler, Alma (née Schindler). They had a daughter before divorcing. Gropius busied himself in 1918 as appointed director of the Grand Ducal Saxon School of Applied Arts and the Grand Ducal Academy of Arts in Weimar, merging the two in 1919 into the Staatliches Bauhaus (State Building School), the renowned school of arts and design, specializing in a revolutionary curriculum that included furniture and industrial design. He married again, to Ise Frank in 1923; and they too had a daughter. Under growing political pressure, Gropius moved the Bauhaus to Dessau in 1925 and designed the modernistic school and faculty housing (1926). After Gropius’s 1928 resignation, his friend Mies took over in 1930. Nazi pressure made the school move to Berlin in 1932 and close in 1933. But Gropius already was on his way out of Nazi Germany, visiting the United States to forge contacts before returning to

GRUND, FRANZ JOSEF

a brief private practice in Berlin. Gropius won a 1929 election as vice president of the Congresses International of Architecture Modern (CIAM), serving in that position until 1957, two years before the CIAM disbanded. Sickened and stifled by Nazism, Gropius fled to England in 1934 to team with British architect Edwin Maxwell Fly on a major project, Village College in Impington, Cambridgeshire (1936), and smaller ones for houses. His international reputation became so great that, in 1937, Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design offered him a professorship of architecture and then department chairmanship from 1938 to 1952, positions through which he made modernism the dominant international style for a generation of students and emulators, breaking the American architectural establishment away from the Beaux-Arts style. Gropius was happy to emigrate and helped his former Bauhaus colleague Marcel Breuer do the same in 1937, finding him a position at Harvard and collaborating in private practice in Cambridge until 1943, specializing in houses. Gropius wanted architects to closely collaborate in teams and work toward a common goal. He recruited several young architects to form The Architects’ Collaborative (TAC, 1946) with a unique working structure of equal partners, each with his or her own projects critiqued by the others. Major projects included Harvard’s Graduate Center (1950), a dormitory complex; New York’s Pan-Am Tower (1963); the U.S. Embassy in Athens; and Baghdad University. TAC continued for several years after Gropius’s death. Gropius had an immense influence on American architectural modernism through his extensive writings and lectures. Beyond

467

many honorary degrees, including a Harvard doctorate of arts, Gropius won election to Phi Beta Kappa and a fellowship in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The Royal Institute of British Architects awarded him its Gold Medal in 1956; the American Institute of Architects followed suit in 1959. The Federal Republic of Germany awarded him the Grand Cross of Merit with Star in 1958 and the Grand State Prize in Architecture in 1960. Blanche M. G. Linden See also Bauhaus; Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig References and Further Reading Bayer, Herbert, Ise Gropius, and Walter Gropius, eds. Bauhaus, 1919–1928. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1976. Franciscono, Marcel. Walter Gropius and the Creation of the Bauhaus in Weimar: The Ideals and Artistic Theories of its Founding Years. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971. Giedion, Sigfried. Walter Gropius: Work and Teamwork. New York: Reinhold Publishing, 1954. Gropius, Walter. The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. Boston: Charles T. Branford, 1955. ———. Scope of Total Architecture. New York: Harper, 1955. Isaacs, Reginald R. Gropius: An Illustrated Biography of the Creator of the Bauhaus. Boston: Little, Brown, 1991.

GRUND, FRANZ JOSEF b. 1798; Klosterneuburg, Austria d. September 29, 1863; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania German American statesman, respected and influential journalist, and arguably the first national spokesperson for the German American community, Franz Josef Grund was often referred to as the Carl Schurz of the first half of the nineteenth century.

468

GRUND, FRANZ JOSEF

After studying mathematics and philosophy at the University of Vienna, he emigrated in 1827 to escape the suffocating social and political climate in Austria under Baron Metternich. He settled in Boston, taught school, and over the next ten years published many highly regarded textbooks for algebra, chemistry, and the natural sciences. Grund’s rise to national prominence can be attributed to the Pittsburgh Convention in 1837, the first national meeting of German American leaders. He was elected by the other thirty delegates from seven states to chair the historic conference, during which German American community leaders discussed politics, German immigration, the role of German in schools, and higher education. After the conference, Grund came to be viewed as the spokesperson for the German American community. In 1836 Grund published the first of two influential books on the United States; The Americans in their Moral, Social, and Political Relations, in which he attempted to correct what he considered a flawed portrayal of the United States in European, especially English, travel literature of the period. An ardent defender of American democracy and liberalism, Grund sought to defend his new homeland against attacks that Americans were crass and materialistic, lacked culture and patriotism, and were generally provincial and distrustful of everything and everyone. Grund achieved his defense by offering a detailed, systematic exposition of practically every aspect of American life in order to underscore American values, ideals, beliefs, and above all a national character. With sections on such diverse topics as “American Manners and Society,” “American Ladies,” “Reception of

Foreigners,” and “Progress of Education,” Grund’s work thoroughly portrays American cultural life like few other publications of the period. One criticism of his work is that it extolls and overly praises the Democratic Party; most troublesome is his long justification of slavery, but his stance corresponded to the official Democratic Party platform. In this work, which marks the transition in Grund’s life from teacher to journalist-politician, Grund characterizes the United States as a country in progress and the American spirit as independent, inventive, and entrepreneurial, which other countries should attempt to emulate. Influenced by Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America (1835), Grund published Aristocracy in America: From the Sketch-book of a German Nobleman in 1839, capitalizing on his influential position within the German American community. Unfortunately, the title fails to capture Grund’s main points. An ardent Jacksonian Democrat, Grund lived during a period resistant to anything that smacked of aristocracy; indeed, Grund argues that the nature of American democracy and egalitarianism destroys any vestiges of European aristocracy and noble classes. The United States, he suggests, was founded on the basis of liberty, which has established a durable moral empire, and these notions of democracy and liberty will expand throughout North and South America. The book consists of detailed reconstructions of conversations with Americans in Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., and Baltimore to capture, describe, and reflect the Zeitgeist of Jacksonian Ameria like no other work except Tocqueville’s. Whereas Tocqueville was careful to delete or avoid references to specific individuals, Grund transports the reader back to Jacksonian

GUSINDE, MARTIN

times with specific references to and biographical sketches of leading politicians, including President Andrew Jackson, Senator John C. Calhoun, and President Martin Van Buren, for whom he later campaigned to bring out the German vote. The work reveals Grund as an astute observer of American behavior and attitudes and his acute understanding of the political machinations of the times. Grund’s influence outside of German America grew after the publication of The Americans and Aristocracy in America. He resettled in Philadelphia, where he became an editor and political correspondent for the Public Ledger. He spent most of his time in Washington, D.C., covering politics for the newspaper and was among the first to create and popularize a journalistic style resplendent with insider and behindthe-scenes information, supposedly from credible sources. A staunch Democrat and dynamic orator, he traveled extensively and campaigned vigorously for the Democratic Party, to which he remained loyal almost his entire life; notable is his defection in 1848 to campaign for the Whig candidate, William Henry Harrison. For his efforts, he was appointed at various times the U.S. consul to Antwerp, The Hague, and Bremen. Grund’s influence within the German American community began to wane in the 1850s with the rise of the Republican Party. Throughout the 1850s and during the initial years of the Civil War, he retained his pro-slavery stance, which alienated many German Americans, who flocked to the Republicans. Shortly before his death in 1863 he joined the Republican Party. Gregory H. Wolf See also Schurz, Carl

469

References and Further Reading Grund, Francis J. Aristocracy in America. From the Sketch-book of a German Nobleman. Ed. George E. Probst. New York: Harper, 1959. ———. The Americans in Their Moral, Social, and Political Relations. Ed. Robert F. Berkhofer. New York: Johnson Reprint, 1968. Hawgood, John A. The Tragedy of GermanAmerica. Reprint, New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1970.

GUSINDE, MARTIN b. October 29, 1886; Breslau (Silesia), Prussia d. October 10, 1969; Mödling, Austria German ethnologist who was the first to study the indigenous tribes of Tierra del Fuego. Martin Gusinde studied natural sciences and theology, beginning in 1905, at the St. Gabriel missionary training school near Mödling in Lower Austria and was consecrated as a priest in 1911. One year later, he was sent to Chile to take a teaching post in natural sciences at a private school, the Liceo Aleman (German Lyceum) in Santiago, run by the missionaries of Steyl (Holland). In 1916 he became a professor at the Catholic university in the Chilean capital and was named department head of the State Museum of Ethnology and Anthropology. His first interest was the Araucanians, whose medical customs he studied on an initial trip in 1917. Four further ethnological expeditions in the southern part of Tierra del Fuego followed from 1918 until 1924. He lived there among the Tierra del Fuegan Indians (Ona, Yagan, Alakaluf ), whose culture he preserved from oblivion. With great sympathy and an ability to empathize with those in the Indian culture,

470

GUSINDE, MARTIN

Gusinde won the trust of the Indians and was the first European to witness ceremonial rites (youth dedication). On his second expedition he was accompanied by his fellow cleric, Wilhelm Koppers. When this man, contrary to an agreement with Gusinde, published a book (Unter Feuerland-Indianern [Among the Tierra del Fuegan Indians], 1924) and claimed sole authorship, Gusinde began a great dispute and a quarrel that lasted for years. It also strained Gusinde’s relationship with the St. Gabriel missionary training school. In 1925 he returned to Europe and gave reports on his ethnological and anthropological studies to astonished experts at the International Congress of Americanists in The Hague and Gothenburg. In the following year he received his doctorate at the University of Vienna for a dissertation based on the results of his Tierra del Fuego expeditions. From 1931 until 1937 he published the first two volumes of his Feuerland-Trilogie (Tierra del Fuego Trilogy), which established his scientific reputation and garnered international recognition. Both volumes were translated into English and published under the titles Folk Literature of the Selknam Indians (1975) and Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians (1977). In addition, he published numerous books about his travels in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, which achieved wide distribution because of their clear language (e.g., Urmenschen im Feuerland [Prehistoric Men in Tierra del Fuego], 1946; Nordwind—Südwind: Märchen und Mythen der Feuerlandindianer [North Wind—South Wind: Fairy Tales and

Myths of the Tierra del Fuegan Indians], 1966; Vom Leben und Denken der Wassernomaden in West-Patagonien [On the Life and Thought of the Water Nomads in Western Patagonia], 1974). Beginning in the 1930s, Gusinde explored other continents and dedicated himself primarily to the pygmy peoples in Africa, the Philippines (1955), and New Guinea (1956). From 1949 until 1957, Gusinde was a guest professor of general ethnology at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. In the 1959–1960 academic year, he taught at the Catholic University of Nagoya in Japan. Even if his idealistic portrayals of Indian societies do not withstand criticism today, Father Gusinde is credited for having conducted the first comprehensive studies of the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego and having preserved for posterity their rites and traditions shortly before their demise. In a small museum in Puerto Williams in Chile, Father Gusinde’s life and work have been commemorated since 1975. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Chile References and Further Reading Brüggemann, Anne. Der trauernde Blick: Martin Gusindes Fotos der letzten Feuerland-Indianer. Frankfurt am Main: Museum für Völkerkunde, 1989. Egghardt, Hanne. Österreicher entdecken die Welt: Forscher, Abenteurer, Idealisten. Vienna: Pichler, 2000, 110–113. Orellana, Mario. Expedición a la Tierra del Fuego: La personalidad cientifica de Martin Gusinde. Santiago de Chile: Ed. Universitaria, 1980.

H HAENKE,THADDÄUS b. December 5, 1761; Kreibitz (Northern Bohemia), Austria d. November 11, 1816; Cochabamba, Spanish La Plata Province, Bolivia Austrian naturalist who specialized in South America. Haenke is regarded as one of the most important naturalists of South America in the age of Alexander von Humboldt. He was to have participated on the scientific staff on the Spanish circumnavigation of the globe under the leadership of Alejandro Malaspina (1754–1810) from 1789 to 1794. However, when he arrived in Cadiz, the expedition had already been gone for two hours. He sailed after the expedition on a cargo ship and was shipwrecked outside of Montevideo. Haenke lost parts of his equipment in the process. He undertook botanical expeditions on foot in Uruguay und Argentina and compiled extensive herbariums before crossing the Andes and arriving in Santiago where he met up with Malaspina in February 1790. For the next two years he accompanied the expeditions along the American West Coast as far as Alaska, in the course of which repeated forays on shore provided the opportunity

for exploration and botanical excursions (Ecuador, Panama, California, and Alaska). Afterward he traveled across the South Pacific as far as the Philippines and back to South America. In Callao, Haenke once again left Malaspina to go to Argentina with a mule caravan from Peru. The trip led him to Cuzco and Arequipa, where he climbed the 5,800-meter-high (17,678 feet) Mount Misti and spent time with the Chunchos Indians. Starting from La Paz he did a cartographic survey of Lake Titicaca and explored the province of Mojos as its first scientific visitor. He finally settled down in Cochabamba, where he lived from 1796 until his death. Several more times he undertook trips to Mojos and continued his work on Lake Titicaca. On behalf of the Chilean government he made contributions primarily in resource utilization and applied botany (e.g., the production of medicines, agricultural utilization of plant materials, etc.). Haenke is considered a true universal genius. His extensive investigations extended into medicine, botany, zoology, geology, and cartography. Only after his death did some of his manuscripts appear in print (Reliquiae Haenkianae, 1825; On the Southern Affluents of the River Amazonas,

471

472

HALVORSEN, GAIL S.

1735). In 2002 a museum in honor of Thaddäus Haenke was founded at his birthplace in Kreibitz ( now Chribská in the Czech Republic). Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Humboldt, Alexander von References and Further Reading Egghardt, Hanne. Österreicher entdecken die Welt. Forscher, Abenteurer, Idealisten. Vienna: Pichler, 2000, pp. 107–109. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol II. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983, pp. 428–430. Kühnel, Josef. Thaddaeus Haenke. Leben und Wirken eines Forschers. Munich: Lerche, 1960.

HALVORSEN, GAIL S. b. October 10, 1920; Salt Lake City, Utah In June 1948 Halvorsen, a Mormon farm boy from rural Idaho and Utah, was a twenty-seven-year-old U.S. Air Force pilot who had enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps in 1942, but was now flying C-54 cargo planes filled with flour into Berlin’s Tempelhof Airport at the start of the famed Berlin Airlift. But he soon became something more, the famed and beloved “Candy Bomber” of Berlin. His caring and compassion as a benefactor of Berliners, especially Berlin’s children, brought him and the United States a lifetime of goodwill and friendship from more than one generation of West Berliners. It changed his life and theirs. The story began one day in July 1948 soon after the airlift had begun when, following a delivery, Halvorsen met thirty children at the barbed-wire fence surrounding the airfield. They told him: “When the weather gets so bad you can’t

First Lieutenant Gail Halvorsen and the 17th Military Air Transport Squadron rig candy to miniature parachutes for German children in Berlin as part of Operation Little Vittles, ca. 1948. (USAF)

land, don’t worry about us. We can get by on little food, but if we lose our freedom, we may never get it back. Just don’t give up on us” (Halvorsen 2003, 1–2). He soon realized that what these children had recently been through had made them mature and wise well beyond their years. Halvorsen was powerfully touched by these children and their message. He marveled that during the hour he was there at the fence, not one child begged for candy or gum, as other children had done, but he knew that it had been months since they had had any. At the time he had only two sticks of Wrigley’s Doublemint gum, which he broke in two and passed through the barbed wire. He watched as those children who received the gum tore off strips of the wrapper and gave them to the others. Those with only the strips of tinfoil

HALVORSEN, GAIL S.

and paper put them up to their noses and savored the faint fragrance. Halvorsen also noticed that “their pleasure was immeasurable”(Halvorsen 2003, 1–2). He had an idea: He promised them that on his next daylight flight he would drop enough gum for each of them, although his good sense immediately told him that what he had just promised might be against military regulations and get him in trouble. But he rationalized: “Compared to mass starvation this shouldn’t get me more than a minor court martial” (id.). The children would recognize his plane, he told them, because he would “wiggle his wings” as he flew over the airfield, hence, the origin of one of his German nicknames—“Uncle Wackelflugel.” On their second flight, one that brought them to Berlin in daylight at noon, Halvorsen and his crew, Captain John Pickering and Technical Sergeant Herschel Elkins, were better prepared. They had pooled their rations of chocolate and gum and put them into three smaller packages with white handkerchiefs for parachutes. Each man was sworn to secrecy. As they flew in low the children were again at the fence. Elkins pushed the tiny candy parachutes out the flare chutes. The crew waited only seconds after taking off to see the result; they had scored a bull’s-eye. In subsequent weeks, the crew made additional drops, until they decided to quit before being discovered. They feared they had been pushing their luck. Someone was bound to see the number on their plane’s tail. Still, they noticed that the crowd of children at the fence was getting much larger and waving more enthusiastically. After a few weeks, the crew was confronted with a mass of mail—at Tempelhof addressed to Uncle Wackelflugel and the

473

Schokoladen Flieger (chocolate flyers). As it also turned out, one drop had nearly hit a reporter from the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt Newspaper). Halvorsen’s superiors soon knew what he was up to—as did the rest of Berlin. When subsequently summoned to meet with his commanding officer in Frankfurt am Main, Halvorsen feared the worst, but was pleasantly surprised, not only to find enthusiastic approval for what he and his crew had done, but encouragement and a military commitment to officially promote its continuation and expansion. The operation was even given the homey name “Little Vittles,” a designation taken from the name of the larger operation, “Vittles.” And expand it did. Soon Halvorsen and crew found piles of chocolate and gum on their beds when they came in from flights. Major General William H. Tunner, the airlift commander after late July, set up an international press conference in Frankfurt. The base commander at Rhein-Main gave them “a place to call home” and secretarial help. Volunteer help appeared from everywhere; a native-German secretary, Gisela Hering, helped in answering the flood of letters. After running out of handkerchiefs, the supply officer even helped them obtain large silk parachutes that would carry larger loads. By August 1948 the crowds of Berlin children had become so large that drops had to be shifted to parks, playgrounds, school areas, and church yards. Word of “Little Vittles” soon arrived in other parts of Western Europe and the United States. Armed forces members in West Germany began regularly sending supplies. Hundreds of readers of the Weekly Reader from across the nation contributed money and supplies. Chicopee,

474

HAMBURG

Massachusetts, became the American center of the operation with 22 schools in full support with parachutes, candy, and packaging. By January 21, 1949, 6 months after its beginning, the Chicopee committee’s production alone was making it possible to drop over 800 pounds every other day. As an added expression of their commitment to the program, in September 1948 the air force flew Halvorsen to New York to explain on radio, television, and in press interviews what “Little Vittles” was all about. There he also met John S. Swersey, a member of the American Confectioners Association and a Jew, who pledged his own support and that of his association colleagues. In December, back in Germany, Halvorsen and colleagues discovered to their delight that Swersey was as good as his word when 3,500 pounds of candy and gum arrived in Frankfurt am Main. It made a marvelous Christmas present for thousands of children and even for parents who had nothing to give. Halvorsen was transferred to Wiesbaden soon after Christmas 1948, but “Little Vittles,” still in good hands, continued. Gail Halvorsen returned to Berlin in 1969 to meet the children of the Berlin Airlift children. The next year he was appointed commander of Tempelhof Central Airport. Four years later he retired from the air force with over 8,000 flying hours. During the ensuing years he has won numerous awards for his role in the airlift and his humanitarian service. Some of these include the Legion of Merit; the Cheney Award, 1948–1949; the Ira Eaker “Fellow” Award by the USAF chief of staff; the Service Cross to the Order of Merit from the president of Germany, 1974; the Distinguished Humanitarian Award from the Institute of

German American Relations, 1999; and, with other airlift pilots, the Eric Warburg Preis, 1998. In 1999 he was inducted into the Airlift/Tanker Hall of Fame. Douglas F. Tobler See also American Occupation Zone; Foreign Policy (U.S., 1949–1955), Influence of West Germany on; West Berlin References and Further Reading Halvorsen, Gail S. “Impressions of a Berlin Airlift Pilot.” Unpublished manuscript, 2003. ———. The Berlin Candy Bomber. Springville, UT: Horizon, 2004. Launius, Roger D. The Berlin Airlift: Constructive Air Power. Washington, DC: Air Power History, 1989. Launius, Roger, and Coy F. Cross II. Military Airlift Command and the Legacy of the Berlin Airlift. Scott AFB: Military Airlift Command, 1989. Tunner, William H. Over the Hump. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pierce, 1964.

HAMBURG Known as the “gateway to the world,” the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg with its population of 1.7 million is Germany’s second-largest city (Facts About Germany, 2000, 44). Located on the Elbe River in northern Germany, the city has enjoyed a long tradition of self-governance and commercial prosperity. It has retained its independence as an individual state of the Federal Republic of Germany (sharing this distinction with only Berlin and Bremen). During the nineteenth century, Hamburg became a leading European emigration port. In this capacity it trailed its smaller rival on the Weser River, Bremen. Bremen had stronger trading connections with the United States—the destination of choice for roughly 90 percent of European emi-

HAMBURG

grants during the nineteenth century—on the eve of the great emigration of the nineteenth century. Hamburg, on the other hand, maintained closer ties with Great Britain and the West Indies. The strong trading relationship with the former, and the city’s proud liberal tradition, have contributed to Hamburg’s reputation as Germany’s most “English” city. The emigration of the first half of the nineteenth century (coming primarily from Baden and Württemberg in the southwest) favored the ports of the Benelux countries and Bremen over the more eastern-lying Hamburg. Whereas the Bremen senate acted early, effectively, and consistently in enhancing the emigrant trade, the Hamburg senate was slow in repealing laws that prohibited the influx of emigrants for fear of pauperism. Witnessing the benefits that the emigration trade brought to the economy of its rival, the Hamburg senate eventually changed its stance on emigration, taking its most significant step in this direction with the passage of emigration legislation in 1837. The years from midcentury to the 1870s witnessed the growing primacy of steam over sail. The impact of the steamship to the history of emigration cannot be overestimated. Steam cut the length of the transatlantic journey from between forty and sixty days to between twelve and fourteen days. The shorter and more reliable trip enabled more precise provisioning of food and an overall improvement of health conditions on board the ships. This in turn led to a higher survival rate for emigrant passengers. Whereas the North German Lloyd dominated the Bremen steamship travel, the Hamburg-America Steamship Company (Hapag) monopolized the Hamburg docks.

475

During the second half of the nineteenth century, emigrants came increasingly from eastern German lands. This development favored the port on the Elbe River. From the 1880s on, emigrants from eastern and southeastern Europe passed through the port in increasing numbers. In 1892 Hamburg was hit by a severe outbreak of cholera. The city had experienced outbreaks of the disease throughout the century; however, the severity of the 1892 outbreak generated a considerable reform effort (Evans, 1987). To better isolate and combat the disease, the Hamburg administration and Hapag constructed emigrant barracks. By the turn of the century, the city had isolated the emigrant trade from the rest of the city. With the coming of the First World War, emigration ground to a halt. After the war’s conclusion, however, emigration soared to unprecedented heights. Kevin Ostoyich See also Bremerhaven; Hapag; Norddeutscher Lloyd References and Further Reading Bretting, Agnes, and Hartmut Bickelmann. Auswanderungsagenturen und Auswanderungsvereine im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1991. Evans, Richard J. Death in Hamburg: Society and Politics in the Cholera Years, 1830–1910. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 1987. Facts About Germany, published by the German Federal Press and Information Bureau. Frankfurt/Main: Societäts-Verlag, 2000. Jerchow, Friedrich. Hamburg als Auswandererstadt/Hamburg as Emigration City. Hamburg Porträt, Heft 19/84. Hamburg: Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte, 1984. Walker, Mack. Germany and the Emigration, 1816–1885. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1964.

476

HAMMERSTEIN, OSCAR, I

HAMMERSTEIN, OSCAR, I b. May 8, 1847 (?); Stettin (Pomerania), Prussia d. August 1, 1919; New York City German American opera impresario, composer, and producer; builder of numerous opera houses and vaudeville theaters. Hammerstein was the oldest of five children of a German-speaking Jewish middle-class family. His mother encouraged his musical interests, and he learned to play several musical instruments. Opera became his great passion at an early age. When his mother died, he ran away from home to Hamburg and sailed to New York in steerage, arriving there in 1863 or 1864. He began to work in a cigar factory and in 1874 he founded the U.S. Tobacco Journal, a tobacco trade publication. The machines he invented for the tobacco industry earned him a large fortune. These inventions, the trade journal, and successful investments in real estate yielded the proceeds necessary to finance a succession of opera houses and opera companies that he founded in New York, Philadelphia, and London. His theater building laid the foundation for Times Square and New York City’s theater district. Hammerstein staged the usual Italian opera repertoire, but he also introduced the United States to contemporary, sometimes controversial, opera and performances by the most important opera singers of his time. He bankrolled his opera productions with the profits from vaudeville shows and Broadway productions like Victor Herbert’s operetta Naughty Marietta (1910). It was Oscar Hammerstein’s aim to present opera at affordable prices. As he paid his employees high salaries, his efforts proved financially disastrous again and again, and he died almost bankrupt. While still in the tobacco industry, Hammerstein had moonlighted managing

different German theaters before he built the first theater of his own, the Harlem Opera House, on 125 Street in 1889. In all he founded eleven opera houses and vaudeville theaters during the next twenty-five years, most notably the Manhattan Opera House (1906), meant to compete with the Metropolitan Opera for the best opera productions in New York City. Hammerstein’s Manhattan Opera House—opening with Vincenzo Bellini’s I puritani (1906)—held its own with the Metropolitan Opera for four years. However, in 1910 Hammerstein sold his shares to the latter for $1,200,000, promising not to produce opera in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, or Chicago within the next decade. He moved to London and invested the money in creating the London Opera House, challenging the established Royal Opera at Covent Garden. After only two seasons his opera theater went bankrupt, and Hammerstein returned to New York. Oscar Hammerstein composed music himself, but his operettas The Kohinoor (1893) and Santa Maria (1896) were not lasting successes. Oscar Hammerstein II (1895–1960), the lyricist and producer who collaborated with Richard Rogers in creating numerous successful Broadway musicals, was his grandson. Marina Arnold See also Kunwald, Ernst; Muck, Karl; Music (American), German Influence on References and Further Reading Cone, John Frederick. Oscar Hammerstein’s Manhattan Opera Company. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1966. Hammerstein, Oscar, III. “Oscar Hammerstein (1847–1919).” Jewish Virtual Library. At http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/biography /hammerstein.html (cited August 27, 2003). Sheean, James Vincent. Oscar Hammerstein I: The Life and Exploits of an Impresario. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956.

HANFSTAENGL, ERNST AND HELENE

HANFSTAENGL, ERNST AND HELENE Ernst, b. February 2, 1887; Munich, Bavaria d. November 6, 1975; Munich, Bavaria A wealthy German American couple who befriended Adolf Hitler and supported his National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP). Ernst and Helene Hanfstaengl both enjoyed family ties to the United States. Ernst Franz Sedgwick Hanfstaengl, nicknamed “Putzi,” was born in Munich in 1887, the fourth child of Edgar and Kitty Hanfstaengl, the heirs of a prominent German art-publishing firm. Kitty’s father, Wilhelm Peter Heine, came to America in 1848 and later saw service as a general in the American Civil War. In 1858 Heine married Catherine WhettonSedgwick, the daughter of an old New England family and niece of General John Sedgwick, a prominent Union commander. Ernst’s father Edgar, as head of the Hanfstaengl art-publishing house, forged a professional link to the United States by establishing an American branch of the firm in New York City. Ernst entered Harvard University in 1905 in preparation for assuming the management of the New York office. An indifferent student, Ernst nevertheless made a name for himself at Harvard, where he was affectionately known as “Hanfy” and praised for his boisterous piano playing. He graduated in 1909 and two years later began to run the family firm in New York. He resumed his Harvard ties by attending the Harvard Club, meeting Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others, during visits there. Ernst was still in New York when World War I began. His Harvard connections allowed him to stay in business until

477

the last months of the war, when the U.S. government finally liquidated his enterprise. In 1919 he met Helene Niemeyer, the American-born daughter of Johann and Elina Niemeyer, German immigrants who had arrived in the United States in the 1880s. Ernst and Helene married on February 11, 1920, and produced a son, Egon, one year later. Egon’s birth encouraged Ernst to return with his young family to Germany in July 1921. The Hanfstaengls made their home in Munich, and it was there in November 1922 that Ernst first encountered Adolf Hitler. Their initial meeting came about after Warren Delano Robbins, an old Harvard classmate and American diplomat in Germany, asked Ernst to help Captain Truman Smith, an American military attaché, prepare a report on the Bavarian political situation. Captain Smith had Ernst attend in his place a speech by Hitler on the night of November 21. Hitler’s performance enraptured Ernst, who saw in Hitler the man who could restore Germany to greatness. After the speech, Ernst introduced himself to Hitler and said that he would like to discuss some of the ideas that Hitler had spoken on. He attended more of Hitler’s speeches and was soon meeting with him on a regular basis. In January 1923 Ernst introduced Helene to Hitler, who was quite taken with Helene’s beauty and soon became a frequent guest at the Hanfstaengl home, were he enjoyed relaxing with Helene, playing uncle to Egon, and listening to Ernst’s piano renditions of Wagner’s operas. Ernst became one of Hitler’s closest associates, a constant companion who endured countless hours listening to the Nazi leader’s monologues on politics, race, art, and culture. He also acted as an informal

478

HANFSTAENGL, ERNST AND HELENE

press officer for Hitler, who was impressed by Ernst’s family background, Harvard education, and foreign connections. Ernst tried to widen Hitler’s perspective on foreign relations by emphasizing the importance of the United States in world affairs. He argued that America’s industrial and military might had been the decisive factor in Germany’s defeat in World War I, and he warned Hitler against fighting the United States in a future world conflict. Hitler, while fascinated by American technological progress, largely ignored Ernst’s views on the United States, which he believed was an inherently weak country due to race mixing and corruption by Jews. Hitler’s relationship with the Hanfstaengls was especially close in 1923. They introduced Hitler to wealthy and influential members of Munich society who could help the Nazi movement and made a personal loan to the NSDAP that saved the party newspaper from insolvency. It was to their house that Hitler fled in the immediate aftermath of the failed Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923. Panic-stricken and depressed when he arrived on their doorstep, Hitler threatened suicide but was talked out of it by Helene. Arrested, tried, and imprisoned in the fortress of Landsberg, where he dictated his political testament Mein Kampf (My Battle), Hitler returned to the Hanfstaengl home upon his release from prison on Christmas Eve 1924. During the next five years, the Hanfstaengls concentrated on their own affairs, while Hitler built the NSDAP into a national movement. In 1930, however, Hitler recalled Ernst to serve as his principal liaison to the foreign press, who were clamoring to report on Hitler in the wake of the Nazis’ spectacular electoral success. Hitler formally recognized Ernst’s position in

1932 by making him foreign press chief of the NSDAP. In the wake of Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933, Ernst enjoyed a brief period in the limelight as he stood for numberless press interviews, attended and hosted diplomatic galas, and engaged in seemingly limitless self-promotion. Keen to see a cordial relationship between the Third Reich and the United States, Ernst met regularly with American reporters and arranged a meeting between Hitler and the American ambassador, William E. Dodd, whose daughter, Martha, Ernst befriended. In June 1934 Ernst made a well-publicized trip to America, where he attended his class reunion at Harvard. Horrified by the purge of the Storm Troopers (SA) on June 30, 1934, and the growing influence at Hitler’s court of Joseph Goebbels, whose control of the Nazi media threatened his own position as foreign press chief, Ernst became estranged from Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy by the end of 1934. This professional collapse was matched in private by the breakup of his marriage to Helene, which ended in divorce in 1936. Helene moved back to America before World War II began, but in the 1950s she returned to Germany, where she lived in Munich until her death in 1973. On February 8, 1937, Ernst was surprised by news that Hitler wanted him to undertake a secret diplomatic mission to Spain, the successful completion of which he was led to believe would repair his relationship with the führer. Two days later, instead of going to Spain, Ernst ended up fleeing Germany for Switzerland, after convincing himself that the “mission” to Spain was an elaborate ruse to murder him. After being reunited with Egon in Zurich, Ernst

HANFSTAENGL, ERNST AND HELENE

479

Ernst Franz Hanfstaengl, German author, composer, art expert, and aide to Hitler. Here he is with his wife, Helene, and their two children. (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, München)

left Switzerland in March 1937 for Britain, where he spent the next two years trying to negotiate his safe return to Germany, hoping for reconciliation with Hitler, whose recognition he still craved, despite his exile. This hope would never be realized and Ernst still resided in Britain when that country declared war against Germany on September 3, 1939. Interned by the British as an enemy alien after the outbreak of war, Ernst remained in Britain until June 1940, when he was transferred to a detention camp in Canada. It was in Canada that Ernst learned that Egon, who was an American citizen studying at Harvard, had joined the U.S. Army in February 1941. Faced with

his son’s obvious stand against Germany, Ernst decided to move toward a final break with the Nazis by actively supporting the Allied cause, which he fully embraced once Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941. By the end of the year he had agreed to write a series of magazine articles on Hitler and the Nazis. More importantly, Ernst’s potential usefulness to the Americans as a weapon in their budding psychological war against Germany was apparent to a number of key American officials, including President Roosevelt, who remembered “Hanfy” from their old days at the Harvard Club. It was due to Roosevelt’s intervention that the British finally agreed to release Ernst from prison in

480

HAPAG

Canada in June 1942. Now under the relaxed custody of the Americans, Ernst agreed to join the “S-Project” (the “S” was for Ernst’s Sedgwick name), an unofficial intelligence operation run by the White House that employed Ernst as an analyst and interpreter of Nazi radio broadcasts. Ernst also wrote a series of interpretive reports on Hitler, the Nazi leadership, and public opinion in wartime Germany. Despite the unique insights offered by these papers, the S-Project produced little useful intelligence. The British, who never trusted Ernst, put enough pressure on the Americans to end the operation in the fall of 1944. Ernst returned to British internment, where he remained until the end of the war. Released from a repatriation camp in Germany in 1946, Ernst reestablished his home in Munich, where he published his memoirs in 1957 and died on November 6, 1975. Boyd Murphree See also Antisemitism References and Further Reading Conradi, Peter. Hitler’s Piano Player: The Rise and Fall of Ernst Hanfstaengl, Confidant of Hitler, Ally of FDR. New York: Carol and Graf, 2004. Hanfstaengl, Ernst. Hitler: The Missing Years. New York: Arcade, 1994, 1957. Marwell, David George. Unwanted Exile: A Biography of Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl. PhD dissertation. State University of New York at Binghamton, 1988. Toland, John. Adolf Hitler. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976.

HAPAG In 1847 a group of Hamburg ship owners came together to form a shipping line, christening it the Hamburg-AmerikanischePaketfahrt-Aktien-Gesellschaft (Hapag), a name that not quite fifty years later was of-

ficially changed to the Hamburg-Amerika Linie. At its inception the Hapag adopted the motto Mein Feld ist die Welt (My Field Is the World), but, in fact, its business was restricted to the North Atlantic. The company’s first forty years were in no way remarkable, and by 1886 it ranked only twenty-second in tonnage among Europe’s international maritime carriers. In that same year, the Hapag acquired the Carr Line, a small Hamburg firm involved in the emigration traffic. As part of the merger, the head of the Carr Line’s passenger division, a young man named Albert Ballin, took over that function for the Hapag. Ballin proved to be one of imperial Germany’s most remarkable businessmen, and it was he who transformed the Hapag into what became in 1899 the world’s largest steamship line, the year in which Ballin became its managing director. In the 1880s he had built the line’s first large combination passenger/freight ships (Schnelldampfer) and instituted tropical cruises in winter when the transatlantic trade fell off. As managing director, a post that Ballin held with a certain autocratic reserve toward his employees, he expanded freight services to numerous ports in North and South America. Ballin also made sure that the Hapag built passenger ships that had no equal in elegance in their first-class accommodations, and to guarantee success on this point he hired the celebrated hotelier César Ritz as a consultant. Ballin was no less attentive to the profitable steerage trade, once a virtual monopoly of British lines, and the Hapag multiplied its steerage traffic by providing emigrants with clean, inexpensive quarters and treating them in a humane manner that was conspicuously absent among his competitors. The Hapag

HAPAG

swiftly became the preferred line for all strata of transatlantic passage. Early in the twentieth century Ballin’s Hapag began to live up to its motto by entering into an active, and eventually profitable, trade with the Orient. China was the first area of the firm’s involvement, but later an active trade with the Persian Gulf was instituted. This not only dealt in sugar, for which there was a limitless market in the Near East, but also with Muslim pilgrims eager to make their way to Mecca. Hapag ships en route to the Indian Ocean and the Pacific regularly called at Jidda, from which the overland trip to Mecca could be made, and Ballin consulted experts at the University of Hamburg for advice on cuisine, accommodations, and even colors for his ships to be painted that would appeal to these religious passengers. So extensive was the line’s Asian network that in 1905, not long after the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese war, it won a profitable contract to supply coal to Tsar Nicholas II’s fleet as it made its way from St. Petersburg around the world toward its fatal encounter in the Sea of Japan with the Japanese navy. The progress made by the Hapag in almost every one of its ventures was accomplished at the expense of British lines, which had grown complacent with the virtual monopoly they had enjoyed all over the world before Ballin took command in Hamburg. Although Ballin himself wanted to have cordial relations with his competitors and worked for a friendly diplomatic relationship and a reduction in the rivalry between the British and German war fleets, the British regarded him as a menace. A London newspaper wrote in 1914 that “if our claim to rule the waves is threatened, this threat comes not from the German dreadnoughts but from Herr Ballin.”

481

Hamburg-Amerika Linie poster, ca. 1930. (Swim Ink 2, LLC/Corbis)

Ballin was horrified when, in August 1914, Germany and Great Britain went to war. Hapag ships that found themselves in foreign ports were unable to make it back to Germany because of the British blockade, and some 4,000 employees of the line stationed abroad were interned. Workers in Hamburg had little to do, and ships lying in German ports at the outbreak of hostilities were in some cases mothballed, in others commandeered by the German navy. One of these, the Königin Luise (Queen Luise), was the first German merchantman to be sunk in the war when on August 5, 1914, she was attacked by the Royal Navy while laying mines near the mouth of the Thames. The war was a disaster for the Hapag. Although Ballin succeeded in persuading the German government to award the line a subsidy to cover a portion of its

482

HARMONY SOCIETY

expenses, he was unable to persuade Berlin to allow him to sell or charter Hapag ships abroad. So the great armada over which Ballin once had so ably presided now rusted at anchor. “My life’s work lies in shreds,” he declared before the war was a month old. Depressed and in poor health, Ballin died on November 9, 1918, a death widely believed to be a suicide. The postwar history of the Hapag was brave but unhappy. A new fleet of passenger liners, smaller and less elegant than their imperial predecessors, were built, the first being the Albert Ballin. Freight service to the four corners of the world was also resumed, but without the success enjoyed before 1914. Under the Third Reich the Hapag lost its independence to Hitler, who saw to it that his regime became the line’s principal stockholder. The disastrous conclusion of World War II destroyed almost everything bearing the line’s ensign. After 1945 the company again began the work of reconstruction, but with service limited to freight. This was a highly competitive and difficult market, and in 1970, in an effort to improve its position, the Hapag merged with its ancient rival in Bremen, the North German Lloyd, to found the Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft. The Lloyd had a few passenger ships, but the chief business of the new combination was freight. Even before the merger, the two lines had entered into a joint container freight venture. In later years an air charter service and a tourist bureau were added. The Hapag-Lloyd was sufficiently successful to become a takeover objective, and in 1998 Preussag AG bought a controlling interest in the company, with the remaining shares purchased four years later by Preussag’s corporate successor, TUI (Touristik Union In-

ternational). The Hapag-Lloyd name has been retained, with its headquarters located on the Ballindamm in the heart of Hamburg. A marble bust of Albert Ballin appropriately graces the lobby. Lamar Cecil See also Bremerhaven; Hamburg; Norddeutscher Lloyd References and Further Reading Cecil, Lamar. Albert Ballin: Business and Politics in Imperial Germany, 1888–1918. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1967. Huldermann, Bernhard. Albert Ballin. Oldenburg, Berlin: G. Stalling, 1922.

HARMONY SOCIETY One of the most successful communal societies in nineteenth-century America. In 1804 this group of German religious dissenters fled Württemberg for Pennsylvania to find religious asylum and to await the return of Jesus. They bound themselves into a communal society, the Harmony Society, under the leadership of a visionary, George Rapp. The Harmony Society would move on to build three towns, create a successful manufacturing system, and influence regional politics and economics. Born to a successful farming family in Iptingen in 1757, Johann George Rapp worked as a vinedresser and weaver. His interest in the Bible developed into a passion, which manifested itself as private prayer meetings during the 1780s. Fascinated by the book of Revelation, Rapp predicted Christ’s return and the creation of God’s kingdom on earth in the new millennium. Rapp resolved to teach his fellow farmers and craftsmen to emulate the early Christian church. Like the first Christians, they should worship in their homes and take the

HARMONY SOCIETY

Lord’s Supper only at specific times of the year. Children were not baptized; rather, baptism remained for repentant adults. These Separatists, as authorities named the congregation, refused to bear weapons of war or to send their children to the local schools. Because their faith antagonized the Lutheran Church, Rapp and his associates needed to find a safe haven. In 1803 Rapp and a small party sailed to the United States and purchased property located 25 miles north of Pittsburgh. Over 500 Separatists followed and started construction on the town of Harmony. To nurture their faith and pool resources, Rapp’s followers formed the Harmony Society. A board of trustees agreed to provide members with food, lodgings, health care, education, and religious instruction. In return, community members pledged to give all their property to the community, to submit to its laws, and to work toward its welfare. If people decided to leave the community, they agreed to never demand compensation for their initial donation or labor. Because the exact date of Christ’s return was not known, the Harmony Society pursued agriculture and industry during their period of waiting. While agriculture remained the main economic support, Frederick Rapp, the society’s financial genius, began to market Harmonist goods to merchants from Pittsburgh to New Orleans. Harmonist textiles became notable for quality and provided a substantial revenue source. In 1807 members agreed to a rule of voluntary celibacy with husbands and wives living as brothers and sisters. Although Rapp continued to celebrate marriages, celibacy was viewed as a more pure

483

condition of religious life. Family units continued as the social structure of each household. The community was close-knit and German language, skills, and art remained in use. Concerns over soil productivity and climate in Pennsylvania prompted Rapp to seek new land. After the sale of Harmony, the entire community boarded riverboats for the Indiana Territory. Construction of a town, New Harmony, commenced in 1814. An influx of German immigrants increased the population to nearly 800 members. Despite this growth, the unpredictability of the river system disrupted the shipment of goods and the climate contradicted agricultural practices. Furthermore, arguments erupted among families over initial contributions to the society. Rapp perceived these squabbles as arising from a lapse in faith and the luxury of settled life. In 1824 he sold New Harmony to Robert Owen and the community traveled back up the Ohio River to their final home, Economy. Economy, located north of Pittsburgh, witnessed the apex of the Harmony Society. The economic basis of the community shifted from agriculture to industry. As wealth increased, the Harmony Society exerted more influence in the regional economy with investments in local businesses. The society gave to the poor and housed orphaned children. Always the subject of curiosity, the Harmony Society gained recognition in published travel accounts— as, for instance, in John Melish’s Account of a Society at Harmony (twenty five miles from Pittsburg), Pennsylvania, United States of America, taken from Travels in the United States of America, in the years 1806 and 1807, and 1809, 1810, and 1811 (1815)—and manufacturing reports—as,

484

HARNACK, MILDRED FISH

for instance, J. Leander Bishop’s History of American Manufactures from 1608 to 1860, volume 2 (1864). In 1832 a self-styled prophet, Count Leon, joined the society—only to split it into factions. Leon’s philosophy contradicted Rapp’s teachings and he persuaded about 250 members to challenge Rapp’s authority. After a financial settlement, Leon and the splinter group moved north to create the New Philadelphia Society. These events traumatized the Harmony Society and remaining members withdrew into a more private community, refusing new members. The Harmony Society never regained the lost population. The community began a slow decline, although the antebellum years were financially prosperous. George Rapp governed until his death in 1847. Upon his deathbed, Rapp held firm to his belief that he would lead his people into the kingdom of God. The new leaders retained that faith as they faced an aging population and immense wealth. As the vitality of the labor force disappeared, capital investment replaced manufacturing. Investment profits permitted the society to hire a nonmember labor force for its remaining businesses. In 1906 the last two members, Susanna Duss and Franz Gilman, formally dissolved the Harmony Society. All three Harmonist towns survive as historic sites today. Lisa Porter See also Pennsylvania References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl. George Rapp’s Harmony Society, 1785–1847. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1965. ———. George Rapp’s Successors and Material Heirs. Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University, 1971. Duss, John S. The Harmonists: A Personal History. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Book Service, 1943.

HARNACK, MILDRED FISH b. September 16, 1902; Milwaukee, Wisconsin d. February 16, 1943; Berlin-Plötzensee, Prussia The only U.S. civilian the Nazi government executed during World War II. She was also the only female U.S. citizen to die at the direct command of Adolf Hitler. Mildred Fish graduated from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, where she edited the Wisconsin Literary Magazine. William Ellery Leonard influenced her initial interest in German literature, but her love of Germany was only engendered after meeting her eventual husband, the distinguished German economist Arvid Harnack, who was in Madison on a Rockefeller Foundation scholarship for a postdoctoral program. The two met fortuitously on campus and engaged in a radical literary circle during their courtship. Mildred was an honor student and already a leading literary light in Madison when Arvid undertook his postgraduate studies with economist and reformer John R. Commons. After their marriage, Arvid returned to Berlin to pursue his career in government, while Mildred spent a year teaching at Goucher College in Baltimore. At age twenty-six, she won a fellowship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) to study for her doctorate at the University of Jena. The couple was reunited in Germany, ultimately moving to tumultuous Berlin in 1929. Arvid gained a position in his government’s Ministry of Economics, but both became intrigued with radical Socialist politics. They immersed themselves into the extended Harnack family circle, which included the in-

HARNACK, MIILDRED FISH

tellectual Bonhoeffer and Delbrueck clans. Their intellectual interaction also reached people who shared an interest in the “great experiment” to the east—the development of the Soviet Union—especially after a trip to the USSR. While her husband, an internationally recognized scholar and economist, obtained a key position in the Reich Ministry of Economics, Mildred worked as a writer, as a translator of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and as a teacher for British and American families in Berlin. She published a number of articles, translated the works of American authors—Irving Stone among them—into German, and completed her doctoral dissertation by 1939. Maintaining contact with her family throughout the 1930s, Mildred chose to stay with her husband, and when he was denied another Rockefeller Foundation fellowship shortly before the war broke out, their fates were sealed. Both Harnacks joined the group the Nazi government called the Rote Kapelle (Red Orchestra). It consisted primarily of their circle of friends but became an espionage ring that reported to Soviet agents even before World War II. They helped German Jews and political dissidents escape the tyranny of the Third Reich and provided economic and military intelligence to both Washington and Moscow. Arvid actually collected information through the network for the Soviets, while Mildred remained on the periphery, yet drew suspicion because of her connection with the resistance group. Their apartment was also a site for anti-Nazi discussions and instruction. She developed a close friendship with the daughter of the U.S. ambassador to Germany, Martha Dodd, who during her father’s posting in

485

Berlin engaged in colorful social relationships within the international set. Discovered in 1942 because of careless reporting by a Soviet agent in the Netherlands, Red Orchestra members were arrested, tortured, and given summary trials. They were executed by hanging in the Plötzensee Prison. Mildred Harnack was sentenced initially to six years in prison, but upon reviewing the verdict, Hitler demanded that she be tried again. Her second trial—this time for treason, not as an accomplice—was scheduled for a few weeks after her husband’s execution. She was sentenced to death. Her final brutal months in prison affected her health; she was ill and nearly starved. Shortly after news of the defeat of the Sixth German Army at Stalingrad reached Berlin, Mildred Fish Harnack was transported from a women’s confinement facility to the infamous Plötzensee Prison where here husband had been executed. Mildred was beheaded on February 16, 1943, on Hitler’s direct order. While in West Germany the Red Orchestra was not recognized as a resistance group but branded as a Russian espionage ring, the East German government celebrated the Red Orchestra as a resistance group and issued a postage stamp in 1964 to honor the Harnacks. In 1976 the Mildred Harnack Secondary School was dedicated in East Berlin. The University of Wisconsin has published memorials and her former high school in Milwaukee has a scholarship in her name. Gareth A. Shellman See also Bonhoeffer, Dietrich; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Brysac, Shareen Blair. Resisting Hitler: Mildred Harnack and the Red Orchestra. New York: Oxford University, 2000.

486

HART, JAMES MORGAN Graml, Hermann, Hans Mommsen, HansJoachim Reichhardt, and Ernst Wolf. The German Resistance to Hitler. Berkeley: University of California, 1970. Hoffmann, Peter. The History of the German Resistance 1933–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1977.

HART, JAMES MORGAN b. November 2, 1839; Princeton, New Jersey d. April 18, 1916;Washington, D.C. American philologist and author. Hart received a bachelor’s degree in 1860 and a master’s degree in 1863 from the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). Hart was one of the best-known nineteenth-century American popularizers of university studies in Germany. From 1861 to 1864 Hart studied law at the Georg August University of Göttingen and at the Friedrich Wilhelm University of Berlin. In 1864 he took a doctorate in civil and canon law (JUD) from the former. After a return visit to Germany in 1872 and 1873, Hart popularized university study in Germany in his book German Universities: A Narrative of Personal Experiences (1874). Compared to the American college system, he held that “the German method of Higher Education is far above our own” (Hart 1874, vi–vii). Particularly with respect to legal education, he found much to praise in the German system, which he contrasted to the lack of system in the United States. The study of law in Germany was taken “seriously” and the profession could not just be “picked up” as in America (where law office study was the rule and university

education the exception). The “whole tendency” of the German system was to develop “a body of enlightened, upright jurists, and to make the course of justice prompt and inexpensive” (Hart 1874, 112–114). After his legal studies in Germany, Hart briefly practiced law in New York City and then, from 1868 to 1872, was assistant professor of modern languages at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. After further studies in Europe, Hart became chair of modern languages and English literature at the University of Cincinnati, where he served from 1876 to 1890. In 1890 he returned to Cornell and remained there until his retirement in 1907. Hart was a leader in his field. In 1895 he was the fifth president of the Modern Language Association of America (MLA). He then wrote English composition textbooks and campaigned for the improvement of teaching English in high school, particularly in New York City. In 1914 he moved to Washington, D.C., for his health, where he died two years later. James R. Maxeiner See also American Students at German Universities; Göttingen, University of References and Further Reading Hart, James Morgan. German Universities: A Narrative of Personal Experiences. Together with Recent Statistical Information, Practical Suggestions, and a Comparison of the German, English, and American Systems of Higher Education. New York: G. Putnam’s Sons, 1874. Jacklin, K., T. Cuthbertson, and N. Dean. “Guide to the James Morgan Hart Papers, 1856–1916.” At http://rmc.library.cornell .edu (cited March 10, 2004). Mezo, Richard E. “Hart, James Morgan.” In American National Biography. Vol. 10. New York: Oxford University, 1999, pp. 236–237.

HARTMANN, FRANZ

HARTMANN, FRANZ b. 1838; Donauwörth, Bavaria d. 1912; Leipzig, Saxony Prominent German Theosophist. Hartmann struggled for many years to formulate a belief system appropriate to the scientific age. Although raised a Catholic, he rejected the church in favor of scientific materialism while studying medicine in Munich in the 1860s. In 1865 he left his studies, still incomplete, to take a job as a medical officer on an immigrant ship headed for New York. After his arrival later that year, Hartmann remained in the United States until 1883, supporting himself as a medical practitioner and traveling widely on a restless spiritual quest. He lived with various Christian sects, a Jewish rabbi, and various Native American tribes; he also participated in séances and attended in New Orleans the spiritualist lectures of J. M. Peebles, whose rational discourses on occult phenomena finally spurred him to reject the scientific materialism of his student days. Eagerly embracing American spiritualism, Hartmann organized his life around the advice given to him by séance mediums. In Colorado, for instance, he followed a clairvoyant’s tip about where to dig for a lucrative gold mine, which he never found, and consulted with a séance spirit whose information helped solve a medical problem he had acquired during a childhood vaccination. By the early 1880s, however, Hartmann had become disillusioned with spiritualism, which, he felt, lacked intellectual rigor. In this state of dissatisfaction, a copy of the occult journal The Theosophist fortuitously fell into his hands. Edited by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, who had founded

487

Theosophy in 1875 with Henry Steel Olcott, this journal introduced Hartmann to the movement’s basic tenets. Convinced that he had finally had the spiritual revelation that he had long sought, Hartmann resolved to make contact with Blavatsky and the spiritual masters, or Mahatmas, whose messenger she claimed to be. A letter expressing this desire to Blavatsky and Olcott yielded an invitation to collaborate with them on the Theosophical project, newly quartered in Adyar, India. After relocating to Adyar, Hartmann became a prominent disciple of Blavatsky and eventually traveled with her in 1885 to Germany, where he helped organize the German Theosophical movement. He published numerous books and articles, spoke widely, and edited the Theosophical journal Lotusblüthen (Lotus Blossoms, 1892– 1900), which appeared at the modernist press of Wilhelm Friedrich in Leipzig. Following Blavatsky’s death in 1895, the international Theosophical movement fractured and Hartmann himself split with the Adyar branch in 1897 to found in Leipzig the more democratic Theosophische Gesellschaft (Internationale Theosophische Verbrüderung, International Theosophical Brotherhood), to which he dedicated himself until his death in 1912. Corinna Treitel References and Further Reading Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas. The Occult Roots of Nazism: The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany 1890–1935. New York: New York University, 1985. Hartmann, Franz. “Autobiography of Franz Hartmann.” The Occult Review 7 (January 1908): 7–35. Treitel, Corinna. A Science for the Soul: Occultism and the Genesis of the German Modern. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 2004.

488

HAUTHAL, RUDOLF JOHANNES FRIEDRICH

HAUTHAL, RUDOLF JOHANNES FRIEDRICH b. March 3, 1854; Hamburg d. December 18, 1928; Hildesheim, Hanover (Prussia) German specialist on geology of South America. Hauthal studied at the universities of Jena, Tübingen, and Leipzig, first theology, but soon devoted himself to the natural sciences. Starting in 1874 he supported himself as a tutor for aristocratic families. Backed by Baron von Cotta, he continued his studies in 1887 at the University of Straßburg, dedicating himself exclusively to geology and botany. In 1890 he went to Argentina as a private tutor, where within a year he assumed responsibility for the geological and mineralogical department of the La Plata Museum. In 1896 and 1897 Hauthal participated as a state geologist in an Argentinean land survey of the Patagonian cordillera. Starting in 1898 he taught as a professor (Catedratico) of geology in the newly established University of La Plata. He explored the country on numerous trips and expeditions, including the Atacama Desert, the mountain provinces of Salta, La Rioja, San Juan, and Mendoza, as well as in the south of Argentina broad areas of Patagonia. There, a lake discovered by him at the end of 1898 bears his name (Lago Hauthal). He made several mountain ascents, including the Cerro Colorado de Famatina (6,200 m; 18,898 feet), the Rincon (5,800 m; 17,678 feet), the Peteroa (5,600 m; 17,069 feet), and the Novado del Anconquija (5,600 m; 17,069 feet). In 1901 Hauthal directed an English commission for the settlement of the border dispute in Patagonia between Argentina and Chile. Finally, from 1905 to 1906 he led a glacial-

morphology expedition sponsored by the Geographical Society at Leipzig to the Peruvian Andes, where he confirmed and supplemented the research findings of Hans Heinrich Joseph Meyer on snow and permanent snow boundaries, as well as on the time frame of glacier advances in the ice age (Reisen in Bolivien und Peru, glacial-geologische Forschungsresultate [Travels in Bolivia and Peru: Glacial-geological Research Findings], 1911). In 1903 he took advantage of a stay in Europe to obtain his doctorate at the University of Straßburg with a dissertation entitled “Über die geologischen Verhältnisse der Provinz Buenos Aires” (On the Geological Conditions of the Province of Buenos Aires). From 1906 until 1924 he ran the Roemer-Museum in Hildesheim, and he represented his adopted South American country further as the Argentinean vice-consul for the Province of Hanover (until 1917). His scientific contributions rest on his geological and glacial-morphological research; for example, on the watershed between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, on the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, on the Ice Age, and on penitent snow (nieve penitente). His extensive photo collection is located in the Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde (Leibniz Institute for Regional Geography) in Leipzig and constitutes a valuable source on the geography of southern South America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph References and Further Reading Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol. II. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1983, pp. 470–471. Kühn, Franz. “Rudolf Hauthal.” Petermanns Mitteilungen 75 (1929): 87–88.

HAYMARKET

HAYMARKET On May 4, 1886, a bomb exploded during a workers’ rally on Chicago’s Haymarket Square. The workers were protesting the death of striking workers at the McCormick factory the previous day, as tensions mounted between workers fighting for the eight-hour labor day and the police. The bomb killed one police officer immediately and wounded several. The other policemen panicked. Firing into the crowd and apparently also at each other, they killed at least four demonstrators and wounded a score more, while seven more police officers died of wounds sustained in the blast and from bullets. The incident brought an uneasy situation to a boil. An alliance of factory owners, media concerns, and members of the political establishment seized the opportunity to

489

destroy Chicago’s popular radical Left, especially the anarcho-syndicalist groups. Scores were arrested, and eventually eight anarchists, six of them German immigrants, were charged with the murder of the policemen. The trial degenerated into a mockery of justice. The prosecution (Julius S. Grinnell) failed to establish the involvement of any of the accused in the explosion, and police officers leading the investigation cooperated with the prosecution to create the impression of an anarchist “conspiracy” ready to use weapons of mass destruction against the city. A packed jury and a biased judge (Joseph E. Gary) sentenced seven of the eight defendants to death on the gallows on October 9, 1886. The verdict was upheld by the Illinois Supreme Court, and a petition for a writ of error was dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Haymarket bomb explosion in Chicago, May 4, 1886, which killed 7 police and wounded 70 others. The bomb was thrown after police dispersed an anarchist meeting. (Bettmann/Corbis)

490

HEARTFIELD, JOHN

Governor Richard Ogelsby refused an amnesty for the eight convicted men, but he reduced two sentences (Samuel Fielden and Michael Schwab) to life imprisonment, while Oscar Neebe was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Louis Lingg, probably the only really dangerous individual among the eight, committed suicide. August Spies, Albert Parsons, Georg Engel, and Adolph Fischer were hanged on November 11, 1887, amidst a wave of national and international protests. On June 26, 1893, after meticulously reviewing the evidence and the court protocols, Governor John Peter Altgeld pardoned the surviving Haymarket prison inmates, against the vociferous opposition of conservative circles and the press. Altgeld sealed his own political fate by his action, but Fielden, Neebe, and Schwab became free men again. Whoever threw the Haymarket bomb was never found out. A monument to the dead anarchists was erected in the German Waldheim Cemetery (Forest Park, Illinois). An allegory of justice is shown placing a laurel wreath on the head of a fallen man. The base of the monument bears an inscription attributed to August Spies: “The day will come when our silence will be more powerful than the voices you are throttling today.” Wolfgang Hochbruck See also Altgeld, John Peter; Anarchists; Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Chicago References and Further Reading Adelman, William J. Haymarket Revisited: A Tour Guide of Labor History Sites and Ethnic Neighborhoods Connected with the Haymarket Affair. Chicago: Illinois Labor History Society, 1976. Hausmann, Friederike. Die deutschen Anarchisten von Chicago, oder Warum Amerika den 1. Mai nicht kennt. Berlin: Wagenbach, 1998.

HEARTFIELD, JOHN b. June 19, 1891; Berlin-Schmargendorf, Prussia d. April 26, 1968; East Berlin, German Democratic Republic Pioneer in the use of art as a political weapon. His photomontages became famous on both sides of the Atlantic as daring and effective tools to resist the worldwide threat of fascism in the middle of the twentieth century. In 1916, while living in Berlin, he anglicized his name from Helmut Herzfeld as a protest against antiBritish fervor sweeping Germany. One year earlier, he had destroyed all his paintings (mainly landscapes), believing they were unworthy and irrelevant. However, soon he was to become the central figure in the development of a new form of art that would have a profound effect upon culture, politics, and society. It began when he and George Grosz experimented with pasting pictures together. From this grew Heartfield’s lifetime obsession with what was to be known as photomontage. At the age of eight, Heartfield and his three siblings were abandoned by their parents in the woods. He was raised in a series of foster homes. Throughout his life, he maintained a very close relationship with his brother, Wieland, who along with Heartfield and Grosz, would launch the publishing house Malik-Verlag in 1917, a vital outlet for Heartfield’s work. In 1912, after studying arts and crafts in Munich and Berlin, he found work as a commercial artist. From the beginning, Heartfield was infused with a passionate belief that photomontage existed not to glorify the artist but to serve the common good. On December 30, 1918, Heartfield joined the newly founded German Com-

HEARTFIELD, JOHN

munist Party (KPD). It is important to note that throughout his life Heartfield was a devoted pacifist and never believed in violent revolution. He had faith in both people and the truth and believed that if he brought the two together, the result would be an improvement for the vast majority of society. It was also in 1918 that Heartfield became a member of Berlin Club Dada. In 1920 he helped organize the Erste Internationale Dada-Messe (First International Dada Fair) in Berlin. Dadaists were the young lions of the German art scene, opinionated provocateurs who often disrupted public art gatherings and ridiculed the participants. They labeled traditional art trivial and bourgeois. Heartfield was a vital member of a circle of German titans that included Dada playwright Edwin Piscator, Bertolt Brecht, Hannah Hoch, and a host of others. They would have a profound effect upon him. He, in turn, deeply influenced their work as well. His theater sets were vital elements in the early works of Piscator and Brecht. Heartfield played a major role in helping Brecht to realize the concept of the “alienation effect” (Verfremdungs-effekt). This new theater technique was to remind spectators that they were experiencing an enactment of reality and not reality itself. Using minimal props and stark stages such as those created by Heartfield, Brecht interrupted his plays at key junctures to encourage the audience to be part of the action and not to lose themselves in it. Heartfield preferred reality to artistic pretension. While he referred to himself as a monteur, he enjoyed the title engineer. Although he did not wish to be labeled an artist, he had a full measure of an artist’s passion. His Dada contemporaries tied

491

John Heartfield’s photomontages became famous on both sides of the Atlantic as daring and effective tools to resist the worldwide threat of fascism in the middle of the twentieth century. (The John Heartfield Family)

him to a chair and enraged him just to experience the unbridled intensity of his emotions. His strongest emotion, however, was his hatred of German fascism. During the 1920s, Heartfield had produced a great number of stunning photomontages, many of which were reproduced as dust jackets for books such as his montage for Upton Sinclair’s The Millennium. However, he is best known for the scathing political montages he created during the 1930s to expose German Nazism. During the 1930s and 1940s, he created some of his most famous montages: Adolf, the Superman (published in the Arbeiter Illustrierte Zeitung [AIZ, Workers’ Illustrated Newspaper], Berlin, July 17, 1932), used a montaged X-ray to expose gold coins in the führer’s esophagus leading to a pile in his stomach as he rants against the fatherland’s enemies. In Göhring: The Executioner of the Third Reich (AIZ, Prague, September 14, 1933),

492

HEARTFIELD, JOHN

John Heartfield’s work was infused with a passionate belief that photo montage existed to serve the common good. (The John Heartfield Family)

Hitler’s designated successor is depicted as a butcher. The Meaning of Geneva, Where Capital Lives, There Can Be No Peace (AIZ, Berlin, November 27, 1932) shows the dove of peace impaled on a blood-soaked bayonet in front of the League of Nations, where the cross of the Swiss flag has morphed into a swastika. Heartfield’s artistic output was prolific. His works appeared regularly in the Arbeiter Illustrierte Zeitung (AIZ, Workers’ Illustrated Newspaper), a popular weekly whose circulation rivaled any magazine in Germany during the early nineteen thirties (Büthe 1977, 15). During 1931 Heartfield’s photomontages were often featured on the cover, an important point, because most copies of the AIZ were sold at news-

stands. As Germany careened into fascism, Heartfield’s montages filled the streets of Berlin. His work was also circulated throughout the city in the form of posters. Heartfield believed that his work existed for the enlightenment and enjoyment of the masses and that the best way to accomplish this goal was to distribute it not as original works but through forms of mass media such as periodicals, posters, and book jackets. It was through rotogravure—an engraving process whereby pictures, designs, and words are engraved into the printing plate or printing cylinder—that he was able to reach the audience he coveted. Heartfield lived in Berlin until April 1933. On Good Friday, the SS broke into his apartment, and he barely escaped by jumping from his balcony. He then walked around the Sudeten Mountains to Czechoslovakia. There, he continued to use the National Socialists’ own words to expose the truth behind their twisted dreams. In 1934 he montaged four bloody axes tied together to form a swastika to mock The Old Slogan in the “New” Reich: Blood and Iron (AIZ, Prague, March 8, 1934). In 1938, he was forced once again to run for his life—this time to England—before the imminent German occupation of Czechoslovakia. He was interned for a time in England as an enemy alien, and his health began to seriously deteriorate. His brother Wieland was refused an English residency permit in 1939 and, with his family, left for the United States. John wished to accompany his brother but was refused entry. Following the war Heartfield, who had applied for citizenship in Czechoslovakia, had no strong desire to return to Germany. He and his new wife, Gertrude, found themselves with limited options. He was

HECKER, FRIEDRICH

offered a professorship of satirical graphics at the Humboldt University in East Berlin. His response was, “Do I have to be a professor?” He returned to East Berlin in 1948 and was greeted with suspicion by the authorities because of the length of his stay in England. He was unable to work as a monteur and was denied health benefits. It was only through the intervention of Brecht and Stefan Heym that, after eight years of official neglect, Heartfield was formally admitted to the East German Akademie der Künste (Academy of the Arts) in 1956. Although he subsequently produced some memorable montages, he was never as prolific again. After his death, the Akademie der Künste took possession of all of his surviving works. They were uncatalogued and kept from the public for more than twentyfive years. Only after the end of the cold war did it become possible to show his art for the first time in the United States. From April 15 to July 6, 1993, the second floor of the Museum of Modern Art in New York City was the American venue for a critically acclaimed exhibit of Heartfield’s original montages. John Heartfield See also Brecht, Bertolt; Heym, Stefan References and Further Reading Arenas, Amelia. John Heartfield Photomontages Brochure from the Show at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, April 15–July 6, 1993. At http://www.abebooks.com. Büthe, Joachim. Der Arbeiter-Fotograf: Dokumente und Beiträge zur Arbeiterfotografie, 1926–1932. Cologne: Prometheus, 1977. Drew, Joanna, ed. John Heartfield 1891–1968: Photomontages at the Institute of Contemporary Arts, London SW1, 6 October–8 November 1969. London: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1969.

493

Heartfield, John, Peter Pachnicke, Klaus Honnef, and Hubertus Gassner. John Heartfield. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1992. Herzfelde, Wieland. John Heartfield: Leben und Werk. Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1971.

HECKER, FRIEDRICH b. September 28, 1810; Eichtersheim, Baden d. March 24, 1881; Summerfield, Illinois Lawyer and politician who had been a member of the second chamber of the Diet in Baden during the liberal reform years preceding 1848, Hecker’s popularity already then was highly symbolically charged, and when he became the leading figure of the opposition movement in the late 1840s, his popularity rose even further. The “Demands of the People in Baden” propagated at the September 1847 rally of radical dissenters in Offenburg, bears his imprint. The revolutions in France and in Berlin in February and March 1848 convinced Hecker that the time was ripe for a military strike. The military commander of the forces he had gathered was August Willich. Outnumbered and ill trained, they broke and ran during the first engagement at Kandern (Baden) in April. Hecker and others fled to Switzerland, where contacts with the American consul not only resulted in a Fourth of July celebration by the refugees, but also led to Hecker’s emigration to the United States, where he raised funds for the revolutionists now in exile. Returning to Europe for the constitution campaign of 1849, Hecker arrived in Straßburg just after the fortress of Rastatt had surrendered and the war was over. With the new wave of refugees, Hecker sailed again for North

494

HEGEMANN,WERNER

America, eventually settling in Summerfield near Belleville, Illinois. In contrast to most of the FortyEighter “Latin farmers,” Hecker was modestly successful, raising animals and even growing grapes for wine. In the 1856 presidential campaign he supported John Frémont, and in 1860 Abraham Lincoln, but Hecker never attained the rhetorical power in English that had contributed so much to his popularity in German. His legend continued to precede him, and when he joined Franz Sigel’s 3rd Missouri Infantry Volunteers as a private in 1861, many people went to see the old revolutionist on guard duty. Soon he received a colonel’s commission for an Illinois regiment, the 24th, which he left after quarreling with his officers, and then the “2nd Hecker,” the 82nd Illinois Infantry. This regiment Hecker commanded with mixed success until 1864, when he resigned. In the late 1860s and 1870s, Hecker continued to work on his farm. He also wrote a column for the Belleviller Zeitung (Belleville Newspaper) and on occasion appeared as a public speaker. In 1873 he toured the newly united Germany. His public appearances and addresses met with considerable anticipation. However, he soon disappointed the nationalist circles, because he applauded unification, but lamented the lack of republican rights and freedoms in imperial Germany (notably in his Fourth of July oration in Stuttgart). After his return to Illinois, Hecker continued to publish political essays, but his health started failing in the mid-1870s. Many of the surviving FortyEighters met at his grave in 1881, and obituaries praised him lavishly, adding to the Hecker cult and legend that persisted into the twentieth century. Wolfgang Hochbruck

See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Chicago; 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; FortyEighters; Sigel, Franz; Travel Literature, German-U.S.; Willich, August (von) References and Further Reading Frei, Alfred G., ed. Friedrich Hecker in den USA. Konstanz: Stadler, 1993. Freitag, Sabine. Friedrich Hecker: Biographie eines Republikaners. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998.

HEGEMANN,WERNER b. June 15, 1881; Mannheim, Baden d. April 12, 1936; New York City City planner, architectural critic, and author. He played a vital part in the transatlantic network of his profession. For several years, Hegemann was enrolled at the universities of Berlin and Paris before he studied political economy at the universities of Philadelphia, Berlin, Straßburg, and Munich, finishing his PhD with Lujo Brentano in 1908. Traveling to the United States with his first wife Alice (née Hesse) and their daughter, he met with reform groups in Philadelphia and New York and became a member of the Exhibit Committee of Boston’s “1915” Exposition in 1909. He returned to Berlin to be made general secretary of the International City Planning Exhibition of 1910, a show devised by his uncle, the Berlin architect Otto March, to show Berlin’s competition plans within a vast exhibition. Hegemann popularized reform and planning, especially American park and inner-city planning. Commissioned to write the exhibition’s official presentation, he composed two volumes on Der Städtebau (City Planning), documenting the state of the art.

HEGEMANN,WERNER

In 1913 Hegemann returned to the United States to lecture in several cities for the People’s Institute of New York. Engaged by the municipalities of Oakland and Berkeley in California, he delivered a broad analysis of planning for the East Bay cities, published in 1915, thereby taking a crucial part in shifting the focus of planning from the “City Beautiful” to the “City Functional.” World War I interrupted his way home. From internment in Africa, Hegemann fled by ship back to the United States to work as a city-planning consultant. Opening their own firm, Hegemann and the landscape architect Elbert Peets from Harvard specialized in suburban development, notably Washington Highland, Milwaukee (1916–1919, a historical site in 2005), and Wyomissing Park in Reading, Pennsylvania (1917–1921). Meanwhile, Hegemann (divorced about 1913) met his second wife Ida Belle (née Guthe). Married in 1920, they were to have four children. By 1922 the partners had authored a vast documentation of American civic art, American Vitruvius. Peets contributed sketches from his European tour, and Hegemann presented model buildings. Opposing the traditional Harvard School and stressing inner-city texture, their book at first was not well received but quickly acquired a reputation as a thesaurus. After his return to Germany, Hegemann edited a German version of the book in 1924, now designed to contradict European modernists and their idols Henry Wright, Louis Sullivan, and Lewis Mumford. From 1924 to 1933, he edited an architectural review Wachsmuths Monatshefte für Baukunst (Wachsmuth’s History of Civic Art). The journal was remarkable for its international range, its opposition to

495

blunt modernism and sheer traditionalism, and Hegemann’s effective debates with his critics that took place on its pages. Hegemann also engaged in political criticism. In weighty literary volumes (published 1924, folios in German; 1929, folios in English) Hegemann invoked the German traditions of political thought and its heroes Frederick the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Jesus Christ. Debunking Frederick II, he divested the Prussian king of his alleged qualities of mythical leadership to educate republicans. Despite his views being heavily contested by historians, his books reached a wide readership. In his book Das Steinerne Berlin (Berlin in Stones, 1930), Hegemann merged architectural and political criticism, exemplified by the history of building Berlin (Berlins Baugeschichte). After this return from a lecture tour in southern American cities in 1932, Hegemann vocalized his criticism of National Socialism. His books were burned in May 1933 after he and his family had already left for Switzerland. He was expatriated in 1935. Alvin Johnson invited Hegemann to lecture at the New School of Social Research in New York, where the Hegemann family arrived in November 1933. In 1935 his former staff member Joseph Hudnut, now dean of Columbia’s School of Architecture, succeeded in raising money to appoint Hegemann an associate professor of architecture. He taught city planning within the new curriculum, lectured on the New York Regional Plan, and tried to resume political criticism in City Planning Housing (1936), in which he argued for the expropriation of property from slum lords in the abolitionist’s tradition to support the New Deal. Caroline Flick

496

HELBIG, KARL MARTIN ALEXANDER See also Intellectual Exile; Landscape Architects, German American; Mumford, Lewis References and Further Reading Crasemann Collins, Christiane. “Werner Hegemann (1881–1936): Formative Years in America.” Planning Perspectives 11 (1996): 1–21. Flick, Caroline. Bildungsbürger als Profession. Arbeitsleben eines Kritikers, Werner Hegemann (1881–1936). PhD thesis. Free University Berlin, 2003. Oechslin, Werner. “Between America and Germany: Werner Hegemann’s Approach to Urban Planning.” In Berlin-New York, Like and Unlike: Essays on Architecture and Art from 1870 to the Present. Eds. Joseph Paul Kleihues and Christina Rathgeber. New York: Rizzoli, 1993, pp. 281–295.

HELBIG, KARL MARTIN ALEXANDER b. March 18, 1903; Hildesheim, Hanover (Prussia) d. October 9, 1991; Hamburg German geographer and explorer of Central America. Karl Helbig came from humble circumstances and had, by the age of twenty, lost both of his parents. After finishing school in 1921 and during his university studies, he had to earn his own living as an occasional worker and coal shoveler. Even after obtaining his doctorate from the University of Hamburg in 1930 with an urban geographical study on Batavia (Djakarta), he continued to sail the world’s seas as a stoker below decks, interrupted again and again by exploratory sojourns in Indonesia. He attempted to increase his income with numerous scientific publications, popular travelogues (e.g., Tuan Gila, ein verrückter Herr wandert am Äquator [Tuan Gila: A Crazy Man Hikes on the Equator], 1934); and books for young people (e.g., Kurt Imme fährt nach

Indien [Kurt Imme Sails to India], 1933; and Nordkap in Sicht [North Cape in Sight], 1935). In the process he became known as one of the best experts on the islands of Southeast Asia. From 1936 to 1937 he lived in the Dutch East Indies and visited the islands of Java, Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Bali. In this time, he crossed the island of Borneo from west to east on a 3,000-km-(1,865 miles) long march. An important consequence of his explorations was his obtaining of his second doctoral degree (Habilitation) in geography from the University of Marburg in 1940 (Die Insel Bangka [The Island of Bangka]). An academic career, however, was not an option for the restless globetrotter and political nonconformist. After World War II, he devoted himself to Central America because of the uncertain political conditions in Indonesia. He had become acquainted with the Caribbean as a young man on several voyages. In 1953 he crossed Honduras on foot, starting from El Salvador. He concentrated on ethnological questions (Antiguales (Altertümer) der Paya-Region und der Paya-Indianer von Nordost-Honduras [Antiquities of the Paya Region and of the Paya Indians of Northeast Honduras], 1956) and conducted the first land survey of this still largely unexplored region of the Mosquitia Plain (Die Landschaften von NordHonduras [The Regions of Northern Honduras], 1959). In 1957 and 1958, he explored, on behalf of the Mexican government, the southern province of Chiapas, where the German Leo Waibel had already made trailblazing explorations at the beginning of the 1930s. The scientific results appeared, after further stays in Chiapas, in a two-volume work (Chiapas. Geografia de un Estado Mexicano [Chiapas:

HERMANN, MISSOURI

Geography of a Mexican State], 1976), that was recognized with a state award in 1979. Helbig’s literary works come to over 400 titles; many of his books were translated into other languages. He made no secret of his sympathy for the inhabitants of Central America and their struggle for freedom. His political views permitted his books to appear during the cold war not only in the West but also in the German Democratic Republic (e.g., Von Mexiko bis zur Mosquitia [From Mexico to the Mosquitia], 1958; Indioland am Karibischen Meer [Indian Country on the Caribbean Sea], 1961; So sah ich Mexiko... von Monterrey bis Tapachula [As I Saw Mexico: From Monterrey to Tapachula], 1962; Unter Kreolen, Indios und Ladinos [Among Creoles, Indians, and Mestizos], 1966). In 1988 he was awarded the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany. He recapitulated his adventurous and, for an academic, extremely unusual life as a stoker and coal shoveler in an autobiography Seefahrt vor den Feuern (Navigation in Front of the Boiler, 1987). Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Waibel, Leo Heinrich References and Further Reading Rutz, Werner, and Achim Sibeth, eds. Karl Helbig—Wissenschaftler und Schiffsheizer. Sein Lebenswerk aus heutiger Sicht. Rückblick zum 100. Geburtstag. Hildesheim: Olms, 2004.

HERMANN, MISSOURI First settled in 1837, Hermann is one of a number of towns in the United States founded by and for Germans in the nineteenth century. History bestowed upon these settlements and other heavily Ger-

497

man areas the appellation “little Germanies.” Hermann was named for Arminius (Hermann), whose victory over the Romans in 9 C.E. was celebrated by nineteenthcentury German patriots. Until that century most German community settlements—such as those of the Moravians in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Salem, North Carolina, and Conrad Beissel’s cloister in Ephrata, Pennsylvania—were held together by shared religious beliefs. In the nineteenth century attempts to create German communities were even more numerous than earlier, but the shared basis was secular, whether it consisted of political and social views (sometimes as serious as a weltanschauung), or merely a common language or culture. Some of these secular communities were inspired by the early Socialist movement, others by the radical, democratic, republican movements often intertwined with it. During the era of utopian socialism from 1820 to 1870, Europeans and Americans established, mostly in the United States, communities viewed by their initiators as models for the ideal society. Robert Owen developed New Harmony, Indiana. Etienne Cabet and his “Icarians” tried to construct a new social order, first in Texas and then in Illinois. Disciples of Charles Fourier developed their “Phalanx” in Red Bank, New Jersey. The Transcendentalists had Brook Farm near Boston. Most of the settlement projects undertaken in America by Germans were less ideologically profiled, although FortyEighters, left liberals, and freethinkers participated conspicuously in them. Hermann was very much a secular community of this type. It can be compared usefully to other secular settlements such as Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, and New Braunfels and

498

HERMANN, MISSOURI

View down one street in Hermann, Missouri. First settled in 1837, Hermann is one of a number of towns in the United States founded by and for Germans in the nineteenth century. (Library of Congress)

Fredericksburg, Texas. Hermann, in particular, attracted freethinkers, left liberals, and eventually Forty-Eighters. On August 27, 1836, a group of Philadelphia Germans constituted the Deutsche Ansiedlungs-Gesellschaft zu Philadelphia (German Settlement Society of Philadelphia). Some 225 people signed its constitution that day. The members of this society envisioned a city to rival Philadelphia, but German speaking. (As laid out, Hermann’s Market Street was ten feet wider than Philadelphia’s.) Under the influence of Gottfried Duden’s immensely popular encomium on Missouri, the society purchased a tract of 11,000 acres there and located their city in a lovely valley on

the south side of the Missouri River, not far upstream from St. Louis. Among other assets of this site were abundant limestone for building, as well as hills and steep slopes for vineyards, orchards, and grazing animals. Part of the attraction of the Hermann type of community lay in the prospects for early investors and arrivals to increase their wealth rapidly if the optimistic predictions of future development were realized. Shares in the German Settlement Society cost $50 each, entitling the purchaser to a town lot in Hermann and one vote in the society’s affairs. By April 1837 over 800 shares had been purchased. The poor could pay for their shares through work. In May 1839,

HERMANN, MISSOURI

450 people were living in 90 houses, and the town boasted 5 stores, 2 hotels, and a post office. But friction between the colonists and the society led in 1840 to the severance of all ties between it and Hermann, a turn that reduced drastically the resources at the disposal of the community. In 1850 the population barely reached 860, and further growth was even slower. There were only 1,575 inhabitants in 1890 (Bek 1984, 277). Hermann and similar communities long had much appeal to many Germans. The belief was widespread, especially among half-educated Germans, that their culture was superior to America’s and that both they and America would gain from the maintenance of the German language and culture. Another factor was the hostility of other Americans toward German immigrants. This animus occasionally, as in the Philadelphia area in the mid-1830s, spilled over into what were regarded by many as anti-German riots. By the 1850s Hermann boasted a band, a choral society, a German-language theater and daily newspapers, and a military company. A German rationalist society (Freisinnige) thrived for years, surviving until 1902. Major streets bore the names of famous Germans, and Goethe and Washington streets intersected. German residents of St. Louis often took advantage of Hermann’s “joyful” German Sabbath by taking a riverboat there to go to the theater, drink wine, and stroll on Sundays. In view of the positive German attitude toward wine, it is little wonder that Hermann’s economy was long dominated by vintners. Hermann boasted the world’s third-largest winery in 1900. The wines of the area won international commendations. The Vol-

499

stead Act of 1919 (Prohibition) led to the destruction of the vineyards and brought the Depression of the 1930s to Hermann a decade early. The decline of the steamboat industry, once the town’s second-largest source of jobs and wealth, preceded the demise of viniculture. In 2005 Hermann had lost most of the culture that once made it distinctive. The German language is virtually extinct there, and tourist attractions such as a Maifest (May Festival, a seasonal festival with pagan roots celebrating fecundity) are poor indices to a community’s culture. Yet the town’s 2,674 inhabitants in 2000 could take great satisfaction in the scores of solid historic houses and buildings that make Hermann an architectural treasure trove. Walter Struve See also Duden, Gottfried; Egg Harbor City, New Jersey; Ephrata; Forty-Eighters; Fredericksburg, Texas; Harmony Society; New Braunfels, Texas; Pennsylvania; Transcendentalism References and Further Reading Bek, William G. The German Settlement Society of Philadelphia and Its Colony, Hermann, Missouri. Boston: American, 1984. Hesse, Anna Kemper. Centarians of Brick, Wood, and Stone: Hermann, Missouri. n.p., 1969. Schroeder, Adolf E. “Hermann: A Brief History.” In Edward J. Kemper. Little Germany on the Missouri: The Phtographs of Edward J. Kempner, 1895–1920. Ed. Anna Kemper Hess. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1968. Van Ravenswaay, Charles. The Arts and Architecture of German Settlements in Missouri: A Survey of a Vanishing Culture. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1977. Wittke, Carl F. We Who Built America: The Saga of the Immigrant. New York: Prentice Hall, 1939.

500

HERZOG,WERNER

HERZOG,WERNER b. September 5, 1942; Sachrang, Bavaria German filmmaker, producer, scriptwriter, and opera director who made America a topic of many movies. Born Werner Stipetic, film director Werner Herzog is among German filmmakers the one who had the strongest fascination for unusual places (an erupting volcano in the Caribbean, the Amazon River, the African desert) and uncommon people (Native Americans, Aboriginal tribes from Australia, dwarves, blind people, institutionalized patients, and outcasts). His works show a man of extremes, intensity, and symbols. The young Werner Stipetic spent his childhood on a small upper Bavarian farm until the age of fifteen, when his parents moved to Munich. Their new neighbor was actor Klaus Kinski (1926–1991). After studying history and literature at the University of Munich, Herzog won a Fulbright scholarship offered by the United States to go to the University of Pittsburgh. But Herzog did not attend to his courses and went to Mexico instead. Back in West Germany, Herzog won the Carl Mayer Prize for the best screenplay in 1964. That allowed him to release his first feature film, entitled Lebenszeichen (Signs of Life, 1967), which won the Silver Bear prize for the best debut feature film at the Berlin Film Festival in 1968. Apart from studying and visiting America in his early adult life, Herzog has often included unusual elements from the “new continent” in his films. Even his first short essay, Herakles (Hercules, 1962, revised in 1965), included some documentary stock shots from World War II raids made by the U.S. Air Force. Similarly, Her-

zog’s second and third feature films, Auch Zwerge haben klein angefangen (Even Dwarves Started Small, 1970) and Fata Morgana (1970), were both shot in a few African countries but also explored the Atlantic region of the Canary Islands. The same year, Herzog produced a documentary made for television, Behinderte Zukunft (Handicapped Future, 1971) that was partly shot in Los Angeles. In 1972 Herzog gained international recognition with his masterpiece, Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes (Aguirre: The Wrath of God, 1972), his first experience with actor Klaus Kinski. It was shot during two months in early 1972 in the Urubamba Valley and on the Rio Huallaga and Rio Nanay with the Indians of the Lauramarca cooperative in Peru. The script is a fascinating story freely adapted from the memoirs of Gaspar de Carvajal, who wrote about his expedition with the Spanish explorer Don Lope de Aguirre. In 1560 Aguirre tried to find in the Peruvian forest a passage to the mythical El Dorado. In the film, the character of the narrator Gaspar de Carvajal appears under the nickname of “El Negro.” Fever eliminates many soldiers before they can reach their goal, and their obsessed leader, the nihilistic Aguirre, seems to lose his mind. This megalomaniacal adventure of a group of Spanish conquistadors, controlled by the charismatic figure of Lope de Aguirre, was an indirect way to question colonialism, fascism, and power—only twenty-five years after World War II. Herzog was quite present in America during that period. Another strange film, How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (1976), a forty-four-minute documentary entirely shot in Fort Collins, Colorado, and New Holland, Pennsylvania, shows the 1976 Cattle Auctioning World

HERZOG,WERNER

Championships, with phenomenal characters, the speed-auctioneers, who can talk faster than the speed of sound! Elements from that experience exploring the musicality of auctioning in rural America would later reappear in Herzog’s film Stroszek (1977). Taken from a script cowritten with Herbert Achternbusch, Herz aus Glas (Heart of Glass, 1976) was shot in many countries (mainly West Germany and Ireland) and in some American states (Utah, Alaska, and Wyoming). To obtain the effect he wanted in some scenes, Herzog had to hypnotize some of the actors. In August 1976 Herzog did a short documentary about an erupting volcano on La Guadeloupe Island, titled La Souffrière (1976). Herzog returned to the United States to shoot the second half of Stroszek (1977), another satirical story about an outsider, with “actor” Bruno Schlenstein, who played the lead role in The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (1974), one of Herzog’s most famous movies. Herzog refused to consider Bruno S. (as he was presented in the titles) as an actor, not only because he had no theatrical training, but mainly because Herzog felt that Bruno S. played his own role instead of interpreting a character. Here, we see a strange ex-jailer who emigrates from West Germany to Plainfield, Wisconsin, but cannot adapt to the consumer society that gives him a credit card and offers more than one can afford. His belongings are seized. Every useless object the naïve man had bought in just a few weeks has to be sold at an auction. Through this fierce critique of capitalist society (and especially the United States), Herzog observes the inhuman conditions of exploitation of the poor and the uneducated. The soundtrack music is mostly

501

taken from American roots, from countrywestern guitarist Chet Atkins to the blues harmonica player Sonny Terry. During the following years, Herzog carried on with various projects made in Europe, including two feature films starring Klaus Kinski: a remake of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s Nosferatu (1978) and a less successful feature adapted from Georg Büchner, Woyzeck (1979). During the 1980s, Herzog collaborated with Klaus Kinski and the musicians of the Munich group Popol Vuh in two other films. An ambitious project, Fitzcarraldo (1982) is the epic story of an art lover living in the early twentieth century, nicknamed Fitzcarraldo, who wants to build an opera house for the Indians in Peru to organize a concert of Verdi’s works, given by the legendary opera singer Enrico Caruso. To achieve this, the organizers have to transport a steamboat onto the summit of a hill. The shooting of Fitzcarraldo took more than a year; a village and a boat were built for the project. The crew lived near the regions occupied by the tribes of Ashininka-Campa from Gran Pajonal, the Machiguengas de Rio Camisea, and the Campa from Rio Tambo, in Peru and Brazil. The documentary Burden of Dreams (1982), directed by American filmmaker Les Blank, is almost as fascinating as Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo. It documents the complex making of Fitzcarraldo and illustrates how gigantic Herzog’s project was. We also see two scenes deleted from the shooting of the first version of Fitzcarraldo (1982), with U.S. actor Jason Robards Jr. playing the lead role of Fitzcarraldo (he would later abandon the project, to be replaced by Kinski) and singer Mick Jagger playing Fitzcarraldo’s assistant, a simpleton character who

502

HESSIANS

disappeared from the final version because Jagger had to leave the set after many months of delays. Herzog remained very active, although his films became more discrete. A critique of the U.S. dominant posture, Lektionen in Finsternis (Lessons of Darkness, 1992), is a one-hour documentary about the Kuwaitian oil fields in flames during the first war in Iraq. A film with many transatlantic correspondences, Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1997) is the fictional story of a naïve young German, born after World War II and fascinated by airplanes, who goes to the United States to become a pilot in the army. He succeeds, but he soon finds himself in Vietnam, during the war, as a prisoner. In almost fifty films that are either documentaries or fiction, including many lesser-known short essays, Werner Herzog has created a very personal universe that always depicts the uncanny and the peculiar side of the human soul. Apart from directing and producing his own scripts, Herzog occasionally produces other directors’ works, such as The Making of “Hulk” (2003). He also directs operas in Bayreuth, Germany, and Italy. Yves Laberge See also Film (German), American Influence on; Fulbright Program; German Students at American Universities; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Wenders, Wim References and Further Reading Carrère, Emmanuel. Werner Herzog. Paris: Édilig, 1982. Herzog, Werner. Cobra Verde. Le-Chesnay and Paris: Jade and Flammarion, 1988. ———. Sur le chemin des glaces. Paris: P.O.L., 1988. Official Werner Herzog Website. At http://www.wernerherzog.com (accessed May 10, 2005). Passek, Jean-Loup, ed. Dictionnaire du cinéma. Paris: Larousse, 1998.

HESSIANS Great Britain leased the services of about 30,000 German soldiers to suppress the rebellion of the American settlers between 1776 and 1782. These soldiers were commonly referred to as “Hessians” because the majority of them (about 17,000 to 19,000 troops) came from Hesse-Cassel, and the commander of Hesse-Cassel’s forces was put in charge of all German troops. HesseHanau (about 2,400 troops), Brunswick (about 5,700 troops), Ansbach-Bayreuth (about 2,500 troops), Anhalt-Zerbst (about 1,100 troops), and Waldeck (1,200 troops) supplied additional forces. Hesse-Cassel was a small principality in the southwestern part of the Holy Roman Empire. With a total population of about 300,000 people, lacking natural resources, and occupying one of the least advantageous geopolitical places in central Europe, Hesse-Cassel’s princes decided shortly after the Thirty Years’ War that only the renting out of soldiers would secure Hesse a prestigious and influential position in European politics. Between 1648 and 1813, Hesse-Cassel’s military forces were rented out to foreign powers such as Denmark, Spain, Venice, the Netherlands, and Great Britain on nearly forty different occasions. Over the decades Hesse-Cassel created such a large army that it even surpassed Prussia, if one considers the proportional share of soldiers within the general population. Because Hesse-Cassel did not possess the financial means to sustain such a large military contingent, its dependency on renting out troops steadily increased. The army thus became the single most important source of revenue for the princes of Hesse-Cassel. On January 15, 1776, Prince Friedrich II of Hesse-Cassel entered into a treaty

HESSIANS

503

Hessians leaving their village for dispatch to the American colonies. (Bettmann/Corbis)

with his brother-in-law, George III of England, according to which Hesse-Cassel promised to supply about 12,000 troops annually for military duty in the North American colonies. Between 1776 and 1782, Hesse-Cassel sent about 17,000 to 19,000 troops to North America. Together with the military units from Hesse-Hanau, Brunswick, Ansbach-Bayreuth, AnhaltZerbst, and Waldeck, the German contingent represented more than one-third of all forces loyal to the king of England in North America. The Hessian troops wore the traditional Hessian uniform. They were fully equipped and had to swear an oath to both the Hessian sovereign and King George III. Although many were forced into military service by recruiters—for instance, Johann Gottfried Seume—not all

had joined the military involuntarily. In Hesse-Cassel all male citizens had been subjected to conscription within the cantons system. (Cantons are military districts; each canton represented the geographical area from which one regiment was to draw its recruits.) Accordingly, each regiment was in charge of one canton from which it drew its recruits. The hopes of American revolutionary leaders, who suggested that the majority of these coerced mercenaries would soon desert their officers, did not entirely come true. The promise of free land and tax exemption attracted only 3,000 Hessian deserters. In fact, many Hessian soldiers who had been captured by the American rebels immediately rejoined their military units after they were exchanged for prisoners captured by the Loyalists.

504

HETTNER, ALFRED

The decisive battle at Yorktown, Virginia (1781), was the most German of all battles during the American War of Independence. Both sides, Americans as well as the British, relied on German support. The American contingent included German American units under the command of Friederich Wilhelm von Steuben and the regiment Royal Allemand de Deux-Ponts, a military unit created by Duke Christian IV of Zweibrücken and employed on behalf of the French during the Seven Years’ War. This regiment had already faced the British and its Hessian subsidiary troops. In 1781 at Yorktown, they again faced the same enemy. After the end of the American War of Independence, about 10,500 Hessian troops returned to Europe. According to some estimates, about 7,800 Hessians died during the war and 3,000 to 4,000 remained in North America afterward. About 2,400 of them made a new life for themselves in Nova Scotia and Ontario. Thomas Adam See also Nova Scotia; Ontario; Seume, Johann Gottfried; Steuben, Friederich Wilhelm von References and Further Reading Atwood, Rodney. The Hessians: Mercenaries from Hessen-Kassel in the American Revolution. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University, 1980. Auerbach, Inge. Die Hessen in Amerika 1776–1783. Darmstadt: Selbstverlag der Hessischen Historischen Kommission, 1996. Eelking, Max von. Die Deutschen Hülfstruppen im nordamerikanischen Befreiungskriege, 1776 bis 1783. I. und II. Teil. Hanover: Helwing, 1863. Kapp, Friedrich. Der Soldatenhandel deutscher Fürsten nach Amerika (1775 bis 1784). Berlin: Franz Duncker, 1864. Lowell, Edward J. The Hessian and the Other German Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War. New York: Harper & Bros., 1884.

HETTNER, ALFRED b. August 6, 1859; Dresden, Saxony d. August 31, 1941; Heidelberg, Baden German geographer who lived in Colombia and explored South American geography and geology. He became the leading German geographer around the turn of the twentieth century. From 1871 to 1881, he attended the universities of Halle, Bonn, and Straßburg. Immediately upon completion of his doctorate, he worked as a private tutor in Colombia and used this opportunity to explore, in the years from 1882 to 1884, large parts of the mountain range system of Bogota. After qualifying as a university lecturer (Habilitation) in 1887 at the University of Leipzig, Hettner traveled to Peru on behalf of the Berliner Völkerkundemuseum (Berlin Museum of Ethnology) and joined other expeditions in the Peruvian Andes, especially to Lake Titicaca and in the region around Mollendo, Arequipa, and Tacna, and in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and southern Brazil. These expeditions were financed by the Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin (Society for Geography in Berlin). While the scientific results of these trips were published only in part— Die Kordillere von Bogota (The Mountain System of Bogota, 1892)—Hettner turned his travel notes into several popular articles and monographs. These writings give a vivid picture of life in the parts of South America he visited at the turn of the century, though the portrayal is not free of European racist biases. These publications include, among others, Reisen in den columbianischen Anden (Travels in the Colombian Andes, 1888), and Das Deutschtum in Südbrasilien und Südchile (Germans in Southern Brazil and South-

HEXAMER, CHARLES J.

ern Chile, 1903). In 1894 Hettner was appointed professor of geography at the University of Leipzig. In 1897 he received an appointment at the University of Tübingen and just one year later at the University of Heidelberg. Hettner achieved, as the publisher of the Geographische Zeitschrift (Geographic Journal), which he founded in 1895, an internationally recognized position as one of the leading and, as a result of his harsh polemics, most feared theoreticians of geography. In 1927 he published his influential work Die Geographie, ihre Geschichte, ihr Wesen und ihre Methoden (Geography: Its History, Nature, and Methods). His vehemently held regional geographic (länderkundlich) approach defined the subject as a spatial science whose goal it was to explore and represent the earth as a complex of extended areas, countries, landscapes, and localities. Besides numerous geographical studies (e.g., Das europäische Russland [European Russia] 1907; Englands Weltherrschaft und der Krieg [England’s World Domination and the War], 1915), he also published treatises on physical geography (Die Klimate der Erde [The Climates of the Earth], 1930). The latter were primarily a reaction to the “geographic cycle” of the American geographer William Morris Davis, who was teaching at Harvard University. Hettner did not share Davis’s views, which were rapidly adopted in the German-speaking world after the turn of the twentieth century, and bitterly attacked them. Ute Wardenga References and Further Reading Wardenga, Ute. Geographie als Chorologie. Zur Genese und Struktur von Alfred Hettners Konstrukt der Geographie. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995.

505

HEXAMER, CHARLES J. b. May 6, 1862; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania d. January 8, 1920; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania President of the National German-American Alliance from 1901 to 1917. Hexamer was the American-born son of a prominent German Forty-Eighter, Ernst Hexamer, who entrenched in him a pride of his German heritage. He received a law degree from the National University in Philadelphia and a doctorate in civil engineering from the University of Pennsylvania in 1886. Shortly after graduating, Hexamer embarked on a tour of continental Europe. His visit to Germany inspired the desire to promote and preserve that nation’s culture in the United States. Back in America, Hexamer became an active leader of Philadelphia’s German American community. Realizing that most German American cultural societies existed only on a local or regional level, he decided to create an organization that would unite all German Americans. In April 1899 Hexamer cofounded the German-American Central Alliance of Pennsylvania and became its first president. The stated goal of the organization was to preserve German culture in America and to establish a national organization for German Americans. In October 1901 Hexamer invited representatives from various German American organizations in other states to Philadelphia to discuss this vision. The meeting resulted in the creation of the DeutschAmerikanische National Bund (The National German-American Alliance, NGAA). In recognition of his leadership, Hexamer was elected president, an office he would occupy until the fall of 1917. The NGAA focused on promoting the teaching of the German language in public schools, preserving

506

HEXAMER, CHARLES J.

German culture, praising the achievements of German Americans, and fostering closer ties between the United States and Germany. However, whatever its claims, the NGAA represented only a small segment of the German American community. The outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914 began to place strains on the organization. Early on in the conflict, the NGAA came out in favor of complete American neutrality and fair play for Germany. As relations between both countries began to deteriorate, the NGAA became increasingly supportive of the imperial German government and its aims. In September 1915 Hexamer issued an order to members to boycott all banks that participated in the Allied loans. This measure was only successful in Milwaukee, the country’s most German city, but it was perceived as meddling by most American newspapers. Two months later, Hexamer succumbed to chauvinism by remarking at a Milwaukee meeting of the NGAA: “No one will find us prepared to step down to a lesser Kultur; no, we have made it our aim to draw the other up to us” (U.S., 65th Congress). This remark caused outrage and left many Americans with the impression that Hexamer and the NGAA were more German than American and were, thus, not to be trusted. All efforts to promote German culture were henceforth viewed as un-American. When the United States declared war on Germany in April 1917, the NGAA quickly emphasized its patriotism and support for the American cause. This affirmation, however, came too late for many who had come to perceive the organization as a German tool. Hexamer was no longer able to unite the NGAA, and many German Americans cancelled their memberships in a time of national crisis when they felt that

their loyalty was being questioned by their fellow Americans. In November 1917 Hexamer resigned his presidency, citing health problems. Six months later, the NGAA voted to disband. Hexamer was proud of being a German American. He always believed that any American should honor his ancestors’ origin and yet be an American first. By trying to preserve his cultural and linguistic heritage, however, he also became an apologist for imperial Germany’s policies. Many fellow German Americans accepted his leadership in promoting their heritage, but their ways parted once the United States declared war on Germany. Hexamer failed to realize that by claiming to represent all German Americans with his attitudes and by uttering condescending remarks, he damaged the reputation of his own ethnic group. Despite his well-meant intentions, Hexamer’s arrogance and lack of foresight were among the reasons so many German Americans had to suffer harassment on the American home front during World War I. Katja Wuestenbecker See also Forty-Eighters; German Society of Pennsylvania; Milwaukee; National German-American Alliance; Politics and German Americans; World War I; World War I and German Americans, References and Further Reading Bosse, Georg von. Dr. C. J. Hexamer: Sein Leben und Wirken. Philadelphia: Druck und Verlag, 1922. Johnson, Charles Thomas. Culture at Twilight: The National German-American Alliance, 1901–1918. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. U.S., 65th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on S. 3529: A Bill to Repeal the Act entitled “An Act to incorporate the National German-American Alliance.” Approved February 25, 1907 (February 23–April 13, 1918), Washington 1918, p. 25.

HEYM, STEFAN

HEYM, STEFAN b. April 10, 1913; Chemnitz, Saxony d. December 16, 2001; Jerusalem, Israel German author who emigrated to the United States in 1936 and served in the U.S. Army during World War II. Born Helmut Flieg, the boy who was to become Stefan Heym was forced to leave school in 1931 because of an antimilitarist poem he had written. Two years later he escaped to Prague and adopted the pseudonym that was to accompany him for the rest of his life, initially only as a pen name to use for his journalistic work for German and Czech newspapers. In 1936 he went to the United States to study toward a university degree at the University of Chicago. His master’s thesis was on Heinrich Heine—a topic and name that would accompany Heym throughout his life. His first novel, the anti-Fascist story Hostages (Der Fall Glasenapp, 1958) appeared to much acclaim in 1942, and for the rest of his life Heym wrote as fluently in English as he wrote in German. He volunteered for service in the armed forces in 1943 and participated in the Normandy landing and saw action as a sergeant in operations in France, Luxembourg, and Germany. In 1945 he was one of the founders of a newspaper, Die Neue Zeit (The New Times), in Munich, but was recalled to the United States and discharged from the army because of his pro-Communist leanings. His second novel, The Crusaders (1948), became an international best-seller. The third novel, Goldsborough (1953), inspired by a miners’ strike in Pennsylvania, showed his increasing lack of faith in the democratic institutions in the United States and his lack of confidence in the role of the intellectual confronting the ubiqui-

507

tous conspiracies of power. During the McCarthy years and against the background of the Korean conflict, Heym in 1951 returned his reserve officer’s commission and his bronze star to his former commander (now president) Dwight D. Eisenhower. With his American wife he migrated to Warsaw, then Prague, ultimately settling in East Berlin. Heym never joined the Socialist Unity Party (SED), nor had he ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States. His critical and often controversial statements made him a difficult person for the East German political and cultural system. A prominent member of the National Associations of Poets, Essayists and Novelists (PEN) in East and West Germany, and a recipient of the Heinrich Mann Award and the National Prize of the German Democratic Republic 2nd Class, Heym did not accommodate his writings to the demands of the Communist system. Consequently, most of his novels were first published in West Germany, and after he was excluded from the East German PEN in 1979 (following the publication of Collin) his life was made increasingly difficult. His most important books, Der König David Bericht (The King David Report), Ahasver (1968), 5 Tage im Juni ( Five Days in June), Schwarzenberg, and Radek (1995), are all historical novels that show both German and American literary influences, or even bridge the Atlantic—like The Lenz Papers, 1948 (East Germany: Die Papiere des Andreas Lenz, 1963; West Germany: Lenz oder die Freiheit, 1965), about a refugee Forty-Eighter who is killed at Gettysburg, and whose grandson returns with the American forces in 1944. Heym, who had envisaged the German reunification already in a public address in

508

HINDENBURG DISASTER

1981, not only lived to see the fall of the Berlin Wall, he helped bring it down with his speech at a rally on November 4, 1989, speaking in favor of a new, better socialism before a multitude on Alexanderplatz in Berlin. However, he later denounced the impulse behind the unification as mostly commercially inspired. In 1993 he was made honorary president of the East German PEN, and in 1994 he was elected to the first unified German National Parliament. As the oldest member, he gave the opening address in November, quoting, among others, Abraham Lincoln. One of the most important moments in his life, he once said in an interview, was the day Technical Sergeant Heym, Nr. 32 860 259, received a Springfield rifle. He knew then that he could—and would— fight back. Heym passed away in December 2001 while attending a conference on Heinrich Heine in Jerusalem. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also Intellectual Exile; World War II, German American Soldiers in References and Further Reading Hahn, Regina U. The Democratic Dream: Stefan Heym in America. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.

HINDENBURG DISASTER On May 6, 1937, the zeppelin LZ 129, christened Hindenburg, exploded over Lakehurst, New Jersey. The Hindenburg was the largest and last zeppelin used to transport passengers from Germany to North and South America. It was owned by the Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei (German Zeppelin Shipping Company) founded in 1935. Thirty-six people died in the accident: thirteen passengers, twentytwo crewmen, and one ground crew

worker. Sixty-two passengers who were still on board at the time of the explosion survived the incident. The Hindenburg was 803.8 feet long, 135.1 feet in diameter, and had a gas volume of 7,062,000 cubic feet. It consisted of 25 double-occupancy passenger cabins, one dining room, several study rooms, a larger room for entertainment, a smoking salon, and a promenade with windows. The passenger space was designed by the renowned architect F. A. Breuhaus. The ship was named after Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934), the most eminent German field marshal of World War I who had defeated the Russian army in the famous battle at Tannenberg (1914–1915) and who had become Reich president of the Weimar Republic in 1925. It was he who argued that the German army had been stabbed in the back by weak-minded civilians, Jews, and Marxists in November 1918 (the “stab in the back” legend). According to this nationalistic view, it was not the unconquered German army but the Social Democrats, who had started a revolution, who were to be held responsible for Germany’s defeat in World War I. As Reich president, Hindenburg appointed Adolf Hitler to be Reich chancellor on January 30, 1933, and thus paved the way for the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship. After its commissioning, the Hindenburg was employed on two separate routes: on the South America route it connected Ludwigshafen with Pernambuco (Brazil, Rio) and on its North America route it connected Ludwigshafen with Lakehurst (United States, New Jersey). Its unrivalled technology made the Hindenburg a political symbol for the Nazi government. After his fight against Jesse Jones, Max Schmeling boarded the Hindenburg on July 26,

HINDENBURG DISASTER

509

The airship Hindenburg explodes into a huge ball of fire as it comes in for a landing at Lakehurst, New Jersey, May 6, 1937. (Bettmann/Corbis)

1936, to travel back to Germany. For 1937 the German authorities had planned about eighteen trips between Germany and the United States for the airship. It is still unknown what actually caused the explosion. However, the use of hydrogen, which together with oxygen formed the very dangerous oxyhydrogen, certainly contributed. After the crash of the British airship R 101 on October 5, 1930, engineers recommended abstaining from the use of hydrogen. Therefore, German engineers advocated the use of helium. Since helium did not have the same density as hydrogen, they suggested an increase of the volume of the zeppelin to allow for the transportation of the same number of passengers. The American Helium Control

Act of 1927, however, banned the export of helium from the United States, thus preventing Germany from acquiring enough quantities of the gas to build a next generation of airships. The new airship LZ 129 was therefore filled with hydrogen instead of helium. Immediately after the explosion, both the American and the German governments accused the other side of having sabotaged the zeppelin. However, there was no evidence to support such claims. Mistakes in navigation cannot be excluded. The catastrophe seems to have resulted from a chain of unfortunate events: most importantly a thunderstorm that caused an unusually high electrostatic charge in the atmosphere. On the day of the accident,

510

HOLBORN, HAJO

strong winds forced the zeppelin to make several turns and to release small amounts of hydrogen. The fire broke out when the airship was about 60 meters (196 feet) above the ground and already moored to the ground by two ropes. One eyewitness, R. H. Ward, saw the outer hull over gas cell number five flapping right before the fire started. Within one and a half minutes the burning airship crashed to the ground. This accident marked the end of the era of passenger airships. Erik Straub See also Zeppelin References and Further Reading Archbold, Rick. Hindenburg: An Illustrated History. Toronto: Warner/Madison, 1994.

HOLBORN, HAJO b. May 18, 1902; Berlin, Prussia d. June 20, 1969; Bonn, North RhineWestphalia Foremost historian of Germany in the United States during the middle decades of the twentieth century, he played an active role in relations between the two countries. Holborn studied with Friedrich Meinecke, one of the preeminent German historians of the first half of the twentieth century. Working in the tradition of Leopold von Ranke and seeking to comprehend history through the history of ideas, especially political ideas, Meinecke was one of a handful of history professors in Germany sympathetic to the Weimar Republic. As a consequence, the minority of advanced university history students who were democratically minded gravitated toward him. Like many of Meinecke’s students during the 1920s and early 1930s, Holborn was

concerned with understanding ideas in social and political context. Until the impact of the sensational rise of the Nazis beginning in 1930 was felt in German universities, Holborn, despite his democratic views, advanced rapidly in the hierarchy of German scholarship that was dominated by reactionaries and conservatives. His commitment to democracy and his marriage to a Renaissance scholar from a Jewish family of Frankfurt bankers destroyed his career in Germany when Adolf Hitler came to power in January 1933. After a brief sojourn in England, Holborn began in 1934 to establish himself at Yale University, which would become his academic base for the remainder of his life. His influence in the United States can be gauged quantitatively by the large number of graduate students (over fifty) who completed doctoral dissertations under his guidance and less mathematically by his role as an adviser on Germany to the U.S. government during and after World War II. More tangibly he influenced the postwar occupation of Germany in his wartime office as deputy director of the Research and Analysis Branch of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), the precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency. This branch of the OSS relied heavily on émigré scholars and their graduate students. Responsible for liaison with the Pentagon, Holborn’s duties included the development and coordination of policy and eventually overseeing the development of some thousand occupation manuals for American troops occupying not only Germany but also other territories. Toward the end of the war and thereafter he acted as an adviser to the State Department and the military on the occupation of Germany. Through his writings and numerous public lectures in

HOLLYWOOD

Germany and America he continued with the tasks of securing democracy in West Germany and developing good relations between the two countries. Holborn’s expertise as a scholar ranged from the Renaissance and Reformation, which he saw as separate but intertwined movements, to the contemporary period. His overarching interpretation of German history can be found in his History of Modern Germany (3 vols., 1959–1968) that he completed shortly before his death. He emphasized the divergence of German political, social, and intellectual development from that of western Europe following the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Among his specialties were not only German political, social, and intellectual history, but also European diplomatic history since the age of Otto von Bismarck. In reaction against the Prussian historical school’s assumption of the primacy of foreign policy, he eventually urged the exploration of the domestic roots of foreign policy. His Political Collapse of Europe (1951) can be seen as an attempt to make sense of recent history and the large role of the United States in Europe during the twentieth century. He argued that the European system of sovereign states had broken down and was rebalanced and maintained only by the massive intervention of the United States. This view of the two world wars and the cold war was one that appealed to both the “realists” and the “idealists” who inhabited university and government offices in the United States after World War II. Both Holborn’s followers and his critics often missed some of the major nuances of his position. For example, although he emphasized the inherent instability of the nation-state crafted by Bismarck and the destructive role of the

511

Nazis in European affairs, Holborn contended that under Bismarck the German Reich had worked within the bounds of the European state system; that the roots of German imperialism in the Third Reich should not be traced to Bismarck. His other works include numerous essays and articles and a book on the American occupation of Germany. In 1967 he was honored with the presidency of the American Historical Association. Walter Struve See also Intellectual Exile; Neumann, Franz L. References and Further Reading Coser, Lewis A. Refugee Scholars in America: Their Impact and Their Experiences. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984. Lehmann, Hartmut, and James J. Sheehan, eds. An Interrupted Past: German-Speaking Historians in the United States after 1933. Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 1991. Winks, Robin W. Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939–1961. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1996.

HOLLYWOOD From the beginning of the Hollywood studio system, Germans were among those who shaped the film industry. At the turn of the century, independent filmmakers moved to California, as conditions, like weather and land, were more favorable than in the East. The German-born Carl Laemmle opened one of the first studios: Universal City in 1915. The movie industry expanded quickly. Many German or German-speaking directors responded to Hollywood’s call, among them Ernst Lubitsch from Berlin, who introduced the screwball comedy to the screen. Some, like producer Erich Pommer, stayed only a few years and returned to Germany. Another

512

HOLLYWOOD

director, Josef von Sternberg, brought his star actress along with him, who made a brilliant career in Hollywood: Marlene Dietrich. When Adolf Hitler came to power, a wave of German and Austrian exile filmmakers fled from repression. While a director like Billy Wilder became famous for his comedies, other directors like Fritz Lang, Otto Preminger, Robert Siodmak, and Edgar G. Ulmer contributed essentially to film noir with their experience in German expressionist cinema. Although every now and then Germans went to Hollywood after 1945 as actors, technicians, or directors, it was not until the 1980s and 1990s that Germans and Austrians contributed to Hollywood’s film industry substantially. Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, as well as cameraman Michael Ballhaus and directors Wolfgang Petersen and Lothar Emmerich, starred in, directed, or filmed box office hits. With the invention of the kinetoscope “moving view” by Thomas A. Edison in 1888, the era of the moving image began. The first commercially viable motion picture projector in the United States was known as “Edison’s vitascope.” On November 26, 1905, John Harris and Harry Davis opened the first theater in Pittsburgh exclusively created for the showing of motion pictures. Their first attraction was The Great Train Robbery by Edwin S. Porter. Admission was a nickel. The nickelodeons (five cents + [mel]odeon, or music hall) were located in large urban centers and offered programs between ten minutes to one hour in length. The era of the nickelodeons lasted less than ten years. German-born Carl Laemmle (1867– 1939), who had immigrated to America in 1884, was soon fascinated by this new invention and bought his own first nick-

elodeon in 1906. Soon he had his own film-distribution business in addition to his chain of nickelodeons. When Edison’s Motion Picture Patents Company attempted to put him out of business, Laemmle, like a few others, moved as far away from the East as possible to a new location that was perfect for filmmaking: Hollywood. In 1912 he founded the Universal Film Production Company. By 1915 the new company had established Universal City, a 240-acre film complex and community in the San Fernando Valley near Los Angeles. Universal City, Hollywood’s largest studio, was the first to promote the star system. Another founder of one of Hollywood’s most important film studios was William Fox (1879–1952). Born Wilhelm Fried to German Jewish parents in AustriaHungary, he came to the United States as a young child and worked first in the textile industry. In 1904 he established the Greater New York Film Rental Company. After a name change to Fox Film Company, the company, which produced four films a year, had its own studios in New York by 1915. Four years later, the company moved to thirteen acres in Hollywood. Finally, in 1923 the Fox Film Corporation began to build on the hundred acres of the famed Fox Hills Studios (the present site of Century City, home of Twentieth Century-Fox, the studio of Shirley Temple and Star Wars). William Fox purchased the rights to the CaseSponible sound system and dubbed it Movietone. By combining his mobile sound-film recording system with amplification equipment developed by Western Electric, Fox was an early industry leader in sound films, especially in the production of the famous Movietone Newsreels (the pre-

HOLLYWOOD

cursor of today’s network newscasts). In 1935 the young Darryl F. Zanuck took over the nearly bankrupt company and named it Twentieth Century-Fox. In the following decades, many professionals from the German film industry responded to Hollywood’s call. Ernst Lubitsch (1892–1947), for instance, was asked to come by actress Mary Pickford in 1922. His unique directing style became famous as “the Lubitsch touch.” In 1947 he received a special Oscar for his twentyfive-year contribution to motion pictures. While Lubitsch received acclaim for his comedies, Paul Leni (1885–1929) was a pioneer for Universal’s series of horror films in the 1930s, after having accepted an invitation by Carl Laemmle in 1925. Another German director, known for his fluid, expressionistic use of the camera to depict states of mind, was Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau (1889–1931). He came to Hollywood in 1927 at the invitation of William Fox. Murnau had gained fame with his movies Nosferatu (1922, the first Dracula movie), Der letzte Mann (The Last Laugh, 1924), and Faust (1926). In the United States his best movies were Sunrise (1927), Our Daily Bread (1930), and Tabu (1931). Other German-born directors who had considerable influence on Hollywood, mainly during the era of silent movies, were Erich von Stroheim and Josef von Sternberg. Stroheim (1885–1957) came to the United States in 1909. He arrived in Hollywood in 1914, and his first appearance as an actor was in Griffith’s Birth of a Nation. In 1918 he wrote, directed, and acted in his first film, Blind Husband, and in 1923 his masterpiece Greed, a landmark in film realism, brought him acclaim. As a director, his attention to minute detail soon earned him a reputation as a spend-

513

thrift. His stubborn refusal to make films the way studios wanted forced him to give up directing (he never directed a sound film) and draw on his acting talent. Especially noted for his portrayals of Prussian officers, he is perhaps best remembered for Grand Illusion (1937). His last film role in the United States was in Sunset Boulevard (1950). Sternberg (1894–1969) came to the United States in 1909 with his family. He started working in the film industry in 1911, moved to Hollywood in 1923, and directed his first movie The Salvation Hunters in 1924. His movie Underworld (1927) established the gangster film genre. For his movie The Last Command, Sternberg hired the German actor Emil Jannings (1884–1950). Jannings had attained international stardom with movies like Quo Vadis (1924), Der letzte Mann (The Last Laugh, 1924)—one of his most masterly performances—Tartüff (1925), Varieté (1925), and finally Faust (1926). Because of the huge success of his last movies, he got a three-year contract with Paramount. In the United States he shot, among others, the movies The Way of All Flesh (1927), The Last Command (1927), The Patriot (1928), and Betrayal (1929). For his performance in The Way of All Flesh and The Last Command he achieved the first Oscar in film history. When the sound film rang in a new era, Jannings feared that, because of his poor English, he would not do justice to the artistic aspects of English sound films and went back to Germany a wealthy man. His director of The Last Command, Sternberg, went to Germany in 1929 to produce a movie for the Universum-Film AG (UFA): Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel). He discovered a then-unknown actress, Marlene Dietrich, and made her a

514

HOLLYWOOD

star. In 1931 she went to the United States with him and produced many highly successful movies. Jannings is not only outstanding in the history of Hollywood because he, as a German, was the first to receive an Oscar. He is also a prominent example for all those non-English-speaking actors who faced severe problems when sound was introduced in the movies. For many, it was the end of their careers. Only a few with rather heavy accents were accepted. A fine example of those is Peter Lorre (1904–1964). In 1933 he fled from Nazi Germany. His bulging eyes, round face, and nasal voice became familiar to millions of American moviegoers in a film career that spanned thirtythree years and ranged from classics like the two great film noir works The Maltese Falcon (1941) and Casablanca (1942), to Disney’s 20,000 Leagues under the Sea (1954), to the respectable if bizarre Mr. Moto series (1937–1939), in which Lorre played a Japanese detective. Directors naturally did not have these language problems. Quite a few famous ones migrated to Hollywood after Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. Among the most noted German and Austrian ones were Billy Wilder (1906–2002), Edgar G. Ulmer (1900–1972), Fred Zinnemann (1907–1997), William Dieterle (1893– 1972), Fritz Lang (1890–1976), Otto Preminger (1906–1986), Robert Siodmak (1900–1973), and Douglas Sirk (1900– 1987). While some of the German actresses and actors became well known to audiences—such as Marlene Dietrich, Peter Lorre, Paul Henreid, and Paul Muni—German directors influenced and helped to shape quite a few movie genres such as the film noir, the gangster film, and comedies. They had been part of the suc-

cessful and internationally acclaimed German movie industry, which existed prior to World War II, and brought elements of German expressionism to American movies. They were part of an artistic acculturation process that affected the art of filmmaking in Hollywood considerably. German directors and producers were not the only ones who had a considerable impact on the style of Hollywood movies, however. Composers like Frederick Hollander (1896–1976), Frederick Loewe (1901–1988), Ernest Gold (1921–1999), Erich W. Korngold (1897–1957), and André Previn (b. 1929) wrote unforgettable scores for the screen. Oscar-winning cinematographers like Karl Freund (1890–1969) and Eugen Schüfftan (1893– 1977) brought the German light to Hollywood movies. After World War II, there was no longer a German film industry. For many Germans with interest in a professional movie career, Hollywood became the definite destination. Many actors tried their luck in Hollywood, but only a few of them stayed. Ursula Andress (b. 1936) became successful as the first “Bond girl” in Dr. No (1962). Curt Jürgens (1915–1982) was often cast as the tough guy or even the tough German. Hardy Krüger (b. 1928) became known for his adventure movies. Probably the only one who had a deeper impact on Hollywood films was the Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger (b. 1947) who became a superstar. Cameramen like Jost Vacano and Dietrich Lohmann shot notable movies in Hollywood. Directors like Wolfgang Petersen (b. 1941) and Roland Emmerich (b. 1955) became famous in the United States for movies like In the Line of Fire (1993) and Air Force One (1997), both by Petersen,

HOLM, HANYA

and Independence Day (1996) by Emmerich. However, the success of these directors is based only on their ability to assimilate. They did not contribute anything German to the American screen, but became well known because of their ability to adapt themselves to the style of American movies. They assimilated into the existing Hollywood mainstream. The only German contributing something special to U.S. movies after 1945 is the cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (b. 1935). In the early 1980s Ballhaus emigrated to the United States, where he quickly established himself as a highly regarded cameraman. His first American film was John Sayles’s Baby, It’s You (1982) and he has frequently collaborated with a number of major directors, including Mike Nichols, Martin Scorsese, and James L. Brooks. Ballhaus’s style could be described as eclectic. One specialty in particular catapulted Ballhaus to fame and became his trademark: the 360-degree tracking shot around the actors. The scene in The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989), in which the camera encircles Michelle Pfeiffer lolling on the piano, may well have been his crowning achievement, and earned him an Oscar nomination. Germans and Austrians in Hollywood have always played an important part in the movie industry. But only those arriving before World War II contributed something very special and typically German to the world of U.S. motion pictures. Andreas Reichstein See also Dieterle, William; Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene; Jannings, Emil; Korngold, Erich Wolfgang; Lang, Fritz; Leni, Paul; Lorre, Peter; Lubitsche, Ernst; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Preminger, Otto Ludwig; Schwarzenegger, Arnold; Sternberg, Josef von; Stroheim, Erich von; Wilder, Billy

515

References and Further Reading Everson, William K. American Silent Film. New York: Oxford University, 1978. Flippo, Hyde. The German Way: Aspects of Behavior, Attitudes, and Customs in the German-Speaking World. New York: McGraw-Hill/Contemporary, 1996. Kracauer, Siegfried. From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2004. Sklar, Robert. Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American Movies. New York: Vintage, 1994. Taylor, John Russel. Strangers in Paradise: The Hollywood Emigres 1933–1950. London: Faber and Faber, 1983.

HOLM, HANYA b. March 3, 1893;Worms, Hesse d. November 3, 1992; New York City German choreographer who became famous for her work on Broadway where she choreographed thirteen musicals from 1948 to 1965. Born Johanna Eckert, Holm was schooled at a Catholic convent and began piano lessons at the age of ten. Her love of music led her first to the Hoch Conservatory in Frankfurt am Main to study music and then, after graduation, to the Institute of Emile-Jaques Dalcroze. She studied the Dalcroze method of eurhythmics (a means of learning music through movement) for four years, at Frankfurt and Hellerau, until graduation from the institute. Holm was briefly married to the artist Reinhold Kuntze, with whom she had a son, Klaus, whom she raised alone. In 1921 Holm attended a dance concert in Dresden by Mary Wigman, the German pioneer of Ausdrucktanz (expressionist dance), which proved to be life changing. At the same time that her marriage ended,

516

HOLM, HANYA

she began to study with Wigman, but also served as an instructor, teaching the Dalcroze method of music and movement to dance students at the Wigman Institute in Dresden. While a student teacher, Holm performed in small school dance revues. She started to choreograph in 1929, first for a production of Bacchae and later for a performance of Plato’s Farewell to His Friends, both in an outdoor theater in Holland. Her first major role also came in 1929, with L’Histoire du Soldat by Stravinsky. Her only major production with Wigman’s company occurred in 1930, when Holm served as associate director and appeared as the leader of the chorus in what was arguably Wigman’s greatest work, Das Totenmal (The Death Monument, 1930). In September 1931 impresario Sol Hurok brought Hanya Holm to America to open the Mary Wigman School of Dance in New York City. The first year was full of students and publicity, as it came on the heels of a successful tour by Wigman of the states. Yet the second year of the school was more difficult for Holm—Hurok’s support faded, and the number of pupils dwindled as the school lost its novelty status. Throughout the next few years, Holm did not stay only in New York, but traveled throughout America. She faced another difficult decision in 1936, as Mary Wigman did not leave Germany when Hitler came to power, and the school was viewed with some suspicion. After discussing the matter with Wigman, Holm changed the name of the school to the Hanya Holm School of Dance. This break with Wigman also marked a change in pedagogical direction, as Holm began to develop what she deemed a more American style of dance instruction. She also became involved with a number of sum-

mer dance institutes. From 1934 through 1939, Holm taught at the summer Bennington School of Dance at Bennington College, along with Doris Humphrey, Martha Graham, and Charles Weidman. She also taught summers at the Hanya Holm/Colorado College Summer Dance Program in Colorado Springs, Colorado, from 1941 to 1983. Her own school of dance survived until 1967. Holm’s first major American piece came in 1937 with Trend, which was originally choreographed for the summer Bennington Festival and moved to New York later that year. She choreographed a number of pieces over the next ten years with her small company. Holm is best known, however, for her work on Broadway, choreographing thirteen musicals from 1948 to 1965. Her choreography for Cole Porter’s 1948 musical Kiss Me, Kate was recorded in Labanotation and is now located at the Library of Congress. Her greatest success came in 1956 with My Fair Lady by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe, a musical adaptation of George Bernard Shaw’s Pygmalion, for which she received a Tony Award nomination. Hanya Holm received a number of prestigious dance awards, including a New York Drama Critics’ Award for Kiss Me, Kate (1948–1949); a Critics’ Circle Citation for The Golden Apple (1954); an honorary doctorate from Colorado College (1960); and the Dance Magazine Award (1990) for lifetime achievement. Erika Elizabeth Hughes References and Further Reading Gitelman, Claudia. Dancing with Principle: Hanya Holm in Colorado, 1941–1983. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001. Sorell, Walter. Hanya Holm: The Biography of an Artist. Middleton, CT: Wesleyan University, 1979.

HORKHEIMER, MAX

HORKHEIMER, MAX b. February 14, 1895; StuttgartZuffausen,Württemberg d. July 7, 1973; Nürnberg, Bavaria German philosopher and sociologist who was a cofounder of the Frankfurt School and who presided over the exiled Institute of Social Research in the United States. Horkheimer became the director of the Institute of Social Research in 1931. He remained its general manager for nineteen years—even after it was relocated to Geneva and then, in 1935, to New York City, where it became affiliated with Columbia University, until it moved back to Frankfurt am Main in 1950. From 1932 until 1939 he also served as the editor of the institute’s journal Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (Journal for Social Research); from 1940 until 1942 he continued as editor of the journal’s successor, Studies in Philosophy and Social Science. While in Germany, Horkheimer studied psychology and philosophy at the universities in Munich, Freiburg im Breisgau, and Frankfurt am Main from 1919 until 1922. In 1925 he finished his second doctoral dissertation (Habilitation) with a thesis on “Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft als Bindeglied zwischen theoretischer und praktischer Philosophie” (Kant’s Critique of Judgment as the Connective Element between Theoretical and Practical Philosophy). After becoming a lecturer at Frankfurt University in 1926, he was appointed a professor for social philosophy in 1930. In 1933 Horkheimer emigrated first to Switzerland and then to the United States. At Columbia University, which became a safe haven for him, he set up a new home for the Institute of Social Research. During a brief visit to Europe in 1937, he encountered Walter Benjamin. In 1940

517

Horkheimer moved to California, where he collaborated with Theodor W. Adorno on their Dialektik der Aufklärung (Dialectic of Enlightenment) between 1940 and 1944. In 1943 Horkheimer accepted an offer to become the director of the research department of the American Jewish Committee (AJC), an organization founded in 1906 as a response to the pogroms in tsarist Russia that campaigns to enhance human rights and fundamental freedoms by using research, strategic planning, and social as well as political action to reduce intolerance and discrimination, at its headquarters in New York City. There, he was put in charge of a comprehensive research project (from 1943 until 1949) on antisemitism and prejudice in light of the frightening and dehumanizing events in his native Germany. A work in five volumes titled Studies in Prejudice with a wealth of information published by the AJC was the outcome. In 1949, however, Horkheimer returned to West Germany, where he was appointed professor of social philosophy at Frankfurt University and from 1954 to 1959 president of the university. Horkheimer outlined his theoretical approach in his programmatic essay “Traditional and Critical Theory” (1937), in which he made the case for integrating philosophy and social science and for developing a relationship of integrity between critical theory and political science. This first stage in his thinking is characterized by a positive utopianism and optimism toward the possibility of a revolutionary change. However, in his second stage of thinking, Horkheimer seems to have lost hope that his vision would ever be realized; his later writings contain evidence of the utmost difficulty and impossibility of reaching the original goal. The Dialectic of Enlightenment

518

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

(1947) sharply critiqued “enlightened” reason and Western rationality. This publication manifests a negative utopianism and a critique of Karl Marx and orthodox Marxism. This shift was caused by Horkheimer’s move from Marx to Arthur Schopenhauer and from revolution to a commitment to education. After World War II, Horkheimer’s view of society became even more pessimistic, due to the influence of the war experience and the Holocaust. The conceptual possibilities of the Enlightenment dissolved into instrumental rationality instead of the tradition of objective reason. Instrumental rationality was entirely devoted to the calculation of relating means to ends, which were usually unquestioned, and to pure commercialism. Within this context of power relations and groups, life becomes a mission and within a dialogical setting, the struggle over self-constitution and rearticulation of identity, knowledge, and intersubjectivity becomes concrete—even within a completely constructed and controlled reality. Claudia A. Becker See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Antisemitism; Frankfurt School References and Further Reading Benhabib, Seyla, ed. On Max Horkheimer: New Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1993. Gumnior, Helmut. Max Horkheimer: Mit Selbstzeugnissen in Bilddokumenten, dargestellt von Helmut Gumnior und Rudolf Ringguth. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1997. Löffler-Erxleben, Barbara. Max Horkheimer zwischen Sozialphilosophie und empirischer Sozialforschung. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1999. Sattler, Dieter. Max Horkheimer als Moralphilosoph: Studie zur Kritischen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1996. Wiggershaus, Rolf. Max Horkheimer zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius, 1998.

HUEBSCH, BEN W., STEFAN ZWEIG, LION FEUCHTWANGER, FRANZ WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT Ben W. Huebsch (1876–1964) eagerly and generously supported European émigrés who sought and/or found entry to the United States during the critical years of 1933 to 1945. Among other measures, he especially provided many German and Austrian émigrés with an opportunity to publish their works in the United States in translation. As a co-owner and senior editor of the Viking Press, Huebsch was responsible for the acquisition and publication of many books by important German and Austrian writers, including Hermann Broch, Alfred Döblin, Erich Maria Remarque, and Carl Zuckmayer. In particular, three Jewish Austrian/German writers became Huebsch’s dearest, lifelong, personal friends, as well as most admired and respected writers: Franz Werfel (1890– 1945), Lion Feuchtwanger (1884–1958), and Stefan Zweig (1881–1942). After a short career as an apprentice for a lithographer and some work in the printing trade, Huebsch met the popular lecturer Edward Howard Griggs, who influenced him to enter the publishing field. Between 1902 and 1925, the B. W. Huebsch firm published hundreds of books under its own imprint, rapidly cultivating an impressive roster of about fifteen new titles each year. Even early in his publishing career, Huebsch could recognize talent, publishing the first works of numerous authors who rapidly rose to fame thereafter. In so doing, he introduced the American public to a wealth of new American and European authors, such as D. H. Lawrence, James Joyce, Sherwood Ander-

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

son, H. G. Wells, Mahatma Gandhi, Stephen Wise, Elizabeth Madox Roberts, Thorstein Veblen, Maxim Gorky, August Strindberg, Frances Hackett, Ellen Key, Sigurd Ibsen, David Pinski, Jean Starr Untermeyer, and Gerhart Hauptmann. Despite such success, Huebsch’s youthful days had been marked with supreme tragedy. When Huebsch was eight years old, his father Adolph Huebsch (1830– 1884) suddenly passed away. Born in the small town of St. Nicolaus in Hungary, Adolph Huebsch had participated in the Hungarian revolution of 1848 and 1849 while a student there. After the revolt was suppressed, Adolph resumed his Judaic studies, receiving his PhD in 1861 from Prague University. Already respected in 1861 as a unique and valuable figure in Jewish and Rabbinical scholarship and instruction, he officiated as a rabbi in various towns, and in 1866 was called to New York where he had been offered a prestigious position at the well-known New York Jewish congregation Ahawath Chesed Temple, located at 55th Street and Lexington Avenue. Soon after Adolph Huebsch’s 1866 arrival in the United States as an immigrant, he gained recognition as a prominent and towering Jewish community figure whose spiritual strength and command were immense. During this period, Rabbi Huebsch authored, edited, and translated many estimably acclaimed religious and spiritual books. In midsummer 1925, when Huebsch was forty-nine, he learned that two twenty-five-year-old colleagues, also situated in New York, had just founded (in March of this same year) the Viking Press publishing house and desired to expand it. The Viking Press founders were Harold Guinzburg, who had graduated from Har-

519

Stefan Zweig (left) and Ben W. Huebsch (right, with the pipe) in an undated photo. (Photo Courtesy of Jeffrey B. Berlin)

vard in 1921, and George Oppenheimer, who had graduated from Williams College and, after that, from Harvard. Huebsch considered the prospect of a merger with Viking a good opportunity. Although Huebsch’s own publishing house continued to be successful, its operation became ever more complex. Also, even though books with the Huebsch imprint brought profit, after deducting expenses, the actual income received usually was insufficient to allow speculation on certain advantageous opportunities. Nevertheless, the financial factor did not greatly disturb Huebsch. What he most lacked was the free time to pursue those matters that interested him the most. In regard to the above, in 1914, for example, Huebsch had begun to make annual summer trips to Europe so that he could vacation and personally interact with potential authors. Huebsch’s 1937 article “Footnotes to a Publisher’s Life,” which appeared in the most distinguished,

520

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

bibliophile quarterly that Elmer Adler Pynson printed, reported about the supreme significance of such visits. And in this article Huebsch observed that, in short, his European visit of “1914 resulted in such a net-gain in friends and experience as to effect [his] subsequent course considerably” (Huebsch 1937, 424). Of course, his opportunities, impressions, and pleasures were enhanced by his fluency in German and French. Personal meetings with European writers account for many of his book contracts, and he also positioned himself in an excellent manner to evaluate manuscripts himself. However, during Huebsch’s yearly three- to fourmonth summer journeys to Europe and during his lengthy trip from December 4, 1915, to March 7, 1916, when he was in Europe with the Henry Ford Peace Plan Commission, for example, he had no one to whom he could delegate responsibilities in his publishing firm. Such a dilemma represented a major problem. Accordingly, a merger with the Viking Press represented an excellent means to resolve his business predicament. In short, the merger proceeded without complications, and in August 1925, Huebsch bought stock in the Viking Press, and the Viking Press owners bought stock in B. W. Huebsch, Inc. In this same month the two companies formally merged. Interestingly, the B. W. Huebsch, Inc./Viking Press union was completed even before the Viking Press had published any books under its own name. Noteworty, too, is that the seven-branched candelabra that Huebsch had used as a logo for his own imprint (which had been designed by his talented, artistic sister and was meant to symbolize Huebsch’s religious origins) was immediately replaced by the new Viking-

ship logo, which the famous American painter, printmaker, engraver, lithographer, and illustrator Rockwell Kent (1882– 1971) had drawn. In the new Viking Press structure, Huebsch’s official title was vice president and director, which meant that he functioned as the firm’s senior editor. He assumed this role from August 1925 until his retirement in May 1956, after which he remained as a literary adviser until his death on August 8, 1964, at the London Athenaeum Hotel. At the time of the merger, Huebsch’s financial stability dramatically increased, but of more importance to him was the fact that he no longer would be accountable for the firm’s day-to-day operations, which were assumed by Harold Guinzburg, who continued as Viking Press president. Guinzburg was “captain of the Viking crew” and “set the course and made the tough decisions,” as Malcolm Cowley, who in 1949 became a part-time literary consultant at the Viking Press, has stated in his commentary about Marshall A. Best (p. 9). Oppenheimer became corporate secretary and a director, with primary responsibility for the firm’s publicity and advertising. The attorney Wolfgang S. Schwabacher of a major law firm was a silent partner and represented the publishing house in legal matters. Charles Margolin became the firm’s treasurer. In the early 1920s there existed a wealth of successful American publishing houses, yet only two publishers—the newly established Viking Press, cofounded, as noted, by Guinzburg and Oppenheimer in March 1925, and the Alfred A. Knopf Publishing Company, which Knopf had founded in May of 1915. Especially the Viking Press and the Knopf firm

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

recognized the potential cultural and economic value that the publication and sale of translated European writers’ works in America could provide. In fact, even before Huebsch’s association with the Viking Press, he understood well the European writers’ market. In 1926, at the Viking Press, Huebsch gained a unique advantage over other publishing houses: one of Huebsch’s new Viking authors was Stefan Zweig. Like Huebsch, all of his life Zweig professed goodwill, tolerance, and understanding toward all peoples. The ideals for which Zweig strove were peace, liberty of the individual, and the moral unity of Europe and the world, which were identical with Huebsch’s ethical and moral stance. Zweig, who enjoyed helping other individuals, began recommending to Huebsch the best European works that were in progress or that just had appeared. In turn, Huebsch acted to secure the first translation rights for his American firm. Zweig also began introducing Huebsch to the most established and upcoming European authors. The immediate and phenomenal popularity of writers like Werfel, Feuchtwanger, and Zweig in the United States undoubtedly resulted largely from their individual artistic talent and capabilities. Yet without the support and guidance of Huebsch, such acclaim would not have been achieved. Even though some émigré writers were productive in the United States, the number was minimal, exemplified well by the Jewish German émigré figure Heinrich Eduard Jacob (1889–1967). Unlike the literary works of Werfel, Feuchtwanger, or Zweig, Jacob’s writings only recently had been introduced to the American public, whereas the others had had their writings published in English

521

translation since the mid-1920s. Yet in Europe Jacob was known as a prolific, profound, and internationally respected cultural historian, biographer of great musicians, novelist, dramatist, essayist, and translator. Furthermore, during Jacob’s lifetime he would publish thirty-six acclaimed books with Europe’s most prestigious publishers. With one exception—Jacob’s Coffee: The Epic of a Commodity, which the Viking Press published in 1935—Jacob’s submissions to the Viking Press were declined. Jacob did successfully locate other American publishers to issue some of his books, but they did not sell well. Like many other émigré figures, Jacob bemoaned having been severed from his birth country of Germany, mother tongue, and culture, as well as German publishers, readers, critics, and colleagues. In fact, a comparison of Thomas Mann’s exile years with those of Heinrich Eduard Jacob underscores the difficulties less famous émigré writers encountered in America (Berlin, “In Exile”) and, at the same time, permits us to recognize the similarities and differences between American publishers such as Huebsch, who may be compared with Mann’s publisher, namely, Alfred A. Knopf (Berlin, “On the Nature of Letters”). Also, even though Thomas Mann was fully committed to using Knopf as the publisher of his works in translation, Ben Huebsch did assist Mann in ways that Knopf could not. Succinctly, Huebsch’s attention to individuals did not end if there were no possibility to eventually obtain a particular person as an author for his Viking Press. Clearly, Jacob’s dilemma dramatically contrasted with the experiences of Mann,Werfel, Feuchtwanger, and Zweig in the United States. Werfel’s voluminous works consisted mainly of short stories,

522

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

novellas, sketches, poems, essays, lectures, plays, and ten novels. Indeed, the publication of Werfel’s first volume of poems Der Weltfreund (Friend of Mankind) in 1911 had made him famous overnight, with critics correctly comparing Werfel to Walt Whitman. But Werfel’s American successes were due more to his works such as The Forty Days of Musa Dagh (1934), Eternal Road (1936), Jeremias—Hearken unto the Voice (1938), Embezzled Heaven (1940), The Song of Bernadette (1942), Jacobowsky and the Colonel (1944), Between Heaven and Earth (1944), and Star of the Unborn (1946). As an examination of Huebsch’s published and still-unpublished correspondence with Franz Werfel and Alma Mahler Werfel reveals, of all Werfel’s works, the most successful in the United States was his historical epic narrative entitled The Song of Bernadette, which the Viking Press published, in the translation by Ludwig Lewisohn, on May 11, 1942. The first edition of Bernadette appeared in 200,000 copies. Sales were astonishing, and only a few weeks later the Viking Press printed another 100,000 copies. By the end of July 1942 the Viking Press had printed a total of 400,000 copies of Bernadette. In fact, between June 1942 and June 1943 there were eleven large printings of it. Remarkably, too, shortly after Bernadette’s appearance, Werfel’s work also became—in June 1942—the top best-selling book in the United States, having overtaken John Steinbeck’s war novel Bombs Away. And just prior to the 1943 Christmas sales season, Huebsch reported that, during this early preholiday period, at least another 802,000 copies had been sold (Berlin, Daviau, and Johns 1991).

The Song of Bernadette became the Book-of-the-Month Club selection for July 1942 and, at the time, as the Ben Huebsch/ Franz Werfel/Alma Mahler Werfel correspondence in addition to Viking Press business records contained in the Huebsch archive at the Library of Congress reveal, it distributed approximately 355,800 copies of the volume. Also, Literary Guild Special Sales amounted to additional sales of about 287,000 copies (see especially Huebsch’s letter of November 29, 1943, to Alma Mahler Werfel in Berlin, Daviau, and Johns 1991, 168). In approximately the first four months of the Viking Press sales proper, the publishing firm sold 93,750 copies of Bernadette. Then, in the one-year period from July 1942 until July 1943 the Viking Press sold another 300,000 copies of Bernadette. In November 1943 Huebsch could report that an additional 802,800 copies were sold. Furthermore, Werfel received $125,000 from the Twentieth Century-Fox studio for the film rights, and Bernadette even became an Academy Award–winning movie in 1943. In 1944 The Song of Bernadette continued to sell at a rate of approximately 10,000 copies per month. As Huebsch explains in his letter of May 25, 1943, to Franz Werfel, he also had “arranged with Omnibook [the monthly magazine composed of condensed novels] for the publication of Bernadette in their July issue [which did] not use the Ladies’ Home Journal condensation but [made] their own” (Berlin, Daviau, and Johns 1991, 153). From this Werfel earned another $1,000. Among other successes, Bernadette also was chosen by “the Government for distribution to the Services [and] the minimum first edition [was] 50,000 [copies].”

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

Also, in the spring of 1944 The Song of Bernadette was offered in a cheap edition at $1.49, which after only nine months had sold 800,000 copies. From this brief sketch of but a few activities concerning sales of the Bernadette book, we gain an instructive lesson about some of Huebsch’s talents and responses, particularly when the potential to profit appeared to be close at hand. Another factor becomes evident from the above comments; namely, the value of letters. To be sure, throughout his career, Huebsch was an excellent and avid letter writer and often engaged in “literary exercises” through this medium, for it is not an exaggeration to say that to him letters represented another form of art. In fact, throughout his lifetime Huebsch kept carbon copies of almost all his letters, almost all of which he donated to the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. As an in-house Library of Congress guide about the contents of the Ben Huebsch archive (and especially the extensive amount of epistolary documents that are part of it) states: “[These] letters reflect the man. Huebsch’s pithiness and compression, in turn, affected many of his correspondents” (p. 1). Furthermore, John Broderick, then at the Library of Congress, observes: “An impressive feature of the correspondence is its evidence that Mr. Huebsch was able to sustain simultaneously a large number of close and perhaps emotionally taxing friendships” (Broderick 1965, 24). Of all the correspondence that Huebsch maintained, his many still-unpublished exchanges with Werfel, Feuchtwanger, and Zweig remain the most revealing. In these epistolary documents, one vividly observes Huebsch’s attitude toward his profession and society, his likes and dislikes, his man-

523

ner of association with various authors, his literary imagination, and his unique aptitude in his multiple roles as publisher, editor, critic, and friend. Huebsch’s exchanges with these three writers, with few exceptions, always extended beyond business matters. Among the topics discussed are the genesis of their respective works, selfcriticism, publisher interactions, translation issues, political viewpoints, or the publisher’s and author’s concept of the Umwelt (environment) and Zeitgeist (spirit of the times). Concerning the current literary situation: “[N]ever,” says Huebsch in his essay “What Has Become of German Literature” (p. 629), “has there been so rapid a flowering as of the German (and Austrian) literature that marked the fifteen years between 1918 and 1933,” adding in this same commentary (pp. 633–634), “great [ . . .] has been their fall: once the confidants and advisers of creative writers, purveyors to the intellectual appetite of a nation of educated folk, producers of the best in printing, today they have as little to say about what they may publish as a German author has about what he may write.” As Huebsch also observed in this same 1938 analysis, this created the following results; namely, that “the number of books translated from German (except by those exiled from Germany and Austria) is decreasing perceptibly. This is partly a reflection of the American unwillingness to support German exports, but more considerably because of the thin stuff that is offered” (p. 634). As Huebsch repeatedly made clear in his letters to various individuals, before the Viking Press published a work in translation, the text needed to demonstrate that the flavor of the book would not vanish in

524

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

translation. That is, an American audience generally unacquainted with German culture and its milieu had to be capable of easily developing the associational ties or observations necessary to comprehend the finer points of a particular book. If this were not to occur, Huebsch felt the translated book would remain merely a curious novelty. On the other hand, Huebsch always remained a remarkably humane individual. Even though numerous émigrés could not produce manuscripts that matched Viking’s standards, Huebsch still supported such figures—either with monetary advances that he never expected would be repaid or by other forms of assistance. The same is true, too, with Werfel, Feuchtwanger, and Zweig, all of whom also always willingly looked out for their fellow colleagues, both financially and with any other means of support that they could offer. Feuchtwanger found exile in the United States, arriving on October 5, 1940. As he exited the ship, Huebsch not only was there to greet and welcome him as a personal friend, but also appeared at the request of the State Department, which wanted to be certain Feuchtwanger revealed little about his May 21, 1940, internment at the French camp Les Milles (Bouches-du-Rhone) from which his wife successfully obtained his release on September 29, 1940. Immediately after learning about Feuchtwanger’s imprisonment, Huebsch had saved his friend’s life by using his connections with Eleanor Roosevelt and the White House to arrange for Feuchtwanger’s escape to the United States. Before coming to the United States, from 1933 to 1940 Feuchtwanger and his wife had found asylum in Sanary, in the south of France. They had not left Europe be-

cause Feuchtwanger felt he best could fight against Hitler if, in this hateful climate, he wrote against National Socialism. In America, Feuchtwanger was recognized as an author of great books. Indeed, in 1927, as we learn from the Feuchtwanger correspondences, the Viking Press had published Feuchtwanger’s Jud Süss under the title Power. Huebsch must have been proud to write his friend Feuchtwanger that more than 3 million copies were sold, and it immediately established his popularity and generally became the book for which he is most known. Feuchtwanger’s other works published by the Viking Press are too numerous to cite, but among the most popular titles in America were The Ugly Duchess (1928), Success (1930), The Oppermanns (1934), Moscow—1937 (1937), Paris Gazette (1940), The Devil in France (1941), Double, Double, Toil and Trouble (1943), Simone (1944), Proud Destiny (1947), and The Devil in Boston (1948). Zweig’s compositions were of a completely different style from those of the historical novel writer Lion Feuchtwanger. First, Zweig continued to be recognized as a multitalented, cosmopolitan, nonpolitical writer, and his wide-ranging, voluminous, and versatile works earned him a permanent, undeniable place in the canon of world literature and modern intellectual history. And even though Zweig’s literary writings have remained of supreme importance, his self-appointed role as an intermediary always merited, on a different scale, equal significance. In this intermediary role he achieved much that otherwise would not have been undertaken. Additionally, in the bleak period of Nazism, Zweig bravely supported oppressed people to the best of his capabilities. Not only did Zweig thereby save lives, but he also pro-

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

vided a spiritual refuge for those who were torn and suffering, even at a time when he, too, was in exile and tormented. As Zweig’s contemporaries and correspondence acknowledged, his interest, generosity, and connections were invaluable. Stefan Zweig fought against National Socialism symbolically in his literary works. In so doing, he employed the written word as a force against the sword of the Third Reich. For example, Zweig’s The Triumph and Tragedy of Erasmus (1934) represented his “tract against the party spirit, against fanaticism both of right and left,” “fanaticism [ . . .] the counterpart of world reason,” as Zweig characterized it in his December 30, 1933, letters to Huebsch (Berlin, “The Struggle for Survival,” p. 387; see also Zweig, Briefe 1932–1942, vol. IV). In a theoretical sense, the moralist Zweig remained an exemplary representative of an individual who advanced the doctrine of humanitarianism. Zweig’s Erasmusian vision articulated well its author’s loathing of politics. Remarkably symbolic, Erasmus, however, yielded nothing practical—nothing substantive—just as we find in so many of Zweig’s other works such as Jeremiah: A Drama in Nine Scenes (1917), in which the concluding line reads: “A people can be put in chains—its spirit, never” (Zweig 1982, 327). Yet, if at the end of Zweig’s Jeremiah, it is the spirit that is victorious, then does not the victory come too late? As the times altered, Zweig realized that his present response to war could not be fought with the symbolic expressions previously presented in works such as Erasmus and Jeremiah. Zweig understood that his responses were not functional and did not protect anyone against the abnormal Zeitgeist that Hitler had created. The

525

medium of symbolic language—defense by a symbolic shield—no longer could function as an adequate guard against the diabolical Hitler. Zweig changed and began to pen articles that directly—not symbolically—spoke against National Socialism. Like Werfel and Feuchtwanger, then, Zweig, too, maintained that all writers have a duty to give evidence of what happened in their time, which represented the purpose for which Zweig wrote his posthumously published intellectual autobiography The World of Yesterday (1943), which, although not acknowledged in the book, Huebsch cotranslated. Even though Huebsch offered suggestions to correct certain sentences or expressions in an author’s manuscript, the publisher never translated complete works. Hence, it is very significant that Huebsch cotranslated The World of Yesterday and, furthermore, that Huebsch himself translated Zweig’s last work The Royal Game (1944), Zweig’s only work that focused on the brutality and abuse of power by the Nazis. In The World of Yesterday, Zweig claimed that the destiny of his generation was “loaded down with a burden of fate as was hardly any other in the course of history” (p. xvii). And The Royal Game—generally regarded as Zweig’s best work—powerfully illustrates the above-noted idea. Immensely haunting in the way it conveys the impact of psychological terror and dictatorial rule, the story captured a particular aspect of the Zeitgeist during the Holocaust in Europe as perhaps no other author before or after Zweig. Only speculation may be offered about why this citizen of the world Stefan Zweig committed suicide. Even though he had just cause to feel depressed and despondent, the fact that only hours before

526

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

his self-inflicted death he mailed off the manuscripts of his autobiography and The Royal Game to his American, German, and Spanish publishers suggests clearly that he cared, if not for himself, then at least with the plight of his fellow Jews and others who fell victim to Hitler’s inhumanity. Zweig’s action reveals concern about the future of humanity and, again and again, he advocated that individuals jot down their reminiscences on paper. Only such documentation, as Zweig maintained, would provide witness for future generations as to what had happened during the period when National Socialism swept crazily through Europe. Huebsch was of a similar mindset. Even though the Viking Press publisher never printed his thoughts and recollections, he dictated, at times in much detail, invaluable information about his life, work, and the Zeitgeist. This unpublished, typewritten oral history manuscript that consists of several hundred pages is archived at the Oral History Collection of Columbia University in New York City. Hence, Zweig’s dispatching of the autobiography manuscript as well as The Royal Game materials must be considered a constructive and positive undertaking. Even though some colleagues and others viewed his suicide as a purely emotional, thoughtless display of weakness and exhaustion, which as Zweig’s letters indicate, is partially correct, nevertheless elsewhere Stefan expressed that he knew precisely what suicide meant, at least for himself (Berlin 1982). One additional explanation suffices here: two days after his suicide Zweig’s German friend and colleague, René Fülöp-Miller, also a literature writer, received a last letter from his friend whom he had known since 1905.

Zweig, who had been preparing a book on Michel Eyquem de Montaigne (1533–1592), told Fülöp-Miller to read Montaigne’s remarks about suicide. In fact, in this letter Zweig even quoted the following from Book 2, Section 3 of Montaigne’s essay entitled “Coustume de l’Isle de Cea” (“A Custom of the Island of Cea”): “‘In life we are dependent on the will of others, but our death is our own affair. Reputation has nothing to do with it. It is nonsense to take it into consideration. Life means service on condition that we are free to die [Zweig’s italics] [ . . .] Death is the great home-coming’” (FülöpMiller 1951, 134). Incidentally, for Zweig, Montaigne’s “Coustume de l’Isle de Cea” in its entirety represented an especially special commentary that throughout his lifetime the Austrain writer very frequently reread. Excluding various research and lecture trips, since October 1933 Zweig had been living in British exile, which offered him an environment of freedom and peace. He posed no British security risks but, as an Austrian citizen, was considered an alien. However, after Great Britain declared war on Germany, Zweig, like others in his alien category, was converted into a new category: the enemy alien. The stipulations that Great Britain attached to such “enemy alien” individuals infuriated Zweig to such a degree that, along with other factors, he felt that his attempts at writing were hindered as well (cf. the last chapter in Zweig’s The World of Yesterday, esp. 396 ff. and 427 ff.; for other aspects, see Zweig, Briefe, vol. IV, 668). When, in March 1940, he finally received the British Certificate of Naturalization, he could have remained there (Berlin 1998, 286–301). However, among many factors, such as the

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

Nazi occupation of three-fifths of France in May–June of 1940, the closeness of war in Great Britain, and the offer in November 1940 by Brazil’s General Consulate of a permanent visa convinced him to once again continue his tour of emigration into what was considered the New World. Describing Brazil—the New World—Zweig explained in his autobiography that “[h]ere there was an even more tender feeling for the past than in Europe itself, the brutality that came in the wake of the First World War had not penetrated the customs or the spirit of the nation. . . .Here man was not separated from man by absurd theories of blood, race, and origin . . .Here the land, ready for the future, still waited for man so that he might use it and fill it with his presence. Europe’s contribution to civilization could be extended and developed . . .My vision blessed by the manifold beauty of this beautiful new Nature, I had a glimpse into the future” (Zweig 1943, 399–400). However, escape to Brazil from the war front as well as other serious factors gave the Austrian Jewish refugee little reprieve, except that he still felt he could exercise his individual freedom. Unlike the positive recognition accorded by critics in the United States toward Zweig’s latest book entitled Brazil: Land of the Future, which the Viking Press published in 1941 in the translation by Andrew St. James, its unexpectedly divided reception in Brazil, where it also appeared in translation in 1941, especially surprised, disappointed, and very much disturbed him, particularly at a time in his life when he desperately needed positive encouragement. After all, as Zweig felt, of all his writings, Brazil should have elated the country’s population even more than his twenty-five other books, which were

527

available, in translation, in Brazil and all of which had become a literary sensation. Yet Brazil’s intellectual population remained divided, and even though more than 100,000 copies of the Brazil book were immediately sold to most satisfied readers, there remained another group that felt Zweig had been paid to write a book about Brazil that presented the country in its best way. The latter rumor, of course, was sheer nonsense. Of course, Zweig had not always accurately depicted the political Zeitgeist in present-day Brazil, and discord could have been predicted, at least by those individuals who represented the country’s more radical population. After all, in various ways Zweig’s “Land of the Future” was unlike the reality of the country that actually existed, but which, nevertheless, Zweig skillfully had styled, owing to his practiced fin de siècle approach and his talent to capture values of universal humanism. Lacking in particular, too, remained commentary about nationalism and totalitarianism, which daily had been gaining more and more followers in this “Land of the Future.” That disagreement ensued, then, was not unusual. Of course, other events also upset him, culminating in horror when he learned about the 1942 fall of Singapore. Together with Charlotte Elisabeth (Lotte) Altmann (1908–1942), his faithful, longtime secretary since 1934 and the individual (after his December 1938 formal divorce from Friderike) who became his second wife on September 6, 1939 (Zweig 1995, vol. IV, p. 258), suicide was chosen as the means to escape from his Angst. In the early afternoon of Monday, February 23, when their bodies were found, many empty bottles of the sleeping tablet Veronal were also discovered by their bedside.

528

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT

Although recently Zweig had been asked to write a biography focused on Brazil’s president Getulio Vargas, the Austrian writer also had made it known that he considered Vargas an unimpressive personality, even though his fifteen-year reign as Brazil’s president had resulted in much progress for his country. Nevertheless, many commentaries about Vargas justifiably refer to him as a “benevolent dictator” and/or a “reluctant revolutionary.” Nevertheless, upon Zweig’s death, President Vargas, who immediately had been informed of the suicide, requested that a state funeral should take place. Thousands of thousands of people crowded the street and followed the procession. Even though suicide had been the cause of death, the chief rabbi in Brazil still permitted burial at the Jewish cemetery in Petropolis. A non-ostentatious black marble stone, with their names in English and Hebrew, identifies their grave site. About Zweig’s suicide, Huebsch summarized his viewpoint in a lengthy letter to another Viking Press German writer and one of their mutual friends, Carl Zuckmayer (Berlin, “Carl Zuckmayer,” 197). Essentially, however, Huebsch did not wish to discuss the matter, expressing in another unpublished letter of February 27, 1942, to still another Viking Press writer, the 1937 French Nobel Prize laureate for literature Roger Martin du Gard (who had been introduced to Huebsch by Zweig) that “it is too painful and I know that your own clear mind will supply the necessary explanations. I don’t think it was a lack of courage that prompted his deed; his world had ceased to exist and he probably felt himself unsuited to the era to come” (Berlin, “Carl Zuckmayer,” p. 199). Finally, as commentators have said, of all the translated works of Zweig, the two

that Huebsch prepared represent the best translations of any ever made and demonstrate, too, that the translator—that is, Huebsch—irrefutably understood the most minute of Zweig’s convictions and inner dynamics. Privately, Huebsch’s translations may represent his own manner of memorializing his lifelong friend with whom he had shared most private thoughts and experiences. Huebsch and Zweig implicitly trusted each other since they had first met in 1925. The fact that Huebsch’s translation is considered so well done is not unusual because Huebsch’s profound sense of understanding represented an important characteristic that was with him as he excelled in whatever he undertook. Important, too, as the no less equally distinguished New York publisher Alfred A. Knopf, who had known Huebsch since 1912, expressed at a meeting with several of Huebsch’s friends when they gathered to offer tribute to their publisher friend after his unexpected death: “[ . . .] he was everlastingly consistent,” as Knopf related, “and never gave up any convictions that he once strongly held” (Knopf 1965, 12). In so many ways, then, Huebsch has become a distinct historical individual who left his mark on twentieth-century civilization and American society. Jeffrey B. Berlin See also Aufbau; Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Berlin, Jeffrey B. “Stefan Zweig and His American Publisher: Notes on an Unpublished Correspondence, with Reference to Schachnovelle [The Royal Game] and Die Welt von Gestern [The World of Yesterday].” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 56, no. ii (1982): 259–276. ———. “March 14, 1938: ‘Austria Exists No More.’ Some Unpublished Correspondence between Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler

HUEBSCH, ZWEIG, FEUCHTWANGER,WERFEL, AND THE VIKING PRESS IMPRINT Werfel, and Ben Huebsch.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 62, no. iv (1988): 741–763. ——. “Carl Zuckmayer and Ben Huebsch: Unpublished Letters about Stefan Zweig’s Suicide.” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 38, no. i/ii (1988): 196–199. ———. “In Exile. The Friendship and Unpublished Correspondence between Thomas Mann and Heinrich Eduard Jacob.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 64, no. i (1990): 172–187. ———. “The Struggle for Survival—From Hitler’s Appointment to the Nazi BookBurnings: Some Unpublished Stefan Zweig Letters with Ben Huebsch, and an Unpublished [Stefan Zweig] Manifesto.” In Turn-of-the-Century Vienna and Its Legacy: Essays in Honor of Donald G. Daviau. Eds. J. B. Berlin, J. Johns, and R. Lawson. Wien: Edition Atelier, 1993, pp. 361–387. ———. “Exile Experiences in Great Britain: The Unpublished Correspondence between Stefan Zweig and Sir Siegmund Warburg.” In Keine Klage über England? Deutsche und österreichische Exilerfahrungen in Großbritannien 1933–1945. Eds. Charmian Brinson et al. München: Iudicium Verlag, 1998, pp. 286–301. ———. “Introduction.” In Stefan Zweig, “The Royal Game” and Other Stories. Tr. Jill Sutcliffe. New York: Holmes & Meier, 2001. v–xii. ———. “‘[ . . .] permit me to say that you are an ideal publisher.’ Ben W. Huebsch of the Viking Press (New York)—Unpublished Correspondence with European Authors in Exile, with Special Attention to Lion Feuchtwanger.” In Refuge and Reality: Feuchtwanger and the European Émigrés in California: Proceedings of the International Feuchtwanger Society 2003. Eds. Pól Ó. Dochartaigh and Alexander Stephan. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B. V., 2005, pp. 109–129. ———. “On the Nature of Letters—Thomas Mann’s unpublished correspondence with his American publisher and translator, and unpublished letters about the writing of Doctor Faustus.” European Journal of English Studies 9, no. i (April 2005): 61–73.

529

Berlin, Jeffrey B., Donald G. Daviau, and Jorun Johns. “Unpublished Letters between Franz Werfel, Alma Mahler Werfel, and Ben Huebsch: 1941–1946.” Modern Austrian Literature. A Journal Devoted to Austrian Literature and Culture of the 19th and 20th Centuries 24, no. ii (1991): 123–200. Broderick, John C. “Remarks about Ben Huebsch.” In B. W. Huebsch, 1876–1964. A record of a meeting of his friends at the Grolier Club, New York City, on December 9, 1964. Ed. Marshall A. Best, Private printing. Boston: Meriden Gravure, 1965, pp. 21–25. Cowley, Malcolm. Marshall A. Best 1901–1982: Remarks by Malcolm Cowley on the Occasion of a Gathering in Remembrance on April 14, 1982, at The Century Association. Special Memorial Edition. Press of A. Colish, 1982. Fülöp-Miller, René. “Memorial for Stefan Zweig.” In Stefan Zweig: A Tribute to His Life and Work. Tr. Christobel Fowler. London: W. H. Allen, 1951, pp. 133–134. Huebsch, Ben W. “Footnotes to a Publisher’s Life.” The Colophon. A Quarterly for Bookmen II, no. 3, new series (summer 1937): 406–426. ———. “What Has Become of German Literature?” The English Journal 27, no. 8 (October 1938): 627–637. ———. “Publishing as a Social Force.” In Publishers on Publishing. Ed. Gerald Gross. London: Secker & Warburg, 1962, pp. 297–307. Knopf, Alfred A. “Remarks about Ben Huebsch.” In B. W. Huebsch 1876–1964. A record of a meeting of his friends at the Grolier Club, New York City, on December 9, 1964. Ed. Marshall A. Best, Private printing, Boston: Meriden Gravure, 1965, pp. 11–12. Zweig, Stefan. The World of Yesterday: An Autobiography. Tr. Benjamin W. Huebsch and Helmut Ripperger. New York: The Viking Press, 1943. ———. Tersites—Jeremias: Zwei Dramen. Ed. Knut Beck. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 1982. ———. Briefe 1897–1942. Eds. Knut Beck and Jeffrey B. Berlin. 4 vols. Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 1995–2005.

530

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON b. September 14, 1769; Berlin, Prussia d. May 6, 1859; Berlin, Prussia Brother of Wilhelm von Humboldt; Prussian traveler who became a world-famous icon of science in the nineteenth century. From 1799 to 1804 Humboldt explored extensively in South America and later in his life published widely about his travels. He started his studies at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder in 1787, but returned to Berlin soon after to have private science lessons before enrolling at the University of Göttingen in 1789. He finished his university education in early 1790 and then embarked on extensive study trips. Humboldt engaged in mercantile studies in Hamburg, followed by studies at the Mining Academy of Freiberg in Saxony until 1792. A four-year stellar career in the Prussian mining authority followed. The profits of the mines he supervised increased remarkably, due to his superior knowledge of geology and vocational training that he organized for the miners. Humboldt was a man of extraordinary intellectual capacities and a master of creating publicity for his research and persona. He gained access to the leading scientists, intellectuals, and decision-makers of his age, with whom he created a synergic environment, profiting from their contributions. After the death of his mother in 1796, the inheritance made him very wealthy, and he started preparations for a scientific voyage to South America. He learned Spanish and acquired knowledge about the New World in many libraries across Europe. King Charles IV of Spain approved of Humboldt’s endeavor after Humboldt had

presented his plans. Together with the French botanist Aimé Bonpland, he arrived in South America on July 16, 1799. This marked the start of a five-year intense study of the region, systematically applying the ideas and methods of the Enlightenment through what today is known as Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, and Cuba. Humboldt and Bonpland did not just follow the beaten paths of the trade and mail routes of the viceroyalty of New Spain, they also embarked on an almost fatal excursion down the Casiquiare Canal from the Orinoco to the Amazon River system to prove that a connection actually existed. En route from Bogotá to Lima, Humboldt climbed volcanoes, disregarding or unaware of the dangers of climbing in high altitudes. Measuring the Chimborazo volcano in Ecuador (20,702 feet), Humboldt ascended to 17,400 feet, setting a world record. Large parts of the collections that Humboldt and Bonpland shipped to Europe disappeared or were damaged by heat and humidity. As important as adventurous fieldwork were the resources available locally. In Caracas, Bogotá, Quito, Lima, and Mexico City Humboldt had access to official archives and libraries, where he copied scientific, statistical, and historical sources collected by enlightened Spanish administrators and clerics. Don Jose Celestino Mutis in Bogotá, who had collected the world’s second-largest herbarium with a total of 20,000 specimens, readily shared his knowledge. Shortly before returning to Europe from Cuba, Humboldt decided to visit the United States. They arrived in Philadelphia on May 24, 1804, where Humboldt became a member of the American Philosophical Society. Between June 1 and June

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON

13, Humboldt was received several times by President Thomas Jefferson in Washington, who had been impressed and flattered by a letter of introduction Humboldt had sent in advance. Because the Louisiana Land Purchase of 1803 had given the United States a large undefined border area with Mexico, Jefferson was interested in the geographical knowledge that Humboldt had assembled. Humboldt willingly shared maps and a copy of a memorandum he had written for the Spanish viceroy summarizing vital statistics about the colony with the president. On June 30, Humboldt and Bonpland finally left for Europe. Soon after their arrival in Paris on August 27, Emperor Napoleon celebrated their achievements with a grand reception. Even with a team of consulting scientists and artists, thirty years were necessary for the editing and publishing of the thirty-four volumes of Voyage de Humboldt et Bonpland aux régions équinoxiales du nouveau continent (Voyage of Humboldt and Bonpland to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent), all paid for by Humboldt himself. Three of these volumes, known under the abbreviated title Relation historique, were published in English translation beween 1814 and 1829 as Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent. In 1827 Humboldt had exhausted his wealth and returned to Berlin as a cultural and scientific adviser to King Friedrich Wilhelm III, with the title of chamberlain. Performing diplomatic duties for Prussia, he made extended trips to Paris and kept contact with leading circles in politics and science. In 1829 he embarked on an eightand-a-half-month journey to Siberia.

531

German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt, in an 1806 painting by Friedrich Georg Weitsch. (Bettmann/Corbis)

His next project was Cosmos, the attempt to write a comprehensive description of the universe. He had held lectures for a broad audience at the University of Berlin with the same title from November 1827 to April 1828. The first volume was printed in 1845. The following volumes were published when he had already reached his seventies and eighties, the fifth and last volume remained unfinished. Although Humboldt never returned to the United States, his friendships with American intellectuals and politicians developed into a network for intellectual exchange between Prussia and the United States throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. He corresponded with U.S. scientists and intellectuals, especially on the topic of precious metals, the possibility of a Panama Canal, and slavery. Most

532

HUMBOLDT,WILHELM VON

prominent was the exchange of letters and gifts with President Jefferson. Humboldt felt Jefferson was a personification of American democratic institutions. Jefferson defined the spheres-of-interest idea that later became the basis for the Monroe Doctrine. Humboldt had also befriended the secretary of the U.S. treasury, Albert Gallatin, a pioneer in ethnological studies of Native Americans, who was minister to France from 1816 to 1823. From 1836 to his death Humboldt was in regular contact with the diplomats of the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. He received American visitors such as John Quincy Adams, George Ticknor, George Bancroft, Alexander Dallas Bache, John Loyd Stephens, Bayard Taylor, and Samuel Morse in his home. In the United States, Humboldt’s fame spread outside intellectual circles mainly after the publication of the first volume of Cosmos. Geographical features worldwide were named after the admired explorer (the Humboldt Stream on the West Coast of South America, the Humboldt River in Nevada, the Humboldt Mountains in China). Counting important landmarks only, North America has fortyfive, Latin America thirteen, and Europe eleven. Humboldt often described himself as “half an American.” Yet he saw limitations to freedom in the United States, which was already on its path to the Civil War. Humboldt had made occasional use of slaves during his South American voyage, but was an outspoken opponent of slavery and serfdom. He publicly protested when a U.S. publisher omitted the chapter on the sensitive issue in an 1856 edition of his “Essay on Cuba.” Tommy Tobiassen

See also Adams, John Quincy; Bancroft, George; Humboldt, Wilhelm von; Panama; Taylor, (James) Bayard; Ticknor, George References and Further Reading Botting, Douglas. Humboldt and the Cosmos. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Dassow Walls, Laura. “‘Hero of knowledge, be our tribute thine.’ Alexander von Humboldt in Victorian America.” In Alexander von Humboldt’s Natural History Legacy and Its Relevance for Today. Northeastern Naturalist 8, Special Issue no. 1. Steuben, Maine, 2001. Humboldt, Alexander von. Personal Narrative of a Journey to the Equinoctial Regions of the New Continent. London, New York: Penguin, 1995.

HUMBOLDT,WILHELM VON b. June 22, 1767; Potsdam, Prussia d. April 8, 1835; Schloss Tegel, Prussia Prussian diplomat and linguist, the elder brother of Alexander von Humboldt, who conducted research on the pre-Columbian languages of the American continent. His father, Alexander Georg von Humboldt, was an officer and chamberlain for the Prussian king. His mother was Maria Elizabeth von Colomb, the widow of the Baron von Holwede. Neither of the brothers had the right to carry the title of a baron. The family belonged only to the lower ranks of Prussian aristocracy, but was wealthy and socially upward orientated. The mother came from a Huguenot Scottish merchant family. The Humboldt brothers grew up in Berlin and spent the summers at the family estate, Schloss Tegel. After the father died, his part in raising the brothers fell on their estate manager, Gottlob Christian Kunth. They were tutored by Kunth and leading scientists residing in Berlin.

HUTTEN, ULRICH VON

In 1787 both brothers started their studies at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder, and Wilhelm continued at the University of Göttingen the next year. This was typical training for civil servants at the time, though Humboldt entered and left the diplomatic service in 1791 without a posting abroad, after having received the title of Legationsrat (legation counselor, a high-ranking diplomat). Between 1797 and 1801, Humboldt traveled to France and Spain to research the Basque language. From 1802 to 1808, he served as Prussian envoy to Rome. In 1809 he accepted an appointment to be director of the Department of Religion and Public Education in the Ministry of Interior Affairs in Berlin. During his tenure, Humboldt reformed Prussian primary and secondary education, guided by his liberal and humanist ideas. His greatest triumph was the founding of the Frederick Wilhelm University in Berlin. Professors at this university had Lehrfreiheit, the freedom to teach subjects of their choice, the students had Lernfreiheit, the right to build their own curriculum of courses offered. Between 1810 and 1819, Humboldt had a number of diplomatic missions to Vienna, Paris, Frankfurt am Main, and London, before he resigned from state service. He continued to exchange ideas with influential Prussian politicians and he developed an interest in the future political development of the American continent. In a memorandum that predates the Monroe Doctrine, Humboldt raised the issue of trade with the new states in South and Central America. He recommended improving Prussian Spanish relations and limiting relations with the former Spanish colonies to maritime trade.

533

Humboldt engaged in a variety of academic projects. He produced pioneer studies of the Basque and Kawi languages. He was very interested in the philosophy of language. His studies provided the basis for twentieth-century linguists such as Noam Chomsky. Already in 1812 he had written an essay on the languages of the New World. Together with a few other documents this was published in his Gesammelte Schriften (Collected Writings). Because of its long isolation, North and South America and their civilizations fascinated Humboldt. He followed his brother’s expeditions and explorations very closely. A system of written language represented, in Humboldt’s mind, a once-developed civilization. However, Humboldt was skeptical that any more Mayan hieroglyphs could be found. The Inca quipo, in which symbols and numbers were woven into cloth for record keeping, was also mentioned as a possible trace of civilization. But whether it was a calculator, some sort of writing, or just a type of rosary remained unclear to him. Tommy Tobiassen See also Adelung, Johann Christoph; Humboldt, Alexander von; Vater, Johann Severin References and Further Reading Humboldt, Wilhelm von. Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968. Steinberg, Heinz. Wilhelm von Humboldt. Berlin: Stapp, 2001. Sweet, Paul Robinson. Wilhelm von Humboldt: A Biography. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1978.

HUTTEN, ULRICH VON b. April 21, 1488; Burg Steckelberg (Rhön) d. August 29, 1523; Ufenau Island in Lake Zurich

534

HUTTEN, ULRICH VON

Ulrich von Hutten, German humanist, poet, and the first prominent victim of syphilis, which was perceived as having come from the New World. (Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel)

German humanist and knight of the Holy Roman Empire, correspondent of Erasmus and poet laureate of the Holy Roman Empire who actively advocated the German Reformation. Best known to posterity for defending Johannes Reuchlin in Epistolarum obscurorum virorum (Letters of Obscure Men), Hutten was famous in his lifetime for his book De Guaiaci Medicina et morbo gallicus liber unus (Of the Wood Called Guaiacum, 1519). It confirmed his status as the most prominent early European victim of syphilis. An epidemic of syphilis was introduced to Europe by Spanish sailors after 1492. Initially, victims suffered from syphilis maligna, a virulent strain rare today except in HIV pa-

tients. Treatments were poisonous: application of mercury salve or inhalation of mercury vapor. Hutten proposed treatment with the bark of lignum vitae, a South American tree (Guaiacum officinale), claiming it cured him of what he called “the French disease.” Hutten contracted syphilis in Leipzig (1508). He failed to describe the chancre of primary syphilis. His early writings, which characterize the disease as a stroke of fate, indicate symptoms of secondary syphilis: fever, chills, and lesions. By 1512 he limped and suffered joint pain. Although he reported a cure to Erasmus in 1515, by 1516 symptoms returned. Over ten years he undertook eight mercury cures. In 1518 his health improved after treatment with lignum vitae. After publication of his book, Hutten wrote dialogues Febris prima, Febris secunda, Fortuna (First Fever, Second Fever, Fortune) attributing illness to loose living; fever is used as a metaphor for punishment and bad luck. Hutten instrumentalized the metaphor of illness in attacks on the Catholic Church. By 1521 his condition worsened. Political views made the vagabond knight an unwelcome guest. After failure to find refuge, he withdrew to the care of a healer on an island in Lake Zurich in August 1523, where he finally died. The acute cause of death possibly stemmed from nerve palsy (typical of tertiary syphilis), which hindered swallowing. Researchers exhumed Hutten’s remains in 1968, confirming syphilitic infections of the femur, tibia, and left foot. De Guaiaci Medicina reveals awareness of the American origins of the disease and transmission through sexual intercourse. (Noting that genital lesions are visible, Hutten urged men to examine sexual part-

HUTTEN, ULRICH VON

ners.) The book offers astrological explanations for the disease and explains it via the Galenic humors. Hutten described an earlier airborne strain characterized by acorn-sized pustules and odoriferous pus, but suggests victims now suffered from small, dry-crusted, hard pustules (similar to modern symptoms). He discussed syphilis’s effects on the bones, bladder, stomach, and liver, along with paralysis or stroke. Hutten claimed mercury treatments were palliative but that the only certain treatment was lignum vitae. The tree bark was hydrated for twenty-four hours and reduced to half its volume over at least six hours by boiling. For treatment, the patient remained in an airtight room. He or she ingested two glasses of unadulterated brew daily with a laxative and no food. Lesions were smeared with the brew’s foam. The patient lay covered in bed and was brought to sweat. Total treatment lasted forty days; feeding resumed after twenty. Patients were advised to avoid stimulation and abstain from intercourse.

535

Hutten was advised by personal physicians of the archbishops of Cologne and Mainz in the book’s details. Paracelsus doubted the cure. Still, De Guaiaci Medicina was quickly translated into German (1519), French (1520), and English (1533), and its conclusions included in important sixteenth-century medical works. Hutten’s claims were accepted until the 1560s, experienced an eighteenth-century revival, and were considered a possible treatment in European medical treatises until the mid-nineteenth century. Susan R. Boettcher References and Further Reading Allen, Peter Lewis. “The Just Rewards of Unbridled Lust: Syphilis in Early Modern Europe.” In The Wages of Sin: Sex and Disease, Past and Present. Ed. Peter Lewis Allen. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000. Holborn, Hajo. Ulrich von Hutten and the German Reformation. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Hutten, Ulrich von. Of the Wood Called Guaiacum. Tr. Thomas Paynell. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilm Service, 1939, Early English Books 1475–1.

I IHERING, HERMANN FRIEDRICH ALBRECHT VON b. October 9, 1850; Kiel, Holstein d. February 24, 1930; Büdingen, Hesse German physician and naturalist who conducted outstanding research into the zoology of Brazil. He was the son of a lawyer who was raised to the nobility in 1872. After he received his doctorate in medicine in 1873 from the University of Göttingen, he continued his scientific studies at the University of Erlangen, where he obtained his PhD in 1876 and his second doctoral degree (Habilitation) in the same year. In 1880 Hermann von Ihering went to Brazil and settled down as a physician in Taquara do Mundo Novo in Rio Grande do Sul. In the following years he undertook expeditions inside Brazil and, starting in 1883, he organized expeditions on behalf of the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro. He started zoological—mainly ornithological—collections that went, among other places, to the British Museum in London. In 1887 he moved to São Paulo to undertake the construction of a government museum (Museu Paulista). In 1893 he was named director of this museum, which he had developed from its smallest beginnings

into a significant collection. He added a botanical garden and established a biological station in Alto da Serra. Although a Brazilian citizen and a tenured civil servant, due to anti-German feelings during World War I, he was dismissed in 1916 with no salary claims. After the construction of a natural history museum in Florianopolis failed, he returned to Germany in 1920 and worked several more years as a titular professor of zoology and paleontology at the University of Gießen. Ihering’s scientific importance lay primarily in the field of zoogeography, in which he was known worldwide for his pioneering work. He compiled systematic lists of bird life for the Brazilian states of Rio Grande do Sul and São Paulo. Numerous other publications dealt with mollusks, mammals, amphibians, insects, and other classes of animals. Over one hundred animal species and five genera bear his name. He summarized his research on the paleogeographical question of the former landsea distribution since the Upper Cretaceous period on the basis of zoogeographical findings in his late work Die Geschichte des Atlantischen Ozeans (The History of the Atlantic Ocean, 1927). Heinz Peter Brogiato

537

538

ILLINOIS See also Brazil References and Further Reading Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Hermann von Ihering. Phoenix. Zeitschrift für deutsche Geistesarbeit in Südamerika 13, nos. 1, 2 (1927): 1–75. Parodiz, Juan J. “The Taxa of Fossil Mollusca Introduced by Hermann von Ihering.” Annals of Carnegie Museum 65, no. 3 (1996): 183–321. Uschmann, Georg. “Ihering, Hermann v.” In Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 10. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1974, p. 123.

ILLINOIS Germans began to settle in Illinois shortly after it became a state in 1818. Major waves of immigration occurred between 1830 and 1860, and by 1860 German-born constituted 7.65 percent of the state’s population. By 1890 Illinois was second only to New York in the size of its German population. Their large numbers made them a significant factor in the state’s politics, because they were perceived by the major political parties as a “swing” group in critical elections. The German element was at its strongest in the 1880s and 1890s, and developed an impressive array of cultural institutions. Their strength began to ebb after 1890, as earlier immigrants and their offspring assimilated and the flow of newcomers declined. The anti-German fervor of World War I left its impact on Illinois Germans, but many German institutions persisted until well after World War II. Although some Germans arrived in the United States as early as the War of 1812, they first began to come in large numbers during the 1830s. Arriving by water, they settled in rural areas near the Ohio and Mississippi rivers. One of the heaviest areas of German settlement in Illinois was the region east of the Mississippi opposite St.

Louis, Missouri. A colony of educated and professional Germans, known as the “Latin farmers,” came in the 1830s and settled near Belleville. Other German migrants followed the Great Lakes. Germans were arriving in Chicago soon after it was established as a village (1833) and found their way to rural townships north and west of the city. The city had its first German church in 1844 and established its first German newspaper, the Illinois Staatszeitung (Illinois Public News), in 1848. The great wave of emigration from Germany in the late 1840s and early 1850s coincided with the coming of the railroads, and many Germans sought farms in lands made accessible by the railroads across the northern part of the state. The remarkable growth of Chicago by 1860 attracted many newly arrived Germans as workers and artisans. The political controversies of the 1850s, stirred up both by nativist agitation and by the question of slavery expansion, pulled the Germans inevitably into the turmoil. Before 1854 they had normally followed the Jacksonian Democrats, who offered protection to the immigrant against nativist attacks. But after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which potentially opened new areas of the west to slavery, many Germans began to desert the Democratic Party of Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas, the primary author of the act. The new Republican Party that emerged by 1856 began to bid for the German vote. Among converts to the new party was the acknowledged leader of the Illinois Germans, Gustave Philipp Koerner, an attorney who had settled near Belleville in the 1830s and had become a state supreme court justice and, in 1852, the Democratic lieutenant governor. Another leader who turned Republican was Francis Hoffmann, a

ILLINOIS

Lutheran pastor from rural Cook County who turned to banking in Chicago and would become the Republican lieutenant governor during the Civil War. Other leadership came from the refugees of the 1848 revolutions; the most active Forty-Eighter was George Schneider, who edited the Illinois Staatszeitung. The Republicans never completely won over the Germans, although a majority of them probably voted for Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election. The Germans as a group remained politically divided for the rest of the century. The identification of some Republicans with the liquor Prohibition movement drove many Germans toward the Democratic side. A major political event affecting Germans was the passage in 1889 by the Republican-controlled state legislature of the Edwards Law, which established compulsory education, but specified that only schools in which the language of instruction was English would be allowed. The outcry against the law helped the Democrats make political gains among the Germans in the 1890s. The first Democratic governor to be elected since before the Civil War was the German-born John Peter Altgeld, who served from 1893 to 1897. In post–Civil War Chicago, a political machine led by German-born Anton Hesing, normally Republican, controlled much of the German vote there. However, the tide of new immigrants that peaked in the 1880s included many industrial working-class Germans, some tending toward various forms of radicalism and socialism. A crucial turning point for radical Germans was the Haymarket riot of 1886, in which eight policemen and an unknown number of bystanders died. Those tried and convicted for murder and conspiracy

539

were mostly anarchists with German names. Many Germans turned away from socialism and radicalism, although Germans’ political allegiances remained very fluid in the early twentieth century. As the second generation of Germans became more upwardly mobile, the culture of the German workingmen’s movement began to wither away. Much of the new German immigration at the end of the nineteenth century concentrated in the northern part of the state, and particularly in Chicago. The earlier German communities in the southern part of the state received fewer newcomers. Increasingly the new immigrants came from the northern and eastern sections of the German states, rather than the southern and western German origins of the pre–Civil War migration. The census figures of 1890 showed the German-born population near its peak, counting 338,382 residents in the state, amounting to 8.8 percent of the total population (U.S. Department of the Interior, Census Office 1895). Over half of the German-born population was in Chicago and its environs (Cook County). The city’s most concentrated German district stretched to the north and northwest from the city’s center, and included German stores, churches, social organizations, and mutual aid societies. By 1900, however, Germans were beginning to disperse into virtually all sections of the city. Chicago’s very visible “German America” would come under attack, first by the Prohibition movement, and second by anti-German sentiment at the time of World War I. Many Germans avoided the attacks by deserting German organizations, and some organizations changed their German names to English ones. The strength of German institutions had begun to

540

ILLINOIS STAATSZEITUNG

decline even before the war, but many survived until well after World War II. By 1950 the numbers of German-born residents, not replenished in very great numbers, stood at 96,517, only 1.1 percent of the state’s population (Historical Census Browser, University of Virginia Library, http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/sta ts/histcensus/. Accessed May 2005). In Chicago, Poles had replaced Germans as the largest European ethnic group. James M. Bergquist See also Altgeld, John Peter; Chicago; FortyEighters; Haymarket; Illinois Staatszeitung; Koerner, Gustave Philipp; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Holli, Melvin G., and Peter d’A. Jones, eds. Ethnic Chicago: A Multicultural Portrait. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Keil, Hartmut, and John B. Jentz, eds. German Workers in Industrial Chicago, 1850–1910: A Comparative Perspective. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, 1983. ———. German Workers in Chicago: A Documentary History of Working-Class Culture from 1850 to World War I. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1988. Koerner, Gustave. Memoirs of Gustave Koerner, 1809–1896; Life-Sketches Written at the Suggestion of his Children. 2 vols. Cedar Rapids, IA: Torch, 1909. Pierce, Bessie L. A History of Chicago. 3 vols. New York: Knopf, 1937–1957. U.S. Department of the Interior, Census Office. Report on the Population of the United States at the Eleventh Census: 1890. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1895, Pt. I, pp. cxxviii, 16.

ILLINOIS STAATSZEITUNG One of the leading German American daily newspapers during the nineteenth century. The Illinois Staatszeitung (Illinois State Newspaper, ISZ) was founded as a weekly

in 1848 in Chicago, where it was edited and published. At its peak between the Civil War and the early 1890s, the ISZ was one of the most widely read German American papers. The paper’s articles were reprinted and credited by many Germanlanguage papers throughout the United States and in Germany. The ISZ was a prime illustration of the influence of the relatively small group of Forty-Eighters as German American opinion leaders. Between 1850 and 1890, the ISZ was edited by known Forty-Eighters—among them Lorenz Brentano—who opposed slavery and were among the early supporters of the Republican Party. Like many German American papers, the ISZ fought attempts to introduce Prohibition laws beginning in the 1850s. The paper ceased publication soon after World War I. The first issue of the ISZ appeared on April 7, 1848, in Chicago. The founder of the weekly was Robert B. Hoeffgen. In 1851 he hired the Forty-Eighter George Schneider as editor. Schneider had been among the local leaders of the 1848 and 1849 revolution in the Palatinate. He fled the Prussian troops and a death sentence, emigrating to the United States. In 1850 he founded and edited the St. Louis Neue Presse (New Press) with his brother. With Schneider as editor, the ISZ began to identify with the emerging Republican Party. Schneider and other German immigrants were among the founders of the party in Illinois. The ISZ claimed to speak for most German immigrants in Chicago as an ethnic group. And, indeed, the paper did serve as a platform for numerous Vereine and as the hub of the growing German community. The editors took a firm stand against attempts to ban the sale and public consumption of alcohol, especially on Sunday.

ILLINOIS STAATSZEITUNG

Conflicts over Prohibition laws were symbolic battlegrounds over the “place” of (German and Irish) immigrants in midnineteenth-century America. In the mid1850s, the ISZ proliferated: since the early 1850s the paper appeared daily, and its circulation reached 1,000 copies. In 1854 a Sunday edition, Der Westen (The West), was added. Several Forty-Eighters worked as editors for the paper during the 1850s and 1860s: Eduard Schlaeger, Georg Hillgärtner, Heinrich Binder, Daniel Hertle, Wilhelm Rapp, and beginning in 1859, Lorenz Brentano (1813–1891), a prominent liberal politician from Baden. The paper strongly backed Abraham Lincoln’s bid for the presidency during the 1860 campaign. During the Civil War, the ISZ emerged as one of the leading German American newspapers. Its circulation rose to almost 10,000 copies. In 1861 and 1862 Brentano took over as the main editor, he bought the paper from Hoeffgen and Schneider, but sold a large minority share in 1863 to the local Republican politician Anton Casper Hesing. Like Schneider, Brentano was active as a Republican in state and city politics. During the Civil War he became one of the leading and most respected German Americans in Chicago and beyond. Like Carl Schurz, Brentano successfully made the transition from a respected German 1848 revolutionary to an influential American liberal politician. Brentano left the ISZ in 1867, selling his majority share to Hesing. He served as U.S. consul general in Dresden from 1872 to 1876. In 1876 Brentano was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from a Chicago district. The ISZ’s new owner, Hesing, an immigrant from Vechta in Oldenburg and one of the leading Republican “bosses” in

541

Chicago, used the paper for his intertwined political and economic interests. In 1869 he turned the ISZ into a stockholding company, keeping the majority of shares. The ISZ added a publishing business, printing German-language pamphlets and books in addition to the paper. Brentano’s successor as main editor was Hermann Raster, another Forty-Eighter. During the 1870s, the ISZ reached its peak. The 1871 Chicago Fire hardly affected the paper, which moved to Milwaukee for a short time. Its circulation remained between 7,000 and 10,000 during the 1870s. One of the major English-language papers, the pro-Republican Chicago Tribune, had a circulation of about 30,000 at the same time. The ISZ continued to support the Republican cause on the national level. Locally, it served Hesing’s personal interests, which did not always coincide with the agenda of the Chicago Republicans. Hesing’s involvement in several scandals, which even led to a jail sentence in the mid-1870s, did not hurt the paper’s image. The ISZ welcomed German unification, broadly supporting the German Empire and Otto von Bismarck. However, like many German American papers still edited by Forty-Eighters, the ISZ opposed the rising antisemitic movement in Germany. In 1880 and 1881, the ISZ and several other German American papers, like the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung (New York State Newspaper), condemned the national hero Bismarck for instrumentalizing the antisemitic movement. During the 1860s and 1870s, the ISZ successfully appealed to many German-speaking Jewish immigrants in Chicago. It regularly covered, for example, events in the small Jewish community in Chicago, most of whose members hailed from central Europe and identified

542

INDIAN CAPTIVITY

strongly with German Kultur and Bildung. Several rabbis had articles published in the ISZ on theological subjects that appealed mostly to Jewish readers. Likewise the paper managed to bring many other small groups of the heterogeneous and only loosely connected German immigrant group into its camp. During the 1870s, however, in a period of heavy German immigration to Chicago and the Midwest, the ISZ’s strong position gradually eroded, when several other German-language papers were started in Chicago. Increasingly, newly arriving German immigrants identified with socialism. The Chicago Arbeiter Zeitung (Chicago Workers’ Newspaper), founded in the late 1870s, and several smaller papers became the mouthpieces of the growing Socialist movement—which the ISZ fiercely opposed. During the notorious Chicago Haymarket riots of May 1886, ISZ editor Raster called for severe punishment of the mostly German anarchists who were suspected of having attacked the police. The Chicago Arbeiter Zeitung took the opposite position. In the 1890s, the ISZ lost its position as the leading German paper in Chicago. In 1891 the influential editor Raster died. With him the founding generation of the Forty-Eighters passed. The owner, Hesing, who for all his personal flaws had managed the paper skilfully, died in 1895. By the mid-1890s several other German-language papers had firmly established themselves in Chicago, the Chicago Arbeiter Zeitung, the Freie Presse (Free Press), and especially the Abendpost (Evening Post). The ISZ still maintained a high circulation of more than 10,000 copies, but the quality of its journalism and thus its prestige was deteriorating. In 1897 the paper was saved from

bankruptcy by Raster’s widow. Rising debts forced her to seek a merger with the Freie Presse in 1901. The ISZ continued to be published daily under its name with independent editors, and its circulation remained high with up to 20,000 copies, but it had to share the market with several other large German-language papers. Apart from changing economic and technical conditions, as well as management errors, the gradual downfall of the once-mighty ISZ after 1900 also reflected the slow erosion of the still-large German American community network from within during the same period. Causes included the decreasing immigration of German speakers, the loss of German as a spoken language among the second generation, and declining membership in the Vereine. The last issue of the ISZ was published on July 11, 1922. The paper was merged with the Bürgerzeitung (Citizens Newspaper) and continued to appear under its name as the Sunday edition Bürgerzeitung und Illinois Staatszeitung for a few more years. Tobias Brinkmann See also Chicago; Forty-Eighters; Haymarket; Illinois; Milwaukee; New Yorker StaatsZeitung; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Hinrichs, Beate. Deutschamerikanische Presse zwischen Tradition und Anpassung: Die Illinois Staatszeitung und Chicagoer Arbeiterzeitung 1879–1890. Frankfurt am Main, New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Hofmeister, Rudolf A. The Germans of Chicago. Champaign, IL: Stipes, 1976.

INDIAN CAPTIVITY Being captured by American Indians was a dreaded possibility—both real and imag-

INDIAN CAPTIVITY

ined—for early explorers and settlers on the ever-shifting American frontier. Their encroachment on Indian land and the Indians’ resistance to it made captivity an intensely feared historical reality. Taking captives had been an established tactic of Indian warfare well before Europeans arrived in the New World. Indians took captives for a variety of reasons: primarily to take revenge on their enemies; to obtain ransom money; or to replace relatives who had died in intertribal or, later, colonial wars or because of European diseases such as smallpox. The precise number of captives taken from the fifteenth through the nineteenth centuries remains a matter of speculation, but it might easily amount to tens of thousands. Alden T. Vaughan and Daniel K. Richter report that over 1,600 people were taken captive in northern New England alone between 1675 and 1763. The fate of most captives, however, remains unknown. Hundreds may have died while en route with their captors or while in captivity; many were sold to the French or ransomed to the English; some converted to Catholicism and started new lives in French Canada; some were adopted by Indians, assimilated into their captors’ culture, and refused to return to white society. Only a small number of those who came back left accounts of their experiences. Those former captives who either penned their experiences themselves or dictated them to others, mostly religious officials, started the literary genre of the American Indian captivity narrative. Mary Rowlandson’s True History of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson (1682) is considered the very first captivity narrative and a landmark text in early American literature. Tales of forced encounters with the continent’s native inhab-

543

itants have enjoyed enormous popularity ever since Europeans set foot on American soil, and accounts of white captives have been widely read on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of them attained the status of best-sellers in their day; some of them were reissued several times. Scholars of early America have noted the importance of captivity narratives for literary and cultural history. The genre is credited with having played a crucial role in initiating a distinctive American literature. Most captives were of Anglo-Saxon origin, and most narratives were related, written down, and published in English. However, non-English speakers had the experience of being taken captive by Indians as well, and there are many captivity texts in languages other than English. The bestknown stories of Germans in Indian captivity are those of Hans Staden, Barbara and Regina Leininger and Marie LeRoy, and Abraham Urssenbacher. Staden was presumably the very first German explorer who fell victim to Indians. In the midsixteenth century he set sail for the coast of Brazil, where the Tuppin Imba, a native tribe said to practice cannibalism, captured him. He managed to survive for months among his captors before finally escaping to freedom. His account of life among his captors is entitled Wahrhaftige Historia und Beschreibung eines Landes der wilden, nackten und grimmigen Menschenfresser, in der Neuen Welt Amerika gelegen (True History and Description of a Country of Wild, Naked, Terrible Man-eaters Who Dwell in the New World Called America). This twopart narrative was first published in 1557 in Marburg, Germany. It became an immediate best-seller and was later translated and reissued in many languages, including English, French, Portuguese, and Dutch.

544

INDIAN CAPTIVITY

Staden’s Wahrhaftige Historia represents one of the earliest American Indian captivity narratives—if not the earliest captivity narrative of all. It appeared 125 years before Mary Rowlandson’s True History, and it anticipates many of the later features of the captivity genre. It also bears similarities to John Smith’s account of his rescue by Pocahontas—described in his General History of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles (1624). It is the first and probably most famous captivity story of an Englishman or, to be more precise, an English man. Both Smith and Rowlandson are credited with having initiated patterns of the genre. Unlike Rowlandson, but like Smith, Staden presents himself in the heroic mode, as an adventurous man full of bravado. Like later female captives (e.g., Gertrude Morgan), he managed to establish a reputation among his captors as a spiritual healer, or shaman. Part One of Staden’s narrative tells about his two disastrous voyages on Portuguese ships to the New World and includes the story of his captivity. Part Two contains detailed observations on the now-extinct culture of the Tuppin Imba tribe, including ethnographic descriptions of its villages, its traditions, and its religious practices and customs. Staden’s True History interweaves adventure and information about the native peoples he encountered, and it suggests some of the diverse styles of the captivity genre as they came into use afterward. An equally important later story is that of the Leininger family. The family of six migrated from Reutlingen, Württemberg, in the early 1740s and settled on the Pennsylvanian frontier. During the Penn’s Creek Massacre of 1755, Allegheny Indians attacked the family homestead. The family’s daughters, Barbara and Regina,

ten and twelve years old, were abducted, while their father and one of their brothers were shot. Their mother and another brother were spared because they were absent at the time of the attack. On the forced march to the Ohio region, Barbara and Regina were forcibly separated. The experiences of Barbara and another companion, Marie LeRoy, who escaped together in 1759, are related in Die Erzehlungen von Maria le Roy und Barbara Leininger, Welche vierthalb Jahr unter den Indianern gefangen gewesen, und am 6ten May in dieser Stadt glücklich angekommen (Narrative of captvity [sic] of Marie le Roy and Barbara Leininger, 1755–1759)— published simultaneously in German and English in 1759, the year of their escape. Unlike her sister Barbara, Regina was adopted by her captors, and she remained with her new Indian family for about nine years. She was among the redeemed captives whom Colonel Henry Bouquet (1719–1765), a British army officer during the French and Indian War, forced the Indians to relinquish toward the end of Pontiac’s Rebellion, an unsuccessful Indian uprising against the British, in 1765. Together with approximately 200 other ex-captives, Regina was brought to Carlisle to be claimed by her white relatives. Regina, however, had turned into a “white Indian,” someone who lived with Indians for a long time, gradually assimilated into their culture, and eventually assumed an Indian identity. Regina had come to look and act like an Indian woman so much that her own mother failed to identify her. It was only through the words of a German hymn—Allein, Und Doch Nicht Ganz Allein (Alone, Yet Not Alone Am I)—that mother and daughter finally recognized each other and the family members were

INDIAN CAPTIVITY

reunited. In 1766 Regina’s mother went to New Providence to tell her daughter’s story to Reverend Heinrich Melchior Mühlenberg (1711–1787), a German Lutheran clergyman, who recorded it in his pastoral reports and published it in Hallische Nachrichten (Hallean Annals). Regina’s life story—of which different versions with slightly varying times, places, and names exist—was fictionalized many times. Like many other captivity narratives before and after, Regina’s is an as-told-to story. Various editors in both languages, English and German, have diluted the facts of her life, her captivity, and her return to white society. Reuben Weiser, another Lutheran clergyman, expanded Mühlenberg’s account into the novel Regina, the German Captive: or, True Piety among the Lowly (1860). The book, in which Regina Leininger appears as the semi-fictional Regina Hartman, testifies to the widespread use of captivity narratives as a means for spreading proLutheran and anti-Catholic propaganda. Weiser points out in the preface to his book that it was especially “prepared for our Lutheran Sabbath-schools” (Weiser 1977, 7). Erzehlung Eines unter den Indianern gewesener Gefangenen (Narrative of an Indian Captive), first published in Neu-eingerichteter Americanischer Geschichts- und Haus-Calender (Newly Established American Historical and House Calendar) in 1762, narrates the captivity of Abraham Urssenbacher. The reader learns that Urssenbacher and his family had migrated from Germany to Pennsylvania in 1759 and settled in Heidelberg Township in Northampton County. His wife (who was pregnant at the time), their two-year-old daughter, his father-in-law, and some other relatives were brutally assaulted and killed

545

in an Indian attack. Urssenbacher, who served as a soldier in a Pennsylvanian regiment stationed at a fort near Bedford, was captured and carried away into Indian captivity. Together with a companion, he later managed to escape. The narrative, which he wrote himself in the first person, focuses on the appalling details of his heroic survival alone in the wilderness. Merkwürdige und interessante Lebensgeschichte der Frau von Wallville, Welche vier Jahre lang an einen Irokesen verheyrathet war (The Remarkable and Interesting Life Story of Maria Walwille, Who Was Married to an Iroquois Indian for Four Years) appeared in 1809. The reminder on the title page that it is kein Roman (not a novel) is misleading, because the story is in all probability fictitious. It is the firstperson narrative of a certain Maria Gräfin von Walwille, who tells about her years of captivity among the Iroquois tribe from about 1755 to 1759, her marriage to an Iroquois warrior, her escape to freedom, and her later marriage to Graf von Walwille. An earlier version of the story appeared under the title Die wilde Europäerin oder Geschichte der Frau von Walville in 1799. Katrin Fischer See also Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior; Staden, Hans; Travel Literature, GermanU.S. References and Further Reading Derounian-Stodola, Kathryn Zabelle, and James Arthur Levernier. The Indian Captivity Narrative, 1550–1900. New York: Twayne, 1993. Kolodny, Annette. The Land before Her: Fantasy and Experience of the American Frontiers, 1630–1860. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984. Namias, June. White Captives: Gender and Ethnicity on the American Frontier. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1993.

546

INDIAN FILMS

OF THE

DEUTSCHE FILM AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Sayre, Gordon M., ed. American Captivity Narratives: Selected Narratives with Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000. Vaughan, Alden T., and Daniel K. Richter. “Crossing the Cultural Divide: Indians and New Englanders, 1605–1763.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 90 (1980): 23–99. Weiser, Reuben. Regina, the German Captive: or, True Piety among the Lowly. New York: Garland, 1977.

INDIAN FILMS OF THE DEUTSCHE FILM AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT By the late twentieth century the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft (DEFA), East Germany’s equivalent of Hollywood, was making state-sponsored films about the Wild West. In all, fourteen Indian films were made between 1966 and 1985 at the DEFA’s Babelsberg studio in Potsdam in coproduction with studios in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Cuba. Like the American Westerns, these films were intended to be the equivalent of Hollywood blockbusters in the Communist regime. In them, however, the Indians were the heroes—not the villains—and the American, English, and French were the imperialists and the bad guys, playing to the political rhetoric and propaganda of communism in the cold war. The fourteen DEFA Indian films included the following, in order of release: Die Söhne der großen Bärin (The Sons of Great Mother Bear), directed by Josef Mach, 1966; Chingachgook, die große Schlange (Chingachgook, the Great Snake), directed by Richard Groschopp, 1967; Spur des Falken (The Falcon’s Trail), directed by Gottfried Colditz, 1968; Weiße

Wölfe (White Wolves), directed by Konrad Petzold, 1969; Tödlicher Irrtum (Fatal Error), directed by Konrad Petzold, 1970; Osceola, directed by Konrad Petzold, 1971; Tecumseh, directed by Hans Kratzert, 1972; Apaches, directed by Gottfried Kolditz, 1973; Ulzana, directed by Gottfried Kolditz, 1974; Blutsbrüder (Blood Brothers), directed by Werner W. Wallroth, 1975; Severino, directed by Claus Dobberke, 1978; Blauvogel (Bluebird), directed by Ulrich Weiss, 1979; Der Scout (The Scout), directed by Konrad Petzold, 1983; and Atkins, directed by Helge Trimpert, 1985. For more than five centuries, Indians have held a fascination for Europeans, particularly for Germans. It has been suggested that as early as 1620 almost 2,000 Indians had crossed the Atlantic to Europe, many of them involuntarily. They were succeeded by many more, who later became part of traveling circuses; for example, the German Circus Sarrasani’s Wild West Show and the American Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show, all of which helped to bring the image of the noble savage—the exotic “other”—into the German psyche. Some Indians were even born in Europe on such tours. These shows clearly influenced the German writer Karl May (1832–1912), who subsequently published numerous travelogues and accounts of American Indians in the vein of James Fenimore Cooper, before ever having set foot in North America, becoming one of the most popular authors in Germany and Eastern Europe. Using the first-person narrative in his best-known works in an attempt to create authenticity of place, he created characters such as Winnetou and his sidekick Old Shatterhand who became household names in Germany. Beginning

INDIAN FILMS

OF THE

DEUTSCHE FILM AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

in 1962, Harald Reinl successfully adapted these popular Karl May novels for film in West Germany. Even into the twenty-first century, reenactments of Karl May’s novels still take place in enormous outdoor amphitheatres all over Germany and eastern Europe. Germany’s fascination with the “other” continues to persist, not only in watching and identifying with “Indians,” but also in “playing Indian,” as also attested by the numerous reenactment camps set up mostly across eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia where men and women gather to dress up as Indians, live in tepees, and engage in beading and quill work. In the early 1960s the DEFA was in financial straits and began to investigate making alternative films that would bring in cash at the box office. Discussions were begun about launching a series of films dealing with North American Indians. The DEFA officials had watched the runaway success of the Karl May films in West Germany, and East Germans would frequently travel to Prague to see them. What the DEFA wanted in contrast to the Karl May films was a product that would be seen by its audience to be historically authentic, yet would also carry a message that would be appropriate for the Socialist state. The Indians, struggling to survive imperialist and capitalist forces, would reflect the proletarian ideal of hard work and cooperation. Ideologically, these films were positioned as anti-imperialistic yet didactic entertainment that would bring historical events about the conquering of North America and the genocide of Indians into the foreground. Genocide, technological advances, and profit joined forces under capitalism. The struggle against such evil forces in a Socialist state gave legitimacy to the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Inher-

547

ent contradictions within the films were leveled and harmonized by the DEFA and the end result was a product that appealed to all age groups. The Indianerfilme became politically correct mass entertainment that was a box office success both in East Germany and in many Eastern European countries, where they found a welcoming market. Most importantly, these films kept the studio in the black. Ironically, the objective of the DEFA Indian films was purely commercial, and the films were made in order to keep the corporation solvent. As the films themselves reveal, any attempt to lend accuracy or authenticity to them was quite secondary. In these films, the representation of Indians was seemingly subordinated to a European-based knowledge system and served as propaganda. The films show war and not the Aboriginal objectives of peace. The depiction of native people was no more than a racial caricature of Indians as “noble savages.” Given the insularity of the Communist countries during the cold war, the studio had no access to western landscapes in the United States. Instead, the DEFA looked for locations in Eastern Europe to represent the North American West. There are spiritual journeys in some of the DEFA Indian films, as, for example, in Die Söhne der großen Bärin (The Sons of Great Mother Bear), which was the first DEFA Indian film, and also in Tecumseh. Aboriginal people and places have had a profound impact on Europeans and these two films are, ironically, powerful witnesses to the presence of spirituality in their histories and their impact on Europeans. Central to this worldview is the complexity of Aboriginal oral traditions, as well as the notion of time. It is against this framework that one must judge the early Hollywood

548

INDIAN FILMS

OF THE

DEUTSCHE FILM AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

Westerns as well as the Westerns from the GDR; otherwise one will mistake apparent authenticity for accuracy. But what is missing from these DEFA films is an understanding of Aboriginal oral traditions—their stories told in their ways—something that cannot be captured in books or on film. When the DEFA began making its first Indianerfilm, it was at least initially obsessed about the historical authenticity in the film. It did so to be able to tap successfully into the markets for all things “Indian.” As such, Die Söhne der großen Bärin launched the DEFA’s most successful series of films in one genre by attracting more than 10 million enthusiastic viewers (Lischke and McNab, 2005). The studio deliberately distanced itself from the genre of the Hollywood Western, as well as from West Germany’s adaptation of Karl May, by intentionally using the label Indianerfilm. Like its West German counterpart, the focus was on the Indian, not the cowboy, adopting the Native Americans’ point of view; nevertheless, the film was advertised as a “Western from the East,” but “based on actual historical events” (Lischke and McNab 2005). Die Söhne der großen Bärin is based on a 1951 novel by Liselotte WelskopfHenrich (1901–1979), a fact that purportedly gives credence to the film’s foundation on historical truth. Welskopf-Henrich was an historian, a professor of history at Humboldt University, and a novelist who was well known in East Germany for her youth books as well as her novel trilogy based on Die Söhne der großen Bärin (The Sons of Great Mother Bear, 1951). In an interview in Junge Welt (Young World), WelskopfHenrich emphasized that Die Söhne der großen Bärin was different from similar films made in the West, not only because

this film was made with the intention of providing a realistic portrayal of the Indian problem, but was also made from the Indians’ point of view. She argued that her forty years of experience studying Indian history, as well as a trip to Canada and the United States where she visited with several groups of the Lakota, provided her with enough experience to write an authentic and historically accurate novel. A fanatic about details, Welskopf-Henrich worked as an adviser on the film until she resigned when some of the available horses resisted being ridden without a saddle. She did not allow for any compromises. Indians rode their horses bareback. Gojko Mitic, a Yugoslavian physical education student with an attractive, muscular physique, became an instant audience hit as the handsome hunk in the starring role in all of the films. Even into the twenty-first century he continues to be active in promoting these films in Germany, eastern Europe, and North America, frequently appearing with his stallion at film festivals and at suburban malls throughout Germany. All of the films reveal the native struggle against the greed of white settlers, broken treaties, corruption, and imperialism. Although most critics agree that the productions lack quality, the plots are predictable, and much of the acting is of poor quality, the hero is clearly Mitic, who draws the audiences’ sympathies and always wins the day. In Die Söhne der großen Bärin Mitic plays the role of the Dakota-Sioux (Lakota) chief Tokei-ihto, who must avenge the death of his father Mattotaupa, who was killed by his white brother Red Fox when he refused to reveal the location of a cave that contains the tribe’s gold. The geography is muddled. The plot is rather

INDIAN FILMS

OF THE

DEUTSCHE FILM AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

predictable, featuring an army colonel who breaks a treaty, Indians who are relocated to a reservation, and white settlers who are greedy for gold. It is Tokei-ihto who leads his people out of the reservation back to freedom. Throughout the story— from Tokei-ihto’s arrival at the saloon where he attempts to rescue his father from the demons of firewater that sets the stage for his revenge against Red Fox, to the final settlement of the tribe on rich agricultural land across the Missouri river where, Tokei-ihto declares, the Indians will settle on “this fertile ground, to raise tame buffalo, to forge iron and make ploughs”—the DEFA message is one of finding a new way to a workers’ and collective-farming state. Apaches is one of the more sophisticated of the DEFA films. Mitic represents Ulzana, who was a real (although minor) warrior and leader of the Chiricahua. It is set in 1846 in what was supposed to represent Santa Rita in the American Southwest and in the vicinity of southeastern New Mexico. Unlike some of the other DEFA Indian films, the film is historically accurate. Yet it is also a narrative from a European perspective. There is no Aboriginal history or oral tradition in it. It is a Europeanwritten and produced film—a Wild Western from the East made for late twentiethcentury propaganda purposes. The Apaches are portrayed as role models for the East German Communist regime. They are simply grafted onto the German myth of the noble savage, which had been propounded by Karl May and his successors. The plot in Apaches is straightforward and simple. The theme is mining and mineral exploitation, the conquest of the land by whites, and the extermination of the Apaches. Because this film, like the others,

549

was written and shot during the cold war, the Americans are therefore the bad guys and the Apaches are the good guys. But in spite of the Apaches winning this round of the conflict, the primary point of this film is political propaganda, just as it is in Hollywood Westerns. The purpose of the film is to show good Socialist citizens how bad the Americans really were (and still are at the time the film was made) in their relationship to Aboriginal people. However, in the process, the representation of Aboriginal people once again is subordinated to the political framework and ideology of Europe in the late twentieth century: A noble savage is still a savage. The white man is still stoic—this time in adversity and defeat. But, in the end, this film does nothing to alter the European view that, in spite of the Apaches winning one war, the Americans will inevitably conquer the Apaches. The Apaches are “real” but again they exist as celluloid “Indians,” as noble savages and part of the political propaganda of the cold war. The Indianerfilme prove that German imperialism, strongly rooted in the nineteenth century and aided and abetted by the literature of Karl May (itself a branch of popular culture), retained a powerful hold upon German popular culture, especially about the “other” and in particular about Indians in North America in the late twentieth century. They were (are) a notable example of this pervasiveness of the German imperial imagination. They are still very popular in early twenty-firstcentury Germany and recently (since their release in 1996) have also become, rather ironically, a commercial cultural export to the United States and beyond. It is somewhat curious that, since their release in North America in 1996, these films have

550

INDIANA

been quite well received. In October 1996 two DEFA Indian films were screened publicly for the first time in the United States in the presence of Mitic. The American actor Richard Restoule, an elder of the Anishinabe Nation, made the following remarks: “After everything that has happened to our people, including bad films, it is good to know that people in East Germany began to think seriously about a different representation thirty years ago” (Lischke and McNab, 2005). And no doubt the story line of these Indian films, cinematic warts and all, must have struck home to Aboriginal peoples because they were seen to be closer to the truth as embodied in Aboriginal oral traditions than the American Westerns had been until recently. Ute Lischke and David T. McNab See also Buffalo Bill; Film (German), American Influence on; Indians in German Literature; May, Karl Friedrich; WelskopfHenrich, Liselotte References and Further Reading Calloway, Colin G., Gerd Gemünden, and Susanne Zantop, eds. Germans & Indians. Fantasies, Encounters, Projections. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2002. Habel, Frank-Burkhard. Gojke Mitic, Mustangs, Marterpfähle. Die DEFAIndianerfilme. Das grosse Buch für Fans. Berlin: Schwarzkopf & Schwarzkopf, 1977. Lischke, Ute, and David T. McNab, eds. Walking a Tight Rope: Representations of Aboriginal People by Themselves and Others. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University, 2005 MacKenzie, John M. Propaganda and Empire. Manchester, UK: Manchester University, 1984. ———. Orientalism, History, Theory and the Arts, Manchester, UK: Manchester University, 1995. MacKenzie, John M., ed. Imperialism and Popular Culture. Manchester, UK: Manchester University, 1986.

INDIANA The majority of the settlement of the American old frontier in the late eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries, including southern Indiana, was by ScotsIrish and English upland southerners moving north from Kentucky across the Ohio River into Indiana and eventually west to Illinois and Missouri. These migrants always included a significant number of other ethnic groups, the largest portion of which were German Lutherans moving west from Pennsylvania and the Carolinas where their parents and grandparents had settled in the colonial era. Prior to 1816 most migration to the region had occurred along the Ohio River and the two streams that flow along Indiana’s western border—the White and Wabash rivers—as far north as what are now Richmond and Terre Haute. After the defeat of the Shawnee, Miami, and their Indian and British allies in the War of 1812, settlers began to flood the interior from Kentucky to the south. While most of the first settlers in southern Indiana were “Englishmen,” as the German Americans in Dubois and Spencer counties still refer to all people of non-German descent, in southern Dubois and northern Spencer counties they were nearly all supplanted by German Catholic farmers by the 1880s. This was largely due to a deliberate colonizing effort by Catholic missionary priests in the midnineteenth century that, combined with difficult economic and political conditions in German regions of Europe beginning in the 1830s, eventually brought a flood of German Catholic immigrants to the area, as well as to other midwestern states. Once settled, the Germans, always successful farmers, bought up neighboring farms to

INDIANA

increase their acreage. In 1834 Dubois County received the first visit by a missionary priest searching for a suitable area to colonize with German Catholics. In 1836 the first sizable group of German immigrants arrived: twelve families from Baden. By 1838 the Jasper, Dubois County, area’s German Catholic population had grown to fifty families and by 1839 to ninety. By 1850 residents of German descent constituted over 50 percent of the population of this area (Lang 1995, 27–37). Part of the reason for this increasing influx was the deliberate colonizing effort of one Croatian priest, Father Joseph Kundek. As a priest in the village of Gore in Croatia, Kundek had read reports published by the Leopoldine Mission Society of the North American missions and became determined to join the missionary movement. In September 1838 he was installed as the pastor of St. Joseph’s Church in Jasper, Dubois County. Father Kundek began systematically purchasing land from non-German settlers, using funds from the Leopoldine Mission Society, which he then advertised for sale in German weeklies. In 1840 he bought 1,360 acres to lay out a new town, which he named Ferdinand in honor of Emperor Ferdinand of Austria, patron of the Leopoldine Mission Society. Three years later he founded the town of Celestine, ten miles east of Jasper (then Fulda) in Spencer County. So many Germans came in response to the efforts of Father Kundek and the early settlers’ encouragement of friends and relatives that Matthaus Hassfurther, one of the German pioneer settlers, wrote in January 1842, “the Germans are coming like snowflakes” (Hassfurther 1842). By 1854 an abbey of Benedictine monks was

551

founded at St. Meinrad in Spencer County, fifteen miles south of Jasper, helping contribute to the expansion of the German Catholic settlement area, which tapers off about ten miles south of the DuboisSpencer county border. Fifteen years later a convent of Benedictine nuns, Sisters of St. Benedict, was established in Ferdinand, just over the Dubois County border. As Jacques Martin—a Swiss immigrant doctor’s son and budding textile miller, later turned subsistence farmer and artist under the influence of Henry David Thoreau’s writings—wrote in his journal in the spring of 1854, “There are too many German Catholics. The priests of Einsiedeln . . . have almost 4,000 acres here and are going to build an immense convent and seminary. In time they’ll have complete control over elections in the area. . . . The Americans of English descent are abandoning the area, selling their farms and moving out west [to Missouri]. The German Protestants are doing the same, and in several years this area will be settled entirely by intolerant Catholics. So I’m thinking of leaving . . . following the current towards the west” (Martin 1982, 61). Martin, however, did stay in Harrison Township, Spencer County, and all eight of his grandchildren married German Catholics. As late as the mid-twentieth century, most descendents of these German immigrants spoke German as a first language, both in their homes and communities and in the Catholic schools they attended. By the last quarter of the century, however, only the elderly retained the ability to speak German and spoke English with a regionally distinct accent far different from the upland southern drawl of their non-German neighbors. In the early

552

INDIANA

twenty-first century the local priests and nuns no longer teach schoolchildren, and the effects of mass media and modern communication have diluted much of the noticeably German culture still retained for a century before. There still remains certain visible cultural markers of the German heritage in Dubois and southern Spencer counties, however. The exterior grounds of the homes and farms of German Americans are markedly tidier than those of the Scots-Irish and English descendents, and domestic Virgin Mary shrines proliferate outside the houses and elaborate stone churches in the region. The local foodways, as well, have retained distinctly German characteristics that have outlasted the majority cultural and regional influences and that of popular culture as well. Elements of German folk tradition in 2005 are retained sporadically in the architecture, such as three- or four-room houses with central—rather than gable—chimneys, known to be a German house plan. Often the framework of these structures is of hewn logs, a tradition borrowed from the earlier British American settlers. Many of these German-style homes have a cantilevered roof on the front porch (sometimes also on the rear porch), as do the distinctive German log barns, which are squarish with similarly cantilevered porch roofs that contrast with the British American tradition of pent roofs. The wellknown large bank barns of German-settled Pennsylvania, often stone or brick, are absent in the southern Indiana region, though they are present in central and northern Indiana as part of the western migration through Ohio of descendents of Pennsylvania Germans in the early nineteenth century.

In southern Indiana, as in Pennsylvania and the Carolinas, occasional instances of homes of half-timber construction with unwoven wattle (wood slats) and daub infilling (Fachwerk) may be found. However, in terms of numerical dominance, most of the buildings in this area conform to the folk or vernacular Anglo-American forms: hall and parlor (one or one and a half story, two-room house with a single side-entry door, usually not centered) or double-pen houses (one or one and a half story, tworoom house with two front doors on side wall, paired or separated by windows), I-houses (full two-story, single-room, deep house with a central hall and single door in the side), and cross-gable houses (derived from popular architecture plan book, a two-story house with cross gables that extend to form wings). Barns frequently are of the English–New England, Connecticut, Yankee, three-bay variety. These are rectangular three-bay barns with the large opening in the side wall of the center threshing bay, open on both sides to allow a wagon with horses to be driven all the way through the barn and a natural draft to blow the chaff away when threshing. The barns are of heavy timber with post-andbeam construction (hewn or sawn) and covered with wide, vertical unpainted weatherboarding. Decorative elements such as the German diamond cross and star-shaped owl holes are often cut into the gable ends of barns, a distinctively Germanic tradition also found on New York Dutch barns and in Wisconsin, Ontario, and elsewhere where Germans settled. In this one small region of southern Indiana, the German farmers modified the basic English barn plan by enlarging the barn with an additional one or more bays on the ends and sometimes another large wagon

INDIANA

entrance, or attached sheds, while retaining the basic rectangular, side-entrance plan. The barns are almost always at least one and a half stories, and generally a full two stories, in height. While the typical tin roof (which would have been wood shingled in the nineteenth century) of the classic English barn in this region has the smooth slopes characteristic of most nineteenthcentury barns—English or otherwise— many of the English barns built by these southern German immigrants from the 1850s on have a broken roofline that presents a distinctive profile from the gable end. Although initially it might appear that familiar sheds, one and a half or two stories high, have been added onto each long side of the barn to create this broken-roof appearance, in fact, it is apparent that these are not sheds but integral walls and roof partitions of the barn structure itself. Such a broken gable allows more storage area in the hayloft, reflecting changes in agricultural production of the mid- to late nineteenth century from largely subsistence farming to cash-crop agriculture due to the coming of the railroad in the 1850s to 1870s that allowed the transport of grain to distant markets. These successful and productive German American farmers in southern Indiana had need of very large, multiuse barns and creatively expanded the traditional English three-bay barn through the incorporation of integral two-story side sheds. This regional variation appears to be found only within the German-settled areas of southern Dubois and northern Spencer counties of Indiana. Even though this area has sandstone available, which was always used as piers or unmortared foundation blocks for barns and houses and by the 1870s was quarried from local quarries to build churches, the

553

German farmers never incorporated stone into the structure of the barns they built. This contrasts with the German immigrant farmers in both Pennsylvania and Missouri, who sometimes built stone barns as is traditionally done in Germany. Brick or half-timber with brick or clay infilling also was not used in barn building as in Germany, though the latter was done occasionally in house construction. Other outbuildings on the farmsteads—smokehouses, washhouses, summer kitchens, granaries, corncribs, hog houses, etc.—tend to conform to earlier Anglo-American styles, though sometimes the smaller outbuildings are constructed of brick or stone in a continental manner. One rare elaborate example from Spencer County is a square, pyramidal hip-roofed combination smoke house/washhouse/summer kitchen. The placement of outbuildings with relation to the farmhouse and barn commonly reflects the traditional German courtyard plan of a farmstead rather than the linear American plan. The German American farmsteads also display an order and tidiness that visibly contrasts with the farms and homes of most of the non-German descendents. Religious architecture of this region is distinctive and sharply contrasting with that of neighboring British American Protestants. The German Catholic sandstone churches are large and elaborate compared to the small-frame, white-painted wood structures of their Baptist and Methodist neighbors. This variation reflects as much theological distinctions as it does ethnic characteristics. Likewise, the placement of saints’ shrines, predominantly the Virgin Mary, outside churches and homes of the German Catholic residents in this region is a custom replicated by non-German Catholics throughout the world, though it

554

INDIANS

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

is manifestly a folk custom that is not sanctioned by the mainstream church. Each region’s and ethnic group’s domestic Mary shrines display distinctive characteristics in addition to common Catholic themes. The German American Mary shrines in this area are colorfully painted but lack the gaudy decoration often added to Italian American or Hispanic shrines. Often they are incorporated into garden landscaping, sometimes within grotto settings. A large and elaborate grotto constructed of geodes gathered from a neighboring county was constructed behind St. Joseph’s Church in Jasper, Dubois County, in the mid-twentieth century by the resident priest, consisting of two major shrines within the large grotto area: to the south the Mother of God Shrine, to the north the St. Joseph Shrine, along with many smaller Mary, Jesus, and Joseph shrines throughout, two fountains, numerous flower planters, lampposts, benches, birdbaths, and geode walls. Alice Reed Morrison See also Beer; Leopoldine Foundation References and Further Reading Hassfurther, Matthaus. “Letter to Nicholas Gerhard, Jan. 6, 1842.” Nicholas Gerhard Collection, St. Meinrad Archabbey Archives, St. Meinrad, Indiana. Lang, Elfrieda. “Joseph Kundek: Pioneer Catholic Missionary in Southern Indiana.” In Studies in Indiana German-Americana. Indianapolis: Indiana German Heritage Society, 1995, pp. 27–37. Martin, Jacques. Le Rendez-vous Americain: correspondance et journal inedits de Jacques Martin, 1853–1868. Ed. Paul Martin. Paris: Plon Perrin, 1975. Trans. M. Lloyd Martin and Eugene J. Martin, 1982. Morrison, Alice Reed. “Ethnicity and Acculturation: German Immigrant Homes and Barns of Southern Indiana: Part I: The Schaeffer Farmstead, 1845–2000: From Log Animal Barn, Grain Scheune, and Fachwerk Stack House to English Barn and I-House.” Material Culture 33 (Fall 2001): 29–63.

———. “Ethnicity and Acculturation: German Immigrant Homes and Barns of Southern Indiana: Part II: From Log to Timber Frame: German Houses and English Barns, and a German-American Subtype of the Broken-Roof English Barn.” Material Culture 34 (Spring 2002): 1–39. Nolt, Steven M. “German Faith, American Faithful: Religion and Ethnicity in the Early American Republic.” PhD dissertation. University of Notre Dame, Indiana, 1998. Roberts, Warren E. Log Buildings of Southern Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Trickster, 1984. ———. “German American Log Buildings of Dubois County, Indiana.” Winterthur Portfolio 21 (1986): 265–274. Stanton, Gary. “Bought, Borrowed, or Brought: Sources and Utilization Patterns of the Material Culture of German Immigrants in Southeastern Indiana, 1833–1860.” PhD thesis. Indiana University, 1985. Wilhelm, Hubert G. H. “Midwestern Barns and their Germanic Connections.” In Barns of the Midwest. Eds. Allen G. Noble and Hubert G. H. Wilhelm. Athens: Ohio University, 1995.

INDIANS IN GERMAN LITERATURE North American Indians have occupied the German imagination for at least five centuries. Native American tribes have served various purposes, responding to both cultural and emotional needs in Germany. In the process of establishing a fictional “other” on the American continent, a number of stereotypes have evolved. For the most part, Indians are characterized as noble, spiritual beings who are perfectly in tune with nature. They embody pride, courage, and dignity. In addition, the most famous representatives of their kind usually form loyal brotherly bonds with heroic, adventurous immigrants from Germany.

INDIANS

Nevertheless, contradictory traits emerged of the “bad” Indian as the wild, warhungry, naked, promiscuous, evil, bloodthirsty “red devil.” These opposing features are introduced as dramatic elements to advance and thicken the narrative plot of adventure literature. German Indianertümelei or “Indianthusiams” (Lutz 2002, 13) are marked by an exoticized, sympathetic, and idealized depiction of the ethnic “other.” As both ethnic groups are separated by an ocean, their interaction has been, for the most part, limited. Therefore, it was easy for Germans to imagine and perceive Indians as a noble but vanishing people. In the nineteenth century, the transatlantic fascination turned into a form of obsession with Indian culture. Native Americans became stylized as victims of ecological exploitation, sprawling urbanization, and self-serving court decisions. In Germany, escapist fantasies about Indians corresponded with growing political dissatisfaction and oppression at various times, ranging from absolutism to the geographic fragmentation in the wake of the Vienna Congress (1815) and Metternich’s restorative politics during the Vormärz era. Even the foundation of the German Empire in 1871 did not bring about the cultural unity intellectuals had been fighting for since the French Revolution. After the trauma of two world wars in the twentieth century, literary accounts regarding Native American culture continued to support empathetic feelings with them as victims rather than with the perceived white oppressors. The popularity of Indians in German literature has even penetrated the German language with idiomatic sayings like ein Indianer weint nicht (an Indian does not cry) or ein Indianer kennt keinen Schmerz (an Indian does not feel pain).

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

555

The roots of these (one-sided) elective affinities can be traced back to various artists and their literary products. The broad spectrum of cultural mediators includes early settlers, adventurers, scientists, novelists, authors of children books, and painters. While Karl May may seem to be the most influential, albeit cliché-ridden, cultural mediator in the reception history of German images of the American Indian, he was just one writer standing in a long line of ancestors that dates back to the late seventeenth century. Umbrella terms like Germans and Indians are problematic for German-speaking authors. They denominate people from Austria, Germany, Hungary, Russia, Romania, Yugoslavia, Switzerland, and Alsace on the eastern side of the Atlantic, and more than 500 Indian nations on the western side of the ocean. Thus, both terms represent crude ideological and racial constructs. Specific patterns of cultural encounters have been popularized by literature. The earliest German Indian encounters can be traced back to travel literature. The distinction between illustrative travel accounts and scholarly observations during expeditions is blurry. In the nineteenth century, two aspects stimulated the German fascination with Indians: First, a wave of German mass emigration between 1820 and 1850 produced a rich literary market for journalistic reports, letters, and adventure stories about Indian culture. Second, German translations of James Fenimore Cooper’s The Pioneers (Die Pioniere, 1824) and The Last of the Mohicans (Der Letzte Mohikaner, 1824) triggered a flood of escapist literature that fed on the longings of those who wanted to emigrate or embark on journeys to far-off countries. Additionally, many underprivileged people who

556

INDIANS

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

were not able to break out of the feudal system were among the most devoted readers. Cooper’s books stimulated a romanticized outlook on American socioeconomic conditions and suggested adventurous encounters with the “other,” which for many Germans was synonymous with Indians like Chingachgook or Uncas. The beginning of Indian characters in German literature coincides with the establishment of scholarly disciplines concerned with the classification of cultural differences in the 1770s: Ethnographie, Völkerkunde, and Ethnologie (ethnography, traditional, and modern ethnology). Along with this came the popular travel accounts that brought Native American culture to the attention of German readers. Welldocumented expeditions were mounted by John Lederer, who was the first European to explore the Piedmont and the Blue Ridge Mountains of North America in 1670. Georg Wilhelm Steller explored the coast of Alaska in 1741 and 1742. Other expeditions were led by George von Langsdorff in the early nineteenth century and Otto von Kotzebue to coastal Alaska from 1814 to 1818. Kotzebue was accompanied by the German poet Adelbert von Chamisso, who wrote a well-received book on the voyage entitled Reise um die Welt (Voyage around the World, 1836). Alexander von Humboldt’s prominent reports on his trips to North and South America aroused a new interest in exotic and unknown cultures. His authority on travel literature was used to market less scholarly but more dramatic accounts. Humboldt’s prefaces to Balduin von Möllhausen’s Tagebuch einer Reise vom Mississippi nach den Küsten der Südsee (Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coast of the Pacific, 1858) and Reisen in die Felsengebirge Nord-Amerikas

bis zum Hoch-Plateau von Neu-Mexiko (Travels from the Rocky Mountains of North America to the High Plains of New Mexico, 1861) exemplify this successful marketing device. Prince Maximilian von WiedNeuwied provided excellent ethnographic work on the upper Missouri, producing a detailed account of his travels between 1832 and 1834. He set out to document the life of the Indian people before their unique culture was gone forever. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the German American anthropologist Franz Boas analyzed Indian languages and habits in a meticulous manner, thereby paving the way for a deeper understanding of Native American culture. With his concept of cultural pluralism came the abandonment of a hierarchical ranking of societies that passed moral judgments on different ethnic groups. In The Mind of Primitive Man (1911), Boas insisted that the notion of difference in the ways of thinking of primitive and civilized man rested on unscientific prejudice. According to his anthropological fieldwork, there was no basis to connect race and personality. Among those who accompanied these expeditions were painters, illustrators, and photographers. Their visual records offered another stimulus for the imagination. These authentic images paved the way for fictitious book illustrations. The paintings of Charles Wimar, Albert Bierstadt, and Winold Reiss are remarkable examples of illustrations that in turn inspired other literary accounts and descriptions of Indian culture. Of particular interest are Karl Bodmer’s drawings for Prince Maximilian von Wied-Neuwied’s travel accounts. Published under the title Reise in das innere Nord-Amerika (Travels in the Interior of North America, 1839) in German, the

INDIANS

work is still held in high esteem as containing some of the finest ethnographic records of the nineteenth century on American Indian culture. Authors like Heinrich Balduin Möllhausen or Friedrich Armand Strubberg even drew their own illustrations to heighten the level of authenticity within their fictional accounts, as the subtitle of Strubberg’s novel Amerikanische Jagd- und Reiseabenteuern aus meinem Leben in den westlichen Indianergebieten (American Hunting and Travel Adventures from My Life in the Western Indian Plains) suggests: mit 24 vom Verf. nach der Natur entworfenen Skizzen (Including 24 Illustrations by the Author Inspired by the Landscape, 1858). Groundbreaking works in photography have been supplied by German Americans like John Hillers, Eugene Buechel, Frederick Weygold, Ulli Stelzer, Helga Teiwes, and Christine Turnauer. Pictures have always been an important inspiration for readers on book covers or as illustrations for the stories. Expensive reprints of original editions with imaginative artwork are still a marketable product for publishers. Thus, accounts of travel to North America gave birth to a new national literary genre, the so-called IndianerRoman (Indian novel). In the wake of German translations of Cooper’s Leather-Stocking Tales and particularly The Last of the Mohicans in the early 1820s, fictional and nonfictional texts about Native Americans were booming. Among the large number of authors who wrote influential books on American Indians was Carl Postl, a former Moravian monk. After he escaped to the United States in 1823, Postl assumed the identity of Charles Sealsfield, claiming to be an American citizen. Due to many blank spots in his biography, he is still considered one

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

557

Karl Bodmer’s drawing “Máto Tópe, Mandan Chief ” (ca. 1840) served as a model for many German writers on American Indians. (New York Public Library)

of the most enigmatic writers of the nineteenth century. Under this American pseudonym he wrote popular novels on American life and the American Indians. His publications appeared in the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Switzerland, where he spent most of his time and produced the majority of his writings. In his first novel, Tokeah; or the White Rose (1829), he presents himself as a Jacksonian advocate of the Indian removal policy. In the tradition of captivity tales, the story follows the Indian chief Tokeah and his relationship with a young English man. Sealsfield accepts the Indians’ cause as lost and their removal to restricted territories as a necessity. He translated and revised his book considerably for its publication in Germany under the new title Der Legitime und die Republikaner (The Legitimate One

558

INDIANS

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

and the Republicans) in 1833. In the process of translation, the novel became “more American” (Sammons 1998, 30) as Tokeah’s heroic stature was diminished. The original description of the noble savage gradually loses its positive connotations as the story progresses. Instead, the struggle between the “legitimate” Indians and “the republicans” takes on overtones of the battle between the young democratic movement, which inspired the revolutionary freethinkers of the so-called Vormärz period in Germany, against the tyrannical aristocratic powers. Heinrich Balduin Möllhausen accompanied Paul Wilhelm of Württemberg on his trips to the United States in 1851, 1853, and from 1857 to 1858. He worked as a draftsman and topographer. His illustrations and diaries were published before he became a prolific writer on the Indians of North America. Möllhausen wrote nearly 200 books. Following Cooper’s moral separation of Indians into good and evil tribes, he produced his writings according to strict, but rather mechanical, patterns. This can be seen in his first fictional work written in Germany called Der Halbindianer (The Halfbreed, 1861). In his diary about travels to Mississippi he remarked cheerfully how the dreams of his youth inspired by Cooper and Washington Irving had come true. One of the crucial moments in the life of Möllhausen was his encounter with Indians. They rescued and nursed him after he was abandoned during an adventurous journey to the Rocky Mountains with Duke Paul Wilhelm on the wintry plain in the Nebraska Territory in late 1851. Working as an illustrator, he took part in various expeditions to Arkansas, the Southwest, the Rocky

Mountains, the West Coast, and the Grand Canyon during the following decade. Of particular value in recent studies on Native American culture have been his drawings and watercolors of Indians. After his return to Germany, he reworked his impressions in a number of Western novels of low literary quality. Friedrich Gerstäcker is among those German writers about Native Americans who may have had more firsthand encounters with Indians than any other German writer of fiction. Gerstäcker launched a busy literary career beginning with his travel accounts. Popular adventure novels like Die Regulatoren in Arkansas (The Regulators in Arkansas, 1846) or Die Flusspiraten des Mississippi (The River Pirates of the Mississippi, 1848) established him as one of the first German Western writers. Works such as Fritz Waldau’s Abenteuer zu Wasser und zu Lande (1854, translated under the title Frank Wildman’s Adventures on Land and Water, 1855) contributed to his reputation as a writer of children’s literature. Gerstäcker’s works reveal him to be an ordinary storyteller with a crude and superficial style. However, there are also strong motives in Gerstäcker’s oeuvre that concern his efforts to counter romanticized fictional images of America. He successfully employed the pattern of Indian captivity tales, playing with variations on Catherine Maria Sedgewick’s Hope Leslie (1827). In Zivilisation und Wildniss (Civilization and Wilderness, 1848) Gerstäcker describes a white man who grows up within an Indian tribe, adopting the Indians’ values and habits. When he is reunited with his white family, he cannot help feeling dislocated and finally decides to return to the Indian tribe. With a keen eye on the

INDIANS

fate of the Indians, Gerstäcker does not eliminate friction points of intercultural encounters. He addresses problems such as diseases that wiped out entire tribes (Die Rache des Weissen Mannes [The Vengeance of the White Man], 1846) or the jurisdictional problems Indians faced during the gold rush in California (Gold!, 1858). In his novels, Gerstäcker is critical of aggressive behavior and policies against Indians, which he blames as the source of their degeneracy and loss of cultural identity. During his formative years as an author on Indian culture, Karl May never wrote from firsthand experience. Like many of his contemporaries, such as Sophie Wörishöffer (Auf dem Kriegspfad [On the Warpath], 1880), his depictions of Indians are imitative. His technique of recombining familiar elements often borders on plagiarism. May drew his information and inspiration from travel accounts, adventure books, paintings, and photographs. When he published his first fictional book on the Mescalero Apache chief Winnetou in 1893, public attention on German Indian encounters was extremely high. The newspaper Berliner Tageblatt (Berlin Daily) financed to a large degree the expedition of anthropologist Franz Boas to the Inuit of Baffinland in 1883 and 1894. “Buffalo Bill” Cody’s Wild West show with seventy-two Indians received a great deal of media attention when it toured Germany in 1890. Shortly after this tour, a group of Indian people from South Dakota visited Germany, performing in traveling Wild West shows or as members of the Sarrasani Circus. While other writers moved away from Cooper’s plot design and depiction of Indian chiefs like Chingachgook or Uncas, May reverted back to the

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

559

standards of the early nineteenth century. Cooper’s hierarchy of virtues from the Mingos at the lower end to the Delawares at the upper end corresponds to May’s Kiowas and Apaches. The much-debated partnership between May’s noble Indian Winnetou and his German immigrant Old Shatterhand has been unmasked as a bond of unequal parties. This fictitious partnership paved the way for a racial discourse, which in retrospect seemed to support fascist ideas. Hans Rudolf Rieder expressed in his introduction to the German translation of Buffalo Child Long Lance’s Autobiography (1929) the exoticism behind the German reverence toward Indians in a nutshell: “The Indian is closer to the German than to any other European. This is perhaps due to our partiality to the world of nature. . . . As young lads, however, we find in the Indian an example and a brother; later he remains one of our favorite memories and images of those years.” Thus, brotherhood and mutual affinities exist in ideology only. Ten years later, Rieder explains in his collection of stories Lagerfeuer im Indianerland (Campfire in the Country of the Indians, 1939) that as a writer he fantasizes about Indian adventures by drawing on other literary sources. This ethno-cultural relatedness with its latent imperialist attitude was successfully utilized for propagandistic purposes when Adolf Hitler came to power. May’s fictional characters would serve as heroes who provided a code of honor for military leaders. In the wake of Hitler’s blessing of Indian fantasies, Fascist writers like Fritz Steuben and Franz Schauwecker translated National Socialist ideals such as the cultic reverence for leadership, the Aryan race

560

INDIANS

IN

GERMAN LITERATURE

theory, and social Darwinism into adventure stories. Historical figures like Pontiac, Sitting Bull, and particularly Tecumseh were utilized to engage in a battle against foreign oppressors with chauvinistic undertones. After 1945, authors like Gerhard Drabsch (Die Indianergeschichte [The Indian Man], 1965), Jürgen Misch (Der letzte Kriegspfad [The Last Warpath], 1970), or Ursula Wölfel (Fliegender Stern [Flying Star], 1996) continued to construct myths of the exotic “other” rather than addressing issues of imperial conquest and postcolonial developments. In East Germany, Liselotte Welskopf-Henrich set out to write more realistic novels, like her three-volume epic beginning with Die Söhne der grossen Bärin (The Sons of Great Mother Bear, 1951–1963), which dealt with the Dakota Indians. She moved away from stereotypes that culminated in May’s fiction and Steuben’s Fascist interpretation to focus increasingly on contemporary Dakota reality, such as in Stein mit Hörnern (Stone with Horns, 1968) or Der siebenstufige Berg (The Seven-Steps Mountain, 1972). The deeply felt identification of Germans with Native Americans lives on in socalled hobbyist groups. They organize meetings, dress up in Native American costumes, and imitate a lifestyle they read about in travel accounts and fiction books. In the wake of the Vietnam War, antiAmerican feelings sparked new interest in the activities of the American Indian movement as a means to criticize cultural practices of the self-proclaimed “policeman of the world.” Additionally, the German translation of Dee Brown’s best-selling book Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (Begrabt mein Herz an der Biegung des Flusses, 1972) paved the way for literary efforts

that followed a more realistic depiction of Native American history and culture. In the early twenty-first century, encyclopedias and Native American fiction find their way into German bookshops with a special focus on ecological aspects. Frank Mehring See also Bodner, Karl; Buffalo Bill; Chamisso, Adelbert von; Humboldt, Alexander von; Indian Captivity; Indian Films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft; Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von; May, Karl Friedrich; Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin; Paul Wilhelm, Duke of Württemberg; Sealsfield, Charles; Strubberg, Friedrich August; WelskopfHenrich, Liselotte; Wied-Neuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu References and Further Reading Berkhofer, Robert F., Jr. The White Man’s Indian. New York: Vintage, 1979. Boas, Franz. The Mind of Primitive Man. New York: Macmillan, 1911. Brenner, Peter. Reisen in die Neue Welt. Die Erfahrung Nordamerikas in deutschen Reiseund Auswanderungsberichten des 19. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Calloway, Colin G., Gerd Gemünden, and Susanne Zantrop, eds. Germans and Indians. Fantasies, Encounters, Projections. Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska, 2002. Feest, Christian F., ed. Indians and Europe. An Interdisciplinary Collection of Essays. Aachen: Herodot, 1987. Lance, Buffalo-Child Long. Langspeer. Häuptling Büffelkind. Eine Selbstdarstellung des letzten Indianers. Translated and edited by Hans Rudolf Rieder. Leipzig and Munich: List, 1929. Lutz, Hartmut. Approaches. Essays in Native North American Studies and Literatures. Augsburg: Wissner-Verlag, 2002. Rieder, Hans Rudolf. Lagerfeuer im Indianerland. Erzählungen aus den frühen Tagen des Indianers. Essen: Essener Verlagsanstalt, 1939. Sammons, Jeffrey L. Ideology, Mimesis, Fantasy: Charles Sealsfield, Friedrich Gerstäcker, Karl May, and Other German Novelists of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998.

INTEGRALISM

INTEGRALISM Integralism refers to the Fascist movement in Brazil. The Ação Integralista Brasileira, founded in 1932 by the novelist Plínio Salgado, represented the Brazilian version of fascism. Yet, while European fascism was based on the idea of a superior and pure (Aryan and Roman) race, Brazilian fascism was founded on the concept of integralism. Because of Brazil’s history as a country of European immigrants, the nationalism represented by integralism had to be based on an inclusive melting-pot concept. However, it was a Lusitian-dominated melting pot. Because religion occupied a central position in Brazilian society, integralism was characterized by a strong religious overtone. Although the leaders of the Ação Integralista Brasileira welcomed both Protestantism and Catholicism, they preferred Catholicism. This is the reason why Protestant pastors rejected and opposed integralism. They feared Catholic domination in the future integral state. Furthermore, the melting-pot concept of the integralism movement came into conflict with the Brazilian Lutheran notion of German superiority. The Brazilian Fascist movement— with its green uniforms, armbands with an S (Sigma), the salute with raised hand, the liturgy, the leader principle—replicated Italian fascism and German Nazism. Like its German counterpart, the Ação Integralista Brasileira participated in national and state elections to gain power by legal means. However, in contrast to the German NSDAP, the Brazilian Fascists were unsuccessful in national elections during the 1930s. In 1935 and 1936, the Ação Integralista managed to gain modest support in local elections by which members were elected into municipal councils. It even

561

succeeded in the election of municipal prefects. At this point the party claimed to have a membership of about 1 million people (the total of Brazil’s population was 40 million) (IBGE 1943). In 1934 the Ação Integralista Brasileira began creating membership organizations in the inner part of Brazil. The party found many followers in the provinces of São Paulo, Bahia, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul. Many of the German Brazilians in Santa Catarina joined or voted for the Fascists. In Santa Catarina, eight prefects and seventytwo municipal councilors were members of the Fascist party—most of them had German last names. In Rio Grande do Sul, with its many German immigrant families, the Fascist party was not as successful as in Santa Catarina. However, it became obvious that they had more followers in the German and Italian Brazilian settlements than in the Luso-Brazilian settlements. Contemporaries explained the strength of the party among descendents of German immigrants by citing insufficient German assimilation into Brazilian society and culture. According to this view, Germans tended to identify with National Socialism and its perceived Brazilian version: integralism. Yet, such an explanation does not take into account the resistance of Lutheran pastors against integralism and the distinction between National Socialism and integralism. The German National Socialists were very reluctant to officially support or recognize Brazilian integralism because the German government was afraid that such a political stance would jeopardize the economic relations between Nazi Germany and the government of Getúlio Vargas.

562

INTELLECTUAL EXILE

The Ação Integralista Brasileira, however, expanded after Getúlio Vargas seized power in 1930. Vargas did not perceive this party as a danger to his new government and the party continued to participate in elections. This changed on November 10, 1937, when Vargas declared the creation of the Estado Novo. On December 2 of the same year, Vargas banned all political parties and cancelled the national elections scheduled for the beginning of 1938. In May 1938 Brazilian Fascists attempted to depose Vargas and seize power. The putsch failed and provided the basis for a systematic persecution of members of the Fascist party. René Gertz See also Brazil; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Latin America and Nazi Economic Policy References and Further Reading Gertz, René E. Politische Auswirkungen der deutschen Einwanderung in Südbrasilien: Die Deutschstämmigen und die faschistischen Strömungen in den 30er Jahren. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin, 1980. ———. O fascismo no sul do Brasil. Porto Alegre: Mercado Aberto, 1987. Instituto Brasileiro de Estatística—Brazilian Institute for Statistics, IBGE. Censo demográfico de 1940. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE, 1943.

INTELLECTUAL EXILE One of the most important events in twentieth-century American intellectual and cultural life was the massive immigration of German-speaking intellectuals, artists, and scientists fleeing Nazism from the early 1930s to the early 1940s. The refugees brought with them their erudition, training, and—in some cases—international reputations in the arts and sciences, all of which had an enormous influence on midtwentieth-century American academic and

cultural institutions. Among the refugee intellectuals were prominent and diverse figures such as Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Arnold Schoenberg, Hans Morgenthau, Karen Horney, Walter Gropius, Hannah Arendt, Franz Neumann, Ernst Cassirer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, Eric Voeglin, Wilhelm Reich, Erik Erikson, Paul Tillich, and Fritz Lang. Even this impressive list of prominent émigrés barely does justice to the astonishing array of displaced intellectuals who took refuge in the United States and profoundly shaped American thought and culture. When the National Socialists rose to power, one of their immediate aims was to root out all intellectual and literary figures whose scholarship and artistic accomplishments they deemed insufficiently “Aryan.” On April 4, 1933, the Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (Civil Service Law) led to the expulsion of more than a thousand scholars from academic positions. A month later, the Nazi-dominated Deutsche Studentenschaft (German Student Body) organized in Berlin and elsewhere an action called Wider den Undeutschen Geist (Against the Un-German Spirit) that culminated in the spectacle of massive book burnings of the works of writers such as Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud, Hermann Hesse, Franz Kafka, and even Thomas Mann—Germany’s 1929 Nobel laureate in literature. Over the course of years to come, the Nazis systematically purged the German universities, literary academies, and artistic institutes of Jewish, liberal, and Socialist thinkers and writers. It is estimated that of all the scholars who fled Nazi Germany, almost half took refuge in the United States (Krohn 1993, 16).

INTELLECTUAL EXILE

While the United States did accept more of such refugees than any other country in the 1930s and 1940s, there were no systematic governmental relief efforts to aid immigration. The few organized relief efforts that existed came from private and individual initiatives. The Rockefeller Foundation developed its own relief organization that became instrumental in orchestrating the transfer of prominent European scholars and securing them academic positions at American research universities. Motivated by humanitarian impulses and a desire to improve U.S. higher education, Alvin Johnson, director of the New School for Social Research, raised funds to found the “University in Exile” (which later became the Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science of the New School) as a haven for European social scientists in 1933. Up through the end of the war, Johnson’s institute hosted over 170 exiled scholars and researchers and served as their springboard into prominent university positions elsewhere. During the war years, the Emergency Rescue Committee (ERC) would emerge as another significant relief agency. Later accused of cherry-picking those they perceived to be the best and brightest among the over 4 million refugees stranded in the south of France after French capitulation to Adolf Hitler in June 1940, the ERC sent a young emissary, Varian Fry, to Marseilles to coordinate the secret transfer of prominent intellectuals and artists. Among the 1,500 people Fry helped rescue were Hannah Arendt, Max Ernst, Marc Chagall, Marcel Duchamp, Heinrich Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, and Siegfried Kracauer. The bulk of the intellectuals arrived in America during the 1930s, a period marked by political isolationism, anti-

563

immigrant nativism, and economic depression. During the 1920s, Congress had passed a series of stiff immigration quotas, many of which went unfilled in the 1930s largely due to antisemitic and antiradical anxieties of U.S. government officials during the protracted economic crisis. However, the German intellectual refugees were largely exempt from the nativism and resentment that greeted other émigrés during this period for a number of reasons. First, they arrived at a time when American academic institutions were still trying to establish themselves internationally. Academic administrators recognized that the expulsion of so much knowledge and talent from Europe to the United States could be a tremendous boon to American intellectual life. In the words of Walter W. S. Cook, director of the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, “Hitler is my best friend. He shakes the tree and I collect the apples” (Fermi 1968, 78). Second, the new crop of highly trained social scientists was seen as a valuable resource for the development and administration of governmental social and economic programs in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. And third, and perhaps most importantly, the émigrés’ firsthand experiences with Nazism led many to value them as vital contributors to the American understanding of the origins and consequences of European totalitarian regimes. Refugee social scientists who landed research and teaching positions in the American academy had some of the greatest success adapting to their new environment. Political science, sociology, and psychology were still budding disciplines at American universities, and given the strong historical influences of German social and humanistic theories on the social

564

INTELLECTUAL EXILE

sciences, the scholars and students in these fields were extremely receptive to their new émigré colleagues and professors. The most pressing concern shared by American and German psychologists, political scientists, and sociologists was the problem of totalitarianism. As future scholars of a regime they had fled, German refugee intellectuals understood profoundly the ramifications of living in a totalitarian state. Their interest in and analysis of the conditions in modern mass society that foster repression, however, were as complex and varied as their personal and intellectual histories. The political scientist Franz Neumann’s Behemoth (1942), one of the first efforts to examine the economic, political, and social structure of National Socialism based on German sources, provided a Marxist analysis of Nazism that argued for the primacy of economic motivations absent any consistent political and economic theories. Psychoanalyst Erich Fromm examined the social and psychological origins of totalitarianism, arguing that Nazism represented a retreat from the psychic burden and alienation of individual freedom. Historian Erik Voeglin argued that European vitalism crystallized in Nazism’s totalizing ideology, while political scientist Leo Strauss contrasted the relativistic theory of values that he believed had come to dominate modern political theory on both sides of the Atlantic with the natural law he considered vital to constitutional democracy. Thinkers as diverse as Protestant theologian Paul Tillich and political philosopher Hannah Arendt employed existential ideas as they sought to understand the dislocation of individuals in modern, secular societies. Tillich struggled to formulate a new mode of religious

experience (or “meaning beyond meaningless”) in a world after the “death of God,” while Arendt directed her attention to the origins of radical political evils as well as the existential nature of the human condition. Much of the social and political theory in postwar America stems from the contributions of the refugee scholars. The émigrés’ theories of mass society were widely read and popularized as Americans sought to comprehend the dynamics of cold war geopolitics abroad. In addition, their insights alerted Americans to the dangers of both atomistic possessive individualism and the mass tendencies at home. In the 1950s liberal sociologists and cultural critics, and in the 1960s the younger generation of the counterculture, discovered in the émigrés’ works valuable theories for analyzing and critiquing the alienation and conformism caused by the dominance of bureaucracies, corporations, and suburbanization in postwar American life. However, the contributions of German-speaking émigré intellectuals are not limited to midcentury political theory and social criticism. Their influence both direct and indirect can be seen in virtually every field of the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and the arts, and thus their significance for the development of postwar American thought and culture can hardly be overstated. Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Bauhaus; Brecht, Bertolt; Einstein, Albert; Frankfurt School; Fromm, Erich; Gropius, Walter; Huebsch, Ben W. et al, and the Viking Press Imprint; Jewish Refugee Scientists; Kracauer, Siegfried; Lang, Fritz; Mann, Thomas; Marcuse, Herbert; Morgenthau, Hans J.; Neumann, Franz L.; Schönberg, Arnold

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL References and Further Reading Fermi, Laura. Illustrious Immigrants: The Intellectual Migration from Europe, 1930– 1941. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1968. Fleming, Donald, and Bernard Bailyn, eds. The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930–1960. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1969. Heilbut, Anthony. Exiled in Paradise: German Refugee Artists and Intellectuals in America from the 1930s to the Present. New York: Viking, 1983. Jackman, Jarrell C., and Carla M. Borden, eds. The Muses Flee Hitler: Cultural Transfer and Adaptation 1930–1945. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1983. Krohn, Claus-Dieter. Intellectuals in Exile: Refugee Scholars and the New School for Social Research. Amherst: University of Massachusetts, 1993.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF WOMEN In the 1880s the American suffragettes Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony contacted several women’s advocates in France and Great Britain (Margaret E. Parker, Priscilla Bright McLaren, Margaret Bright Lucas, Alice Lyle Scatcherd, Hubertine Auclert, Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Stanton, and Charlotte B. Wilbour) hoping to create an organization dedicated to the question of women’s suffrage. The goal of the organization was to promote unity and mutual understanding between women working for the common weal. On March 25, 1888, during a conference organized by the National Women’s Suffrage Association in Washington, D.C., the International Council of Women (ICW) was officially formed. Its intention was not merely to bring together women from across the globe, but also to provide coordination for national women’s movements. As such, the

OF WOMEN

565

ICW was intended as a federation of national organizations. To this end, national councils—umbrella organizations for various women’s organizations in each country—were established. The first three countries to found national councils were the United States (1893), Canada (1897), and Germany (1897). These three national councils were followed by many more in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Argentina established a national council and joined the ICW in 1901, and Austria followed suit two years later. In addition to the creation of both an international body and national organizations, the ICW organized international meetings every five years. The first international meeting was held in Chicago in 1893; the second was held in London, having been delayed a year, in 1899. The third international meeting took place in Berlin in 1904 and the fourth in Toronto in 1909. During this initial period of development, the presidents of the ICW were Millicent Garrett Fawcett (elected but inactive, 1888–1893), Lady Aberdeen (1893– 1899), May Wright Sewall (1899–1904), and again Lady Aberdeen (1904–1909). Main concerns tackled by the ICW included the promotion of world peace and international arbitration to resolve conflicts, women’s suffrage, moral concerns (including prostitution and the sexual double-standard between men and women), and women’s work and education. Reports from the international meetings in Berlin (1904) and Toronto (1909) attest to the importance of these meetings as avenues for political and social action as well as cross-cultural connections. German and Austrian visitors to the Toronto conference were struck not only by the beautiful landscape and open space as they traveled

566

IOWA, GERMAN DIALECTS

IN

across the country but also by the warm welcome with which they were received. Marianne Hainisch, president of the Bund österreichischer Frauenvereine (League of Austrian Women’s Associations) and preeminent women’s rights advocate, remarked that a main purpose of such international meetings was to form personal connections. Marie Stritt, president of the Bund deutscher Frauenvereine, elaborated on this point and noted that her visit to Canada not only strengthened her sense of solidarity to other women, but also demonstrated the triumph of the women’s movement. In 2005, the ICW continues to do work around the world with over eighty member countries. Sarah Wobick See also Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine References and Further Reading Aberdeen, Countess of, ed. Our Lady of the Sunshine and Her International Visitors: A Series of Impressions Written by Representatives of the Various Delegations Attending the Quinquennial Meeting of the International Council of Women in Canada, June 1909. London: Constable, 1909. Gordon, M. Ogilvie. “The Formation and Growth of the International Council of Women” In International Council of Women: Report of Transactions of the Fourth Quinquennial Meeting Held at Toronto, Canada, June, 1909. Ed. Countess of Aberdeen. London: Constable, 1910. Sewall, May Wright, ed. Genesis of the International Council of Women and the Story of its Growth, 1888–1893. Indianapolis, 1914.

IOWA, GERMAN DIALECTS

IN According to the 2000 national census over 50 percent of Iowans claim that their ancestors hail from German-speaking Europe, which ranks the state second-highest

in the United States (Wisconsin is first) in this category. German immigrants came to Iowa for various reasons: some sought refuge from religions persecution, while others desired to find relief from poverty and improve their economic situation. Iowa also served as an opportune geographical location for “daughter,” and in some situations “granddaughter,” settlements for groups that had already established themselves in Pennsylvania or the eastern Midwest. Although these German immigrants who settled in Iowa in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries came from many different areas of German-speaking Europe, the majority of dialects spoken in the early twenty-first century in the state of Iowa are variants of Low German. In the early 1850s a large number of immigrants, primarily from SchleswigHolstein (along with some Danes and North Frisians), settled in the Davenport area (Scott County) and later in 1881 in the Manning area (the southwest corner of Carroll County in west-central Iowa). Many immigrants settling around Eldridge in northern Scott County were from the Probstei area of Holstein. Most of these settlers left northern Germany following the failed revolution of 1848. These immigrants began to farm and operate mills in small communities in Scott County, such as Walcott, Wheatland, and Dewitt. In 1870 more came—many desiring to avoid serving in the Franco-Prussian War. A significant number of settlers from Schleswig-Holstein also came to Mineola in Mills County. These particular immigrants found their origin near the Baltic coast in Holstein. Other pockets of Low German speakers from Schleswig-Holstein are found dispersed throughout the state in

IOWA, GERMAN DIALECTS

Benton, Blackhawk, Bremer, Butler, and Tama counties in northern east-central Iowa. Their variant of Plaatdüütsch is still spoken in the early twenty-first century in the aforementioned areas, although its strongest presence is found in and around Scott County. The creation of the American Schleswig-Holstein Heritage Society (ASHHS) in 1989 greatly assisted in the promotion and preservation of the Low German heritage, not only in Scott County, but also throughout the state. As for dialectal peculiarities, speakers of all these variations of Nord Niedersächsisch do what is called snacken Platt; that is, all verbs in the plural indicative (Einheitsplural) display the (e)t ending. The reference to the standard English term outhouse as Tante Maria (Aunt Maria) is an intradialectal distinction displayed predominantly by speakers from eastern Iowa (Scott County and surrounding areas). The city of Dubuque, founded originally by English and Canadian traders in the 1780s, saw an influx of Catholic German (from the Hanover region) and Luxemburger immigrants settle in the area between 1840 and 1890. In contrast to Irish Catholics who dominated the southern portion of the city, the German and Luxemburger Catholics occupied the northern section. Roughly 30 miles south of Dubuque stands the village of St. Donatus, founded in 1846 by Jean Ensch. It is unclear whether Letzebuergesch is still spoken in this area today. Western Iowa (Shelby County) received a significant number of Westphalian immigrants in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Westphalian Low German dialect islands can also still be found in and around the Waterloo/Cedar Falls area (Blackhawk and Bremer counties). These

IN

567

dialect speakers employ either kürren or kallen for the infinitive of the verb “to speak.” Unfortunately, very few Westphalian Low German dialect speakers can be found as of this writing in 2005. Another variant of Low German found in plenum in Iowa is East Frisian Low German (EFLG). In the mid-1850s news of cheaper farmland in central and northcentral Iowa (Butler, Hardin, and Grundy counties) came to the attention of East Frisians in the German Valley colony in northern Illinois. Grundy County in 2005 still holds the largest concentration of East Frisians west of the Mississippi River. The area was originally settled by East Frisians in northern Illinois in 1854 and Lutheran and Reformed adherents who came directly from East Friesland (Krummhörn) in 1867. Immigration directly from East Friesland to north-central Iowa continued until 1952. Dialect usage is still strong in the Grundy County area. Although the majority of fluent dialect speakers are above the age of fifty in 2005, there still exists a healthy corpus of roughly 500 speakers. East Frisian Low German (Plaatdüütsk) is regarded by speakers of other Low German dialects as difficult to understand. This is primarily due to the complex linguistic history of EFLG in comparison to that of other Low German dialects. Although Iowa is principally a “Low German” state, there are other Germandialect-speaking groups that have played a significant role in shaping the linguistic heritage of Iowa. One such group is the Amana Colonies in Iowa County. Determining the exact origin of Amana German has proven to be difficult. Amana really represents a cross section of the Germanspeaking areas of Europe, with a few more

568

IOWA, GERMAN DIALECTS

IN

settlers coming from one area, a few less from another. This fact is reflected in its speech. Amana German is actually a dialect mixture produced by more than a century of interaction between the countless German dialects of the original Inspirationists. As one might expect, the Hessian dialects of the Buedingen-Gelnhausen area, where the Ronnenburg castle is located and where the Inspirationists lived off and on for almost twenty years, have had a noticeable influence. However, sheer numbers of speakers of any particular dialect and the prestige of any given dialect speaker must have played a role in shaping Amana’s speech, too. Swabian elements very different from the Hessian dialect mentioned above can, for example, be identified quite easily in Amana German. The linguistic diversity within the individual villages themselves accurately reflects the “melting-pot” dialect known as Amana German. Prior to what is known as the “Change of 1932” when separate branches of governance were established for secular and religious matters, each village was operated independently, with its own council of elders exercising final authority in temporal and spiritual affairs; hence independent village identity and settlement history helped shape and maintain these intradialectal variations of Kolonie-Deutsch (e.g., Amana German). For example, the settlers of the village of Main Amana were frequently referred to as “the Saxons,” given the high concentration of Saxon Inspirationists that settled in Main Amana. Among these speakers intervocalic voiceless stops are voiced, especially /t/ to /d/ and /k/ to /g/. For example as reported by Webber (1993, 63), the word Mutter (mother) is regularly pro-

nounced Mudder and Stücke (pieces) as Stigge. The intervocalic /g/ of standard German regularly appears in this dialect as a velar fricative. The Change of 1932 ushered in many sociolinguistic changes to Amana German. Perhaps the most striking were the ubiquitous usage of English and the gradual erosion of the most significant intradialectal differences among the individual villages. The emergence of a conglomerate “Amana German” by those who continued to speak Kolonie-Deutsch in the colonies can be seen as a quasi-defense mechanism to unite this unique German heritage shared by those who still spoke German in the villages. Pennsylvania German “daughter” settlements found their way to Iowa in the middle of the nineteenth century. The earliest Mennonite and Amish families arrived in Iowa in 1839 and settled in Lee County, part of the so-called Half-Breed Tract, a treaty signed in St. Louis with the “Sac and Fox tribe” relinquished their claim to 119,000 acres in what would be Lee County set aside for the children of racially mixed parentage. The first Amish settlers in Johnson County arrived in the southwest corner of the county in 1846, relocating from Somerset County, Pennsylvania; Fairfield, Ohio; and other eastern communities. A rapid increase in the number of Amish households in Johnson and Washington counties flourished between 1850 and 1880. Many “granddaughter” colonies within Iowa were founded in the 1880s in Wright and Davies counties. The anabaptist brethren of the Amish and Mennonites, the Hutterites, settled in the northwest corner of Iowa in Lyon and Sioux counties. The situation regarding the longevity of these dialects in Iowa is similar to that

IOWA, GERMAN DIALECTS

within other states in the midwestern United States; namely, that the oldest generation in these secular communities represents the last fluent dialect speakers. Within the coming decades many of these dialects will unfortunately be spoken either by relatively few, with a retarded degree of fluency, or simply not at all. The most conservative sects of the Amish, Mennonite, and Hutterite communities who continue to pass their German vernacular on to their children are the only groups who will maintain speaking these German American dialects for generations to come. Mike Putnam

IN

569

See also Amana Colonies; Amish; Kansas, German Dialects in; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Texas, German Dialect in References and Further Reading Eiboeck, Joseph. Deutschen von Iowa und derer Errungenschaften. Des Moines: Iowa StaatsAnzeiger, 1900. Reschly, Steven D. The Amish on the Iowa Prairie 1840 to 1910. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 2000. Rettig, Lawrence. Amana Today: A History of the Amana Colonies from 1932 to the Present. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 1975. Stockman, Robert L. North Germany to North America: 19th Century Migration. Alto: PlattDüütsch, 2003. Webber, Philip E. Kolonie-Deutsch: Life and Language in Amana. Ames: Iowa State University, 1993.

J JACKSON, ROBERT H. b. February 13, 1892; Spring Creek, Pennsylvania d. October 9, 1954;Washington, D.C. Chief U.S. prosecutor before the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg (November 1945–October 1946). Jackson began his legal career as a smalltown attorney in Jamestown, New York, but became a prominent legal figure during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt due to his courtroom success and devotion to the Democratic Party, eventually gaining appointment to the Supreme Court in July 1941. Following the outbreak of World War II, Jackson developed an interest in international law and publicly denounced aggressive warfare as a criminal offense against the international community. In May 1945 Roosevelt’s successor, Harry S. Truman, appointed Jackson chief of counsel for the prosecution of Axis criminality, a position from which he heavily influenced the development of the IMT charter for the prosecution of the Nazi hierarchy. During the summer of 1945 American, British, French, and Soviet representatives met in London for the negotiation of the IMT charter. As the representative from the United States, Jackson customarily made

decisions regarding war crimes policy independently and rarely sought approval from his superiors in Washington. At the London Conference he maintained that the trial of the German leadership should be a legitimate legal proceeding, and not a forum for handing down predetermined political decisions. He also insisted that the proposed tribunal respect the freedom of any acquitted defendant. Jackson’s stance led to considerable disagreement between the American and Soviet delegations. In 1943 the Soviets had tried and convicted the Nazi leadership in absentia and saw the need only to pass individual sentences. Jackson refused to participate in such an undertaking and threatened to withdraw from the negotiations, suggesting instead that each country try separately the prisoners in its possession. However, he considered this option a last resort and worked diligently toward a Four Power trial. After more than two months of negotiations, Allied representatives signed the IMT charter on August 8, 1945. From the beginning, Jackson and the American delegation had played a predominant role in the development of the IMT, and its charter reflected his commitment to legalism. Section IV of the charter protected the defendants’ right to a fair trial.

571

572

JAMAICA

On November 21, 1945, Jackson delivered the prosecution’s opening statement and received widespread acclaim for his summation of the Nazis’ crimes against the international community. His speech is frequently quoted and considered by many historians and legal authorities to be a judicial classic. Jackson’s reputation in Nuremberg was later damaged by his crossexamination of Adolf Hitler’s chosen successor, Hermann Göring (1893–1946). On the witness stand, Göring accepted responsibility for many of the charges brought against him and impressed the court with his demeanor and detailed recollection of events, often refuting Jackson’s assertions and responding with lengthy rhetoric. Jackson had limited experience with cross-examination, and he was greatly troubled by the tribunal’s failure to control Göring’s theatrics. Jackson saw the IMT as an opportunity to secure a prominent position for international law in the management of global relations. He hoped to establish in Nuremberg the precedent that the initiation of aggressive war was a crime punishable under international law. Likewise, high-ranking government officials would not be exempt from prosecution. Accordingly, he focused his efforts on the prosecution of the conspiracy and aggressive war charges, counts one and two of the indictment against the IMT’s defendants. The tribunal’s verdicts confirmed Jackson’s vision, but critics cite the prosecution of counts one and two as examples of ex post facto law. Jackson returned to his Supreme Court duties prior to the IMT’s conclusion and declined to participate in the subsequent Nuremberg proceedings of 1946–1949. Brian K. Feltman

See also Nuremberg Trials References and Further Reading Bloxham, Donald. Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory. New York: Oxford University, 2001. Harris, Whitney R. Tyranny on Trial: The Evidence at Nuremberg. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, 1954. Kochavi, Arieh J. Prelude to Nuremberg: Allied War Crimes Policy and the Question of Punishment. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998. Taylor, Telford. The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir. New York: Knopf, 1992.

JAMAICA When the slaves were emancipated in the British West Indies in 1834, the planters of Jamaica were worried that their labor force would dissipate, as the former slaves went to occupy vacant plots of land in the hills. They therefore urged a policy by which European peasants would be encouraged to settle in the hills, so as to reduce the land available to the former slaves. Some laborers thus came from England and Scotland, but the most coherent group came from Germany. Most of them were recruited by William Lemonius in north Germany and were shipped out of Bremen; over 500 came in both 1835 and 1836. As seems to be the general rule with developments of this kind, the promises made by Lemonius were not kept, particularly in respect to the provision of housing. Still, a majority of the German immigrants survived the initial period, and before long most of them settled around Seaford Town, about 25 miles from Montego Bay, in the hills.

JANNINGS, EMIL

They had a wide variety of skills, and for a time it was hoped that they might establish an exemplary colony. As a contemporary put it, the authorities hoped that “the unwearied industry, the thought of providing for the support of themselves and families, which their habits would exhibit, would be observed; and, in the course of time, is it unreasonable to hope, imitated?” (Hall 1975, 4) Alas, although some immigrant families did quite soon establish themselves, many did not seem to have the expected European virtues, so that in 1837 it was noted that “in consequence of many of the Emigrants being so improvident it is recommended to serve only one week’s allowance [of basic food] at a time” (Hall 1975, 4). Meanwhile some of the immigrants had died, and others quickly left for the United States. All the same, by 1840 a community of about 300 Germans had firmly established itself at Seaford Town and had become selfsufficient, growing such crops as yams, plantains, and bananas. About 200 of these immigrants were Catholics, and they eventually established a church at Seaford Town, served by a sequence of Jesuits. In spite of continuing emigration, the community survived as a recognizable entity right down to the end of the twentieth century. Their style of life was by then, as it had been for many years, indistinguishable from that of the Jamaican peasants among whom they lived; only in the kitchen, it is said, were there faint echoes of their distant German origins. David Buisseret References and Further Reading Hall, Douglas. “Bountied European Immigration into Jamaica.” Jamaica Journal 8/4 (1974): 48–54; 9/1 (1975): 2–9.

573

JANNINGS, EMIL b. July 23, 1884; Rorschach, Switzerland d. January 2, 1950; Strobl,Wolfgangsee, Austria German actor who played in six silent movies made in Hollywood between 1926 and 1929. He was born Theodor Friedrich Emil Janenz. A charming man, a generous giant who could equally as well play a defeated man, a naïve lover, a president, or a powerful king, Jannings is presented by his French biographer Charles Ford as “the most popular German actor during the 1920s” (Ford 1969, 3). Born in Switzerland but raised in Germany, Jannings began his stage career in 1902 and had the chance to play at the Deutsches Theater (German Theater) in Berlin under the direction of Max Reinhardt from 1906. Many newcomers had joined the group at the Deutsches Theater through the years: Conrad Veidt, Paul Wegener, and later Ernst Lubitsch, in 1912. Between 1917 and 1921, Jannings appeared in eight films directed by his friend Ernst Lubitsch, including Die Augen der Mummie Ma (The Eyes of the Mummy Ma, 1918). Jannings played the leading role in Madame Dubarry (1918) and Anna Boleyn (1920), both directed by Lubitsch; Die Brüder Karamasoff (The Brothers Karamazov, 1921); Danton (1921); Othello (1923); Nju (1924); and Varietes (1925). He starred in Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau’s most important films in Germany: Der Letzte Mann (The Last Laugh, 1924), Tartuffe (1925), and Faust (1926). Jannings himself directed an obscure film in which he played the role of a nouveau riche, titled Alles für Geld (All for Money, 1924). Among those productions, Jannings’s introverted performance

574

JANNINGS, EMIL

in Varietes (1925), directed by a German filmmaker named Edwald André Dupont, was sometimes mentioned as a landmark by Marlon Brando and other students from the New York Actor’s Studio, because the defeated jailer (played by Jannings) was often seen from the back while in prison. Admirers from the silent era explained that Jannings could be expressive even when playing with his back to the audience. In 1926, at the height of his popular fame, Jannings went to the United States and played in six silent films. He received two Oscars from the Academy of Film Institute for the first two films he starred in while in Hollywood: in Victor Fleming’s The Way of All Flesh (1927) and Josef von Sternberg’s The Last Command (1928). The following year, Jannings starred in Ernst Lubitsch’s The Patriot (1928), from a novel by Alfred Neumann. For Jannings and Lubitsch, it was their ninth collaboration. Almost simultaneously, Jannings also played in Street of Sin (1928), by the Scandinavian director Maurice Stiller. He reappeared as a jailer in Sins of the Fathers (1928), by the German director Ludwig Berger. The last film Jannings did in the United States was a minor one, titled The Betrayal (1929), directed by Lewis Milestone. Because of his heavy German accent, Jannings could not work in American “talkies” and went back to Germany after only three years spent in the United States. Back in Berlin, he played his most famous role, the respectful Professor Unrath, who is seduced by the irresistible Lola Lola (Marlene Dietrich), in the German and English versions of Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel, 1930). The script, adapted

from a novel by Heinrich Mann, was somewhat comparable to Jannings’s first U.S. film, The Way of All Flesh. Having played for Sternberg two years before, Jannings had promised himself not to work again with the capricious director, although the actor insisted that the production company, the Universum Film Aktiongesellschaft, hire Sternberg for what would be the first sound film produced in Germany. The film soon became a classic, thanks to both stars. However, while Dietrich and Sternberg returned to the United States after the international success of The Blue Angel, Jannings never did. During the Nazi period, Jannings stayed in Berlin and appeared in nine films that were quite successful in Germany, as did some talented actors from the expressionist era, such as Robert Wiene, Theodor Loos, and Rudolf Klein-Rogge. All were reunited in a biographical film directed by Hans Steinhoff entitled Robert Koch, der Bekämpfer des Todes (Robert Koch, the Conqueror of Death, 1939), in which Jannings played the title role. Jannings’s last great roles were in biographical films: President Krüger in Ohm Krüger (1941) and Bismarck in Die Entlassung (Bismarck’s Dismissal, 1942). Yves Laberge See also Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene; Film (German), American influence on; Hollywood; Lubitsch, Ernst; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Reinhardt, Max; Sternberg, Josef von References and Further Reading Ford, Charles. Emil Jannings. Paris: Anthologie du cinéma, No. 46, 1969. The German-Hollywood Connection: Emil Jannings (1884–1950). Winner of the First Oscar for Best Actor. http://www .germanhollywood.com/jannings.html (Accessed May 11, 2005).

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

JESSING, JOHN JOSEPH b. November 17, 1836; Münster, Westphalia (Prussia) d. November 2, 1899; Columbus, Ohio German American Catholic priest who founded the influential German-language newspaper the Ohio Waisenfreund (Ohio Orphan’s Friend) and the Pontifical College Josephinum in Columbus, Ohio. Jessing immigrated to the United States in 1867 because of his growing disillusionment with the German Wars of Unification (1864–1871). He had served in the Seventh Westphalian Artillery of the Prussian Army during the Danish War (1864) and the Seven Weeks’ War (1866). He was disheartened by the war between Prussia and Austria; he believed it to be fratricidal and anathema to his Catholic faith. Later he claimed that he had foreseen the clash between France and Prussia (Franco-Prussian War, 1870–1871) and did not want to partake in another war against a Catholic country. Jessing immigrated to the United States, and entered Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Cincinnati, Ohio. After being ordained to the priesthood in 1870, he was stationed in a parish in Pomeroy, Ohio. Two and a half years later, he started a newspaper named the Ohio. Shortly thereafter he opened St. Joseph’s Orphanage. He continued to work on the newspaper, which in 1874 he renamed the Ohio Waisenfreund. It quickly became a significant voice in the German American Catholic press of Ohio. During the mid1870s, Jessing sparred with the larger Cincinnati German Catholic newspaper Wahrheitsfreund (Friend of Truth) over the issue of founding a Catholic university. In 1877 he moved permanently to Columbus, Ohio, and during the next decade he ex-

575

panded the function of his orphanage to that of a German preparatory seminary in philosophical and theological studies. In 1892 he transferred the college to the Holy See, and later that year Pope Leo XIII granted the college pontifical status. The Pontifical College Josephinum became a leading educational center for German American Catholic priests during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instruction was provided in both English and German. The Ohio Waisenfreund continued to serve as a strong voice for German American Catholicism; however, due to the pressures of World War I, that voice switched from German to English in print. The Pontifical College Josephinum (located in Columbus, Ohio) continues to train students for the priesthood and holds the distinction of being the only pontifical college in the Western Hemisphere. Kevin Ostoyich See also Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Baumgarten, Paul Maria. “Pontifical Colleges.” The Catholic Encyclopedia XII, 1911. Miller, Leo F., Joseph C. Plumpe, Maurice A. Hofer, and George J. Undreiner. Monsignor Joseph Jessing (1836–1899): Founder of the Pontifical College Josephinum. Columbus, OH: Carroll, 1936.

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS The expulsion of mainly Jewish scientists from Nazi Germany and Austria and the immigration of many of these refugees to the United States had a strong impact on American science. With Albert Einstein as the most prominent émigré scientist, and

576

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

the Manhattan Project, in which émigré physicists played a major role in the construction of the first atomic bomb, the impact of émigré scientists became most visible in physics. Changes and even transformations of the chemical and biomedical sciences brought about by émigrés, however, though less spectacular, were no less important.

Dismissals and Forced Emigrations of Jewish Scientists Germany is widely acknowledged to have been the international center of many areas of science in the nineteenth century and first third of the twentieth. This is indicated by the high percentage of German scientists among the Nobel laureates: Of all 100 Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics, and physiology/medicine awarded between 1901 and 1932, 33 were awarded to scientists in Germany and Austria, and only 6 went to Americans. Around a third of the German or Austrian Nobel laureates were Jewish or of Jewish origin. In part as a consequence of the expulsion of Jews, Germany lost its international preeminence in the sciences soon after the Nazis came to power in 1933. Nazi policy from the very beginning had as one of its main goals the purging of the entire civil service and public sector of Jews, people of Jewish origin, and those with leftist sympathies. The first and most important of these laws was the Gesetz für die Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums (Law for the Restoration of the German Civil Service), passed on April 7, 1933. As a consequence, all Jewish (non-Aryan) and the very few outspoken liberal or left-wing university teachers and researchers from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes were dismissed. NonAryans were defined as individuals with at

least one Jewish grandparent, irrespective of their religion. Exemptions were made for World War I Jewish frontline soldiers, but they no longer applied after the implementation of the Nuremberg Laws in September 1935. German laws were applied to Austrian universities immediately after the Anschluss on March 13, 1938. “Non-Aryans” were in most cases dismissed in April 1938, along with politically undesirable individuals— among them supporters of the former Dollfuss-Schuschnigg government as well as those with obvious Christian-Socialist attitudes. The dismissals at the German University of Prague had already started at the end of 1938 and were completed after the German occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. Of the academic scientific disciplines, physical chemistry and biochemistry were affected the most by these expulsions. Around a third of the scientists working in these fields were expelled from their positions as university teachers or researchers at a Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and most of them emigrated. In organic and inorganic chemistry around 20 percent lost their positions; in zoology and botany around 10 percent. Figures in physics differ between 15 and 25 percent. Around 90 percent of the scientists who lost their positions were Jewish or of Jewish origin. The high percentage of dismissals in chemistry and biochemistry are related to the comparatively strong participation of Jews in these fields, as opposed to biology. More than 50 percent of the émigrés left at first for various countries in western Europe, particularly the United Kingdom. At the end of the 1930s, many of them had to emigrate a second time: they had been given only temporary positions in

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

the United Kingdom, and many European countries had become targets of German aggression. With more than 30 percent of the émigré scientists, the United States became the country with the most émigrés in the chemical and biomedical sciences, followed by the United Kingdom (around 20 percent). Figures for physicists are probably similar (they are not available). The influence and quality of scientists’ research was estimated by reviewing Nobel Prizes, determining the number of citations in the Science Citation Index for the years 1945–1954, and relying on assessments from other scientists in the field. Based on these criteria, the following twenty-five émigré scientists from Nazi Germany were the most successful and influential ones before and/or after their emigration in chemistry, biochemistry, and biology. (For physicists see below. It has not been reviewed in detail). Except for Max Delbrück and Johannes Holtfreter, all scientists were Jewish or of Jewish or partly Jewish origin. Individuals who had to emigrate when they were still children are not included. As this list can only partly indicate, émigrés in the United States became most successful in biochemistry, the physical chemistry of polymers, and experimental embryology. They were also very successful in physics ( in the list represented only by Otto Stern, who started as a chemist and later became the pioneer of the molecular beam method in atomic physics). Some physicists, in particular Max Delbrück, and several biochemists, in particular Erwin Chargaff and Fritz Lipmann, later became pioneers in molecular biology. Other émigré physicists who were already successful or became so in the United

577

States include Hans Bethe (Nobel Prize 1967) and James Franck (Nobel Prize 1925). Bethe also played an active role in the Manhattan Project, as did Viktor Weisskopf and three Hungarian Jewish scientists who had worked in Germany before they emigrated to the United States: John von Neumann, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize 1963). The Austrian theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli (Nobel Prize 1945), who in 1937 moved from Zurich to the United States, went back to Switzerland in 1945. The chemical physicist Maria Göppert-Mayer (Nobel Prize 1963) was not Jewish; she emigrated to the United States in 1930. In the classical fields of biology, Viktor Hamburger at Washington University in St. Louis and Johannes Holtreter at the University of Rochester contributed greatly to neuroembryology and the properties of interacting cells in development, respectively. Both scientists were students of Nobelist Hans Spemann at the University of Freiburg. Curt Stern was a renowned Drosophila geneticist when in 1933 he received a position at the University of Rochester and, in 1947, at the University of California, Berkeley. Salome Gluecksohn-Waelsch, another student of Spemann, became a pioneer in mouse genetics after her emigration. First receiving a post at Columbia University, she moved to the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York a few years later. There she became a full professor in 1958, a great achievement for a woman at the time.

Influence of Émigré Scientists in Biochemistry The reception of émigré scientists in the United States strongly depended on their discipline. With the exception of Max

The twenty-five dismissed and/or émigré chemists, biochemists, and biologists who received the most citations in the Science Citation Index 1945–1954 and/or a Nobel Prize or distinguished themselves by individual major scientific contributions Name

Discipline

Citations

Nobel Prize

Institution in Germany/ Austria

Date of dismissal emigration

Countries of emigration

First position after emigration

3/33

United States

3/33

Switzerland, United States United Kingdom

Rockefeller Institute of Medical Res. Columbia U.

Biochemists and (Molecular) Biologists Max Bergmann

Viktor Hamburger Felix Haurowitz

chemistry/ biochemistry chemistry/ biochemistry chemistry/ biochemistry chemistry/ biochemistry physics/molecular biology embryology biochemistry

331 671

Johannes Holtfreter*

embryology

559

Hans Krebs Fritz Lipmann

2529 1783

1953 1953

U. Freiburg (ass.) KWI Med. Res. (res. fel.)

Otto Loewi Otto Meyerhof

biochemistry biochemistry/ chemistry/molecular biology pharmacology biochemistry

513 1467

1936 1923

Leonor Michaelis

biochemistry/biophysics

1703

U. Graz (prof.) KWI Med.Res. (director) U. Berlin (ass. prof.)

Konrad Bloch Ernst Boris Chain Erwin Chargaff Max Delbrück*

880 169

1964

88

1945

424 1969

KWI Leather Res. (director) TH Munich (student) U. Berlin (res. fel.) U. Berlin (ass.) KWI Chemistry (ass.) U. Freiburg German U. Prague (ass. prof.) U. Munich

3/33 3/33

Oxford U. Columbia U.

/37

France, United States United States

3/34 38/39

United States Turkey

Washington U., St. Louis U. Istanbul

38/39

U. Rochester

33/33 -/32

United Kingdom, Canada, United States United Kingdom Denmark, United States

38/38 38/38

United States France, United States

–/23

Japan, United States

Vanderbilt U.

U. Sheffield Carlsberg. Biol. Inst., Copenhagen U. College, New York Inst. Biol. Phys. Chimique, Paris Rockefeller Inst. of Medical Res.

Name

Discipline

Citations

David Nachmansohn

biochemistry

1492

Carl Neuberg

chemistry/biochemistry

1221

Max Perutz

chemistry/ molecular biology biochemistry

352

Fritz Arndt Ernst D. Bergmann

Nobel Prize

Institution in Germany/ Austria

Date of dismissal emigration

Countries of emigration

First position after emigration Sorbonne

R.Virchow Hosp., Berlin (ass.) KWI Biochem. (director) U.Vienna (student)

33/33

France, United States

34/38 - /37

Netherlands, Palestine, United States United Kingdom

1508

U. Freiburg (lecturer)

33/33

United States

organic chemistry organic chemistry

629 688

U. Prague U. Berlin (lecturer)

33/33 33/33

Turkey Palestine

Rudolf Lemberg

organic chemistry

645

U. Heidelberg (lecturer)

33/33

United Kingdom,

Richard Willstätter

organic chemistry

1556

1915

U. Munich (prof. until 1924)

- /39

Switzerland

U. Istanbul D. Sieff (Weizmann) Inst. Royal Hosp., Sidney Australia —

Fritz Haber

physical chemistry

419

1919

United Kingdom

—

George de Hevesy Hermann F. Mark

physical chemistry physical chemistry

1383 661

1943

KWI Physical Chem. - /33 (director), U. Berlin (prof.) U. Freiburg (prof.) 34/34 U.Vienna (prof.) 38/38

U. Copenhagen Industry, Canada

Otto Stern

physical chemistry/ physics

98

11943

Denmark, Sweden United Kingdom, Canada, United States United States

Rudolf Schoenheimer

1962

Lab. Molec. Biol. Cambridge Columbia U.

Organic Chemists

Physical Chemists

U. Hamburg (prof.)

33/33

Carnegie Inst., Pittsburgh

Note: U. = University;TH= Technical University; KWI = Kaiser Wilhelm Institute; Med. Res. = Medical Research; ass. = assistant; res. fel. = research fellow. * Max Delbrück and Johannes Holtfreter were not Jewish.

580

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

Bergmann, an eminent protein chemist, Jewish organic and inorganic chemists did not receive academic positions. However, biochemists and a few physical chemists became university professors. As a group, German Jewish émigré scientists in the United States became most influential in biochemistry. It was a comparatively underdeveloped field in the United States, in which Germans at the time were more advanced. Biochemistry became a niche for émigrés, among them the most talented biochemists of the twentieth century. It is an example of a whole discipline that was changed dramatically by refugees. The German Jewish biochemists Gustav Embden, Hans Krebs, Otto Meyerhof, and Carl Neuberg had contributed decisively to the elucidation of the first cycles of intermediary metabolism of the cell, research that began in 1910 with studies on the reactions of glycolysis (degradation of glucose) and fermentation. After 1933 important contributions to the field of biochemical reactions and mechanisms of intermediary metabolism came from German Jewish émigrés, most noticeably Fritz Lipmann, Rudolf Schoenheimer, and his student Konrad Bloch in the United States, and Hans Krebs in England. As was the case with many other German refugees, most of the older and already accomplished biochemists, such as the Nobel laureates Otto Loewi and Otto Meyerhof, as well as Carl Neuberg, had problems adjusting themselves to their new situation—that is, lower salaries, smaller laboratory space, fewer coworkers and assistants (if at all), etc. Otto Loewi did not flee immediately when Germany annexed Austria because he was completing an important experiment. He was imprisoned for two months, made his way to England,

and in 1940 to the United States, where he joined the faculty of New York University College of Medicine as a research professor of pharmacology, an unsalaried post. Because the Germans had compelled him to sign over his Nobel Prize money, he was supported by the Emergency Relief Committee, and his research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation for several years. Otto Meyerhof, director of the division of physiology at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, was one of the last Jewish researchers dismissed by the Kaiser Wilhelm Society. In 1938 he emigrated to France, in 1940 he fled to the United States via Portugal. He became a research professor at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Meyerhof, one of the founders of the energetics of the cell, had contributed decisively to the elucidation of the metabolic cycle of glycolysis; that is, degradation of sugar in the cell. Despite increasing health problems, he continued research in his field until his death in 1951. Most of those who transformed the discipline of biochemistry in the United States belonged to a younger generation of extraordinarily gifted scientists. Eminent examples are Rudolf Schönheimer (later Schoenheimer) and Fritz Lipmann, the latter ranking among the most important biochemists of the twentieth century. Lipmann first went to the United States in 1931; he had received a fellowship to work at the Rockefeller Institute in New York. Fearing the increasing power of the Nazi Party, he did not return to Germany the next year but went to Copenhagen to work with Albert Fischer. In 1939, shortly before the German occupation of Denmark, he received a position at Cornell Medical School and in 1941 set up a bio-

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

chemistry laboratory at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. Lipmann at first continued the work in intermediary metabolism he had begun under Otto Meyerhof in Heidelberg. His demonstration of the activation of intermediates in these cycles by the energy-rich “Coenzyme A” earned him the Nobel Prize in 1953 (together with Hans Krebs). In his later work he elucidated the chemical bonds of activated amino acids to t-RNA and the biosynthesis of antibiotics consisting of amino acids. His work was of major importance for the newly developing field of molecular biology. Lipmann was able successfully to transfer basic concepts that he had developed in one scientific field to a new field, thus contributing to the advancement of both biochemistry and molecular biology. Schoenheimer was an assistant professor at the University of Freiburg until his dismissal as a Jew. After his emigration in 1933, he became head of a research group at Columbia University. He successfully used the heavy isotope of hydrogen, deuterium, discovered by Urey in 1932, as a tracer for studying pathways of intermediary metabolism. His success convinced the head of the department, Hans T. Clarke, to develop a serious program in the medical and biological application of various isotopes. Though Schoenheimer did not receive a high position—at the time of his untimely death in 1942 he was still an associate professor—he was given the opportunity to found a center of research into the biochemistry of metabolism at Columbia Medical School, financially supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. In part due to the influence of émigrés from Germany and Austria, the biochemistry department at the Columbia

581

School of Physicians and Surgeons, founded by Clarke, became one of the leading international centers of biochemical research in the United States. Among Schoenheimer’s students was Konrad Bloch, who, after studying chemistry at the Technical University in Munich, was forced to leave Germany in 1933 and received his PhD in 1938 under Schoenheimer. Bloch successfully discerned the intermediate reactions in the synthesis of cholesterol by using deuterium-marked acetic acid, an achievement for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1964 (together with Feodor Lynen of Munich). Protein chemistry was another field in which German Jewish immigrants exerted a great direct or indirect influence. The most prominent example is the protein chemist Max Bergmann, director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Leather Research in Dresden and professor at the city’s Technical University. In contrast to other already prominent émigrés of his age, he managed to adjust quickly. Bergmann left Germany immediately after his dismissal in summer 1933 and two years later received a position at the Rockefeller Institute of Medicine in New York, where he founded an influential school of protein chemistry. Among his coworkers were Joseph Fruton and Heinz FraenkelConrat, who was an émigré, too, and, some years later, William H. Stein and Stanford Moore. A major area of research was the development of analytical methods to determine the amino acid composition of peptides and proteins. A breakthrough was achieved after Bergmann’s death (in 1944) by Moore and Stein, who developed a new chromatography method to this aim. They received the Nobel Prize in 1972.

582

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

Influence of Émigré Scientists in Molecular Biology Early studies on the scientific impact of the forced emigrations emphasize the role of émigré physicists in creating molecular biology during the 1940s and 1950s. Donald Fleming, for example, considers the “profound stimulus given by refugee physicists to the revolution of biology” to be “one of the most remarkable by-products of the European diaspora of the 1930s” (Fleming 1969, 152). It is true that some physicists also played important roles in shaping the new research field of molecular biology, but most of the pioneering work was carried out by microbiologists and biochemists. There, too, émigrés from Nazi Germany in the United States played a major role. The theoretical physicist Max Delbrück, assistant to Lise Meitner at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry in Berlin, went to the United States in 1937 on his own initiative, supported by a Rockefeller scholarship. Delbrück was not Jewish, but a university career in Germany seemed unlikely for him. In 1939 he initiated genetic phage research. The so-called phage group, founded by him and Salvador Luria, an émigré medical scientist from Italy, in 1941, developed techniques that turned out to be very successful in tackling fundamental questions in molecular biology. Gunther Stent, a younger member of the phage group, is an example of an émigré who left Germany when he was still a student and later became a well-known molecular biologist. The chemist Erwin Chargaff devoted his entire work to the chemistry of DNA when he heard of the work by Oswald T. Avery and his collaborators on the transformation of pneumococci by DNA

(1944). Chargaff, a Jewish Austrian by birth who had received his education in Vienna and in 1930 came to Berlin, went to the Institut Pasteur in 1933, and in 1935 emigrated to the United States, where he joined Columbia University. Chargaff demonstrated that DNA was not a monotonous molecule, in which four nucleotides repeated themselves, as was believed at the time, but a molecule capable of determining biological specificity. He became best known for having shown (1949–1952) that the molar ratio of particular bases of DNA (adenine and thymine, on the one hand, and guanine and cytosine, on the other), is close to one. His results were decisive for the subsequent elucidation of the double helix structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick. Fritz Lipmann’s unusually broad insight into the biochemical processes in cells helped him successfully extend his biochemical work on questions of molecular biology, in particular the elucidation of the mechanism of the biosynthesis of proteins from amino acids. Lipmann applied his concept of a universal chemical energy source in the form of ATP on the formation of a peptide bond between two amino acids, predicting that one had to be activated by ATP beforehand.

Impact of Émigrés in Polymer Chemistry The pioneer of polymer, or macromolecular, chemistry was Hermann Staudinger, professor at the University of Freiburg, who in the mid-1920s demonstrated the existence of macromolecules by organic chemical methods. He sustained this concept against the almost total rejection by his colleagues in organic chemistry during the 1920s and early 1930s. One of the first

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

scientists to show that the concept of macromolecules was compatible with the results of X-ray crystallography was the chemist Hermann Mark. In contrast to Staudinger, who considered polymer chemistry to be entirely a branch of organic chemistry, Mark focused on the development of physical chemical methods for the study of polymers. He set up an interdisciplinary working group at IG Farben in Ludwigshafen in 1927 and then established a teaching and research program in polymer chemistry at the University of Vienna, where he became a professor of physical chemistry in 1932. After the Anschluss in 1938, Mark, whose father was Jewish, was dismissed. Following a short imprisonment because of his friendship with the former chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, who was murdered by the Nazis in 1934, Mark fled to Canada via Switzerland and England. Many of his students and coworkers were dismissed, too, and left Austria, among them the following individuals who later set up institutes of their own or headed industrial laboratories in the United States: Frederick Eirich, Herbert Margaretha, E. Suess, Robert Simha, Eugen Guth, and Hans Motz. Mark became head of research at the Canadian International Paper Company in Hawkesbury, Ontario. After two years, Mark decided that it was impossible to pursue his broad scientific interests in Hawkesbury. The du Pont Company, with which Mark had worked on developing viscose fibers to be used in tire cords, offered him a du Pont consultancy with an academic position at the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute. Thus, in 1940 he moved to Brooklyn, where he became adjunct professor and was assigned to the Shellac Bureau, a small laboratory sup-

583

ported by industry, whose task was to characterize shellac chemically. Thanks to the support of the dean of Brooklyn Polytechnic, Raymond Kirk, Mark was given the opportunity to develop a teaching program and to establish a research center in polymer chemistry. In addition to Peter Hohenstein, an organic chemist and former student of Mark in Vienna who was already at the Shellac Bureau, Mark employed Robert Simha, another former student, and Turner Alfrey, to establish a teaching program, which began in September 1940. Because the literature in polymer chemistry was almost totally in German at the time, it was important that all these people could understand German. Research until 1945 was largely devoted to wartime projects. Mark received large grants from the military and the government. With the substantial funding he could hire many people. Among the researchers who joined Mark during the early 1940s were Isidor Fankuchen and Kurt G. Stern (another German refugee), who set up the ultracentrifuge at the institute; Paul M. Doty; A. V. Tobolsky; and B. H. Zimm. They investigated synthetic rubber and its properties and the mechanical properties of polymers. Other work was done on the permeability of membranes with the help of osmotic measurements, work that was related to the improvement of gas masks. After the war, Mark’s former coworker from Vienna, Frederick Eirich, and Herbert Morawetz joined Mark at Brooklyn Polytechnic. The polymer activities at Brooklyn Polytechnic led in 1947 to the foundation of the Institute of Polymer Research, the first such graduate program at an American university. In contrast to other departments of polymer chemistry, as for example

584

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

the one at the University of Illinois under Carl S. Marvel, that focused on either synthesis, characterization, or properties of polymers, Mark pursued the idea of creating a new discipline that covered all the aspects of polymer research. Bringing together physicists, chemists, and technicians, he succeeded in founding modern polymer science as a multidisciplinary academic discipline. The Polymer Research Institute soon became the international leader in this field and remained so for decades after World War II. Together with Eric Proskauer, Mark founded the Journal of Polymer Science in 1946, three years after Hermann Staudinger had transformed the Journal für Praktische Chemie (Journal of Practical Chemistry) into the Journal für Makromolekulare Chemie (Journal for Macromolecular Chemistry). Mark’s contribution to polymer science in the United States was less in the scientific field than in organizing research and teaching. His major scientific achievements took place while he was still in Germany and Austria. After the war, he extended his organizational talents to projects outside the United States; for example, as chairman of the founding committee of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel.

Émigré Influence in Physical Chemistry Physical chemistry had become a strong discipline in the United States in the 1920s. Whereas at the beginning of the century, American students and postdocs went to Germany, in particular to Wilhelm Ostwald, to study physical chemistry, by 1933, the year in which the first issue of the Journal of Chemical Physics appeared, leadership of the new chemical physics had

passed to the United States, as names like Henry Eyring, G. N. Lewis, Robert S. Mulliken (Nobel Prize 1966), and Linus Pauling (Nobel Prize 1954) indicate. As a consequence, émigré physical chemists as a group were less well received in the United States than theoretical physicists. Many ended up without permanent positions, such as Hans Beutler, formerly head of the department at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry; Otto Redlich, associate professor at the University of Vienna; and Alfred Reis, associate professor at the Technical University of Berlin. Others took up employment in industry, as for example Jacob Bikerman, assistant at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry; Hans Cassel, lecturer at the Technical University of Berlin; and Gertrud Kornfeld, lecturer at the University of Berlin. Some received permanent positions at American universities, such as Herbert Freundlich, Kasimir Fajans, Immanuel Estermann, Karl Söllner, Otto Stern, and Kurt Wohl. Otto Stern was the most eminent physical chemist from Germany. His case illustrates the problems that even some very renowned scientists of the older generation had to face after their emigration. Starting as a chemist and holding a professorship of physical chemistry at the University of Hamburg, his later experiments were in the forefront of physics, related to the quantum theory of the atom, where he developed the molecular beam method in the 1920s. In 1920 and 1921 he conducted the famous experiment with Walther Gerlach in which they provided evidence for the magnetic properties of the electron (spin). In the early 1930s, Stern determined the magnetic moment of the pro-

JEWISH REFUGEE SCIENTISTS

ton. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1943 for the development of the molecular beam method and the determination of the magnetic properties of the proton. After he and his coworker Immanuel Estermann were dismissed and emigrated, this research was not continued in Germany. The center of nuclear magnetic moments research moved to Columbia University. Here Isidor Rabi, who had become acquainted with this research during a postdoctoral year with Stern in Hamburg in 1929, introduced new and powerful molecular beam methods and founded a school that later achieved spectacular results. He received a Nobel Prize in 1944. Due to the intervention of the president of the university, Thomas Baker, Stern and Estermann were given positions at the Carnegie Institute in Pittsburgh. Baker visited Germany in July 1933 and engaged the three Jewish scientists Stern, Estermann, and Ernst Berl, formerly professor of chemical technology at the Technical University in Darmstadt. Together with Estermann, Stern established a molecular beam laboratory at the Carnegie Institute and continued to work in this field, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1943. However, Stern never regained the reputation he had enjoyed in Hamburg, largely due to the fact that there was little interest from the faculty and no support from the top after the first year. Stern left Pittsburgh after his retirement in 1945 and settled in Berkeley. The University of California completely ignored the fact that he was in Berkeley and never asked him to join the faculty. Estermann had fewer problems than Stern, but finally decided to leave Pittsburgh as well. During the war he became a consultant on the Manhattan Project.

585

Émigré Influence in Industry Many émigrés became successful industrial chemists. Among them were Gertrud Kornfeld and Arnold Weissberger. Kornfeld, Privatdozent (lecturer) for physical chemistry and assistant to Max Bodenstein at the Institute for Physical Chemistry of the University of Berlin, had focused on photochemistry and reaction kinetics. After she was dismissed because she was Jewish, she first attempted to find a post in England. After this attempt failed, she went to Vienna, supported by a fellowship from the American Association of University Women in 1935. In 1937 she emigrated to the United States, accepting a post at the research laboratory of Eastman Kodak in Rochester, New York. As Privatdozent (lecturer) for organic chemistry at the University of Leipzig, Arnold Weissberger, being Jewish, was dismissed in October 1933. He received a three-year fellowship from the Academic Assistance Council in London to work with N. V. Sidgwick in Oxford. Interestingly, according to a certain Professor Gibson, an expert referee for this council, Weissberger was not suitable for industry. However, in 1936 Weissberger accepted a position at Kodak in Rochester, where he joined the research laboratories in their synthetic chemicals department. With more than 100 patents, mostly dealing with the manufacturing of color film and methods for developing film, he helped Kodak become competitive in areas of organic chemistry in which the Germans (Agfa) were leaders. One notable result achieved by Weissberger and his chemist colleagues during World War II was the development of nondiffusing couplers by a technique different from the one the

586

JOHANN, KING

OF

SAXONY

Germans had invented shortly before. Couplers are chemical compounds that form dyes when combined with photographic developing agents. Nondiffusing couplers greatly simplify the production of dyes. Weissberger’s inventions thus helped greatly to improve the colors in the dyes used in Kodak film. Ute Deichmann See also Einstein, Albert; German Jewish Migration to the United States; Intellectual Exile; Wigner, Eugen(e) Paul References and Further Reading Deichmann, Ute. Biologists under Hitler. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1996. ———. “The Expulsion of Jewish Chemists and Biochemists from Academia in Nazi Germany.” Perspectives on Science 7 (1999): 1–86. Fleming, Donald. “Émigré Physicists and the Biological Revolution.” In The Intellectual Migration. Eds. Donald Fleming and B. Bailyn. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969. Kleinkauf, Horst, Hans von Döhren, and Lothar Jaenicke. The Roots of Modern Biochemistry. Fritz Lipmann’s Squiggle and Its Consequences. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1988. Kohler, Robert E. “Rudolf Schoenheimer, Isotopic Tracers, and Biochemistry in the 1930s.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 8 (1977): 257–298. Krohn, Claus Dieter, Patrik zur Mühlen, Gerhard Paul, and Lutz Winkler, eds. Handbuch der deutschsprachigen Emigration 1933–1945. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. Lipmann, Fritz. Wanderings of a Biochemist. New York: Wiley, 1971. Mark, Herman. From Small Organic Molecules to Large: A Century of Progress. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society, 1993. Morawetz, Herbert. “Herman Mark, Life and Accomplishments.” Macromol. Symp. 98 (1995): 1173–1184. Nachmansohn, David. German-Jewish Pioneers in Science 1900–1933. New York: Springer, 1979.

JOHANN, KING

OF SAXONY b. December 12, 1801; Dresden, Saxony d. October 29, 1873; Pillnitz, Saxony Johann entertained several American visitors to Saxony during the first half of the nineteenth century and entered into a decade-long exchange of letters with George Ticknor. Johann became king of Saxony on the death of his brother, King Friedrich Augustus II (1854). He was greatly interested in law, administration, and the arts; played an active part in the commission that drew up the constitution of 1831; and during his reign not only allowed some liberalization but also worked for good administration and economic progress in Saxony. His preferred solution of the burning question of German unity would have been a confederation of German states independent of Prussia and Austria alike. In a letter to George Ticknor (September 1848), Johann expressed the opinion that a constitution like that of the United States would have been the best for Germany. Inspired by a visit to Italy (1821–1822) he became an ardent student of Dante and made himself a name as an excellent, internationally renowned translator and commentator of the Divina Commedia (3 vols. 1839–1849, published under the pseudonym of Philalethes). Highly educated, well informed on national and international affairs, and fluent in English and French, Johann became just the right partner for all learned American visitors to Dresden. The distinguished New England scholars George Ticknor and John Lothrop Motley—both American residents at the Saxon capital for a longer period— were full of praise for this knowledgeable prince/monarch of an old German dynasty. Ticknor characterized Johann as a very agreeable man of quiet, studious habits and

JOHANN, KING

a good deal of learning with a special interest in American history, social institutions, and political problems. Particularly during Ticknor’s second stay in Dresden (1835–1836) Prince Johann regularly invited the American scholar to his residential quarters to converse with him on literary matters or to discuss various subjects of common interest. This was the beginning of an acquaintance that ripened into friendship and produced frequent correspondence (in English) that lasted until Ticknor’s death in 1871. In 1852 Motley presented himself at court in Dresden and paid his respects to Prince Johann, who received him informally and with great kindness and politeness. Motley was much impressed by Johann and considered his acquaintance worth cultivating. These two outstanding American intellectuals, by their intimate knowledge of Dresden and the court of the House of Wettin, broadened the American view of Saxony in the first half of the nineteenth century. Already under Johann’s predecessors, transatlantic visitors cherished the Saxon court as a truly intellectual and moral court that was hospitable and friendly toward foreigners and appreciated the sights and cultural events in Dresden, the “Florence on the Elbe.” The first and one of the most important of all the prominent and high-ranking American citizens who traveled in Saxony was the diplomat and scholar, John Quincy Adams. He stayed with his wife and servants at the Saxon residence for nearly two and a half months in 1799, was received at court and felt almost overwhelmed by the fine collection of the royal picture gallery (containing such famous pictures as Raphael’s Madonna di San Sisto). In 1823 the celebrated author of the Sketch Book, Washington Irving, felt him-

OF

SAXONY

587

self no less deeply impressed by “this little Kingdom of Saxony” and its court, which took pride in both the encouragement of fine art and education and a kind, unrestrained, and respectful intercourse with foreign visitors. The unaccustomed attention and the warm-hearted welcome Irving received from the royal family and his Dresden admirers fascinated and, indeed, flattered him. Such well-known nineteenth-century authors of popular travel books as Henry Edwin Dwight, Bayard Taylor, and Nathaniel Parker Willis also informed their American readers of the benevolent and art-loving Saxon royals, as well as of the manifold cultural advantages of the Dresden residence, so lavishly offered to all foreign visitors. Johann’s sister, Princess Amalia (1794– 1870), was another member of the royal family who effectively contributed to the favorable American image of Dresden’s cultural and intellectual scene. Ticknor was a great admirer of her. Her plays (written and produced under the pseudonym of Amalia Heiter) were also known in the New World, translated and published in New York and Boston newspapers. Eberhard Brüning See also Adams, John Quincy; Motley, John Lothrop; Ticknor, George; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Briefwechsel König Johanns von Sachsen mit George Ticknor. Ed. Johann Georg Herzog von Sachsen im Verein mit E. Daenell. Leipzig/Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1920. Brüning, Eberhard. “König Johann von Sachsen und sein amerikanischer Bewunderer und Freund.” Sächsische Heimatblätter (König Johann von Sachsen. Leben–Werk–Zeit) no. 1, 1992: 48–52. Kötzschke, Rudolf, and Hellmut Kretzschmar. Sächsische Geschichte. Dresden: Verlag C. Heinrich, 1935.

588

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY Johns Hopkins University (JHU), founded in 1876 in Baltimore, Maryland, has long been considered the most “German” university of all American universities. Nearly all of its first professors and associates had attended German universities, and several of them had received their PhDs at a German institution. Among them were scholars who established new fields and disciplines of study, such as the classicist Basil L. Gildersleeve, the mathematician James J. Sylvester, the chemist Ira Remsen, the physicist Henry A. Rowland, and the psychologist G. Stanley Hall. The first president of the university, Daniel C. Gilman, strived to establish his

institution, which had been founded by a bequest of Johns Hopkins in 1873, as the first research university on American soil. Therefore, it did not focus on the education and training of undergraduate students and the establishment of a liberal culture, but rather on graduate students and their preparation for scientific research. Furthermore, professors at JHU were encouraged to independently pursue their own research projects. In addition, university-based scholarly journals, such as the American Journal of Mathematics, were established to provide professors and PhD candidates with an outlet for publishing their findings. The creation of a university press was part of the same strategy. Postdoctoral positions

Gilman Hall, Johns Hopkins University. Founded in 1876 in Baltimore, JHU has long been considered the most “German” of all American universities. (New York Public Library)

JOHNSON, PHILIP CORTELYOU

were created to provide research opportunities for recent graduates from Johns Hopkins and other universities. The departmental library system, as well as the seminar, distinguished JHU from traditional American universities and colleges. “Associations” were established to give advanced students, professors, and an invited audience a podium for discussing and presenting their research. Some of these structures were characteristic for German universities in the second half of the nineteenth century, but JHU was the first American institution to introduce them into American academia, although they had been modified and transformed to fit an American context. Its emphasis on research, professional training, and expansion of knowledge gave JHU a leading position in the reform of American higher education. It set new standards for academic careers and doctoral programs. Because a large number of JHU graduates received appointments at other universities, the reform of higher education spread all over the country. Alumni of JHU occupied leading positions in this transformation process and reformed their universities following the model of JHU. Today, many consider JHU a “pioneer” in the history of the American university system (Hawkins 1960). However, JHU was not progressive when it came to women’s education. Only in 1970 did the university begin accepting female students and ended the tradition of the all-male undergraduate body. Gabriele Lingelbach References and Further Reading Hawkins, Hugh. Pioneer: A History of the Johns Hopkins University, 1874–1889. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1960. Schmidt, John C. Johns Hopkins: Portrait of a University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1986.

589

JOHNSON, PHILIP CORTELYOU b. July 8, 1906; Cleveland, Ohio d. January 29, 2005; New Canaan, Connecticut Leading twentieth-century architect who was a Nazi sympathizer during the 1930s. Johnson graduated from Harvard University with a degree in philosophy in 1930. As the first director of the Architecture Department at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, Johnson was involved in organizing the famous International School of Architecture Exhibition at the museum in 1932. He coauthored the book, International Style: Architecture since 1922 (1932), with architectural historian Henry Russell Hitchcock and is thus regarded as one of the coiners of the term International style. After the exhibition, Johnson toured Nazi Germany. He was fascinated with Fascist aesthetics and he sympathized with Nazi ideology. Back in the United States, Johnson flirted with the populist right-wing politician Huey Long and in particular with the notorious antisemitic radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin. Johnson published antisemitic articles in Coughlin’s journal Social Justice. In 1939 Johnson went back to Germany at the invitation of the Nazi Propaganda Ministry. As a guest of the Nazi government he followed the German army on its invasion into Poland and witnessed the bombing of Warsaw. Back in the United States, he was investigated by the FBI but continued to defend the Nazis. In 1940 Johnson went back to Harvard to study architecture, graduating in 1943 and entering military service. He returned to his former position at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1946, remaining until 1955, when he started his own architectural firm.

590

JOIST, JOHANN HEINRICH

After the war, Johnson repented for his pro-Nazi views. He designed a synagogue, Kneses Tifereth Israel in Port Chester, New York, free of charge. Johnson also wrote a brief foreword to Rachel Wischnitzer’s stillinfluential 1955 book, Synagogue Architecture in the United States: History and Interpretation. The art historian Wischnitzer was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. After the war, Johnson emerged as one of the leading modern architects in the United States and beyond. In 1949 he designed the now classic Glass House as a residence for himself in New Canaan, Connecticut. The German-born architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe (1886–1969) had a major impact on Johnson, who had organized Mies’s first trip to America. With Mies, Johnson designed the Seagram Building on New York’s Park Avenue in 1958, a landmark international style skyscraper. Johnson was also involved in the Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts project in New York in the mid-1960s. Famous buildings by Johnson are the Pennzoil Building in Houston (1976), the AT&T Skyscraper in New York (1984), and the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company (1984). The AT&T Skyscraper with its curious Chippendale top is regarded as one of the first postmodern skyscrapers because Johnson employed historic styles, an approach that International style architects hitherto had emphatically rejected. Philip Johnson was the first recipient of the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 1979. He semiretired in 1989 but continued to design buildings in the United States and abroad until his death at the age of 98. Tobias Brinkmann See also Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig References and Further Reading Schulze, Franz. Philip Johnson: Life and Work. New York: Knopf, 1994.

JOIST, JOHANN HEINRICH b. January 9, 1935; Bergisch-Gladbach (Westphalia), Prussia d. February 13, 2004; St. Louis, Missouri German American scientist and physician. After completing medical education in Germany, Joist’s research interests led him to do postgraduate work in the United States. After further research and study in Germany and Canada, he became a professor of medicine in St. Louis. There, in addition to his research and teaching, he actively promoted international cooperation among researchers and physicians, particularly in third world countries. After graduation from the Gymnasium (academic high school) in Bergisch-Gladbach in 1955, Joist studied medicine at the universities of Cologne, Freiburg, and Innsbruck. In 1962 the University of Cologne awarded Joist the degree of doctor of medicine. Following graduation Joist undertook postgraduate research in hematology at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri; the University of Cologne, West Germany; and McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. In 1977 McMaster University awarded him a PhD for his work in the rheological aspects of platelet function. In 1972 Joist joined the faculty of medicine of Washington University in St. Louis. In 1978 he moved to St. Louis University. He was still actively researching and teaching there when he died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure apparently occurring during his research decades before. Joist combined an active research agenda with service as a caring physician. He published extensively on blood-related diseases. One of his areas of research was radiosynovectomy, a nonsurgical procedure

JUDAISM, REFORM

to improve joint mobility after recurrent joint bleeds in hemophilia patients, a leading cause of their disability. He founded and directed the Hemophilia Treatment Center in St. Louis. At the St. Louis universities he established specialized reference laboratories where he standardized tests for diagnosing and treating unusual bleeding and clotting disorders. When the AIDS virus swept the world, he treated many patients who got AIDS after HIV-infected blood transfusions. Joist was known as a devoted teacher. He helped many students and colleagues in their scientific careers. He was particularly active in promoting international cooperation in research and treatment. In connection with the World Federation of Hemophilia (WFH), Joist established the Hemophilia Twinning Program between St. Louis and Bangalore, India, which the federation recognized as the Twinning Program of the Year in 2001. In 2002 the National Hemophilia Foundation awarded Joist its physician of the year award. James R. Maxeiner References and Further Reading Prange, Bethany. “Dr. Johann Heinrich Joist/ Hematologist, Professor.” St. Louis Post Dispatch, February 16, 2004, p. B5.

JUDAISM, REFORM (NORTH AMERICA) The Reform movement in Judaism is one of the four major movements in North American Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Reconstructionist). It is also called liberal Judaism or progressive Judaism, but the American Reform movement constitutes the largest national movement of liberal Judaism. Although having its roots in Germany, it was in America

591

where the idea of Jewish Reform fully developed and prospered. According to its doctrine, progressive Judaism has to adapt to the challenges posed to it by place and time; therefore its manifestations vary according to their settings and undergo continuous change. Ideologically, the movement has its roots in the attempt to adapt Judaism to the challenges of modernity and modern statehood during the eighteenth century; especially important to its development was the Jewish Enlightenment, or Haskalah, first introduced by Moses Mendelssohn in Berlin. Mendelssohn and other Maskilim (Jewish Enlightenment thinkers) formed a new Jewish elite that sought access to a new sociability outside the traditional Jewish community. Yet it was only in the nineteenth century that a Jewish laity started to express the desire to adapt the exercise of Jewish religiosity by introducing aesthetic changes in services, liturgy, and prayers— thereby adjusting to the outside style of mainstream religiosity in order to enhance Jews’ civic respectability. Israel Jacobson was the first to introduce visible changes in the synagogue in 1810. His changes were officially adopted by the Hamburg Temple, which opened in 1818 and introduced its own prayer book in 1819. However, the movement was not solely based on aesthetic changes, but rather on ideological definitions of Judaism. The ideological concepts grew out of rabbinical and scholarly interpretations that gave the movement philosophical and religious depth and strength to survive and develop. During the 1840s, Abraham Geiger, Samuel Holdheim, and Samuel Hirsch were the main champions of an intellectual debate on the transformation of Judaism. It was a debate that played itself

592

JUDAISM, REFORM

out quite publicly in the rising periodical and newspaper culture and other printed works, as well as at three rabbinical conferences between 1844 and 1846 where Jewish religious authorities and a younger generation of university-trained rabbis sought common ground. The reformers used German instead of Hebrew during services and sought to open up the communal ties of traditional Judaism and its particularism and explore and strengthen Jewish universalism, finding a place for Jews as citizens in the public sphere. This happened mainly by defining Judaism as a religion, denying the idea of Jewish nationality, and reinterpreting Israel’s special mission as a universalistic task of bringing ethical monotheism to the human family. The movement was not able to fully develop in Germany because of the legally enforced communal unity and religious and secular authority. Therefore, the United States became the land of promise for the Reform movement. Between 1840 and 1870 a first large wave of Jewish immigrants from Germanspeaking countries (140,000) arrived on American shores. They dramatically changed the ethnic composition, overall number, and religious ritual of the roughly 3,000 Jews of Sephardic and Ashkenazic background who had been in the United States prior to 1830. Very different in ethnic background and used to a different religious ritual, the German Jews founded their own congregations and started to introduce reforms to traditional Jewish orthodoxy in America. This was strongly facilitated by the traditions of American denominationalism, voluntarism, religious liberty, and the strict separation of church and state, as well as by the complete lack of

any established religious authority in American Judaism. The first Reform congregation, the Har Sinai Verein (Har Sinai Association), was established in Baltimore in 1842 by a group of German Jewish laymen and modeled after the Hamburg Temple. Due to the lack of a rabbi, they held lay-led services. The upheavals in central Europe in the mid-nineteenth century destroyed the hopes for major reforms in Judaism in Europe and full emancipation for German Jews. Several rabbis, therefore, joined the wave of German Jewish immigration to the United States. One of the first Reform rabbis who immigrated to the United States was Max Lilienthal. He succeeded Leo Merzbacher as rabbi of the German congregation Anshe Chesed in New York City. Leo Merzbacher became the rabbi of the newly founded Kultusverein in New York in 1845, also modeled after the Hamburg Temple and named Temple Emanu-El in 1846. The most important champions of Reform Judaism in the German immigrant rabbinate were David Einhorn, Bernhard Felsenthal, Samuel Adler, Samuel Hirsch, Kaufmann Kohler, and Isaac Mayer Wise. They soon sensed the opportunities America offered Jews and Judaism; however, they imagined varying concepts for the future of American Reform between radical and moderate paths. Wise, the organizer and “founder” of American Reform Judaism, sought to establish a national religious platform (“synod”) for American Judaism. For national unity he was willing to sacrifice religious principle and would compromise with orthodoxy. He first organized a synod in 1847 in New York City, which was opposed by a group of Jewish freethinkers,

JUDAISM, REFORM

593

In 1875 the Hebrew Union College (HUC) was founded in Cincinnati and began training American rabbinical students. The first HUC building (shown here) stood from 1881 to 1912. (Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion)

the Lichtfreunde. In cooperation with the orthodox Isaac Leeser, Wise again organized a rabbinical meeting in Cleveland, the Cleveland Conference, in 1855. Again urged to secure the formation of an English-speaking American rabbinate through the establishment of a rabbinical seminary in America, he tried to reach a religious consensus on an American Judaism. His efforts, however, were thwarted by the more radical Einhorn who rejected any theological compromise. This friction was theologically confirmed in 1869 at the Philadelphia Conference, which was dominated by radical German Reform rabbis, such as Einhorn,

Hirsch, Felix Adler, and Felsenthal. At the conference Wise was isolated and had to give up his idea of defining a national religious platform and union (“synod”) in American Judaism. However, in 1873 the congregations of the West and South launched the formation of a national lay union of Jewish congregations in the United States, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC), in Cincinnati, Ohio. The newly founded union was to cooperate in Jewish education, social services, and the establishment of a rabbinical college, but left room for congregational religious independence. In 1875 the Hebrew Union College (HUC) was founded

594

JUDAISM, REFORM

in Cincinnati and began training American rabbinical students. The college institutionalized a modern academic training for rabbis, including elements of critical theology and secular Wissenschaft (science). This had always been demanded by the German Reform movement, but the latter was not able to integrate Jewish Wissenschaft into the German university curriculum. Wise served as president of the college from its inception to his death in 1900. The UAHC grew to a national organization that integrated the large majority of American Jewish congregations until the Reform movement made a decisive ideological statement in favor of progressive Judaism. The Pittsburgh Platform, the outcome of a rabbinical conference and meeting of the Reform rabbinate in Pittsburgh in 1885, established a new credo in American Reform Judaism that dominated the era of “Classical Reform” and was designed by the two sons-in-law of Einhorn, the radical Reform rabbis Kaufmann Kohler and Emil Hirsch. It rejected the idea of a Jewish nationality, fostered Jewish universalism, and encouraged Jews to show this practically through strong engagement in the social service movement. However, with this new platform as the basis of the UAHC, more conservative congregations chose to leave the movement and founded their own college, the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York City (1887), and a new movement, the Conservative movement in Judaism. Now under the intellectual guidance of Kaufmann Kohler and Emil Hirsch, Classical Reform developed its own rabbinical organization in 1889: the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), over which Wise presided until his death

in 1900. Kaufmann Kohler succeeded Wise as president of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. He strongly influenced its curricula and faculty until his retirement in 1921. His brother-in-law, Emil G. Hirsch, rabbi of Sinai Congregation in Chicago and professor of theology at the University of Chicago, decisively shaped the American Reform movement theologically and practically through his strong engagement in the American Social Gospel movement. During the 1920s, the American Reform movement slowly started discussing Zionism, after an increasing number of individuals and the prominent rabbi Steven Wise had raised the issue and Wise with his People’s Synagogue and Jewish Institute of Religion had started supporting the movement publicly. In 1937 the movement officially changed its position on Zionism and introduced a new approach toward “tradition” and Jewish ethnic belonging by the adoption of the so-called Columbus Platform. During the Holocaust, the Reform movement sought to rescue several of the most gifted German intellectuals and students from the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (University for the Science of Judaism) in Berlin by establishing a “University in Exile.” The effort saved the lives of Abraham Joshua Heschel, Eugen Täubler, Franz Rosenthal, Isaiah Sonne, Franz Landsberger, Alexander Guttmann, and Samuel Atlas. Some of them, like Joachim Prinz and Abraham Joshua Heschel, and other scholars and rabbis felt that their experiences with racism and Nazism in Germany gave them a special obligation to increase their political engagement in America, especially in

JUDAISM, REFORM

the American civil rights movement of the 1960s. After the Holocaust, the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR) emerged as the only surviving rabbinical college for the Reform movement and took on a central function for the training of Reform rabbis worldwide. After having established a campus in New York City (1950) and Los Angeles (1954), the college also founded a fourth campus in Jerusalem (1963). The Cincinnati campus includes the American Jewish Archives and the Klau Library. In 1972 the HUC-JIR in Cincinnati, Ohio, ordained the first female rabbi, Sally Priesand, and thus adapted to new chal-

595

lenges that were posed to modern Judaism in America. Cornelia Wilhelm See also Chicago; Cincinnati; Einhorn, David; German Jewish Migration to the United States; Kohler, Kaufmann; Leeser, Isaac; New York City; Wise, Isaac Mayer References and Further Reading Breslauer, Daniel S. Covenant and Community in Modern Judaism. New York and Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1989. Meyer, Michael A. Hebrew Union College– Jewish Institute of Religion, A Centennial History 1875–1975. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College, 1976. ———. Response to Modernity, A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 1990. Sorkin, David. The Transformation of German Jewry. New York: Oxford University, 1987.

K KANSAS, GERMAN DIALECTS IN The various German dialects found in the state of Kansas predominantly reflect the massive influx of German-speaking settlers from German-speaking Europe and Russia who immigrated to the state during the period from the mid-1850s to the 1880s. Many of these early settlers were attracted to Kansas by the Kansas Pacific and Santa Fe railroad companies. Both companies undertook massive recruitment efforts to attract settlers to the lands available along the railroad lines. Other groups speaking a German-based dialect migrated to Kansas in the last half of the twentieth century and early years of the twenty-first. For example, Yiddish-speaking Jews (post–World War II) are found in metropolitan areas such as Kansas City, Wichita, and Topeka; and migrant farm workers from Mennonite colonies in Mexico who entered the state in the last quarter century began to establish settlements in southwestern Kansas. The German settlements in Kansas offer a window on the full spectrum of German dialects, from the Low German dialects spoken from the Dutch border in northern Germany to the Vistula Delta of West Prussia to the Upper German dialects of Switzerland and Bavaria, as well as varieties of Ger-

man that emerged in colonial settlements, whether in Russia or in Pennsylvania. Dialects from Upper German dialect regions are found in both northeastern and west-central Kansas. Swiss German enclave dialects exist in the community of Bern in Nemaha County. Beginning in the 1880s, a number of German-speaking immigrants from the Austrian settlements in Bukovina, on the eastern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains, began settling in west-central Kansas. They settled in the counties of Ellis, Trego, and Rooks, with the town of Ellis as the center. The immigrants to west-central Kansas have traditionally called themselves Swabian or Bohemian Germans, although they were commonly referred to as Austrians. They came from Bukovina, but did not originate there. The Lutheran Swabians came from southwest Germany, whereas the Catholic Bohemian Germans came from western Bohemia. The Lutheran Swabians settled north of the city of Ellis, whereas the Catholic Bohemian Germans built their homesteads south of Ellis. Linguistically, one must differentiate between two groups of Bukovina Germans: the Lutheran Swabians, who speak a Palatine (Middle German) type of dialect from southwest Germany, and the Catholic Bohemian Germans, whose dialect derives

597

598

KANSAS, GERMAN DIALECTS

IN

from the area of the Bohemian Forest in the western part of the former AustroHungarian Empire. This dialect mainly shows features of Central Bavarian with some North Bavarian characteristics. For example, the vocalization of the postvocalic /r/, which leads to a diphthongization of the preceding vowel, is a typical characteristic shared by both Ellis County Bohemian German and Central Bavarian dialects. A study of the lexical items of Ellis County Bohemian German also supports an original location of the dialect in the area of the uppercentral and lower-upper Bohemian Forest. German American speech islands in Kansas exhibiting a Middle German dialectal heritage abound. In south-central Kansas, the Schweitzer Mennonite dialect—a Western Palatine dialect—can be found in Moundridge (McPherson County). The misnomer “Schweizerisch” stems from the fact that the ancestors of these Mennonites originally came from the canton of Bern, Switzerland. Their home was in the northern Palatinate, however, from 1670 to 1797. During this time, their High Alemannic Bernese was virtually completely replaced by a Palatine dialect. The formation of the past participle with loss of final –en is a characteristic feature of Western Palatine dialects (the area from which these Mennonites stem) and appears in the speech of the Schweitzer Mennonite dialect. The Volga German dialects found in and around Ellis County, Kansas, also represent a Middle German dialect speech island. They represent a German-language speech enclave that separated from the main body of German dialects and established itself along the southern Volga River in the districts of Samara and Saratov in Russia during the reign of Catherine the

Great in the second half of the eighteenth century. After a century in Russia, many Volga Germans chose to emigrate again to the Americas in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In the area of Ellis County, Kansas, many intradialectal differences exist between the various Volga German communities. For example, the communities of Schoenchen, Munjor, Pfeifer (Ellis County), and Liebenthal (Rush County) exhibit many characteristics common to the area in and southwest of Frankfurt (South Hessian). The dialect spoken in Herzog (now known as Victoria) is categorized as West Palatine and the dialect of Catharine is described as descended from a West Middle German Stadtmundart, similar to its namesake on the Volga. Many of the original immigrants to Russia had no agricultural background and had to learn farming through trial and error. Although the Volga Germans lived in closed communities separate from the Russian peasantry, the influence of their Slavic neighbors nevertheless had some impact on the vocabulary: erbus ”watermelon,” pachshu “garden,” blotnik “carpenter,” bklazhan “tomato,” etc. No story of Middle German dialectal variants in Kansas would be complete without mentioning Pennsylvania German. A handful of Pennsylvania German families came to Kansas in the late 1850s. It is believed that the majority of Pennsylvania German migrations from Pennsylvania to Kansas took place between 1854 and 1920, although exact statistics do not exist. Pennsylvania German communities can be found today in Anderson, Douglas, and Harvey counties. German Catholics from the Rhineland (near Cologne) and Luxembourg occupy northwestern Segwick County in and around the communities of

KANSAS, GERMAN DIALECTS

Andale, Colwich, Ost, St. Mark, and Garden Plain. As can be expected, the dialect spoken in this area is a variation of Moselfränkisch. After the end of World War II, Yiddish-speaking Jews immigrated to the United States. Yiddish, which predominantly represents a Middle German dialect slightly altered by Slavic and Hebrew influences, is spoken today in the metropolitan areas of Kansas City, Wichita, and Topeka. Low German–speaking immigrants also found their way to Kansas in strong numbers. In Marshall and Washington counties, the Missouri Synod Lutheran settlers of Hanover, Marysville, and Bremen speak East Low German, characterized by a unified plural ending on present tense verbs: -et. Mennonite Low German (Plautdietsch) is spoken in Haskell, Marion, McPherson, and Reno counties. The first major movement of Mennonites from Russia took place in the 1870s. Migrants from the Molotschna community settled in Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas. Two linguistic characteristics that classify the Molotschna dialect and that are also found in Kansas Mennonite Low German are: the common /?/ (schwa) ending on infinitives and the palatalization of /k/ and /t/. Since as early as the 1970s, Low German–speaking immigrants have been moving to southwest Kansas (Grant, Gray Haskell, and Meade counties) from the state of Chihuahua in Mexico. These immigrants are Old Colony Mennonites who came to Mexico from Manitoba early in the twentieth century. They have come to Kansas to escape extreme poverty that they experienced in the Chihuahua region. In the early twenty-first century the gradual linguistic decay of the last remnants of German settlement dialects in

IN

599

Kansas is apparent. In most communities, the oldest generation of speakers maintains some level of fluency; however, the younger members possess only marginal fluency at best. The major groups that continue to pass on a German dialect as a mother tongue are the Old Order Amish and Old Colony Mennonites. Faced with the eventual death of these German settlement dialects within the next quarter century, researchers in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Kansas have founded the Linguistic Atlas of Kansas German Dialects (LAKGD) Project. The purpose of the LAKGD is to collect, preserve, and analyze German American dialects spoken in the state of Kansas and the midwestern United States. The LAKGD continues to make recordings of these dialects available via the World Wide Web and to acquire new dialect samples. The LAKGD can be found under the following URL: http://www.ku .edu/~german/lakgdhomepage/main.htm. Michael T. Putnam See also Amish; Brazil; Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Volga Germans (Volga Deutsche) in the United States References and Further Reading Epp, Reuben. The Story of Low German and Plautdietsch: Tracing a Language across the Globe. Hilsboro, KS: Reader’s, 1993. Johnson, D. Chris. “The Volga German Dialect of Schoenchen, Kansas.” Doctoral Dissertation. University of Kansas, 1994. Keel, William D. “On the Heimatbestimmung of the Ellis County (Kansas) VolgaGerman Dialects.” Yearbook for GermanAmerican Studies 17 (1982): 99–110. Lunte, Gabriele M. The Catholic Bohemian German Dialect of Ellis, Kansas. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Kansas, 1998. Schach, Paul. “Phonetic Change in German Dialects on the Great Plains.” Yearbook of German-American Studies 18 (1983): 157–173.

600

KAPP, FRIEDRICH

KAPP, FRIEDRICH b. April 13, 1824; Hamm (Westphalia), Prussia d. October 27, 1884; Berlin, Prussia Kapp established the history of Germans in America as a field for serious scholarly study. Through his activities and writings, he played a role in political developments in both Germany and the United States. His publications remain important sources of, and guides to, German perceptions of America, as well as American perceptions of Germany. As a young man, Kapp, like many of his progressive contemporaries, found the philosopher Friedrich Feuerbach’s materialist critique of religion compelling. After study at the University of Berlin, he was within weeks of completing an internship in the judicial branch of the Prussian bureaucracy—the prerequisite to his goal of becoming an attorney—when the Revolution of 1848 began. He resigned his position and hurried to Frankfurt am Main. Working as a journalist, he covered the attempt of representatives from much of central Europe to establish a German nationstate. He ranged himself with the radicals seeking a democratic republic. When they were defeated militarily, Kapp fled Germany. Still committed to revolution but abandoning hope of its proximate arrival, he sailed to America in early 1850. Disembarking virtually penniless, he initiated a remarkable and lucrative career in New York. He continued his journalistic activities, developed a flourishing law practice, and worked on a number of historical studies. These include books on the history of slavery in the United States, the history of Germans in New York State, the history of German immigration to

America, biographies of generals Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben and Johann de Kalb, an examination of the relationship of Frederick the Great of Prussia to the United States, and a study of the hiring out of troops to Great Britain by German princes during the American Revolution. Together with Carl Schurz, Kapp became one of the best-known notables of the German American community. The two and other Forty-Eighters played a prominent role in the development of the Republican Party. From 1866 to 1870 Kapp served as commissioner of immigration in New York, exposing many scandals in the migrant trade. Despite his success in the States he was restless. When in 1862 Prussia amnestied the Forty-Eighters, he seriously considered returning permanently. Even without a successful revolution, many changes favored by liberals were occurring in Germany. More subtly, he was, like many a radical of 1848, becoming more conservative. He no longer viewed a republic as the sine qua non. Having shed his early radicalism, he saw the German bourgeoisie as becoming stronger and more self-confident. He regarded the mass of the population as fickle and unreliable. Like many other German intellectuals, in both the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, he felt uncomfortable in America. Some of his most damning judgments of America appear in his correspondence. After a year in New York he wrote to a friend that America had a jump on Europe only with respect to political forms; in every other way America was behind Europe. He viewed Americans as still entrapped by religious superstition. Although he conceded that America had much to offer lower-class European immigrants, he was convinced that an educated,

KAPPLER, AUGUST

upper-middle-class German like himself would never feel at home in the United States. As he wrote in a letter in 1856: “The United States is a country for the small, unsophisticated [unwissenden] farmer who has no ideals other than to gobble down bacon every day and for the businessman who wants at all costs to get rich. Every U.S. harbor should have a sign reading ‘No admittance except on business’” (Kapp 1969, 22). Finally, in 1870 he concluded negotiations for a position in Germany that would secure his financial independence while permitting him to devote most of his time to politics. He obtained seats on the boards of several German banks. For a decade he served in the Reichstag and other parliamentary bodies. Although like most liberals he appreciated many Bismarckian reforms, he continued to believe that on balance the “Iron Chancellor’s” influence was deleterious. Kapp predicted it would take generations to repair the damage done by the authoritarianism and servility fostered by Otto von Bismarck. When the National Liberal Party split in 1880, he joined the dissidents who formed what became a series of small left-liberal parties. A substantial part of his political activity in Germany pertained to the United States. On the basis of his knowledge of American immigration, he proposed changes in German emigration laws, and he was frequently consulted by German politicians and officials in dealings with the American ambassador, the first of whom, the historian George Bancroft, Kapp knew well from the States. Walter Struve See also Bancroft, George; Forty-Eighters; Schurz, Carl; Steuben, Frederick Wilhelm von; Travel Literature, Germany-United States

601

References and Further Reading Kapp, Friedrich. Vom radikalen Frühsozialisten des Vormärz zum liberalen Parteipolitiker des Bismarckreichs: Briefe 1843–1884. Ed. with an introduction by Hans-Ulrich Wehler. Frankfurt am Main: Insel Verlag, 1969. Snell, John L, and Hans A. Schmitt The Democratic Movement in Germany, 1789– 1914. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1976. Zucker, A. E., ed. The Forty-Eighters: Political Refugees of the German Revolution of 1848. New York: Russell and Russell, 1967.

KAPPLER, AUGUST b. November 10, 1815; Mannheim, Baden d. October 20, 1887; Stuttgart, Württemberg German explorer who spent forty-three years of his life in Dutch Guyana. After he had finished his training as a merchant, he decided to enter the Dutch colonial service. In January 1836 he arrived in the capital of Dutch Guyana, Paramaribo. Kappler served for six years in the Dutch colonial army and used his time to collect a large number of plants and insects, which unfortunately were lost when, on his trip back to Europe, the ship ran aground near Dover. He described his experiences from this first stay in Guyana in his book Sechs Jahre in Surinam oder Bilder aus dem militärischen Leben dieser Kolonie und Skizzen zur Kenntnis seiner socialen und naturwissenschaftlichen Verhältnisse (Six Years in Suriname or Pictures from the Military Life in This Colony and Brief Remarks on Its Social and Natural Conditions, 1854). In 1842 Kappler returned for a few weeks to Württemberg, but went back to Guyana to collect butterflies, which he sold to Europeans to acquire the necessary capital for a farm. In November 1846 he was finally able to purchase a

602

KELLY, PETRA

plot of land in a former Carib village on the river Marowijne (French: Maroni) that marked the border between Dutch and French Guyana. Kappler named this plot “Albina” after his fiancé Alwine Lietzemaier. He would live there for the next thirty-three years of his life. He engaged in farming, traded with the natives, and, in 1853, hired several forest workers with their families to clear the forest around the former village to found a new settlement economically based on wood cutting and planting. Three years later, about seventy European settlers lived in Albina. After some misgivings among the settlers, most of the Württemberg settlers left the colony for Paraguay. When the French colonial government established a prison colony on the French side of the Marowijne, Albina profited from this new development by engaging in trade with the new French outpost. Kappler wrote a book about his experiences in Albina that was published under the title Over Kolonisatie met Europeanen in Surinam (On the Colonization of Europeans in Suriname) that was published in 1875. Four years later, he left Albina in the hands of his nephew and returned to Württemberg. He had sold half of his possessions to the Dutch government, which developed Albina into a military outpost that slowly became a civilian settlement. In 1894 it was chosen to be the administrative center of the district of Marowijne. The Albina of the early twentyfirst century is a sleepy provincial town of about 1,000 people. Living in Stuttgart, Kappler wrote two books about the Dutch colony: an autobiography, Holländisch-Guiana. Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen während eines 43jährigen Aufenthalts in der Kolonie Surinam (DutchGuyana: Experiences and Adventures of a 43-year Stay in the Colony of Dutch-

Guyana, 1881), and a general introduction to Guyana, Surinam. Sein Land, seine Natur, Bevölkerung und seine Culturverhältnisse mit Bezug auf Colonisation (Suriname: Its Land, Nature, People, and Culture in Relationship to Its Colonization, 1887). The latter includes detailed descriptions of the colony’s flora and fauna and discusses the European’s fitness for living in the tropics. Kappler’s zoological and botanical collections are displayed in several European museums (among others, in Stuttgart and Leiden). Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Paraguay References and Further Reading Hantzsch, Victor. “Kappler, August.” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol 51. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1906: 41–44. Haverschmidt, Francois. August Kappler als ornithologischer Sammler und Beobachter in Surinam, von 1836–1879. Stuttgart: Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde, 1973. Umlauft, Friedrich. “August Kappler.” Deutsche Rundschau für Geographie und Statistik, vol. 10 (1888): 88–90.

KELLY, PETRA b. November 29, 1947; Günzburg/Donau, Bavaria d. October 1, 1992; Bonn, North RhineWestfalia German politician, cofounder of the Green Party. Kelly was born Petra Karin Lehmann. She moved to the United States at the age of thirteen when her mother married the American army officer John Kelly. In 1966 Kelly enrolled at the American University (School of International Service) in Washington, D.C. While a student she became involved in the antiwar

KELPIUS, JOHANN

and civil rights movements of the 1960s, which were to influence her political outlook decisively. In 1968 she acted as student adviser to Hubert H. Humphrey’s presidential campaign. After her graduation in 1970, Kelly obtained a fellowship at the Europa Institute in Amsterdam to study European integration. In 1971 she started to work as an administrator for the European Community. Throughout the 1970s, Kelly was actively involved in the West German antinuclear, ecology, and women’s movements. It was there that she met her future longtime companion, Gert Bastian, a retired general and peace activist. In 1972 she became a committed member of the Bundesverband Bürgerinitiativen Umweltschutz (BBU, Federal Association of Environmental Citizens’ Initiatives) and was elected to its board in 1977. Kelly played a vital role in the founding of the West German Green Party in 1979 and won a seat as one of twenty-seven Green members in the federal parliament in 1983. In spite of being one of its central figures, her relationship with the party was rocky from the start. She was critical of its factionalism and refused to give up her position in 1985 when it was time for Green Party members to rotate their seats among other members. In 1992 Petra Kelly was shot and killed by her partner Gert Bastian, who afterward committed suicide. Growing personal tensions between the couple were alleged to have motivated his deed. Sonja Levsen See also German Students at American Universities References and Further Reading Lasky, Melvin J. “The Pacifist and the General.” National Interest 34 (1993–1994): 66–78. Parkin, Sara. The Life and Death of Petra Kelly. London: HarperCollins, 1994.

603

Slaughter, Jane, and Melissa K. Bokovoy. Sharing the Stage: Biography and Gender in Western Civilization. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003, pp. 358–379.

KELPIUS, JOHANN b. (Exact date unknown) 1673; Schässburg, Siebenbürgen d. (Exact date unknown) 1708; Roxborough, Pennsylvania An eminent pietist who engaged in the creation of a utopian settlement in Pennsylvania. As a young student Kelpius learned Hebrew, Ancient Greek, and Latin to study theology in Tübingen, Leipzig, and Altdorf, where he was influenced by the theology of Philipp Jakob Spener. He founded and led the “Chapter of Perfection,” a radical pietist society, considerably influenced by Johann Jakob Zimmermann. During his journey to America, Kelpius met Jean Leade, John Pordage, and Alexander Mack in London and became familiar with the “Masonic Rite of Perfection.” During his travels, he kept a diary that has become a primary source of information on pietism. He also wrote the famous tract, “A Method of Prayer,” first published in 1756 in German. After arriving in 1694 in Maryland, he founded another society, Women in the Wilderness, in which the land agent and surveyor Daniel Falckner and a former Lutheran pastor and later Quaker, Heinrich B. Koester, took part. They established some communal houses, an observatory, and a school in Roxborough near Germantown, Philadelphia. Daily life in that utopian settlement was in sharp contrast to the outside world. Social behavior was strict, and religious life was pietistic with strong mystical and esoteric influences.

604

KENKEL, FREDERICK P.

The settlers called themselves “brothers,” lived as monks in cells, and remained celibate. Deprivation and self-denial affected Kelpius’s health, and he died of tuberculosis sometime prior to May 1708 in Roxborough. After his death the society disintegrated, with most of the brothers joining Konrad Beissels’s cloister in Ephrata. Claus Bernet See also Ephrata; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Pietism References and Further Reading Fisher, Elizabeth W. “Prophesies and Revelations. German Cabbalists in Early Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography CIX, no. 3 (1985): 299–333. Versluis, Arthur. Wisdom’s Children. A Christian Esoteric Tradition. Albany: State University of New York, 1999. Willard, Martin. Johannes Kelpius and Johann Gottfried Seelig. Mystics and Hymnists on the Wissahickon. PhD thesis. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University, 1973.

KENKEL, FREDERICK P. b. October 16, 1863; Chicago, Illinois d. February 16, 1952; St. Louis, Missouri Journalist and social critic, Frederick P. Kenkel was the guiding spirit of the German Catholic Central-Verein for more than four decades. Under his leadership, the Central-Blatt and Social Justice (later Social Justice Review) became the first American Catholic publication to make social reform its primary focus. Besides editing this monthly from 1909 until his death, Kenkel directed the Central-Verein’s headquarters in St. Louis; coordinated its national activities; initiated the establishment of a day nursery; provided a news service for the Catholic press; and built up a valuable collection of books, manuscripts, and other materials dealing with

German American Catholics. His social criticism, though attuned to reform currents in the Progressive era, was deeply conservative in inspiration and became less compelling after World War I. Kenkel’s social consciousness sprang not from economic hardship, but from a profound sense of spiritual estrangement from the modern world. Although he grew up with well-to-do parents and enjoyed a privileged upbringing, which included five years of travel and leisured humanistic studies in Germany, he was not a stranger to tragedy: the German bride he brought back to Chicago in 1886 died three years later. Grief stricken, Kenkel returned with fervency to the Catholic faith into which he had been baptized, but had not previously practiced, spending several months of prayer and study at a Franciscan college in Quincy, Illinois. But instead of entering the community, which he apparently considered, he remarried in 1892. In the mid-1890s, Kenkel went through a period of severe depression. Whatever its ultimate cause, it was aggravated by his inability to find satisfying work. He was engaged in a real estate and insurance business, but felt intense distaste for commercial culture. As a foil to the modern world that was so radically out of joint, he contrasted the world of the Germanic Middle Ages, where the Catholic religion provided spiritual unity and gave even the humblest members of society a sense of personal worth and communal belonging. This deeply romantic vision, reinforced by contemporary German Catholic theorists of a corporative society (Ständeordnung), underlay Kenkel’s social criticism and prescriptions for reform. Kenkel recovered his psychological balance when he found his life’s work in Ger-

KENKEL, FREDERICK P.

man Catholic journalism, first with the Katholisches Wochenblatt (Catholic Weekly) of Chicago in 1901 and after 1905 as editor of Die Amerika (America) of St. Louis, the leading German Catholic daily. His learned editorial commentary so impressed the leaders of the Central-Verein that, although he had no previous connection with the organization, he was invited in 1908 to take part in reformulating its corporate mission. Under his leadership, the Central-Verein made the reconstruction of society on Christian principles its official reason for being. He devoted himself to the cause selflessly, taking no compensation for his services until he resigned from Die Amerika after World War I. Though always convinced that basic structural reforms were needed, Kenkel concentrated at first on combating socialism, urging passage of progressive labor legislation, and quickening the social consciousness of his readers. This meliorist approach, which resembled that of the Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland (Popular Union for Catholic Germany), headquartered at München Gladbach, placed Kenkel in the front rank of American Catholic reformers in the Progressive period. But the shattering experience of World War I convinced him that modern society was so fundamentally deformed that “palliatives” were useless. In reaction, he turned against the meliorism of the Volksverein group, preferring stricter versions of corporatism that envisaged a drastic restructuring of society. However, revolution was ruled out and the corporatist dream was so remote from American realities that it was almost impossible to act upon. In the 1920s, Kenkel endorsed credit unions, cooperatives, and the Catholic rural life movement, but spent at least as much energy pointing out that re-

605

A journalist and social critic, Frederick Kenkel (here, in 1930) was the guiding spirit of the German Catholic Central-Verein for more than four decades. (University of Notre Dame Archives)

forms proposed by others were insufficiently “fundamental.” Kenkel had long warned against “state socialism,” the danger of which he saw confirmed in the New Deal and the subsequent development of the welfare state. The rise of totalitarianism and the tragedy of World War II reinforced his cultural pessimism; by the end of his life, his social commentary had more in common with ideological conservatism than with any contemporary version of reform. Philip Gleason See also German Catholic Central-Verein; Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr. References and Further Reading Gleason, Philip. The Conservative Reformers: German-American Catholics and the Social Order. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1968. Social Justice Review 81 (February 1990). Frederick P. Kenkel commemorative issue.

606

KIESLING, HANS VON

KIESLING, HANS VON b. (Exact date unknown) 1873; Munich, Bavaria d. Unknown German officer who served numerous stints as an instructor at the Chilean war academy. Kiesling joined an infantry regiment in 1892 and graduated from the Bavarian War Academy in 1903. From 1903 to 1907 he worked for the Bavarian General Staff. A year later he unsuccessfully applied for a position in the Turkish army. His efforts to gain entry into the Chilean army in 1909–1910 were more successful. He went to Chile in 1910 as a member of a group of German officers who had served the Chilean government since Emil Körner had first introduced the Prussian military system in that country. For four years Kiesling served as instructor at the Chilean war academy. During World War I Kiesling served in the Middle East. Leaving the army in 1919, he lived for various years as a freelance writer close to Munich and worked for the early Völkischer Beobachter (Folkish Observer), the notorious Nazi organ. Kiesling did not actively participate in the counterrevolutionary Freikorps but welcomed the “liberation” of his hometown from Socialist rule in 1919. In 1924, sponsored by important enterprises of German heavy industry, Kiesling returned to Chile as chief organizer of a settlement project that soon failed. From the beginning, however, he intended to join the Chilean army again and thus kept in contact with his former comrade Wilhelm Faupel, who at that point had already regained his position in the Argentinean military. Due to the resistance of French diplomats, Kiesling was initially permitted only to lecture unofficially in Chilean military circles.

It was the military coup of 1924–1925 that finally paved the way for Kiesling. Colonel Carlos Ibáñez, an avid student of the Prussian military system, became the ruler in Chile. Kiesling received an official contract as instructor to the war academy in 1926 and contracted several German officers to serve as advisers under his command. He also organized study trips of Chilean officers to Germany. In addition, Kiesling was instrumental in negotiating deals for the German arms industry in Chile. The fall of Ibáñez in 1931 due to the economic crisis of the Great Depression severely limited Kiesling’s influence. Although he was promoted to the rank of general in 1933 and allowed to stay in the Chilean service until 1937, the bonanza of German military instruction in Chile had finally come to an end. Stefan Rinke See also Chile; Faupel, Wilhelm; Latin America, German Military Advisers in References and Further Reading Kiesling, Hans von. Soldat in drei Weltteilen. Leipzig: Grethlein, 1935. Rinke, Stefan. “Eine Pickelhaube macht noch keinen Preußen: Preußisch-deutsche Militärberater, ‘Militärethos’ und Modernisierung in Chile, 1886–1973.” In Preußen und Lateinamerika: Im Spannungsfeld von Kommerz, Macht und Kultur. Eds. Sandra Carreras and Günther Maihold. Münster: Lit, 2004, pp. 259–283. Schaefer, Jürgen. Deutsche Militärhilfe an Südamerika: Militär- und Rüstungsinteressen in Argentinien, Bolivien und Chile vor 1914. Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1974.

KINDERGARTNERS The kindergarten idea originated in Bad Blankenburg, Thuringia, in 1837 with Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852). It reflected

KINDERGARTNERS

pioneering pedagogy and philosophy of early childhood education, based on behavioral studies in child development and aiming to socialize children with teachers playing passive, protective maternal roles rather than being controlling and directive. Froebel opened a school for teachers in Liebenstein in 1849. Teaching tools were colored forms and shapes called “gifts” that children manipulated to develop cognitive reasoning and cooperative skills. He emphasized physical exercise and nondenominational spirituality. Children aged four to six were to be socialized with self-control, cleanliness, politeness, and obedience. After hearing Froebel lecture in her hometown of Hamburg in 1849, Margarethe Meyer (1833–1876) prepared notes on training that Froebel endorsed. Caring for her ailing sister in London in 1852, she and her brother-in-law, Johann Ronge, a German expatriate and Froebel disciple, ran a model kindergarten. There Margarethe met and wed Carl Schurz. They immigrated to a German community near Philadelphia and then to Watertown, Wisconsin, where she opened a small class in her home for her daughter, Agathe, and other children in the winter of 1856–1857. Schurz introduced the Froebelian plan to Elizabeth Palmer Peabody (1804–1894) in Boston in 1859. Although Milwaukee’s German-English Academy created a kindergarten in 1851, “Miss Peabody” (as she was called), an associate of Transcendentalists like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and the Alcotts, is credited with opening the first kindergarten in the United States in 1860. She released her Moral Culture of Infancy, and Kindergarten Guide, written with Horace Mann, in 1863. Peabody went to Germany (1867–1868) to study Froebel’s methods,

607

returning to devote herself to the movement and luring German Froebelian Matilda Kriege to help in her Boston kindergarten (1868–1872). She taught occasionally at Ella Snelling Hatch’s Kindergarten Training School in Boston. She published the Kindergarten Messenger (1873– 1875) with articles translated from German by her sister Mary Tyler Peabody Mann and founded the American Froebel Union (1877). Born at Hagenow in the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Maria Boelte (1836–1918) moved to Hamburg in 1854 to study with the widow Luise Levine Froebel and work in original kindergartens while attending the Hamburg Teachers Seminary. She then went to London to teach in the school of Froebel disciple Bertha Ronge, displaying students’ work at the 1862 London International Exhibition. Back in Hamburg in 1867, she taught at the Froebel Union training school under Johanna Goldschmidt, then opened her own private kindergarten in Lübeck with teacher training. Peabody tried to lure her to Boston in 1868, and correspondence with German-born John Kraus in the federal Bureau of Education peaked Maria’s interest in promoting Froebelism in the United States. She finally agreed to Peabody’s request to form a model kindergarten and mothers’ classes in Henrietta B. Haines’s School in New York City in 1872. Kraus left his Washington appointment in 1873. He and Boelte married and immediately founded the New York Seminary for Kindergartners, including primary grades and teacher training. St. Louis established the first public kindergarten in the United States in 1873 under Susan Elizabeth Blow (1843–1916). Superintendent William T. Harris, a

608

KINDERGARTNERS

The kindergarten in the North-end Industrial Home, Boston, Massachusetts, 1881. (Library of Congress)

Hegelian leader of the philosophical St. Louis movement, called kindergartens the only way to save children from broken families from vice in slums. Blow discovered Froebel’s methods while in Germany in 1870 and then studied under KrausBoelte in New York before opening her own training school with Alice Harvey Whiting Putnam (1841–1919), which launched the careers of influential kindergartners like Elizabeth Harrison and Laura Fisher, who interpreted Froebel through Hegelian idealism. Ruth Burritt ran a Philadelphia training school and displayed a model kindergarten in the Women’s Building at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. Such programs spread rapidly in public and private schools. Pauline Agassiz Shaw, for instance, brought such programs for early childhood education to Boston in 1877. Social reformer Anna Hallowell

(1831–1905) began to open free kindergartens in Philadelphia slums in 1879, organizing the Sub-Primary School Society (1881), which won some municipal funds in 1882. The Board of Education took over twenty-seven kindergartens in 1887, with Hallowell serving as its first female member for fourteen years. She launched kindergarten teacher training in the Philadelphia Normal School for Girls. Froebel disciple Emma Jacobina Christina Marwedel (1818–1893), born in Münden near Göttingen, was a leading advocate of women’s and children’s education when Peabody met her in Hamburg in 1867. Marwedel immigrated to found a private school in Washington, D.C., in 1871 for students up to age twelve with a kindergarten and teacher training program, applying Froebelian theories on all levels. She carried her methodology to Los Angeles in 1876, sponsored by Caroline B. Severance, to open the short-lived California Model Kindergarten and Pacific Model Training School for Kindergartners. Strong in administration, Marwedel founded the San Francisco Silver Street Kindergarten Society (1878) for poor slum children, and the staunchly Froebelian California Kindergarten Union (1879). Inspired by San Francisco kindergartens, Sarah Brown Ingersoll Cooper (1835–1896) saw the potential to spread “applied Christianity” in early childhood, moving beyond Froebel’s freethinking, and formed the Jackson Street Kindergarten (1879) with her Bible class members. A founder of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Kindergarten Association (1884) and Golden Gate Kindergarten Free Normal Training School (1891), Cooper founded over sixty programs in her city, some in orphanages and “day homes,” and spread the

KINDERGARTNERS

“Golden Gate model” through western states with missionary zeal. Annie Laws (1855–1927) helped found the Cincinnati Kindergarten Association (1879), starting a teacher training program and serving as president in 1891 and again from 1901 until her death. Alice Putnam developed a personal interest in Froebel in the 1870s while raising her children, opening Chicago’s first kindergarten in her wealthy home. She formed the Chicago Froebel Association (1880) and supervised training for kindergartners (1880–1910), often in Hull-House, the model settlement house founded by Jane Addams in Chicago, taking time to study with Blow, Kraus-Boelte, and at Francis W. Parker’s summer school on Martha’s Vineyard. Inspired by Parker’s interpretation of Froebel’s ideas of freedom, self-expression, and social participation, Putnam won appointment as head of the Cook County Normal School in 1882. She persuaded the Chicago Board of Education to let her run kindergartens in public schools—ten were operating under private auspices by 1892 when the city system took them over. Anna Bryan (1858–1901) completed training in the Chicago Free Kindergarten Association School in 1884 and taught in the Marie Chapel Charity Kindergarten until called back to her native Louisville to head the Free Kindergarten Association in 1887 with its own training school. In her seven years as head of this association, she expanded teacher classes from five to fifty students and opened eight kindergartens. Breaking from Froebelian methods as too rigid, she advocated creative, flexible reform, leaving Louisville to Patty Smith Hill in 1894 as she returned to Chicago to head the Armour Institute’s Kindergarten Normal Department. John Dewey drew on her ex-

609

perience in setting up a kindergarten in his experimental University of Chicago School. Froebel’s influence grew with publication of his books in English: The Education of Man (1877) and Letters on the Kindergarten (1891). Elizabeth Harrison (1849–1927) had observed Alice Putnam’s training classes in Chicago in 1879 and raised funds to study with Blow in 1882 by running her own kindergarten in Iowa. She then studied with Kraus-Boelte in 1883. Returning to Chicago to run the kindergarten in Mrs. Loring’s School, she emphasized artistic expression through lectures, conferences, and books for parents and children. Putnam and Harrison formed the Chicago Kindergarten Club (1883) to interest mothers in using Froebelian principles in the home through classes and lectures from 1887 to 1894. Success led to national mothers’ conferences staged in Chicago in 1894, 1895, and 1896, laying the groundwork for the formation of the National Congress of Mothers (1897, later the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, PTA) by Alice McClellan Birney. Encouraged by Peabody, Lucy Wheelock (1857–1946) began teaching in Boston’s Chauncy Hall School kindergarten in 1879. When Boston public schools integrated such classes in 1888, Chauncy Hall continued a one-year teacher training program, lengthening it to two years in 1893. Wheelock left in 1896 to form her own Kindergarten Training School, expanding training for primary grades in 1899. It became Wheelock College in 1941. Working for the Indianapolis Free Kindergarten Society (1882), Eliza Cooper Blaker (1854–1926) opened sixty programs, supported privately until a 1901 state law provided local tax monies. Her training program became the Teachers

610

KINDERGARTNERS

College of Indianapolis in 1905 (later absorbed by Butler University). A 1905 Ohio law mandated public kindergartens. The University of Cincinnati established a Kindergarten Department in its Teachers College in 1926 through Annie Law’s efforts. Professionalization spread throughout the National Education Association’s Kindergarten Department from the 1890s on as higher education absorbed and upgraded private training programs, many of which had been only six-months or a year long and admitted those with eighth-grade educations. Elizabeth Harrison had created the Chicago Kindergarten Training School in 1887, but expanded it to a three-year curriculum after her trip to study with Henrietta Breyman Schrader in Berlin and Baroness von Marenholtz-Bulow in Dresden. It later became the Chicago Kindergarten College (National Kindergarten College, 1912; National Kindergarten and Elementary College, 1917; and National College of Education in 1930), admitting only those with high school diplomas. Kraus-Boelte focused on teachers after discontinuing education for older children in 1890, forming the Kraus Alumni Association (1898) after her husband died, becoming president of the National Education Association’s Kindergarten Department (1899). Through her work, the New York University School of Education began kindergarten education in 1903, in which she taught until 1907. She spread the movement until retiring in 1913 as the most authentic of the Froebelians. The International Kindergarten Union (1892, IKU) mounted an exhibit in the Children’s Building at Chicago’s 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, popularizing the idea among progressive reformers. There, Virginia Thrall Smith (1836–

1903), founder of Connecticut’s first free kindergarten and instrumental in the first state law creating public school kindergartens, emphasized the community values of such pedagogy to prevent “moral diseases” caused by the poverty, ignorance, or “vicious” surroundings, advocating beginning attendance at age two and a half. IKU president Sarah Cooper spoke on “character building” and learning by doing. Susan Blow resisted attempts to innovate on Froebelian theory and practice, expounding views in five volumes in William Harris’s International Education Series (1894) and lectures. Based at Columbia University’s Teachers College (1905– 1909), she remained a leader in the IKU Committee of Fifteen (later Nineteen) until her death, debating pedagogical orthodoxy. Blow’s chief opponent was Anna Bryan, influenced by John Dewey and G. Stanley Hall. Bryan’s reformist kindergarten curriculum at the Louisville Collegiate Institute influenced Patty Smith Hill (1868–1946) who took over in 1893, expanding the movement beyond strict Froebelism from her Louisville base and then at Columbia’s Teachers College from 1906 to 1935. For her part of the debate, Wheelock espoused gradual changes but led a pilgrimage of kindergartners to Froebel sites in Germany in 1911. Americanization progressed after Hill became president of the IKU in 1908. Dr. Marie Elizabeth Zakrzewska (1829–1902), born in Berlin and a pioneering woman physician in the United States, opened a children’s sand garden in Boston in 1885, modeled after one in Berlin. Kindergarten and German ideals about the salutary functions of physical recreation based in the Turner movement underlay the founding of the Playground

KINO, EUSEBIUS FRANCISCUS

611

Association of America (1906), and the movement spread through the Progressive era and thereafter under public auspices, albeit not quite as Froebel had wanted. Blanche M. G. Linden

KINO, EUSEBIUS FRANCISCUS

See also Addams (Laura), Jane; Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; Chicago; Milwaukee; New York City; Schurz, Agathe Margarethe; Schurz, Carl; Transcendentalism; Zakrzewska, Marie Elizabeth References and Further Reading Blow, Susan E. Symbolic Education: A Commentary on Froebel’s “Mother Play.” New York: D. Appleton, 1894. ———. Letters to a Mother on the Philosophy of Froebel. New York: D. Appleton, 1899. ———. Kindergarten Education. New York: D. Appleton, 1900. Brosterman, Norman. Inventing Kindergarten. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1997. Feinstein, Karen. “Kindergartens, Feminism, and the Professionalism of Motherhood.” Journal of Women’s Studies 3 (January–February 1980): 28–39. Froebel, Friedrich. Mother’s Songs, Games, and Stories. London: W. Rice, 1886. ———. Mother Play and Songs. Vol. 11: International Education Series, ed. William T. Harris, 1895, 2 vols. translated by Susan Blow. Kindergarten Union. Pioneers of the Kindergarten in America. 1924. Kraus, John, and Maria Kraus-Boelte. The Kindergarten Guide. 2 vols. New York: E. Steiger, 1881. Menius, Joseph. Susan Blow: “Mother of the Kindergarten.” New York: Page One Publishers, 1993. Priddy, Bob. “Across Our Wide Missouri: Kindergarten Founders.” Missouri Life 8 (May–June 1980). Ronge, Johannes, and Bertha Ronge. A Practical Guide of the English Kindergarten. London: V. S. Hodson, 1855 . Ross, Dale. The Kindergarten Crusade. Athens: Ohio University, 1976. Vanderwalker, Nina. The Kindergarten in American Education. New York: MacMillan, 1923. Weber, Evelyn. The Kindergarten: Its Encounter with Educational Thought in America. New York: Teachers College, 1969.

Jesuit explorer of California. Born in the diocese of Trent and educated in Bavaria, Eusebius Chino freely admitted being unsure how to identify himself and considered himself Italian by birth and German by education and upbringing. His colleagues referred to him as “the Bavarian.” In 1665 Chino joined the Society of Jesus and adopted the name “Franciscus” to fulfill a vow to St. Francis Xavier for saving him from a desperate illness. A world map created by his mathematics professor at Ingolstadt and the work of his cousin Martino Martini in China further inspired Chino to become a missionary. Chino and fellow Tyrolese jesuit Antonio Kerschpamer were to decide who would go to Mexico and who to the Philippines. Chino desperately hoped to reach the Philippines, the springboard into China, but he offered the decision to his companion. When Kerschpamer refused this gesture, they had to resolve their pious quarrel by drawing lots. Chino’s fate was Mexico, and only feverish prayer restored serenity to his soul. He left Bavaria in 1678 and arrived in Mexico in 1681. Upon his arrival, he realized that “Chino,” the Spanish word for “Chinese,” bore such vivid negative connotations that he changed his name to Kino, which preserved the original Italian pronunciation. In 1687 Kino founded the mission Nuestra Señora de los Dolores in the Pimería Alta region, now in the Mexican state of Sonora, and fought against the Pima’s forced labor in the silver mines. Kino was a resourceful teacher of Christianity.

b. August 10 or August 15, 1645; Segno, Diocese of Trent d. March 15, 1711; Santa Maria Magdalena, Sonora, Mexico

612

KINO, EUSEBIUS FRANCISCUS

Once he wet down some flies so that they appeared dead and then laid them out in the sun. When the heat revived them, the flies flew away, and the natives cried out, “Ibimuhueite!” Kino had found the word for “resurrection” (Kino 1985). On another occasion he used a world map to explain the global expansion of Christianity. When recruiting additional missionaries, Kino preferred German Jesuits for his missions in Mexico “because these climates are somewhat cold,” and he reported home that his spiritual charges were building a guest house for anyone who might come from his “beloved province of Upper Germany” (Kino 1683). For Kino, missionary work went hand in hand with exploration. In 1691 he made the first of many expeditions to what would become modern Arizona, and by locating the source of the Colorado River he definitely proved that (Baja) California was not an island. A key objective of much of the land exploration was to locate a safe haven in California for the China galleons to avoid having to ship goods back from Mexico City overland to Sonora and Sinaloa. Arguing that this would follow upon the successful conversion of Sonora, Kino envisaged such a port at San Diego or at Todos Santos (modern Ensenada). In addition to allowing direct trade, Kino noted, such an arrangement would allow the galleons to restock their food supply. Kino had not been the only advocate of a Californian port of call, but the Jesuits’ work in the north made this especially vital to the society. Kino also asserted the existence north of Mendocino of a single narrow Strait of Anián, no more than twelve leagues across, that separated America

from China. He predicted that explorations far to the north of what he called “Upper California” or “New Philippines” might result in a more expedient route to Europe, partly overland and partly through the North Sea. Kino sent maps of his explorations to quicken the generosity of potential mission benefactors. Upon his death, Kino was eulogized for “discovering lands, converting souls.” However, he remained largely forgotten until 1907, when Herbert Bolton discovered his major report, Favores Celestiales, in Mexico’s Archivo General de la Nación. Over a hundred of Kino’s letters and reports survive in Mexican, German, American, and Vatican archives. Luke Clossey See also Mexico, German Jesuits in References and Further Reading Bolton, Herbert Eugene. Rim of Christendom: A Biography of Eusebio Francisco Kino, Pacific Coast Pioneer. New York: Macmillan, 1936. Bolton, Herbert Eugene, ed. Kino’s Historical Memoir of Pimería Alta. A Contemporary Account of the Beginnings of California, Sonora, and Arizona, by Father Eusebio Francisco Kino, S. J., Pioneer Missionary Explorer, Cartographer, and Ranchman. 1683–1711. 2 vols. Spain and the West 3–4, Semicentennial Publications of the University of California. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1919. Burrus, Ernest J. Kino and the Cartography of Northwestern New Spain. Tuscon: Arizona Pioneers’ Historical Society, 1965. Kino, Euseibius. Crónica de la Pimería Alta: Favores Celestiales. Hermosillo: Gobierno del Estado de Sonora, 1985, 1913, I.ii.1, 2, 6. Kino, San Lucas—San Bruno, to P. Paul Zingnis, with Diary of the Trip to California, September 29 to December 15, 1683, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv München Jes. 607 Mappe Eusebius Kinus II 607/127.

KISCH, EGON ERWIN

KIRCHHOFF,THEODOR b. January 8, 1828; Uetersen, Holstein d. March 2, 1899; San Francisco, California One of the most important German American travel writers of the nineteenth century. Kirchhoff participated as an officer on the side of Schleswig and Holstein in its failed wars of secession from Denmark in 1848. In 1851 he emigrated to the United States and attempted to find a new life and profession. He worked as a pianist in St. Louis. He found a job in a post office. He later became a bookkeeper, an upholsterer, and an innkeeper. As a photographer, he traveled through the Mississippi valley from Minnesota to Louisiana. In Osyka, Mississippi, he owned a pub. In Clarksville, Texas, he opened a shop. When the Civil War broke out, his shop went bankrupt, and he was forced to return to Europe. In 1863, however, he was back in the United States and opened a store in The Dalles, Ohio. He also began writing travel stories and articles, which were published in the famous journal Die Gartenlaube (The Arbor). Between 1865 and 1869, he traveled to New York, Nicaragua, Cuba, New Orleans, Idaho, and Oregon, where he visited the gold mines, and finally San Francisco, where he settled down. Together with a business partner, Kirchhoff began trading in gold and jewels and optical instruments. The business went very well and enabled him to retire from it in 1886. From this time on, he dedicated his life to the writing of travel literature. In his time Kirchhoff was regarded as one of the most important German American authors of travel literature. His nu-

613

merous texts included travel and adventure reports, essays about the social and cultural conditions of the places he had visited, and poems and songs—all of which were published in German and German American newspapers and journals. Among his books were Californische Kulturbilder (Cultural Impressions from California, 1886), Reise nach Hawaii (Journey to Hawaii, 1890), and Allerhand Heiteres aus Californien (Humorous Thoughts from California, 1899). Parts of his two-volume work Reisebilder und Skizzen aus Amerika (1875–1876) were published in English under the title Oregon East, Oregon West: Travels and Memoirs in 1987. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Fränkel, Ludwig. “Kirchhoff, Theodor.” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 51. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1906, pp.161–165.

KISCH, EGON ERWIN b. April 29, 1885; Prag (Bohemia), Austria-Hungary d. March 31, 1948; Prague, Czechoslovakia Famous German-speaking journalist who was exiled to Mexico during World War II. In the early 1900s, Kisch became a leading German-speaking journalist in Prague, before joining the Austro-Hungarian army in World War I. His wartime experience made him both a pacifist and a Socialist. In 1918, he joined the Arbeiter und Soldatenrat (Workers’ and Soldiers’ Soviet) in Vienna before helping to found the Rote Garde (Red Guard) in the Austrian capital

614

KISSINGER, HENRY

later that year. In the 1920s, he joined the Communist parties of both Austria and Germany, and he traveled extensively throughout Europe, the Soviet Union, China, and the United States. In 1930, his trip to the latter country produced a travel account highly critical of U.S. capitalism, Paradies Amerika (America the Paradise). After Adolf Hitler’s seizure of power, he settled down in Paris, from where he participated in the International Brigades in the Spanish Civil War. In 1939 he joined thousands of other German-speaking exiles in moving to Mexico, then governed by the populist president Lázaro Cárdenas, who carried out an extensive program of worker and peasant mobilization. In Mexico, Kisch became one of the founders of Freies Deutschland (Free Germany), the leading anti-Fascist publication of the Germans in Mexico that opposed the dominant right-wing tendencies within the German community. Published in 1945, his account, Entdeckungen in Mexico (Discoveries in Mexico), stands out among German-language descriptions of his host country in that it is one of only a few accounts written from a Marxist point of view. The book depicts the ongoing material struggles of Mexican peasants and workers and the difficulties of Cárdenas and other revolutionary leaders to steer Mexico away from the influence of U.S. capital. Jürgen Buchenau See also Intellectual Exile; Mexico; Travel Literature, Germany-United States References and Further Reading Kisch, Egon Erwin. Egon Erwin Kisch beehrt sich darzubieten: Paradies Amerika. Berlin: Universum, 1930. ———. Entdeckungen in Mexiko. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag, 1979 [c. 1946].

KISSINGER, HENRY b. May 27, 1923; Fürth, Bavaria Henry Kissinger came to the United States in 1938 as a refugee from Hitler’s Germany, and eventually became one of the most powerful policymakers in the United States during the administrations of Republican presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford in the 1970s. Kissinger’s Jewish ancestors were known for their loyalty to the German state, but this changed after the Nazis came to power in 1933. As Jews, the Kissingers became subject to the full force of Nazi antisemitic legislation. His father lost his teaching job, and Kissinger and his younger brother were taunted by Gentile boys and barred from non-Jewish schools. In 1938 the Kissingers left Germany for the United States. The choice to leave was a wise one; thirteen of Kissinger’s close relatives died in death camps during the Holocaust. Kissinger was studying accounting in New York when his draft notice came in 1943. Because he was still a citizen of an enemy country, Kissinger was drafted as an “enemy alien” and became a citizen only after his induction into the U.S. Army. He was a lowly private in the 84th Infantry Division when he met and ultimately became the protégé of another German expatriate, a sergeant by the name of Fritz Kraemer. After the 84th was shipped overseas in 1944, Kraemer recommended Kissinger to administer the newly liberated German city of Krefeld. Although Kissinger was only a private and had no security clearance, he rose to the challenge and built a functional civilian government for the city in only eight days. Kraemer’s influence also

KISSINGER, HENRY

615

President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger conversing on the grounds of the White House, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1974. (Library of Congress)

got Kissinger a teaching job at a military intelligence school in Germany, and Kraemer also advised Kissinger to go to Harvard after his discharge. In his biography of Kissinger, Walter Isaacson quotes Kissinger saying that his life experiences up to this time did not make him a stronger person: “Living as a Jew under the Nazis, then as a refugee in America, and then as a private in the army, isn’t exactly an experience that builds confidence” (Isaacson 1996, 56); his rapid rise to fame after his military discharge belies this statement. He earned his doctorate from Harvard in 1954 and eventually joined its faculty as a professor of government. During the late fifties and early sixties, he wrote several books on nuclear strategy and foreign policy. His ex-

pertise impressed then-president Nixon who in turn appointed Kissinger head of the National Security Council in 1969. Four years later, he was made secretary of state. Kissinger’s peacemaking efforts in Vietnam and the Middle East earned praise at home and abroad. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1973. He left office in 1977 after the election of Democrat Jimmy Carter to the presidency. But Kissinger did not slip into obscurity; he remained in the spotlight as a writer and lecturer and served as an informal adviser to presidents on foreign policy. In recent years, however, reevaluations of Kissinger’s policies as secretary of state have cast a cloud over his achievements. Several critics from the New Left

616

KOCH-GRÜNBERG, CHRISTIAN THEODOR

have accused Kissinger of war crimes in Chile, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. The most vociferous of these critics is columnist Christopher Hitchens, whose 2002 book, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, alleges that the former secretary of state is guilty of offenses against international law, including conspiracy to commit murder, kidnap, and torture. In 2002 Argentina and France opened investigations into American support for and involvement in Operation Condor, a plot that allowed several Latin American dictators during the 1970s to persecute and eliminate their opponents. Kissinger is regarded as a potential suspect in these investigations. Kissinger has termed Hitchens’s allegations “contemptible,” but has, on the other hand, admitted “mistakes were made” during his tenure as foreign policy chief. These allegations had no impact on President George W. Bush, who in November 2002 appointed Kissinger to lead an independent panel to investigate possible U.S. intelligence failures prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Kissinger resigned only one month after his appointment, citing his desire to avoid questions about the possibility of a conflict of interest regarding his ties to several organizations and public figures. Patricia Kollander See also Kraemer, Fritz Gustav Anton; World War II References and Further Reading Hitchens, Christopher. The Trials of Henry Kissinger. London: New Left Books, 2002. Isaacson, Walter. Kissinger: A Biography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996. Kornbluh, Peter. The Pinochet Fle: A Declassified Dossier on Atrocity and Accountability. New York: New Press, 2003.

KOCH-GRÜNBERG, CHRISTIAN THEODOR b. April 9, 1872; Grünberg, Hesse d. October 8, 1924;Vista Allegre, Brazil German ethnologist who is considered one of the most outstanding explorers of the Amazon. Koch-Grünberg studied classical philology, history, and geography at the University of Tübingen. Upon completing his university education, he worked as a high school teacher until Herrmann Meyer invited him to join his second Xingú expedition in Brazil. Koch-Grünberg readily agreed and afterward published his first book reflecting his experiences in Brazil under the title Zum Animismus südamerikanischer Indianer (On the Animism of South American Indians, 1900). When he returned from Brazil, Koch-Grünberg decided not to go back to his teaching position, but instead to engage in future ethnographic explorations. In 1900, he was appointed assistant at the Berlin Ethnological Museum by its director, Adolf Bastian. After he had defended his linguistic dissertation on Die Guaikuru-Gruppe (The Guaikuru Group) at the University of Würzburg in 1902, Koch-Grünberg was put in charge of an expedition to South America the next year. He led his team into the border regions of northwestern Brazil and southeastern Colombia and to the source of the upper Rio Negro and Rio Japurá. Using São Filippe on the Rio Negro as his base, he embarked on four expeditions into territory that Europeans had not explored. He visited the Siusí, the Tukano, and the Kobéua and studied their languages, living conditions, economic systems, and rites (mask dances). At the end of a two-year stay, he had collected about

KOCH-GRÜNBERT, CHRISTIAN THEODOR

1,300 ethnographic artifacts, about 1,000 photographs, and abundant linguistic materials. Based on this material, Koch-Grünberg wrote several books, among them his main work, the two-volume Zwei Jahre unter den Indianern (Two Years among the Indians, 1909–1911), and Anfänge der Kunst im Urwald (The Beginning of Art in the Jungle, 1905), Indianertypen aus dem Amazonasgebiet (Indian Types from the Amazon, 1906–1911), and Südamerikanische Felszeichnungen (South American Petrographs, 1907). In spite of his scholarly success, he was prevented from establishing a career at the Berlin Ethnological Museum. In 1909, he cancelled his contract with that institution and defended his second doctoral dissertation (Habilitation) at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau. From 1911 to 1913 he embarked on his second expedition to South America. His new goal was the still-unexplored border regions between Brazil, Venezuela, and British Guyana. As one of the first explorers, Koch-Grünberg filmed parts of his expedition. The results of this expedition were published in the five-volume work Vom Roroima zum Orinoko (From Roroima to the Orinoco, 1916–1928). The first volume contains the description of the travel, the second the myths and legends of the Taulipang and Arekuna tribes, the third is dedicated to ethnography, the fourth to the languages spoken by the native tribes, and the fifth contains 180 anthropological tables. In 1913 Koch-Grünberg accepted an extraordinary professorship at the University of Freiburg. In 1915 he was appointed director at the Linden Museum in Stuttgart, which he transformed into one of the most important European ethnological collections. Due to severe funding

617

Christian Theodor Koch-Grünberg listening to a member of the Mayuluaípu, ca. 1916. (KochGrünberg, Christian Theodor. Vom Roroima zum Orinoko, vol. 2, 1916; frontispiece)

problems at the museum, Koch-Grünberg cancelled his contract with that institution in April 1924 and left Germany in June of the same year. He participated in the Orinoco expedition of the American explorer A. Hamilton Rice. However, only a few weeks after his arrival in Brazil, KochGrünberg died of malaria. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Meyer, Herrmann References and Further Reading Faber, Gustav. Komm zurück, weißer Bruder. Leben und Fahrten des Amazonasforschers Koch-Grünberg. Hannover: Oppermann, 1962. Hartmann, Günther. Zwischen Amazonas und Orinoko. Zum 100. Geburtstag von Theodor Koch-Grünberg. Berlin: Museum für Völkerkunde, 1972.

618

KOERNER, GUSTAVE PHILIPP Kraus, Michael. “‘ . . .und wann ich endlich weiterkomme, das wissen die Götter.’ Theodor Koch-Grünberg und die Erforschung des oberen Rio Negro.” In Amazonas-Indianer. Lebensräume, Lebensrituale, Lebensrechte. Eds. Doris Kurella and Dietmar Neitzke. Stuttgart: Linden-Museum; Berlin: Reimer, 2002, pp. 113–128.

KOERNER, GUSTAVE PHILIPP b. November 20, 1809; Frankfurt am Main d. April 9, 1896; Belleville, Illinois Lawyer and politician who became lieutenant governor of Illinois in 1853. Koerner received his doctorate in law from the University of Heidelberg in 1832. He began practicing law, but after supporting the unsuccessful August 3, 1833, revolt in Frankfurt, Koerner fled to Le Havre and from there to the United States. He arrived in New York City and went directly to St. Louis, where he saw firsthand the horrors of slavery. He chose to settle down in Belleville, Illinois. He studied American law at the prestigious Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky, where he first met Mary Todd, before she married Abraham Lincoln. Afterward, Koerner returned to Belleville to practice law in Illinois and married Sophia Engleman on June 17, 1836. They had five sons and three daughters. He was a cofounder of the Belleville Library and enjoyed a stimulating intellectual atmosphere in St. Clair County, where many of the German settlers in the country had been educated in a classical curriculum and were considered Latin farmers, plowing the fields while reading a book in Greek or Latin.

Koerner was attracted to politics and met Lincoln while campaigning in the presidential election of 1840. He was elected to the Illinois state legislature for the term 1842–1843. He was appointed justice of the Illinois Supreme Court and served for the years 1845–1851 and was elected lieutenant governor of Illinois for the term 1853–1857. Koerner was instrumental in helping to found the state’s Republican Party and proved adept at using the political influence of the Illinois Staatszeitung, which was quietly subsidized by Lincoln. He became Lincoln’s major German American adviser and helped him draft an antislavery plank for the Republican Party platform in 1860. With the start of the Civil War in 1861, the fifty-two-year-old Koerner primarily advised Lincoln about German American political appointments in Illinois. He disliked the famous radical organizer, Friedrich Hecker. Koerner felt that Hecker was too radical and would prove to be a dangerous influence on the Republican Party. Yet the fifty-year-old Hecker took command of the 24th Illinois Infantry on June 18, 1861. Koerner could only organize the 43rd Illinois Infantry Regiment. After Carl Schurz resigned as minister to Spain in 1862, Koerner was appointed to this position, and he succeeded in keeping Spain neutral in the American Civil War. He remained active in politics until 1876 when he retired from public life and eventually wrote a history of German Americans (1880). William H. Roba See also Altgeld, John Peter; American Civil War, German Participants in; Frankfurt am Main Citizens in the United States; Hecker, Friedrich; Illinois Staatszeitung; Politics and German Americans; Schurz, Carl

KOERNER,WILLIAM HENRY DETLEF References and Further Reading Körner, Gustave Philipp. Das deutsche Element in den Vereinigten Staaten, 1818–1848. Cincinnati, OH: A. E. Wilde, 1880. Körner, Gustave Philipp, and Thomas J. McCormack Koerner. Memoirs of Gustave Koerner, 1809–1896: Life-sketches Written at the Suggestion of His Children. Cedar Rapids, IA: Torch, 1909. Tolzmann, Don Heinrich. The GermanAmerican Experience. Amherst, MA: Humanity Books, 2000.

KOERNER,WILLIAM HENRY DETLEF b. November 17, 1878; Lunden, Holstein d. August 11, 1938; New York City Nationally recognized illustrator for weekly magazines and novels. Inspired by letters from a relative, the Koerner family moved first to Indiana in 1881 and soon afterward moved westward to the Mississippi River town of Clinton, Iowa. Koerner graduated from high school in 1896 and, as part of the graduation exercises, drew sketches to the accompaniment of music. At age twenty, he moved to Chicago and became part of the famous newspaper world of Ben Hecht’s play, The Front Page. He became assistant art editor for the Chicago Tribune in 1903 and married Lillian Lusk on June 24, 1903. After two years in Battle Creek, Michigan, working as art editor for a regional woman’s magazine, Koerner moved to New York City in 1905 and studied at the Art Students’ League. Eventually he and Lillian moved on to Wilmington, Delaware, where Koerner became part of the Brandywine Art Group. Under the direction of Howard Pyle, he and other students such as Newell Convers Wyeth were encouraged to apply imagination to their illustration

619

and maintain a narrative thread to the image created. He went on to become a nationally recognized freelance illustrator of more than 900 articles, short stories, and serial installments. His paintings were published by Collier’s, Harper’s, Cosmopolitan, and the Saturday Evening Post. Between 1917 and 1922 he became connected to the Post as their editors selected 281 drawings and paintings for publication. Koerner gained his greatest fame by applying his German American values to the glorification of the American cowboy. Koerner began illustrating for Zane Grey, and very carefully researched every image by reading at the New York Public Library and visiting the exhibits at the Museum of Natural Science. Eventually he expressed his philosophy of illustration by saying, “I try to draw the man the author describes. . . . I concentrate on the character until it comes alive and I can see him in my mind’s eye” (www.bbhc.org). The real breakthrough occurred when he received an assignment to create six paintings for Emerson Hough’s novel of the Oregon Trail, The Covered Wagon (1921). Included was his greatest single painting, Madonna of the Prairies. He inspired a later generation of German American artists of the Western frontier, such as Nicholas Eggenhofer (1898–1985). After his death, Koerner’s wife locked up all of his works, and they remained forgotten until her death in 1962. His fame and reputation have since slowly emerged with major exhibits and auctions. William H. Roba See also Indiana References and Further Reading Hutchinson, W. H. The World, the Work and the West of W. H. D. Koerner. Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1978.

620

KOHL, JOHANN GEORG Stolz, Gerd. W. H. D. Koerner–Der Maler des “Wilden Westens” aus Dithmarschen. Husum, 2003. Tödtmann, Joy. “Zurück aus dem Wilden Westen.” Der Marschbote (January 4, 2001) 7.

KOHL, JOHANN GEORG b. April 28, 1808; Bremen d. October 28, 1878; Bremen From Russians to Native Americans, from Irish to Swiss, Johann Georg Kohl wrote about an astonishing number of peoples in ethnographic travel accounts between the 1830s and 1870s. As a collector of maps relating to the history of North America, he caught the interest of the United States Coast Survey. He created maps of the West Coast for the Survey, but did not obtain a permanent post. After his five years in North America (1853–1858), of which he spent nearly half a year among the Ojibway south of Lake Superior, he returned to his native Bremen, where he served as director of the state library. He built up an extensive collection devoted to maps, travel, and ethnography, including much about North America. Kohl’s father had a wine trade business in the port city of Bremen that allowed his son to study law in Göttingen, Heidelberg, and Munich. His father’s early death forced Kohl to end his studies after three years and become a tutor to aristocratic families in the Baltic region. With his savings he traveled extensively in the Baltic states and western Russia. Settling in Dresden in 1838, he composed a series of descriptive ethnographic travel reports that sold well to the increasingly literate and affluent German bourgeoisie.

Kohl hoped to write a comprehensive account of the discovery of America. He traveled to Gotha, Weimar, Berlin, Paris, and London, among other cities, to study archival materials and maps. He became interested in the story of exploration as told in successive maps and began his own collection. In 1853 he finally set sail for America where he had a brother in New York. Again, the prolific writer produced a series of travel reports. In 1856 Travels in [Eastern] Canada appeared. A Descriptive Catalogue of Maps Relating to America Mentioned in Hakluyt’s Great Work followed in 1857. Next came Travels in the Northeast United States in 1858, followed by KitchiGami or Stories from the Upper [Great] Lakes in 1859, and Travels in Canada and through the States of New York and Pennsylvania in 1861. Most were published in German and translated into English. A number of cartographic studies followed, but due to illness Kohl’s output declined during the 1870s. In the meantime he produced several studies on aspects of the cultural history of Bremen and theoretical works about the influence of geography on humans. Kohl’s cartographic work, especially his collecting, and his writings about the lifestyle and beliefs of the Ojibway have received much attention in North America. The American geographer Charles Deane supposedly asserted that Kohl had been the greatest geographer of his generation. The historian Samuel Morrison claimed him to have been a foremost Americanist. Boston University honored the correspondent of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow with a doctorate. While his work has been largely overlooked or discredited in Germany, a large exhibition at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C., during 1993 demon-

KOHLER, KAUFMANN

621

strated the extent of his learning and his contribution to German American exchanges. Kohl’s more than 500 maps and copies of maps are housed at the Library of Congress. Dieter K. Buse See also Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth; Travel Literature, German–U.S. References and Further Reading Koch, Hans-Albrecht, ed. Progress of Discovery: Johann Georg Kohl. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1993. Trautmann, Frederick. “Glimpses of Michigan in 1855: The Travels of Johann Georg Kohl.” Michigan History 67 (1983): 33–39. ———. “Wisconsin through a German’s Eyes in 1855: The Travels of Johann Georg Kohl.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 67 (1984): 263–278.

KOHLER, KAUFMANN

Kaufmann Kohler, German American Reform rabbi and president of Hebrew Union College. (Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion)

b. May 10, 1843; Fürth, Bavaria d. January 28, 1926; New York City German American Reform rabbi and president of Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio. Kohler came from a family with a strong rabbinic background and received traditional Jewish education at an early age. In 1862 he entered a grammar school in Frankfurt am Main. There he was influenced by German neo-Orthodoxy, in particular the thoughts of Samson Raphael Hirsch. Kohler pursued his secular education at the universities of Berlin and Erlangen and received a doctorate in 1867 for the submission of his doctoral thesis “Der Segen Jacobs” (Jacob’s Blessing). By this point, Kohler had moved away from Orthodoxy and toward Reform Judaism. His dissertation reflected a radically liberal viewpoint, which he had developed during his university studies and under the in-

creasing influence of Abraham Geiger. His dissertation stressed that he did not perceive Judaism as static law, but as an eternal moral idea, which needed constant adaptation to the changing times, thus expressing a central idea of Reform Judaism. In order to reformulate Judaism, Kohler stressed the importance of critical enquiry and Jewish Wissenschaft (studies). Due to the radical contents of his dissertation, Kohler could not find a congregation in Germany, so he continued his studies at the University of Leipzig. Upon recommendation of Geiger, Kohler took a position as rabbi of the congregation Beth El in Detroit. In the United States he established a firm personal and intellectual relationship with David Einhorn. He later married one of Einhorn’s daughters, Johanna. In 1871 Kohler became the rabbi for Sinai

622

KOLLONITZ, PAULA VON

Congregation in Chicago, where he introduced Sunday services (in order to fit into the Christian environment) in 1874 and fought the growing support of American Jews for Felix Adler’s Ethical Culture Society, a nonreligious, intellectual ethical culture movement for practical social service. In 1879 Kohler succeeded his father-in-law, David Einhorn, as rabbi of Temple Beth El in New York. After a lengthy debate with Alexander Kohut on how far religious progress in Judaism could go, Kohler summarized his theological thoughts by publishing some of his sermons under the title “Backward or Forward?” in 1885. Kohler, subsequently, initiated a conference of Reform rabbis in Pittsburgh, formulating the ideological credo of the American Reform movement with a radical reform program mainly designed by himself and his brotherin-law, Emil Hirsch. In 1903 Kohler succeeded Isaac M. Wise as president of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, where he soon modernized the curriculum. Upon his retirement in 1921, Kohler returned to New York, but maintained the title of president emeritus. Cornelia Wilhelm See also Chicago; Einhorn, David; Judaism, Reform (North America); New York City References and Further Reading Ariel, Yaakov Shalom. “Christianity through Reform Eyes: Kaufmann Kohler’s Scholarship on Christianity.” American Jewish History 89 (1990): 477–499. ———. “Kaufmann Kohler and His Attitude toward Zionism: A Re-examination.” American Jewish Archives 43 (1991): 207–223. Southard, Robert F. “The Theologian of the 1885 Pittsburgh Platform: Kaufmann Kohler’s Vision of Progressive Judaism.” In Platforms and Prayer Books: Theological and Liturgical Perspectives on Reform Judaism. Ed. Dana Evan Kaplan. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002, pp. 61–79.

KOLLONITZ, PAULA VON b. 1830 (Exact date unknown);Vienna, Austria d. Unknown Austrian countess who arrived in Veracruz, Mexico, in the company of the Austrian archduke Maximilian and his wife Charlotte on May 28, 1864. With French troops occupying Mexico and former president Benito Juárez’s troops beaten back to the U.S. border, the Mexican Conservative Party had asked Maximilian to become emperor with the blessing of Napoleon III. The Conservatives hoped that Maximilian would establish an orderly state in which the rights of the Catholic Church were respected, while the French monarch dreamt of a new French empire in the New World centered on Mexico. Among the royal entourage was the thirty-four-year-old Austrian countess Paula von Kollonitz, one of Charlotte’s two ladies-in-waiting. The countess was spared the failure of Maximilian’s rule and his execution at the hands of Juárez’s forces in 1867. After only four months, Empress Charlotte replaced Kollonitz with a Mexican lady-in-waiting because she was tired of her insolent attitude, and because she realized that while in Mexico she would have to live by a different standard. Kollonitz returned to her homeland, and not much is known about her life except that she published her experiences in 1867. Eine Reise nach Mexiko im Jahr 1864 (1867) describes her travels and contains long and detailed observations about life in mid-nineteenth-century Mexico. Her travel account was translated in 1867 as The Court of Mexico in London as well as De eerste Tagen van het Mexikaansche Keizerrijk in Amsterdam. Finally, in 1976 it was published in Mexico as Un viaje a México en 1864. Despite her relatively short stay

KORNGOLD, ERICH WOLFGANG

and rather limited scope—she never left Mexico City and was not interested in looking further than her own aristocratic circles—Kollonitz’s observations offer an interesting glimpse of elite men and women in mid-nineteenth-century Mexico. The interest her work received shows in the various translations and editions of her work. Kollonitz’s travel account is part of a large body of travel literature written by women in the nineteenth century. Her narrative is particularly interesting in that her comments on women are more favorable and insightful than those of comparable writers such as Fanny Calderón de la Barca or even Alexander von Humboldt, whose works Kollonitz read and cited in her own writing. Kollonitz’s account contains a striking awareness of the shortcomings of European influence in Mexico. She was aware of European arrogance in general and the superiority complex of the French occupation troops in particular. Kollonitz is constantly negotiating her vision. While she undoubtedly sees with what critic Marie Louise Pratt has called “imperial eyes,” she is often aware of her own prejudice as much as of the preconceived notions of her intended readership: members of her own cultural background. Anabel Aliaga-Buchenau See also Humbolt, Alexander von; Mexico; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Harding, Bertita. Phantom Crown: The Story of Maximilian and Carlota of Mexico. Mexico City: Ediciones Tolteca, 1960.

KORNGOLD, ERICH WOLFGANG b. May 29, 1897; Brünn, Austria d. November 29, 1957; Los Angeles, California

623

Celebrated Austrian Jewish opera composer in Europe and film composer in the United States. His music helped transform Hollywood film into an art form, and he won two Oscars for his film music. Growing up in Vienna, Korngold was likened to a reincarnation of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. His father, Julius Leopold Korngold, a feared music critic, arranged for his son to receive piano lessons from a very early age. When Erich was nine, he showed his father his very first composition. Encouraged by this early sign of talent, the elder Korngold decided to foster the talent of his son. When Gustav Mahler became aware of this new musical genius, he convinced Alexander von Zemlinsky, the teacher of Arnold Schönberg, to accept Korngold as a student. Against the wishes of Korngold’s father, Zemlinksy introduced him to the modern musical tradition. After only one and a half years of training, Zemlinsky admitted that there was nothing left he could teach the young Korngold. Korngold’s first musical success was the premiere of his ballet Der Schneemann (The Snowman) at the Court Opera in Vienna. The musical establishment was astonished by this new genius, who was admired for his accomplishments by Richard Strauss, Jean Sibelius, Camille Saint-Saëns, and Giacomo Puccini. World-renowned opera singers, such as Maria Jeritza, Richard Tauber, Leo Slezak, and Lotte Lehmann, lined up to receive a part in his operas Der Ring des Polykrates (The Ring of Polykrates) and Violanta (1916). Korngold reached the peak of his musical career with the premiere of his opera Die tote Stadt (The Dead City) in 1920. Within one year, this opera was staged in more than eighty cities. The text was written by his father, who had adopted the pseudonym Paul

624

KORNGOLD, ERICH WOLFGANG

Viennese composer Erich Wolfgang Korngold and his family arrive in Los Angeles by train, October 1936. (Bettmann/Corbis)

Schott. The intoxicating music and the contents of the opera appealed to a very broad audience. Among its hits was the duet “Glück, das mir verblieb” (Joy, Sent from Above). This music was used in the film The Big Lebowski (1997) and the aria “Mein Sehnen, mein Wähnen” (My Yearning, My Dreaming). When Korngold turned thirty, he was already an internationally recognized composer and the youngest candidate ever to receive a professorship at the Austrian Academy of Music. In 1924, he married Luzi von Sonnenthal, the daughter of a famous Viennese actor. Over the next three years, Korngold worked on his next opera Das Wunder der Heliane (The Miracle of Heliane), intended to be his opus magnum, which premiered in 1927. However, Heliane, based on a text by the expressionist

author Hans Kaltnecker, proved to be a disaster. It tells the story of a land without happiness in which a foreign wanderer challenges the ruler of the country. The wanderer commits suicide, only to experience an apotheosis after the ruler’s wife suffers through a trial by ordeal. Critics were unified in their condemnation of this work as kitsch. The Heliane marked a turning point in Korngold’s life and his musical production. In 1934, when Max Reinhardt was working on his movie version of William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, he could not think of a better musician to write the film’s music. He invited Korngold to join him in Hollywood for six to eight weeks. Korngold’s talent, however, quickly made him indispensable for Warner Brothers, and he simply stayed on. Reinhardt’s invitation saved Korngold’s life. Korngold would have been unable to find employment in either Nazi Germany or Austria after the German annexation in 1938, since he would have been persecuted as a Jew and since his music was considered to be “degenerate.” One of Korngold’s first big achievements in Hollywood was the transformation of the studio orchestra into a veritable symphonic orchestra. His film music, written in the tradition of Wagner, Puccini, and Strauss, contributed to the power of the pictures and became the prototype of American film music. His musical style became the style of Hollywood. Korngold’s film music was more than just the background music to a film; it was music that could exist independently of the film. Between 1934 and 1947, Korngold produced the music for seventeen movies, including Anthony Adverse (1936, Academy Award winner), The Adventures of

KOSERITZ, KARL VON

Robin Hood (1938, Academy Award winner), The Seahawk (1940, Academy Award nomination), Another Dawn (1937), Between Two Worlds (1944), and Deception (1946, this became the basis for his famous Cello Concerto, op. 37). Although he had quite a comfortable life compared to other German and Austrian intellectuals who were forced to leave their countries after 1933 and then 1938, Korngold never accepted that his career as an opera composer was over. Film music paid for his living, but he felt that he had betrayed his true calling. However, Korngold wrote not simply film music; he considered it as another way of creating art. When he turned fifty, Korngold acknowledged: “First I was a prodigy, then a successful opera composer in Europe . . . , and then a movie composer . . . I feel I have to make a decision now, if I don’t want to be a Hollywood composer the rest of my life” (MGG, vol 7, 1986, 1632). In 1947 he decided to leave Hollywood and return to Austria. However, his hopes to continue where he had left off over two decades earlier quickly dissolved since Europe’s musical taste had changed. Korngold’s neoromantic operas were no longer in demand. A new symphony, one he had written for the European stage, met with harsh criticism and made clear to him that he would not have a future as an opera composer in Europe. Disappointed, he returned to Los Angeles where he worked day and night on another big symphony. A stroke ended his life before he could finish this symphony and an opera based on Franz Grillparzer’s Das Kloster bei Sendomir (The Monastery at Sendomir). Michael Rudloff See also Hollywood; Intellectual Exile; Reinhardt, Max; Schönberg, Arnold

625

References and Further Reading Caroll, Brendan G. The Last Prodigy: A Biography of Erich Wolfgang Korngold. Newark, NJ: Amadeus, 1997. Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart (MGG) vol. 7. Kassel/New York: Bärenreiter Verlag, 1986. Palmer, Christopher. The Composer in Hollywood. London/New York: Marion Boyars, 1990. Wells, Ralph. Korngold: He Haunts My Heart. A Tale of Vienna and Hollywood (CD). Wells 404, 1997. Wolff, Hugh, and Barry Gavin. Erich Wolfgang Korngold—The Adventures of a Wunderkind (DVD). Arthaus, 2001.

KOSERITZ, KARL VON b. February 3, 1834; Dessau, Anhalt d. April 29, 1890; Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil German mercenary who enlisted for Brazil in its war against Argentina (1851–1852) and afterward became the founder of the German-speaking press in Brazil. Koseritz came to Rio Grande do Sul as a member of the Brummer. After having worked as a teacher, journalist, and poet in Pelotas, Koseritz married Zeferina Maria de Vasconcelos, the daughter of a very wealthy Luso-Brazilian rancher. In 1861 he moved to Porto Alegre, the capital of Rio Grande do Sul, and became one of the most important German Brazilian leaders. He is often referred to as the “Brazilian Carl Schurz.” In 1864 Koseritz became editor of the Deutsche Zeitung (German Newspaper) and transformed this local newspaper into the most important German-speaking newspaper in the country. With this endeavor, he is credited for being the founder of the German-speaking press in Brazil.

626

KRACAUER, SIEGFRIED

When he came into conflict with one of the coeditors of this newspaper in 1881, Koseritz founded his own Koseritz’ Deutsche Zeitung. In addition to his engagement in the German-speaking press, Koseritz also edited and contributed to Portuguese-speaking newspapers in southern Brazil. Koseritz’s contributions to Brazilian culture and society were not limited to the creation of a system of newspapers. He also introduced several new and challenging intellectual concepts to his part of the world. Propagating Charles Darwin’s evolution theory and belonging to the Free Masons, however, brought him into constant conflict with the Catholic Church and the German Jesuits of Rio Grande do Sul. His interest in the economic advancement of Brazil caused him to write the first book on the national economy of Brazil. His Resumo de economia nacional, especialmente aplicado às circunstâncias atuais do país (Summary of the National Economy with a Special Treatment of the Current Conditions of the Country) was published in 1871 with Typographia do Jornal do Comércio in Porto Alegre. Furthermore, Koseritz was one of the first to write an anthropological study of the Brazilian native population. His heart, however, was set on finding ways to integrate the German immigrants into Brazilian culture and society. Since the early 1860s, Koseritz fought the political discrimination against immigrants and non-Catholics that was enshrined in the 1824 constitution. To this end, Koseritz asked his fellow German immigrants to support the Liberal Party because it promised to change the constitution in favor of the political emancipation of immigrants. In 1881 the constitution was finally

changed and granted equal political rights to all immigrants. This paved the way for political representation of German immigrants in the legislature. Together with other representatives from Rio Grande do Sul, Koseritz was elected a member of the parliament in 1884. When in 1889 Brazil became a republic, the Liberal Party and Koseritz quickly lost political influence and were even persecuted by the new government. René Gertz See also Brazil; Brummer; German Almanacs in Rio Grande do Sul; Germanism in Rio Grande do Sul; Printing and Publishing; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Gertz, René E. Karl von Koseritz. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2001.

KRACAUER, SIEGFRIED b. February 8, 1889; Frankfurt am Main, Prussia d. November 26, 1966; New York City Eminent German American philosopher of culture, journalist, film theoretician, and author. Contrary to what is often said, Kracauer did not study philosophy or sociology, but rather the history of architecture, which was the topic of his PhD thesis, defended in 1914. From the early 1920s, Kracauer came in contact with some members of the Frankfurt School, including Theodor Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Walter Benjamin, and Ernst Bloch. Under their influence, Kracauer published various essays on mass culture and related topics, such as Ornament der Masse (Ornaments of the Masses, 1927), inspired by his PhD thesis, followed in 1930 by Die Angestellten. Aus dem neuesten Deutschland (The

KRACAUER, SIEGFRIED

Salaried Masses: Duty and Distraction in Weimar Germany), about the white-collar workers in German cities. He was sometimes presented as a member of their group of critical thinking, but biographer Gertrud Koch rather describes Kracauer “as a distant relative of the Frankfurt School” (Koch 2002, 3). Between 1921 and 1933, Kracauer also wrote countless chronicles and film critiques in the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt News), where he worked as the editor of the arts section. Because Kracauer was Jewish, he was forced to leave Germany in 1933. He went to Paris, where he stayed for seven years. In 1941 Kracauer arrived in the United States. Here he had a hard time finding work. He was unknown, shy, and a stutterer. Eventually, Kracauer found a job at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. He received Guggenheim and Rockefeller scholarships to research Nazi propaganda films and to write a report that later became an addendum to the book that gave him a worldwide reputation, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (1947). Written in English, it purported to find the ideological roots of National Socialism in some silent films from the Weimar Republic (1919–1933), especially in Robert Wiene’s film classic Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (1919), but also in the works of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau, Fritz Lang, and Josef von Sternberg. For Kracauer, the German films produced between 1915 and 1933 already included many of the ideological values that unconsciously prepared German society for Nazism, such as a “collective complex of inferiority,” the cult of authority, and the awaiting of a strong chief. Published with Princeton University Press and translated into many languages, this influential and

627

controversial book nevertheless paved the way to an understanding and teaching of German film history for many generations. However, its main postulate, that films reflect a nation’s mentality, was highly controversial because films can only be seen as the representations of selected, subjective creators’ perceptions or glimpses of a society and should not in any case be confused with the hypothetical revelator of the inner society. More moderate in tone was Kracauer’s Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality (1960), an apology of realism in cinema that mentioned very few German films; in this case, his methodological and ontological approaches were much more influenced by French theoretician André Bazin. At the end of his life, Kracauer questioned the way history was written in a posthumously published book, History: The Last Things before the Last (1969). Yves Laberge See also Frankfurt School; Intellectual Exile; Lang, Fritz; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Sternberg, Josef von References and Further Reading Culbert, David, “The Rockefeller Foundation, the Museum of Modern Art Film Library, and Siegfried Kracauer, 1941.” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 13: 4, 1993, p. 495. Koch, Gertrud. Siegfried Kracauer: An Introduction. New York: Princeton University, 2002. Kracauer, Siegfried. Die Angestellten. Aus dem neuesten Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main: Frankf.Societät-Druckerei, 1930. English trans.: The Salaried Masses: Duty and Distraction in Weimar Germany. London: Verso, 1998 [1930]. Manvell, Roger, and Heinrich Fraenkel. The German Cinema. New York: Praeger, 1971. Murray, Bruce. Film and the German Left in the Weimar Republic: From Caligari to Kuhle Wampe. Austin: University of Texas, 1990.

628

KRAEMER, FRITZ GUSTAV ANTON

KRAEMER, FRITZ GUSTAV ANTON b. July 3, 1908; Essen (West Falia), Prussia d. September 8, 2003;Washington, D.C. German American civil servant, geopolitical strategist, chief civilian adviser, and tutor to successive defense secretaries, U.S. Army chiefs of staff, and other top military commanders; accomplished scholar of international law, political philosophy, economics, and history. Kraemer was the son of a Prussian state prosecutor and his wife, the daughter of a wealthy industrialist family. His parents raised him in the Lutheran faith and instilled in him conservative values that guided him for the rest of his life. His education began at the Arndt Gymnasium in Berlin and then continued mostly abroad. He attended school in England, graduated from the London School of Economics, and then went on to earn two doctorates, one from the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe University in Frankfurt am Main and the other from the University of Rome. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, he made no secret of his disdain for totalitarian ideologies and their oppressive regimes and launched himself more than once into street battles against Nazi brownshirts and Communist ruffians. In 1933, newly married to his Swedish wife Britta Bjorkander, he left Germany for Rome, where he worked as a legal adviser for the League of Nations and authored eight books on international law. In 1939, before Germany invaded Poland, he decided not to return to Germany and sent his wife and son Sven to his mother’s estate in Wiesbaden for a farewell visit. They would remain there for six years.

With the onset of war, Kraemer fled to the United States and in 1943 was drafted into the army. He was assigned to the 84th Infantry Division at Camp Claiborne, Louisiana. In the summer of 1944 Kraemer met a young recruit by the name of Henry Kissinger. He was impressed with the young man’s understanding and his seemingly natural ear for the musicality of history. The admiration was mutual, and Kraemer became Kissinger’s mentor during the years they spent together in the army and beyond. In November 1944, the 84th shipped out to Europe, and Kraemer’s unit entered combat in the Battle of the Bulge. In 1945 he earned a battlefield commission and Bronze Star for single-handedly achieving the surrender of a German town and swept with his unit across Germany to the Elbe. After the war, he remained in occupied Germany as an intelligence officer, where he analyzed captured documents and interrogated German prisoners in preparation for the Nuremberg trials. He also helped establish the U.S. European Command Intelligence School in Oberammergau. Kraemer saw, firsthand, the cost of illusions and appeasement in the face of dictators who first terrorized their own nation’s people and then threatened their neighbors. He was an elitist who believed that the strength or weakness of a state depended on the commitment of its intellectual elite to serve in important positions, not only in government, but in business, education, and other socially critical fields as well. Members of this elite, as he defined it, were a group of men and women of excellence who possessed personality traits such as strength of character, fortitude, conscientiousness, and—most importantly—who believed in honor, duty, and absolute moral

KRAUSE, ARTHUR AND AUREL

values. His experiences in Weimar Germany added force to his conviction that a cowardly elite, morally corrupt and driven only by self-interest, betrayed the people by abandoning them to the demagoguery of Adolf Hitler. Kraemer held conservative values and a contempt for totalitarian ideologies—be they Communist or National Socialist. He was convinced that when governments allowed social order to break down, they provided totalitarian regimes— from the Left or Right—with an opportunity to exploit the provocative weakness and to step in as saviors. Thus, when the Nixon administration and its chief diplomat, Kissinger, departed from a strictly anti-Communist course and embarked on a policy of détente with the Soviet Union, Kraemer was thoroughly disappointed with his one-time protégé. He chided Kissinger’s willingness to deal with the Soviets as dishonorable and accused him of defeatism. As a result of their differences, Kraemer and Kissinger broke off contact for twenty-eight years. Disdaining money, power, position, recognition, and conventional measures of success, which he called “easily discernible license plates,” Kraemer served for twentyseven years as a Pentagon adviser on geopolitics and strategy. Throughout his career and even after his retirement in 1978, he remained dedicated to educating and inspiring talented people to shoulder the responsibilities of public service. In addition to Kissinger, he profoundly influenced the lives and decisions of senior military and political leaders such as General Creighton Abrams, Secretary of State Alexander Haig, and General Vernon Walters. Upon the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, Walters, who was then

629

U.S. ambassador to Bonn, and other senior government officials from both sides of the Atlantic sought and received Kraemer’s counsel on the importance of ensuring Germany’s future as a democratic federal republic and not a confederation of two German states. Bianka J. Adams See also Kissinger, Henry; World War II References and Further Reading Isaacson, Walter. Kissinger: A Biography. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992. Kaufman, Michael T. “Fritz Kraemer, 95, Tutor to U.S. Generals and Kissinger, Dies.” http://www.maebrussell.com/ Articles%20and%20Notes/Fritz%20 Kraemer%20obituary.html (cited November 19, 2003). Kraemer, Fritz. “On Elitism: Look for Men and Women of Excellence!” http://www .worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3 .cfm?article_id=8644 (cited September 17, 2003). Thimmesh, Nick. “The Iron Mentor of the Pentagon.” http://www.maebrussell.com /Articles%20and%20Notes/Kraemer %20-%20Iron%20Mentor.html (cited March 2, 1975).

KRAUSE, ARTHUR AND AUREL Aurel, b. December 30, 1848; Polnisch Konopath (West Prussia), Prussia d. March 11, 1908; Berlin-Lichterfelde, Prussia Arthur, b. January 25, 1851; Polnisch Konopath (West Prussia), Prussia d. September 29, 1920; BerlinLichterfelde, Prussia German explorers and ethnologists who explored the Bering Strait and Alaska. The brothers were born in Polnisch Konopath to the family of a West Prussian Junker.

630

KUHN, FRITZ JULIUS

Aurel and Arthur attended the Gymnasium (university preparatory school) in Bromberg before they entered the University of Berlin to study natural sciences. Aurel received his doctoral degree in 1877 and Arthur in 1879. Both brothers worked as teachers in Berlin. In 1881 they accepted an invitation by the Geographical Society of Bremen to explore the coastal regions around the Bering Strait. The goal of this endeavor was to learn more about the geography of the East Siberian Chukchi Peninsula and the southeastern part of Alaska. Via San Francisco, Arthur and Aurel reached St. Lorenz Bay on August 6, 1881, from whence both continued their trip around the coastline of Alaska by boat. They used their collected information to correct existing maps of Alaska. After they arrived at their main base in Chilkoot at the northern end of the Lynn Canal, they studied the life of the Tlingit. While Aurel returned to Germany in April 1882, Arthur remained behind for several more months. Arthur used this additional time to cross the Yukon and to make maps of the Chilkoot-Chilkat system before he, too, returned to Germany in the summer of the same year. Aurel and Arthur published their travel diaries and letters in several articles in the Deutsche Geographische Blätter (German Geographical News) and the Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin (Journal of the Society for Geography in Berlin). In addition, Aurel wrote a monograph about their ethnographic research among the native people of Alaska that was published in 1885 under the title Die Tlinklit-Indianer (The Tlingit Indians). Aurel Krause’s treatment of the Tlingit Indians was considered a standard work for a long time and has not been super-

seded by any modern ethnography. It was translated into English and published in 1956 under the title The Tlingit Indians: Results of a Trip to the Northwest Coast of America and the Bering Straits. Their travel reports, originally published as articles in different journals, were reprinted in 1984 in a volume Zur Tschuktschen-Halbinsel und zu den Tlinklit-Indianern 1881/1882 (To the Chukchi Peninsula and to the Tlingit Indians 1881/1882, 1993). Heinz Peter Brogiato References and Further Reading Bürger, Klaus. “Krause, Aurel.” Altpreußische Biographie, vol. 5, section 1. Marburg: Elwert, 2000, pp. 1625–1626. Henze, Dietmar. “Krause, Arthur und Aurel.” Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde, vol. III. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1986, pp. 76–77.

KUHN, FRITZ JULIUS b. May 15, 1896; Munich, Bavaria d. December 14, 1951; Munich, Bavaria Leader of the German American Nazi movement in the United States between 1936 and 1941. Kuhn participated in World War I as an active member of the German Wehrmacht and joined a Freikorps in Munich in 1921 before he started studying chemistry at the University of Munich in 1922. In 1923 Kuhn left Germany for Mexico, but in 1927 immigrated to the United States. In the United States he found a position as a chemist at the Ford Motor works in Detroit. There he started his career as a political propagandist for the National So-

KUNWALD, ERNST

cialist (German Worker’s) Party (NSDAP). Kuhn emerged as the political leader of the German American Nazi movement, when the Friends of the New Germany, the first German American Nazi organization in America, was banned. As a consequence, the Nazi Party tried to change its approach to the political mobilization of ethnic Germans in the United States. As the NSDAP did not want to lose the support of a segment of German American society, they created an organization, the German American Bund (GAB), mainly composed of American citizens of German descent, and sought to label it a “cultural” rather than a “political” group. In dire need of finding a successor to Fritz Gissibl, the leader of the Friends of the New Germany who chose to remigrate to Germany, the NSDAP installed Kuhn, who had gained full American citizenship, as leader of the German American Bund (founded on March 28/29, 1936, in Buffalo, New York). However, under the leadership of Kuhn, this organization became even more aggressively antisemitic and antiCommunist than its predecessor. This shift was due to Kuhn’s personal ambition to become a major political figure in the Nazi movement. For this reason, he maintained a close friendship with Andrée Anastase Vonsiatsky, the leader of the Ukrainian Hetman Organization in America, and with several American Fascist and racist groups. Most notoriously, the GAB was involved in the George Washington Birthday Exercises in Madison Square Garden, New York, in February 1938 and a joint meeting with the Ku Klux Klan in 1940 at Camp Nordland, a “recreational” camp of the GAB at Yaphank, Long Island, which was also used for paramilitary training.

631

Because of the nature of the First Amendment to the American Constitution, Kuhn could never be tried for the spreading of hate propaganda. However, on December 5, 1939, Kuhn was sentenced to two and a half to five years in prison for tax evasion and the misappropriation of GAB funds. He was successively denaturalized as an American citizen and deported to Germany in 1945. In 1948, he was subject to a denazification trial of the American military administration in Munich. There he was found guilty and sentenced to forced labor in a camp in Nuremberg. Cornelia Wilhelm See also Antisemitism; Denazification; Friends of the New Germany; German American Bund References and Further Reading Canedy, Susan. America’s Nazis: A Democratic Dilemma. Menlo Park, CA: Markgraf, 1990. Diamond, Sander A. The Nazi Movement in the United States, 1923–1938. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1974. Wilhelm, Cornelia. Bewegung oder Verein? Nationalsozialistische Volkstumspolitik in den USA. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1998.

KUNWALD, ERNST b. April 14, 1869;Vienna, Austria d. December 12, 1939;Vienna, Austria Conductor of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra from 1912 to 1917. Although always a student of piano, Kunwald followed his father’s career, obtaining a law degree from the University of Vienna. Forsaking law, he turned his attention to music, beginning as an opera conductor at Rostock in 1895. Kunwald conducted in

632

KUNWALD, ERNST

Sondershausen, Essen, Halle, Madrid, and Frankfurt am Main, before reaching Berlin and its prominent stage. He became second conductor to the Berlin Philharmonic in 1907 and served in the post until 1912. Facing Leopold Stokowski’s resignation, the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra turned to Ernst Kunwald, hiring him in the summer of 1912. He received an enthusiastically positive reception from the Cincinnati public, in particular from members of the board such as the Taft family. Kunwald returned the accolades by elevating the orchestra to new heights. He took the group on extensive tours of the eastern United States and obtained a recording contract from Columbia records, a rare honor in the early days of recordings. As an Austrian citizen, Kunwald made no secret of his pride for his homeland, as well as Germany, where he had spent many years. He never denied offering words of support for Germany and Austria prior to the entry of the United States into the First World War. Such comments were not considered odd among the heavily German population of Cincinnati. When the United States entered the war, Kunwald’s comfortable position began to deteriorate. Like most orchestras, Cincinnati’s began playing “The Star-Spangled Banner” prior to its concerts. When he directed the national anthem for the first time after the United States declared war on Germany, Kunwald was alleged to have said, “You all know where my heart and sympathy lie. They are on the other side with my own country but I will play your anthem for you” (memo to the U.S. Attorney General from J. Edgar Hoover dated December 19,

1917). He was charged, in addition, with refusing to direct an encore of “The StarSpangled Banner.” Kunwald’s position became more volatile in late 1917. Authorities in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, refused to allow Kunwald to direct the Cincinnati Symphony in an engagement scheduled for the city. The conductor had submitted his resignation two weeks prior to the Pittsburgh performance, because he believed that attacks on him would damage the symphony’s reputation and prospects. At first, the symphony’s board refused to fall prey to public pressure and rejected his offer of resignation. On December 8, 1917, U.S. marshals arrested Kunwald on suspicion of being an alien enemy and detained him at the Montgomery County jail in Dayton, Ohio. Kunwald consistently maintained that he had done nothing wrong and had committed no disloyal act against the United States. Suspicion about Kunwald was strong, especially because he had served in the Austrian army prior to coming to the United States. Surprisingly, the conductor was released from custody after only one day in jail. He returned to Cincinnati, where his resignation was accepted by the symphony board. Kunwald’s freedom was short lived, because he was again arrested on January 12, 1918, by federal authorities, who hastily shipped him to Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, for internment. Kunwald’s internment was due to alleged disloyal comments that he made after the United States entered the war; he was never implicated in any pro-German movement. Internment at Oglethorpe was exceedingly difficult for the conductor. He was removed

KUNWALD, ERNST

from his musical life and forced to endure the hot and humid climate. Perhaps most trying for him was having to deal with fellow internee Karl Muck, the famous conductor of the Boston Symphony, whom he despised. Release did not occur until June 3, 1919. Kunwald and his wife immediately left the United States for Austria. Although never returning to America, Kunwald enjoyed a prominent career in Europe conducting from 1920 to 1927 at Königsberg

633

and leading the Berlin Symphony from 1928 to 1931. Robert B. McCormick See also Hammerstein, Oscar, I; Muck, Karl; Music (American), German Influence on; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra: Centennial Portraits. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra, 1994. Thomas, Louis Russell. A History of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra to 1931. PhD Diss. University of Cincinnati, 1972.

L LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, GERMAN AMERICAN The built landscape of many major American cities was shaped in large measure by German Americans. Unlike many of their counterparts who emigrated from other countries, these German American landscape architects were professionals trained in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland before arriving in the United States. Their influence on the parks, gardens, and city plans of American cities has left a lasting impact on the landscapes of American cities. Most notable among these designers were George Huessler (1751–1817), Wilhelm Christian Bischoff (1791–1881), George Ellwanger (1816–1890), Eugene Achilles Baumann (1817–?), Ignatz Pilat (1820–1870), Adolph Strauch (1822– 1883), Ferdinand Mangold (1828–1905), Jacob Weidenmann (1829–1893), Heinrich Adolph Engelhardt (1830–1897), Maximillian Kern (c.1830–1915), Theodore Wirth (1863–1949), Julius Pitzman (1837–1923), Rudolf Ulrich (1841–1906), Edward Otto Schwagerl (1842–?), Oscar Dubuis (1849–1906), Frederick Nussbaumer (1850–?), Adolph Jaenicke (1860–1948), Reinhold Shuetze (1860–1909), George Kessler (1862– 1923), and Oscar Praeger (1876–1960).

George Huessler was born in Landau, Alsace, and immigrated to Salem, Massachusetts, where he is generally considered one of the first gardeners in the new country. Bischoff came to Savannah, Georgia, from Hamburg. He designed Forsyth Park, the great open space of Savannah. Ellwanger was the founder of the great Mount Hope nursery, Ellwanger and Barry, in Rochester, New York. At the turn of the century, it provided plant material for parks and gardens throughout the United States, even shipping to Europe and Asia. Ignatz Pilat of St. Agatha, Austria, served as superintendent of horticulture for the development of Central Park in New York City. Professionally trained in horticulture at the University of Vienna, Pilat is generally credited with the planting design for perhaps the greatest park in the United States. Adolph Strauch of Eckersdorf in Silesia became superintendent of Spring Grove Cemetery in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1855, a post he held all his life. Spring Grove is considered one of the great designed landscapes of the nineteenth century. Maximillian Kern published the book Practical Landscape Gardening with Reference to the Improvement of Rural Residences in 1855. A native of Tübingen, Germany, Kern served as superintendent of the parks

635

636

LANG, FRITZ

of Toledo, Ohio. There he designed Ottawa, Walbridge, Riverside, Collins, and City parks. Adolph Jaenicke from Berlin settled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, after a time in Philadelphia. There he served his entire career as superintendent of the city’s parks. Jaenicke Gardens in Swinney Park and the Rose Gardens in Lakeside Park are considered his greatest works. Frederick Nussbaumer of Baden, Germany, settled in St. Paul, Minnesota, and spent his entire career as superintendent of the city’s park system. There he designed numerous parks and boulevards in the city, including Como Park, generally considered his greatest work. Across the Mississippi River, Theodore Wirth created the great park system of Minneapolis. Born in Winterthur, Switzerland, Wirth followed Jacob Wiedenmann as a superintendent of the Hartford, Connecticut, park system, before moving to Minneapolis. Of all the German American landscape architects, George Edward Kessler was clearly the most prolific and perhaps the greatest. His most notable work was the original master plan for the Kansas City, Missouri, park system in 1892. During his career, which spanned until his death in 1923, he also prepared park system plans for Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Terre Haute, South Bend, Dallas, Fort Worth, Denver, and numerous other cities. He also served as landscape architect for the Louisiana Purchase Exposition in 1904. The German American professionals did not receive the recognition they desired for their accomplishments in part because many of them spent their entire careers on one project, serving as estate gardeners or superintendents of a particular park system rather than working as consultants across a

broader geographic area. The dominance of Frederick Law Olmsted and his Englishspeaking counterparts also reduced the visibility of the Germans. Finally, the suppression of German culture in the United States following World War I further reduced the country’s awareness of their contribution. Kurt Culbertson See also Central Park; Cincinnati; Olmsted, Frederick Law; Strauch, Adolph References and Further Reading Culbertson, Kurt. “George Edward Kessler: Landscape Architect of the American Renaissance.” In Landscape Architecture in the Midwest. Ed. William Tishler. Champaign: University of Illinois, 2005. Wilson, William H. The City Beautiful Movement in Kansas City. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1964.

LANG, FRITZ b. December 5, 1890;Vienna, Austria d. August 2, 1976; Hollywood, California Austrian-born, German and U.S. film director, probably the most influential German artist in the twentieth century. With the possible exceptions of Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau and Ernst Lubitsch, Fritz Lang remains the only film director who had such an equally successful career in Germany and the United States, having created many film classics on both continents. In 1913 Lang went to Paris to become a painter, but he had to come back to Austria to serve in World War I. While in the hospital for many weeks in 1916 after being wounded at the front, he began to write stories and scripts, such as the lost manuscript titled Die Peitsche (The Whip, 1916). German director Joe May bought

LANG, FRITZ

and directed Lang’s first scripts: Die Hochzeit im Exzentrikklub (The Wedding in the Eccentric Club, 1917) and Hilde Warren und der Tod (Hilde Warren and Death, 1917). That brought Lang to Berlin in 1918, where he directed eight minor movies in just three years. As a film director, Lang began to make his masterpieces from the early 1920s: Der mude Tod (Destiny, 1920), Dr Mabuse, der Spieler (The Crimes of Dr Mabuse, 1922), Siegfried (Die Nibelungen, 1924), Metropolis (Metropolis, 1927) and M (M, 1931). Lang had the idea of Metropolis (1927) in 1924 while arriving on a boat in New York City with his friend, the producer Erich Pommer, to promote his film Siegfried (1924). The vision of the skyscrapers seen in the sunrise inspired him to write a story about an inhuman, gigantic city of the future. His wife, the novelist Thea von Harbou, wrote a science-fiction novel from this theme and cowrote the script with him in 1925. At that time, it was the most expensive film ever produced in Germany. Fritz Lang left Germany for France in 1933, after his film Das Testament des Doktor Mabuse (The Testament of Doctor Mabuse, 1933), a follow-up to a previous success, had been banned by the Nazi authorities. After spending a few months in Paris, where he adapted Liliom, a play by Ferenc Molnar, in 1934, Lang left France for the United States, where his films Metropolis (1927) and M (1931) were already known. His debut in Hollywood was not easy, because producers (such as the eccentric David O. Selznick) wanted him to adapt his style to Hollywood’s norms and imagine “happy endings”—something Lang never did before. After many scripts

637

were refused (including the never-filmed Passport to Hell, written in 1935), Lang finally released his first U.S. film, Fury, in 1936, followed by You Only Live Once (1937), and a drama, You and Me (1938). For the next three decades, he shot movies in Hollywood and directed many anti-Nazi films during World War II, among them Man Hunt (1941), Hangmen Also Die (1943, from a script cowritten with Bertolt Brecht), Ministry of Fear (1944), and Cloak and Dagger (1946). Those stunning films confirmed Lang’s position as a master of the American “film noir” genre. Surprisingly, this sophisticated man who spent most of his adult life in Berlin during the 1920s in Hollywood was directing some of the best Westerns ever made by the late 1940s: The Return of Frank James (1940), Western Union (1941), and later Rancho Notorious (1952) with Marlene Dietrich. To explain his fascination for cowboys and Indians, Lang said he was somehow influenced by the Western imagery of German novelist Karl May during his youth. Incidentally, Rancho Notorious was the first Western ever to have a theme song, this one titled “Chuck-a-luck.” In 1950, while Joseph Losey directed a pale remake of Lang’s M in Hollywood, Lang himself went to the Philippines to shoot a war film, American Guerrilla in the Philippines (1950). He also did two remakes of Jean Renoir’s movies: Scarlet Street (1945), from La Chienne; and later Human Desire (1954), from La Bête humaine, with which he was not satisfied because of the strict censorship by Hollywood studios for themes related to adultery. In the midfifties, Lang returned briefly to West Germany, after being summoned before the McCarthy committee in

638

LANGSDORFF, GEORG HEINRICH VON

the U.S. Senate. He went to India to shoot a two-part film, a remake from one of the first scripts he wrote with Thea von Harbou in 1920: The Tiger of Bengal and The Indian Tomb (1959). What became his last film was a fantastic thriller titled The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse (1960), shot in West Germany. For Lang, it was the third adaptation of Luxembourg novelist Norbert Jacques’s 1922 story about the mysterious Dr. Mabuse. Yves Laberge See also Brecht, Bertolt; Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene; Hollywood; Indians in German Literature; Lubitsch, Ernst; May, Karl Friedrich; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm References and Further Reading Bogdanovich, Peter. Fritz Lang in America. New York: Praeger, 1969. Elsaesser, Thomas. Metropolis. London: British Film Institute, 2000. Jacobsen, Wolfgang, Cornelius Schnauber, and Rolf Aurich, eds. Fritz Lang: His Life and Work. Photographs and Documents. Berlin: Jovis Verlags- und Projektburo, 2001. Laberge, Yves. Métropolis, de Fritz Lang à Giorgio Moroder: le transfert socio-culturel d’une adaptation. PhD thesis. Université Laval, Quebec City, 1998. McGilligan, Patrick. Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast. New York: St. Martin’s, 1997.

LANGSDORFF, GEORG HEINRICH VON b. April 4, 1774;Wöllstein, Hesse d. June 29, 1852; Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden German globetrotter and Russian consul general to Brazil who encouraged German immigration to Brazil. Langsdorff studied medicine and natural sciences at the University of Göttingen, where he received his doctoral degree in medicine in 1797. In the

following years, Langsdorff worked first as a personal physician for Prince Christian von Waldeck in Lisbon and later participated in the first Russian world circumnavigation under the direction of Adam Johann von Krusenstern (1803–1807). He recounted his experiences and observations in the two-volume Bemerkungen auf einer Reise um die Welt in den Jahren 1803 bis 1807 (Remarks and Observations on a Voyage around the World from 1803 to 1807). In 1813 Tsar Alexander I appointed him consul general to Brazil, where he bought a farm (Fazenda “Mandioca”) north of Rio. On this farm, Langsdorff welcomed many German explorers. Among them were Wilhelm Ludwig von Eschwege, Maximilian Prinz zu WiedNeuwied, Johann Baptist Spix, Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius, and Johann Natterer. From 1820 to 1822 Langsdorff visited Europe and encouraged German emigration to Brazil. In his text Bemerkungen über Brasilien. Mit gewissenhafter Belehrung für auswandernde Deutsche (Remarks on Brazil: With Careful Advice for Germans Who Are Considering Emigration, 1821), Langsdorff pointed to the advantages of Brazil (its climate and the availability of large unsettled lands, as well as the existence of slavery) over North America. Brazil was described as a heaven on earth in which everyone could become rich. The Russian ruler allowed him to embark on a scientific expedition in 1826–1827. Langsdorff invited several Europeans, among them the painter Johann Moritz Rugendas, the botanist Ludwig Riedel, and the astronomer Nestor G. Rubzov, to participate in this endeavor. His team explored the state of Rio de Janeiro and went on an

LATIN AMERICA, GERMAN MILITARY ADVISERS

eight-month-long trip through Minas Gerais. Langsdorff was the first European to travel by boat to Mato Grosso’s capital, Cuiabá, where he arrived on September 27, 1827. The tropical climate damaged Langsdorff ’s health and caused him to lose his memory. In 1829 he returned to Germany where he settled down in Freiburg im Breisgau in 1831. Because his mental state prevented him from writing about his expedition, his documents were shelved in Russian archives and remained unknown to the public for almost 100 years. It was only in 1948 that the first written account of Langsdorff ’s expedition was published in Russian. A translation into Portuguese followed in 1967 and into German in 1979. In 1974 a conference dedicated to Langsdorff ’s 200th birthday in Leningrad sparked new interest in his Brazilian expedition and led to the publication of several scholarly treatments. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Martius, Carl Friedrich Philipp von; Natterer, Johann Baptist; Wied-Neuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu References and Further Reading Barman, Roderick J. “The Forgotten Journey. Georg Heinrich Langsdorff and the Russian Imperial Scientific Expedition to Brazil, 1821–1829.” Terrae Incognitae. The Journal of the History of Discoveries vol. III (1971): 67–96. Becher, Hans. “Georg Heinrich Freiherr von Langsdorff. Ein Pionier der Brasilienforschung im zweiten Jahrzehnt des 19. Jahrhunderts.” Staden-Jahrbuch vol. 23–24 (1975/76): 27–40. ———. Georg Heinrich Freiherr von Langsdorff in Brasilien. Forschungen eines deutschen Gelehrten im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Reimer, 1987. Komissarow, Boris N. “Die brasilianischen Tagebücher G. H. v. Langsdorffs als historisch-ethnographische Quelle.” Jahrbuch des Museums für Völkerkunde zu Leipzig vol. 31 (1977): 133–176.

IN

639

LATIN AMERICA, GERMAN MILITARY ADVISERS IN From the Iberian conquest of America to the independence of the Latin American republics, German soldiers actively contributed to military developments on that continent. However, a regular exchange of professional German military experts to Latin America started only in the 1880s. Up to World War I, a network of German officers in many countries of the region developed and became an important element of imperial policies. In the late nineteenth century, the international situation of South America was tense. Border conflicts among countries such as Chile and Bolivia and Peru or Argentina and Chile created a climate of conflict and competition. Due to the boom of exports in many of these countries, a certain degree of prosperity had reached the region, allowing governments to invest in projects of modernization. From the perspective of many political leaders in Latin America, the modernization of the military was a top priority. With that evaluation they followed European trends in the age of radical nationalism and militarism. Thus, prior to 1914, Latin Americans had their own miniature version of the European arms race. A central element of this competition was the employment of foreign military advisers to professionalize and increase the efficiency of the officer corps and armies. In addition, civil governments intended to depoliticize the officers, while at the same time use the army as an instrument to keep up the social status quo. European officers and, after the Franco-German War of 1870–1871, the triumphant Prussian officers, were the candidates of choice for Latin American political leaders.

640

LATIN AMERICA, GERMAN MILITARY ADVISERS

German authorities reciprocated the interest in sending out assorted military men to Latin America. As representatives of the highly acclaimed Prusso-German army, these officers were supposed to increase the prestige of the German Empire abroad. This was important because rivals of Germany, such as France and the United States, also intensified their military advisership in the region during this period. Moreover, the German government wanted to profit economically from the advisers by gaining lucrative orders for military equipment and instructed them accordingly. Given the European arms race, which made the advantages of modern weaponry obsolete in short intervals, Latin America seemed to be a perfect market for outdated equipment. The region could also serve as a training ground. In addition, the professionalization of the Latin America military and thus the stabilization of the political system seemed to be in the genuine interest of German foreign investment. Therefore, the political and military leadership in Berlin supported the recruitment of German officers by Latin American governments and their activities in Latin America. The imperial government invited influential Latin American envoys and decorated them. In addition, it admitted an increasing number of young cadets and officers from Latin America to the elitist military academies in Germany. Until the outbreak of World War I, numerous Latin American countries directly or indirectly used German military know-how. German influence grew especially strong in Chile. In 1885 a Prussian artillery captain of Saxon origin, Emil Körner, was the first officer to go to Chile in order to serve in the Chilean army. Due to his restructuring of the army, the

IN

Chilean soldiers soon came to be called the “Prussians of South America.” German military influence was also directly felt in Argentina and Bolivia where German officers served prior to the war. German military methods spread indirectly to Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador, and Guatemala through Chilean instructors who had received their own schooling under the Prussian system. Moreover, these countries sent young officers to Chile for training. From 1902 even Francophile Brazil sent officers to Germany, and Mexico planned to invite a German military mission—a project that failed to materialize because of the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. German military advisers, who since the 1890s usually went in groups to Latin America, were active in all spheres of Latin American military life. They introduced the draft, wrote new instructions for training and maneuvers, and founded war academies. In Chile, German officers also actively participated in regular military service, while, for example, in Argentina their service remained restricted to schooling cadets and officers. Commissioning orders for the German arms industry was an additional important task of German military advisers in Latin America. From the perspective of the industry in the Reich, exports to that continent were crucial to keep up high rates of production in peacetime and to further technical developments. Other European governments participated in the race for the Latin American market of armaments, yet none supported its industry as decisively as the German Empire. Firms like Friedrich Krupp and the Deutsche Waffenund Munitionsfabrik Berlin-Karlsruhe (Ludwig Loewe Konzern; German

LATIN AMERICA, GERMAN MILITARY ADVISERS

Weapons and Ammunition Factory) cooperated closely with civil and military authorities and with the advisers to promote their businesses in Latin America. Thus, especially between 1907 and 1914, German interests successfully competed with French and English firms for large orders of weaponry and other military equipment from Latin American countries. World War I disrupted the close German Latin American military cooperation because the advisers returned to Germany, and Latin American officers in Germany had to return to their own countries. Yet military attachés of both sides—for example, the German navy attaché for Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay in Buenos Aires, August Moller—maintained contact. Thus, interned German sailors and ships in Latin America received favorable treatment. In return, the German High Command admitted Latin American attachés to the European front. Some of these Latin American officers in Germany even participated in the German propaganda effort by writing books and articles in Spanish praising the German war efforts. Thus, the head of the Argentinean war academy, José F. Uriburu, and the Chilean general, Jorge Boonen Rivera, even as late as 1918 continued to spread the word of German invincibility. When Germany adopted unconditional submarine warfare, pressure groups (e.g., parts of the press, some political parties, economic interests, etc.) supported by French and English and later U.S. interests demanded that Latin American nations such as Chile and Argentina break off relations with the German Empire. Many contemporary observers—and some historians—agreed that the neutrality of these and other countries of the region was due

IN

641

in large measure to the sympathies that the influential military establishment held for Germany. Indeed, the long-standing military relations were important and often more effective than the weak German propaganda efforts in Latin America during the war. Yet the main reason for Latin American neutrality was the lack of interest in participating in a costly European war. The German defeat of 1918 and the Treaty of Versailles drastically changed the context. The fifth part of the treaty provided, among other things, for the reduction of German military forces, a ban on certain types of arms including submarines and military airplanes, and a ban on German military advisers to foreign countries. In addition, according to article 179, the German government was bound to prevent unemployed former officers from leaving the country to join the armies of foreign countries. Yet, the number of German officers who wanted to leave the Reich was large. Many resented the new republican government, which they held responsible for the defeat and the loss of their jobs and social prestige. Thus, it was hardly surprising that, despite the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, a considerable number tried to find positions abroad where their experience and know-how were still held in esteem. Although the French, English, and U.S. militaries now intensified their activities in Latin America, some governments in the region were actively looking for German advisers as soon after the war as 1919. The prewar ties to the German system and the personal bonds of friendship established over the course of three decades proved strong. Moreover, Latin American military and political leaders had an interest in the newly won wartime experience

642

LATIN AMERICA, GERMAN MILITARY ADVISERS

that German officers could boast, as well as in the counterinsurgency skills they had acquired during the postwar upheaval in Germany. In several countries, German officers managed to gain entry into the military and to continue their work as military advisers. By 1929–1930, the number of German military instructors in Latin America had jumped to thirty-eight in five different countries. At that point, Argentina became the new center of German military activities in Latin America, although the network of advisers stretched to Bolivia, Chile, and Peru, and there were attempts to establish it in Paraguay and Colombia. Officers like Wilhelm Faupel, Hans von Kiesling, Hans Kretzschmar, and Hans Kundt had close connections to Germany. They arranged for the supply of German advisers in neighboring countries, regulated the recruitment of new advisers in Germany, and communicated among each other. The attitude of the German government to the military advisers was ambivalent. The foreign office feared protests and negative consequences because of the obvious breach of the Versailles Treaty. Diplomats were instructed to keep the advisers officially at a distance. Yet, the Department on Latin American Affairs within the Foreign Ministry also appreciated closer relations to the Latin American countries and thus kept informal ties to most officers. The Defense Ministry was a strong supporter of the German military advisers. The German military establishment kept in close touch with the men in Latin America, helped them in recruiting new personnel, and even admitted Latin American officers to courses in Germany. Compared to the prewar period, most of these activities remained clandestine.

IN

Advisers in Latin America usually had to camouflage themselves as civil instructors and in some instances even had to give up their German citizenship. In addition, the resistance of Latin American nationalists to foreign advisers had grown. Thus, without diplomatic support, the advisers ran into a host of difficulties, and some had to leave their countries of choice after only a short stint. Others, such as the notorious General Hans Kundt in Bolivia, became the object of domestic political strife and were repeatedly used as scapegoats. Possibilities to cooperate with the German arms industry were also severely restricted, but they continued to exist—despite the prohibitions of the Treaty of Versailles. An efficient military adviser like Faupel managed to arrange for substantial Argentinean and Peruvian orders with the German arms producers, under the cover of firms in countries such as Denmark and Sweden. The major part of the business, however, now went to European and U.S. competitors. The activities of many German advisers came to an end during the Great Depression. Political upheavals in Chile, Bolivia, Peru, and Argentina undermined the precarious situation of the advisers. In addition, Latin American governments soon lacked the money to further pay for their services. Thus, many had to leave Latin America. Already in 1929 Peruvian dictator Augusto B. Leguía fired Faupel. Kundt had to leave Bolivia by the end of 1933, after a series of devastating defeats in the Chaco War against Paraguay. In Chile the group of German officers dwindled to three. Under General Kiesling they stayed until 1937, when the military mission officially ended. Only in Argentina were German military advisers reinforced during the

LATIN AMERICA, NAZI PARTY

Nazi dictatorship. A German military mission continued to work in that country up until 1940. In addition, because of the open remilitarization of its arms industry, Nazi Germany returned as a major bidder for Latin American markets. Countries such as Argentina and Chile bought a major part of their military equipment and weaponry in Germany until World War II finally put an end to the connection. Stefan Rinke See also Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Faupel, Wilhelm; Kiesling, Hans von; Mexico; Treaty of Versailles References and Further Reading Atkins, George Pope, and Larry V. Thompson. “German Military Influence in Argentina, 1921–1940.” Journal of Latin American Studies 4 (1972): 257–274. Bieber, León E. “La política militar alemana en Bolivia, 1900–1935.” Latin American Research Review 29, 1 (2000): 85–106. Brunn, Gerhard. “Deutscher Einfluß und deutsche Interessen in der Professionalisierung einiger lateinamerikanischer Armeen vor dem 1. Weltkrieg (1885–1914).” Jahrbuch für Geschichte von Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Lateinamerikas 6 (1969): 278–279. Nunn, Frederick M. Yesterday’s Soldiers: European Military Professionalism in South America, 1890–1940. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1983. Rinke, Stefan. Der letzte freie Kontinent: Deutsche Lateinamerikapolitik im Zeichen transnationaler Beziehungen, 1918–1933. Stuttgart: Heinz, 1996. ———. “Eine Pickelhaube macht noch keinen Preußen: Preußisch-deutsche Militärberater, ‘Militärethos’ und Modernisierung in Chile, 1886–1973.” In Preußen und Lateinamerika: Im Spannungsfeld von Kommerz, Macht und Kultur. Eds. Sandra Carreras and Günther Maihold. Münster: Lit, 2004, pp. 259–283. Sater, William F., and Holger H. Herwig. The Grand Illusion: The Prussianization of the Chilean Army. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1999.

IN

643

Schaefer, Jürgen. Deutsche Militärhilfe an Südamerika: Militär- und Rüstungsinteressen in Argentinien, Bolivien und Chile vor 1914. Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1974. White, Elizabeth B. German Influence in the Argentine Army, 1900 to 1945. New York: Garland, 1991.

LATIN AMERICA, NAZI PARTY IN Before Adolf Hitler joined the German government in 1933, the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) was already represented in Latin America. World War I veterans had founded party branches, out of their own initiative, in major cities in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. Often personal ambition motivated them to further their notion of National Socialism in São Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Mexico City. Before 1933 the largest number of party members lived in Brazil (343), Chile (189), and Argentina (156). Paraguay followed with 62 members and Guatemala with 51. Once Hitler became head of the government in Germany, membership mushroomed over the next four years. An internal party census from 1937 counted 2,903 members in Brazil, 1,500 in Argentina, and 985 in Chile. Between 200 and 310 members were part of the ethnic German communities in Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, Venezuela, Paraguay, and Peru. The AO (Auslandsorganisation, Nazi Party Abroad) headquarters in Berlin counted 169 members in Bolivia and 143 in Uruguay. Smaller numbers of party members, always under a total of 70, resided in every other Latin American country. In 1937 the party’s administrative AO section VII in Berlin, in charge of Latin American members and party branches, counted a total of 7,602 party

644

LATIN AMERICA, NAZI PARTY

IN

members, the largest total number of foreign party members based on membership by continent (National Archives of the United States 1937). In Germany the NSDAP headquarters tried to influence such initiatives through written correspondence. In 1932 a party organizer traveled from Spain to visit select South American branches for the first time. He gave speeches, provided propaganda, and advised about how to organize a party fundraising operation that collected donations from party members and political sympathizers. Before 1933 party branches focused on collecting money for the electoral victory in Germany, local community politics, and very limited social service activities. The Chilean branch, led by Willi Koehn, quickly established itself as a model. It operated out of a central headquarters and maintained vibrant branch offices in other urban and rural regions, but also followed propaganda directives from the German home office. Hitler’s rise to power and the NSDAP’s establishment as the party of the state posed the question of the future function of NSDAP branches abroad. In March 1933 power struggles between Nazi leaders Rudolf Hess, Alfred Rosenberg, and Robert Ley postponed a redefinition of the party’s purpose. In October 1933 Hess emerged victorious and delegated the task of administering foreign party branches to Ernst Wilhelm Bohle, who had grown up in South Africa. Bohle was an unknown party inspector without a personal power base inside the NSDAP. Nazi political theory, and its racist ideal, demanded total political and social control over all German citizens and ethnic Germans living abroad. This claim met strong resistance from within the German communities in

Latin America. In particular, members of conservative and social democratic parties were determined to defend the cultural and political autonomy they had developed in the 1920s. Previous attempts by NSDAP branches to take over community leadership had been brushed aside. Bohle’s first task remained to establish the NSDAP’s political monopoly inside ethnic German communities abroad. Bohle understood his task as the unification, somehow, of all German citizens and ethnic Germans without citizenship into one organizational body. Then they would become a “tool” that, one day, could be used by Hitler. Bohle’s vision received support from Hitler Youth leader Baldur von Schirach, Nazi foreign policy theoretician Alfred Rosenberg, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, and General Wilhelm Faupel, the head of the Ibero-American Institute, Berlin. In public, Bohle restrained his political and racial fervor. However, behind the scenes, working through expanding government and NSDAP organizations, he fought without restraint. Rival political parties had to close down and alternative Nazi visions were repressed. Disobedient party leaders were removed from office and alternative political priorities, emerging from the midst of ethnic communities, were discounted. Regardless of local or national host country particularities, by 1935 Nazi Party branches manipulated innocuous cultural and social organizations toward forced unification. Bohle promoted Chilean party leader Koehn to party commissar for South America. Central American and Mexican party branches were administered directly from Germany. In October 1934 Bohle himself assumed control over party work in Brazil.

LATIN AMERICA, NAZI PARTY

After President Paul von Hindenburg’s death in August 1934, Bohle rose further inside the Fascist state. Hess entrusted him with the liaison position that connected the ethnic policy department of the NSDAP and German government offices. During the next twelve months, Bohle focused on developing a bureaucracy that could administer the ideal of an imagined racial community that was not based on German citizenship. Traditional social organizations and government groups, now under party control, provided the avenues to transmit the new directives into Latin America. Their traditional appearance camouflaged their changing work. They intensified racial indoctrination but also support for Fascist economic barter deals and procurement of raw materials for rearmament. By the end of 1935, Bohle could report to Hess that the NSDAP’s political and propaganda monopoly had been established. In Berlin, the NSDAP Foreign Branch had established links with most government agencies. It administered party branches all across the globe. Finally, Bohle revived the idea of creating a ministry of ethnic Germans abroad. Increasingly, the party attacked turf that had been administered by the German Foreign Ministry before. Diplomats increasingly had to work in tandem with party branch leaders. Foreign affairs, however, began to change the context of Nazi Party work in Latin America. Soviet Comintern support for a failed coup in Brazil in November 1935 and intensifying activity in republican Spain were increasing fears among Latin American governments about subversive foreign interference. Previously, the Italian Fascio had also been active in select Latin American countries, propagating fas-

IN

645

cism. Naturally, concern also extended to the expanding presence of the NSDAP branches. Increasingly, the question was raised whether German “racial” separatism might also serve hidden political separatist agendas. Party branch leaders in Latin America reinforced fears. In Brazil, Cuba, and Mexico branch leaders had begun to share official duties with German diplomats. Hess had addressed the issue for the first time in mid-1935. He moved control over party branches in countries under British influence, former German colonies, and the United States away from Bohle to the rising NSDAP foreign policy star Joachim von Ribbentrop. Latin American party branches, however, continued their activism under Bohle, until the Spanish Civil War and Franco’s use of the Falange—at first influenced by the NSDAP—introduced a Spanish-speaking Fascist activism into the Western Hemisphere that went beyond ethnic German communities. In Germany, the rise of Heinrich Himmler and the SS in all political spheres became a new domestic challenge to Bohle and his party bureaucrats. Racial reconstruction began to rival political party activism. Once again, rivalries between Nazi leaders affected political work. Tensions festered until February 1937. Then Ribbentrop and Himmler established complete control over ethnic and racial activism by creating a new coordinating agency called the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle (Ethnic German Coordination Office). It favored racial work abroad and devalued overt political work. Racial ideals replaced early Nazi political universalism. The expansion of the Nazi influence in Europe gained priority. Also Fieldmarshall Hermann Göring, head of the Four-Year Plan, insisted that Bohle put economics for

646

LATIN AMERICA, NAZI PARTY

IN

rearmament ahead of creating a political tool for Hitler. Brazilian and Argentinean governments, as well as Mexican unions, focused intense parliamentary and press attention on alleged illegal Nazi Party work after 1937. In general, a new emphasis on ethnic assimilation was propagated by Latin American governments. The activities peaked in 1939 during publication of the Juerges forgery proclaiming a Nazi plot that targeted Argentinean and Chilean Patagonia. Bohle’s stature in Germany declined further when Ribbentrop became German foreign minister in 1938. Party work went into a holding pattern and had to focus on administration. A limited amount of salaried positions in the party branches were created and Bohle received a modest secret fund. Political work focused on the indoctrination of ethnic German youth and on eliminating Jewish owners and employees from the economic sectors of communities abroad. Established structures and influence had to be preserved until Hitler and Hess might put the party again ahead of the SS. Party workers abroad busied themselves with education, propaganda, and supplementary intelligence. But party work also meant counseling ethnic families on how to emigrate back to a Germany governed by the Nuremberg racial laws. The Munich Crisis of September 1938 triggered the mobilization of European armies. In Latin America, party branches switched to defensive work. Bohle had received an additional appointment in Goebbels’s Ministry of Propaganda and administered education inside the party in anticipation of the coming war. Once Nazi Germany attacked Poland in 1939, the party in Latin America worked on keeping the ethnic communities in line, always in expectation of a Nazi

victory over Europe. However, Nazi control over all of Europe was never established, and party work never again could move ahead of short-term military needs. Hess’s flight to England in 1941 sidelined Bohle inside the Nazi Party. More then ever, Hitler, Göring, and Himmler focused on racial and economic policies in Europe. In Latin America, German ethnic communities faced economic blacklists and political investigations by Allied intelligence services. The NSDAP network did not protect them and, increasingly, even opted for voluntary dissolution. Berlin’s weakness and the communities’ deteriorating economic situations brought a revival of more individual ethnic German activity in Latin America. Friedrich E. Schuler See also Argentina; Brazil; Chile; Faupel, Wilhelm; Latin America and Nazi Economic Policy; Mexico References and Further Reading Jacobsen, Hans Adolf. Nationalsozialistische Außenpolitik, 1933–1938. Frankfurt/M, Berlin: Metzner, 1968. Müller, Jürgen. Nationalsozialismus in Lateinamerika: Die Auslandsorganisation der NSDAP in Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile und Mexico, 1931–1945. Stuttgart: Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz Akademischer Verlag, 1997. National Archives of the United States. Statistik der AO NSDAP. Captured Records of the German Foreign Ministry, 1937 (June 30) Collection # T-120, Roll 78, Frames 60139-60165. Newton, Helmuth C. The Nazi Menace in Argentina 1931–1937. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1992. Pommerin, Reiner. Das Dritte Reich und Lateinamerika. Die Deutsche Politik gegenüber Mittel und Südamerika, 1939–1942. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1977. Schuler, Friedrich E. Mexico between Hitler and Roosevelt. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1998.

LATIN AMERICA AND NAZI ECONOMIC POLICY

LATIN AMERICA AND NAZI ECONOMIC POLICY In Nazi theory, the economy served the purpose only of generating funds and exchanges for a reorganization of the world based on race. An important part of this theory was that ideally German trade would be conducted exclusively by ethnic Germans. The creation of a world based on racial concepts required change through war. However, in 1933 the Nazi leadership faced an established network of ethnic German traders in Latin America, and most of them did not subscribe to Nazi racial thinking or trade based on exclusive ethnic networks. These importers, managers of shipping agencies, and independent merchant bankers appreciated capitalism and political conservatism. By coincidence, the ongoing world economic depression and the failure of the 1933 World Economic Conference in London paired ethnic traders and Nazis in a way that neither group had envisioned. Before trade with Germany could become nazified, it somehow had to be revived and restructured. There were several difficulties to overcome: exclusive British and French trade policies, the U.S. Smoot-Hawley tariff, and drastic devaluation of the Japanese yen all contributed to the collapse of the gold standard. Proud ethnic German traders who had rebuilt their businesses independently after World War I once again found themselves forced to follow German government exchange rate policies. Nazi economic theorists, too, recognized that racially based trade could not be implemented at that point. Issues such as exchange rates, insurance, and foreign exchange reimbursement were paramount over racial ideals. Hitler’s priority was mediation between private German economic

647

sectors in order to earn more national income for rearmament financing. In the first years of the Hitler administration, racial economics moved to the back burner. And the failure of the 1933 London World Economic Conference offered Hitler a smoke screen to blame capitalist actions for his determination to use trade not for profit but for rearmament and world conquest. Inside Germany economic and trade policy was developed by a top secret trade-political committee. It institutionalized rivalries between the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Economy, Germany’s Central Bank, and newly appointed Nazi officials. Between 1933 and 1936 infighting over policy dominated meetings. In the background, the German army and Hitler expected these ministries to put their power struggles aside and to manage raw material procurement for the expanding arms industry. Only their cooperation could generate funds to pay for the planes, tanks, and ships that would fight the coming war. In Latin America ethnic German traders were not privy to Hitler’s policy priorities. They expected their governments to help them gain access to increasingly rare foreign exchange. Other burning issues were international trade insurance and protectionist trade measures by British, U.S., and French companies. Hitler’s anti-Jewish laws and the incarceration of leftist party members triggered business boycotts and political harassment by Latin American unions and Socialist parties. Finally, Nazi branch leaders had begun to force community organizations into Nazi Party organizations, regardless of political and social differences. This meant replacing conservative business leaders. The leading merchants in the community often also chaired

648

LATIN AMERICA AND NAZI ECONOMIC POLICY

the community organizations. Now that political and racial priorities were moved to the top of the agenda, the Nazi leadership wanted traditional leaders removed as they, as national conservatives, did not share such views. In the midst of this confusion, ethnic companies looked in vain for guidance from Berlin. Economic activity of ethnic communities abroad the Hitler administration simply expected to dovetail with economic priorities at home. In the first half of 1934, the Nazi economy repeatedly came to the brink of collapse. In response Minister of Economy Hjalmar Schacht brought all exchange rate and import regulations under his control. The secret trade council continued to manage business on monthly and geographical bases, as well as plan the annual amounts of national imports. Importing and exporting required increasing government regulation. In fall 1934 this policy became known as the New Plan. It was a crude accounting mechanism that assured that Nazi Germany would no longer spend more foreign exchange on raw material imports than it earned through manufacturing exports. From then on, essential imports of raw materials were covered financially. This new form of trade quickly brought alternative trade methods such as barter trade and artificial currencies into the center of Nazi export relations. During this crisis, Nazi economists and diplomats gained a new appreciation for Latin American raw materials. Raw material imports from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Andean region, and Mexico moved next to the primary import focus of southeastern Europe. Agricultural products were most important. Precious metals and ores took second place. This policy contained an anti-British strategic component, a revival of World War I eco-

nomic warfare practice, preceding an open violent conflict. A German government commission traveled to major South American countries in the second half of 1934 to explain the new trade and currency tools. Argentinean, Chilean, and Brazilian economists received it with reservations. There was little interest in departing permanently from free trade practices. The German commission returned to Berlin with only short-term exclusive bilateral economic treaties. In 1935 ethnic German traders in Latin America found themselves in the middle of this radically changing trade environment. Nazi Party leaders talked ethnic solidarity, but the practice in the field was in stark contrast. The help from Berlin was not the type of support that struggling private traders required. To make matters worse, Nazi branches compiled ownership inventories of ethnic companies, trying to single out Jewish owners. In case a German Jewish business was the least bit economically vulnerable, Nazi branches harassed it and, if possible, excluded it from future economic involvement. The business climate remained confused. Nobody could predict what would happen in the coming years. A second policy toward Latin America emerged. Adolf Hitler, Hermann Göring, and army leaders decided that the best way to increase raw material imports further, regardless of price, would be arms exports to South America. In the summer of 1935, the Nazi leadership violated the limitations imposed by the Treaty of Versailles and began large-scale arms-for-rawmaterial barters. Nazi economic experts followed Italian experiments in Brazil and reconfigured future economic exchanges based on armament orders. This policy offered several advantages for the governments of Brazil and Nazi Germany. Arms

LATIN AMERICA AND NAZI ECONOMIC POLICY

orders were expensive. Their enormous cost encouraged large-volume raw material barters. At the same time Latin American countries had extreme difficulties selling raw materials, even at depressed prices, for foreign exchange. One exception was Argentina, whose economic house was in relative order, allowing Buenos Aires to dictate to Germans the terms of contracts. Ethnic trading houses that represented German arms manufacturers benefited most. Outside the arms sectors, smaller importers and exporters, even though ethnically German, found themselves out of the loop. However, rival British, U.S., and French traders assumed that all German ethnic traders eagerly cooperated with Berlin. Increasingly, the first fog of war reduced all ethnic traders to extensions of Nazi plots. In fact, illegal activities existed in the communities before 1939. The German navy had begun to reconstruct its global naval supply and intelligence service. After 1935 a growing number of select ethnic Germans in Latin America were recruited as suppliers and secret agents. Their commitment turned German merchants and their local business connections, banks, and financial reserves into parts of a global Nazi economic warfare operation. Branch managers of German South American banks and leading merchant bankers backed intelligence agents with their financial networks, preparing to fight U.S. and British raw material procurement in the Americas. By 1937 trade policy, rearmament barters, ethnic community life, and Nazi war preparations were fusing into one culture. It opened German ethnic communities once again to Allied economic warfare countermeasures. United States Secretary of State Cordell Hull had tried to commit Latin Amer-

649

ican economists against Nazi financial and trade tools since 1933. At conferences and on paper, most Latin American government negotiators and ministers of finance, economics, and trade agreed to reject Fascist methods. But in practice they disregarded the noble political imperative, at least as long as the British Parliament, the U.S. Congress, and private banks failed to provide alternative financial tools. In this context, after 1936 a third Nazi Latin American economic link emerged. German diplomats came to see barters as a technical specialty that allowed them to serve the Nazi state without having to participate in Nazi policies inside Germany. The South American trade world became a professional exile for conservative German economic expansionists who rejected war on behalf of a racial Nazi state. In Latin America, economists also appreciated German diplomats more. Their contacts inside the Nazi economy provided access to required technology for national industrialization. Of course, this linkage raised troubling political and ethical questions among political parties, Jewish organizations, and anti-Nazi unions. But as long as the private credit market could not offer cheap dollar and pound loans, bartering with the Nazis provided, by coincidence, technology free from rare foreign exchange. It supplied authoritarian governments with steam turbines, pipes, ship engines, electrical cables, machinery, and even key-ready fertilizer plants. Exports manufactured in Nazi Germany gained an unprecedented prominence in state–led Latin American infrastructure projects. By 1937, U.S. and Nazi economic practices confronted each other directly in Latin America. The trade-for-rearmament versus trade-for-profit clash further intensified after

650

LATIN AMERICA AND NAZI ECONOMIC POLICY

Ambassador Karl Ritter relocated to Rio de Janeiro and conducted the next round of Nazi trade offensives on location. Under his guidance, Berlin tried to break the currency monopoly of the Brazilian government and projected more economic force into Argentina and Chile. Also, in Mexico a joint venture with the German navy in the national oil business was ready for signature. In the Andean countries, Latin American airlines used more German planes and advisers. Ritter’s machinations were reinforced by the refusal of many members of the U.S. Congress to recognize Nazi economic methods as a serious threat requiring the immediate abandonment of their policy of financial and trade isolationism. The influential Nazi economic position in Latin America that diplomats and salesmen developed between 1935 and 1938 was eventually challenged—not by a foreign power, however, but from inside the Nazi regime. Beginning in 1936 Göring was in charge of the Four-Year Plan. Still facing the dilemma of how to balance export trade, civilian economy, and rearmament, Hitler backed him and made rearmament once again the focus of all efforts. In addition, Göring preferred economic alliances with Italy and Spain. Latin America was seen as less critical than before. The September 1938 Munich crisis suggested to world traders and bankers that artificial Nazi currency could be worthless if war broke out. It was foolish not to return to the predictable, but expensive, U.S. dollar and British pound. Latin American economic planners began to accept the support that the White House had developed independently of the U.S. Congress. It was obvious that during the next German British war, trade with Europe would

reduce sharply, perhaps even stop because of a blockade. The Munich agreement postponed war once more. A coup in Bolivia brought the caudilla German Busch to the presidency. Suddenly, in the Andes, Nazi Germany and imperial Japan found eager business partners. Both entered into far-reaching cooperation agreements in the mining sector. For a short time, it seemed that Nazi Germany might take away Bolivia from British influence. However, after Busch was assassinated, his successor closed Bolivia to Germany. During 1939 German efforts concentrated on protecting assets and companies by hiding German ownership behind third-party nationals. A second effort focused on the preparation of the naval supply service that would redirect German trade to Italy and Spain, two countries projected to be neutral during the next war. The German attack on Poland in fall 1939 brought about the expected interruption in European–Latin American trade. As trade retooled toward neutral countries, it no longer served rearmament but the conduct of aggressive, long-term global war. German victories in Poland and in 1940 in Western Europe encouraged German diplomats to talk about the resumption of Latin American–European trade after the war’s conclusion in rosy colors. Diplomatic talk used carrotand-stick tactics, trying to keep Latin American economists from working closer with U.S. economic warfare specialists. Propaganda prepared Latin Americans for a fascist-controlled European trading block. In the summer of 1940, the fall of France created such a fascist-dominated European trading zone. Regardless, many Latin American economists signed new agreements with the Allied powers in 1940.

LATIN AMERICA, NAZIS

At the same time they promised profascist Europeans that they would be open to return to business once the war had concluded. The decision depended on the future of Great Britain. The majority of civilian trade with Europe came to a halt. In contrast, secret trade of essential raw materials intensified. The Hitler-Stalin pact provided Nazi Germany a new transport route through Siberia, and Imperial Japan remained neutral, acting as a place for transshipment in Asia. Ethnic German business owners found themselves caught in the middle of this constellation. Nazi policy had cut them off from their European suppliers. Nazi leadership had used them as much as possible before 1939, only to disregard them now and to focus on Europe and the Soviet Union. When the attack on Great Britain and the invasion of the Soviet Union did not lead to immediate success, Latin American business continued to seek Allied contracts. After the attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States, British and U.S. economic warfare destroyed the remaining crippled ethnic German economic base in Latin America. Ethnic Germans found their economic existence destroyed as a consequence of German policy, for a second time within thirty years. A small group of ethnic Germans carried on secret economic warfare and intelligence work. Nazi economic relations with Latin America never recovered. Ethnic Germans had to await unconditional surrender and the post–World War II order to locate themselves in the future international world system. Friedrich E. Schuler See also Latin America, Nazi Party in; Treaty of Versailles

IN

651

References and Further Reading Ebel, Arnold. Das Dritte Reich und Argentinien. Die Diplomatischen Beziehungen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Handelspolitik (1933–1939). Cologne/Vienna: Böhlau, 1971. Hilton, Stanley E. Brazil and the Great Powers, 1930–1939: The Politics of Trade Rivalry. Austin: University of Texas, 1975. Humphreys, Robert A. Latin America and the Second World War, Vol. 1 1939–1942, Vol. 2 1942–1945. London : Athlone ; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1981/1982. Newton, Helmuth C. The Nazi Menace in Argentina 1931–1937. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1992. Pommerin, Reiner. Das Dritte Reich und Lateinamerika. Die Deutsche Politik gegenüber Mittel und Südamerika, 1939–1942. Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1977. Schuler, Friedrich E. Mexico between Hitler and Roosevelt. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1998. Volland, Klaus. Das Dritte Reich und Mexiko. Studien zur Entwicklung des deutschmexikanischen Verhältnisses 1933–1942 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ölpolitik. Frankfurt am Main/Bern: Peter Lang, 1976. Wirth, John D. The Politics of Brazilian Development. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 1970.

LATIN AMERICA, NAZIS

IN Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of European Fascists fled to South America after World War II to escape prosecution for war crimes. They included such notorious figures as Adolf Eichmann, architect of the Holocaust, who fled to Argentina; Josef Mengele, the sadistic doctor of the Auschwitz concentration camp, who died in Brazil; and Klaus Barbie, responsible for thousands of killings in occupied France,

652

LATIN AMERICA, NAZIS

IN

who found sanctuary in Bolivia. Many lesser-known criminals from Nazi Germany and Fascist organizations in Croatia, Ukraine, Belgium, and elsewhere entered South American countries secretly or, in some cases, with the connivance of authoritarian governments. Although the Soviet Union, the United States, and other countries also welcomed fleeing Fascists who had technical skills or intelligence to offer, South America played an especially prominent role as a haven for Nazis. European Fascists who went this route could exploit links of ideological, religious, and ethnic affinity. Some Latin American dictators such as Juan Domingo Perón, who drew on Benito Mussolini’s Fascist movement as a model for political mobilization, were sympathetic to Nazi officials during the war and sought to assist them afterward. A network of anti-Communist Catholic priests and a few cardinals helped right-wing Catholics implicated in war crimes flee via Austria and Italy to Argentina. Once in South America, Nazis could often find asylum among communities of German expatriates in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Paraguay, where the Nazi Party had built local organizations during the 1930s. The Argentine government of Perón was unusually active. After the war, Argentine officials set up offices in Europe to encourage immigration as part of a crash industrialization program. These overt efforts provided cover for a more concentrated covert program of assisting Fascists, run by officials who worked in Perón’s immigration ministry and intelligence agencies. However, the goal was not so much to provide asylum for criminals as to seek out skilled labor and advanced technology. It

was apparently successful: in 1947 Argentina produced its own jet fighter with the help of imported Nazi engineers. Latin America was not the only region to take advantage of the decommissioned human resources of the Third Reich. The United States space program is indebted to Wernher von Braun, who helped build Hitler’s V-2 rockets using slave laborers from concentration camps in the underground factories at Peenemunde. Von Braun arrived in the United States via Operation Paperclip, a once-secret program that eventually brought, by one count, 765 German scientists, engineers, and technicians into the United States; between half and three-quarters were former Nazi Party members or SS men, and more than a few of them were guilty of war crimes. The Soviet Union carried off German technicians and laborers in large numbers after the war, and the intelligence agencies of both superpowers recruited well-informed Nazis into their ranks. Perhaps the most notorious was Klaus Barbie, who worked for and was sheltered by the U.S. Army’s Counterintelligence Corps (CIC) after the war. The CIC also protected Otto von Bolschwing, a senior aide to Adolf Eichmann. France likewise enlisted former Waffen-SS into the Foreign Legion to fight against national liberation movements in its colonies. The presence of high-ranking Nazis in Latin America drew worldwide attention because of the investigations of Nazi hunters Simon Wiesenthal and Beate Klarsfeld. In 1960 Israeli agents kidnapped Eichmann from his home in Argentina and brought him to stand trial in Jerusalem, where he was convicted of mass murder and executed. Mengele eluded capture for

LEESER, ISAAC

years in Paraguay and southern Brazil, sparking rumors of sightings across the region and skepticism when his body was found in 1985. Forensic tests, however, confirmed Mengele had died in 1979. Barbie, whose American handlers sent him to South America after his cover was blown in 1951, ran an intelligence network for a series of Bolivian dictatorships until a leftist government came to power and extradited him to France in 1983, where he was convicted and died in prison in 1991. Such high-profile cases fueled a widespread image of all of South America as a Nazi haven and a launchpad for a Fourth Reich organized by aging Nazis. Hollywood productions of conspiratorial novels such as The Boys from Brazil (1978) and The Odessa File (1974) fueled this impression, as did exaggerated estimates that as many as 50,000 Nazis were hiding in South America. The most thorough recent investigation, by Uki Goñi, identified 300 war criminals admitted to Argentina after the war, most of them Croatian Fascists. Max Paul Friedman See also Argentina; Barbie, Klaus; Braun, Wernher von; Eichmann, Karl Adolf; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Nuremberg Trials; Paraguay References and Further Reading Goñi, Uki. The Real Odessa: Smuggling the Nazis to Perón’s Argentina. London: Granta, 2002. Gurevich, Beatriz, and Paul Warzawski. Proyecto testimonio. Buenos Aires: Planeta, 1998. Hunt, Linda. Secret Agenda: The United States Government, Nazi Scientists, and Project Paperclip, 1945–1990. New York: St. Martin’s, 1991. Loftus, John, and Mark Aarons. Unholy Trinity. New York: St. Martin’s, 1998. Meding, Holger. Flucht vor Nürnberg? Köln: Böhlau, 1992.

653

LEESER, ISAAC b. December 12, 1806; Neukirchen, Westphalia d. February 1, 1868; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Prominent German American Jewish religious leader, educator, and writer. He was a modern orthodox leader who sought to preserve Jewish law and practice while making moderate cultural modifications of Judaism to American life. Leeser laid the foundations for modern orthodoxy and Conservative Judaism in the United States. Apart from establishing the first significant Jewish periodical in America, Leeser was also active in the formation of the first Jewish Sunday school in the United States, protested against antisemitism and Christian missionaries, and translated canonical Jewish texts into English. Leeser was educated by orthodox rabbi Abraham Sutro in Dulmen, Lower Saxony, and obtained secular education at the Gymnasium of Muenster. At the age of eighteen (1824), he went to America to work for his uncle in Richmond, Virginia. Although his knowledge of Jewish subjects was limited, the young immigrant read widely on his own and proved himself articulate. At the age of twenty-two (1828) Leeser published a series of six articles in defense of Jews in Richmond’s Whig. These articles attracted wide notice, and in 1829 the influential Sephardi congregation in Philadelphia (Mikveh Israel) invited him to be its cantor. A year later (1830) Leeser began regular preaching in English, an innovation that earned him the label “reformer” from his congregants. But Leeser strongly opposed Reform Judaism because he insisted

654

LENI, PAUL

that changes could be justified only in accordance with Jewish law, which is divine and eternal. Thus he was willing to endorse only moderate cultural adaptations, such as modern garb, English prayers, and a larger role for women in Jewish education. Perhaps Leeser’s greatest achievement was the seventeen-year project of translating the Hebrew Bible into English, which was published in 1845. Leeser also provided the first English translation of a Sephardic prayer book and wrote numerous textbooks for children. In 1838 Leeser cooperated with Rebecca Gratz in establishing the first Jewish Sunday school, aimed at providing Philadelphia’s Jewish children some kind of religious education and countering the influence of Christian missionaries. In his last years Leeser established the first (though short-lived) American Jewish rabbinical school. In 1843 Leeser founded the monthly The Occident, which was the first successful American Jewish newspaper and spread Leeser’s name and traditional views across Jewish communities in America. Through his publication Leeser was among the most outspoken Jewish voices against antisemitism and Christian proselytizing. In 1859 he was a cofounder of the first American Jewish national organization (The Board of Delegates of American Israelites), which set out to represent American Jews and struggle against anti-Jewish discrimination. During the Civil War, Leeser bitterly protested against General Grant’s notorious order in December 1862 (later revoked by President Abraham Lincoln), which expelled Jews “as a class” from the U.S. Army’s Department of Tennessee. After the war he warned American Jews that the crusade to add a Christian amendment to the Constitution could turn into

an anti-Jewish campaign. Leeser’s advice to the Jewish community was always to use the ballot, the pen, and their right of free speech to defend their rights. Gil Ribak See also German Jewish Migration to the United States; Judaism, Reform (North America) References and Further Reading Davis, Moshe. The Emergence of Conservative Judaism: The Historical School in Nineteenth Century America. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1963. Korn, Bertram Wallace. “Isaac Leeser: Centennial Reflections.” American Jewish Archives 19 (November 1967): 127–141. Sussman, Lance J. Isaac Leeser and the Making of American Judaism. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 1996.

LENI, PAUL b. July 8, 1895; Stuttgart,Württemberg d. September 2, 1929; Los Angeles, California German actor, art director, and movie director who came to Hollywood in 1927 and directed several influential horror films. A polyvalent artist, Leni debuted in the movie industry in 1914 as an art director and set designer for German directors such as Joe May, Edwald André Dupont, and a few others. He also worked briefly as a painter in Der Sturm (The Storm) movement and as an actor during the 1910s. From his German period, his best movie as a director was Hintertreppe (Backstairs, which he codirected with Leopold Jessner, 1921), made in the realistic, Kammerspielfilm trend. On his own, Leni also directed a typical expressionist film titled Das Wachsfig-

LENK, MARGARETE

urencabinett (Waxworks, 1924), which was a strange and rather pale copy of Robert Wiene’s Das Cabinett des Doktor Caligari (1920), made with the same actors (Werner Krauss and Conrad Veidt). Invited to Universal Studios by a Germanborn producer named Carl Laemmle, Leni emigrated to the United States in 1927 and directed four films in less than three years. Among those produced in Hollywood were an influential horror movie, The Cat and the Canary (1927), and a melodrama, The Man Who Laughs (1928), the latter freely adapted from Victor Hugo’s novel L’Homme qui rit (in some points similar to his famous story titled The Hunchback of Notre-Dame), again with actor Veidt. But the ending of Leni’s version of The Man Who Laughs was drastically changed from the original book. While in Hollywood, Leni also directed the first version of The Chinese Parrot (1927) and The Last Warning (1929). Yves Laberge See also Hollywood References and Further Reading Buache, Freddy. Leni. Paris, Anthologie du cinéma, No. 33, mars 1968. Ebert, Roger. “The Man Who Laughs.” Chicago Sun Times, January 18, 2004. Available at http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ greatmovies/themanwholaughs.html (accessed May 10, 2005). Gleizes, Delphine ed.. L’oeuvre de Victor Hugo à l’écran. Des rayons et des ombres. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2005. Palmier, Jean-Michel. L’expressionnisme et les arts. Paris: Payot, 1980.

LENK, MARGARETE b. August 29, 1841; Leipzig, Saxony d. 1917 (Exact date unknown); Grün (Vogtland),Thuringia

655

German author who wrote novels about her experiences in the United States. She was the daughter of Julius Ludwig Klee, who taught at the Leipzig Gymnasium, the high school for the university-bound elite. The family moved to Dresden when Margarete was eight years old, as her father took the prestigious position of director of the city Gymnasium. She received a humanist education based on the classics. Her father’s involvement with education only furthered his daughter’s interests and opportunities. Margarete began tutoring and teaching out of her home and in 1863 passed the teacher examination and received certification. She founded and directed her own school. For her endeavors, she needed a teacher of religion, a required class in German schools, and a candidate in theology, Emil O. Lenk, took the job. Margarete married Pastor Lenk in 1868 when he was called to serve a congregation in Siebenlehn, Saxony. After five years in that community, both embarked to St. Louis, Missouri, in 1873, where Pastor Lenk became the minister of one of the largest Lutheran churches, Bethlehem. He served in that capacity from 1874–1883. At the end of his service to this congregation, he and his wife moved to Millstadt, Illinois, about ten miles east of St. Louis, where they served a much smaller church. The Lenks remained in America for fifteen years and returned to Germany because Pastor Lenk received a request from the Johannis congregation in Niederplanitz near Zwickau, Saxony, to establish an independent congregation in Vogtland. Margarete Lenk and her husband remained in Grün near Lengenfeld, Vogtland, for the rest of their lives. Margarete Lenk became a writer only upon her return to Germany. At the age of

656

LEO BAECK INSTITUTE

forty-eight, she had the idea to put to paper some memories of her stay in America. She was particularly interested in the life of youths and many of her stories and novels are about young people or written for a young audience. Her first work, the memories of her stay in America, was sent to the publisher von Steinkopf in Stuttgart in 1896 by her brother Gotthold Klee, a teacher and writer himself. The publishing house Johann Herrmann in Zwickau, Saxony, accepted her work, and it was first published in a pamphlet addressed to young readers entitled Im Fernen Westen, deutsche Ansielder in Nordamerika: Eine wahre Erzählung (In the Far West: German Settlers in North America: A True Story) and later at Christmas time as a volume of a youth library. Encouraged by her success, Lenk published many more stories and novels for youths, many of which appeared in second and third editions. Although she wrote in German, many of her youth novels were translated into Swedish and Norwegian, as well as English. Lenk’s fictional account of German immigrants’ lives, Im Fernen Westen, and her autobiographical novel, Fünfzehn Jahre in Amerika (Fifteen Years in America), published in 1896 and 1911, respectively, received relatively large success in that each had several editions. Her novel Im Fernen Westen follows the lives of several German immigrant families in western Missouri in the mid-nineteenth century. Interestingly, Lenk addresses the issue of veracity in her subtitle “eine wahre Erzählung” (a true story). She attempts to make it clear from the outset that hers—unlike Gottfried Duden’s—is a real story based on fact. The immigrant’s dream, according to Lenk, is a community based on German culture with a church and a school, not the rugged life

one might eke out of the wilderness as an immigrant. While she details the lives of the German immigrants, Lenk conveys the message that Christian values and German culture are important and need to be protected at all costs in the New World. Her experiences that led her across the Atlantic and back find expression in her literary work and emphasize the importance German immigrants and their culture had on the formation of the American cultural landscape until World War I. With the outbreak of that war, the cherished values Lenk emphasized and upheld, as well as the German inhabitants themselves, came under attack. Anabel Aliaga-Buchenau See also Duden, Gottfried; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Shlebitzki Pickle, Linda. “Women of the Saxon Immigration and Their Church.” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 57 (1984): 146–151.

LEO BAECK INSTITUTE Founded in 1955 to document, research, and publish the distinct history of German Jewry and its impact on German society from the Enlightenment to the Holocaust. The Leo Baeck Institute (LBI) was established in the three main centers of German Jewish emigration and German Jewish life after the Holocaust: London, New York, and Jerusalem. German Jewish emigrants and Holocaust survivors who organized the American Federation of Jews from Central Europe had already voiced the desire to preserve the memory, history, and cultural heritage of German-speaking Jewry with its distinct identity and dedication to Wis-

LEO BAECK INSTITUTE

senschaft des Judentums (Science of Judaism) as it had developed between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Although individual Jewish historians and scholars had discussed such a project, the idea could not be realized due to a lack of funding and the question arose of how to organize such a project in a community as dispersed and financially shaken as that of German Jewry. However, when the Federal Republic of Germany started restitution payments and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany found itself in a position to support cultural projects outside of Germany, these funds enabled a group of leading intellectuals to create a scholarly institution in the memory of German Jewry. In the summer of 1953 Siegfried Moses, chairman of the Israeli audit division and former chairman of the Zionist Association of Germany officially applied for funds for the establishment of a Leo Baeck Institute of Jews from Germany. At the end of May 1955 prominent German Jewish scholars such as Max Gruenewald, Robert Welsch, Hans Reichmann, Ernst Simon, Martin Buber, Gershom Sholem, Curt Worman, and Siegfried Moses met to define the mission of the future institute, which they considered to be to further scholarly research on German Jewish history from the Enlightenment to the Holocaust and to collect archival material and publish academic research related to German Jewry. Consequently, they decided to ask Leo Baeck, the unquestioned leader of German Jewry and a Holocaust survivor, to allow them to name the institute after him and to serve as the first president of the institute. In 1955 the initiative was granted a first installment of $42,000 and in the same year the Leo Baeck Insti-

657

Rabbi Leo Baeck, Reform theologian, leader of German Jewry, and Holocaust survivor. When Baeck died soon after taking up the presidency of the Leo Baeck Institute in 1956, Siegfried Moses succeeded him as international president of the institute. (Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion)

tute was founded with three bases in London, New York, and Jerusalem. When Baeck died soon after taking up the presidency of the institute in 1956, Siegfried Moses succeeded him as international president. He was followed in office by Gruenewald and Michael A. Meyer, professor of Jewish History at the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio. While the New York branch of the institute turned into a research center and focused on building up a collection of archival source material as well as an extensive library and archives under the guidance of Gruenewald and Max Kreutzberger, the London-based LBI became the center for the publication of the Leo Baeck

658

LEOPOLDINE FOUNDATION

Institute Yearbook, a quarterly periodical that was first edited by Welsch, then by Arnold Paucker, and is currently edited by John Grenville. The institute also publishes a scholarly series in German, the Schriftenreihe wissenschaftlicher Abhandlungen des Leo Baeck Instituts (Series of Scholarly Accounts of the LBI). In addition, the Jerusalem LBI serves as a center for research on German Jewry in Israel and publishes the German-language Bulletin of the Leo Baeck Institute. Due to a growing scholarly interest in the history of German Jewry in Germany during the 1980s, the LBI organized the Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft des Leo Baeck Instituts in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Scholarly Workshop of the LBI in the Federal Republic of Germany). The Arbeitsgemeinschaft is based in Frankfurt am Main and has become a central network for German scholars in German Jewish studies. Currently it is chaired by Michael Brenner, professor for Jewish history and culture in Munich. In 1999 the LBI in New York City moved into the Jewish Center in New York, which constitutes a major hub for Jewish research together with the American Jewish Historical Society and the YIVO Institute of Jewish Research. In 2001 the LBI New York opened the Leo Baeck Archive in Berlin to make its materials accessible for research in Germany. Cornelia Wilhelm See also New York City References and Further Reading Hoffmann, Christhard. “Deutsch-jüdische Geschichtswissenschaft in der Emigration: das Leo-Baeck Institut.” In Die Emigration der Wissenschaften nach 1933. Eds. Herbert Strauss et al. München, London, New York, Paris: K. G. Saur, 1991, pp. 257–279.

Hoffmann, Christhard, in cooperation with the LBI Jerusalem, ed. The History of the Leo Baeck Institute, 1955–2005. Tübingen: Siebeck Mohr, 2005. Jacobs, Robert. “Das Leo Baeck Institut. Juden und Deutsche nach der Shoah.” In Aufbau nach dem Untergang. Eds. Andreas Nachama and Julius Schoeps. Berlin: Argon, 1992, pp. 381–388. Meyer, Michael A. “Das Leo Baeck Institut und das neuvereinigte Deutschland.” LBI Information II (1991/1992): 1–7. Schaber, Will. “Das New Yorker Leo Baeck Institute.” In Deutschsprachige Exilliteratur seit 1933. Eds. John M. Spalek and Joseph Strelka. Vol. 2, II. Bern: Francke Verlag, 1989, pp. 1403–1408.

LEOPOLDINE FOUNDATION Vienna-based mission society that supported the development of the Catholic Church in North America during the nineteenth century. The foundation, along with the French Society for the Propagation of the Faith (Lyons, 1822) and the Bavarian Ludwig-Missionsverein (Munich, 1838), was one of three major European mission societies of the century. Both the Leopoldine Foundation (Leopoldinen-Stiftung) and the Ludwig-Missionsverein were particularly helpful to the German American Catholic population, to whom the societies sent funds and transported German missionary priests. The Leopoldine Foundation originated from the efforts of Bishop Edward Fenwick and his vicar general, Frederic Rese, to secure donations for the diocese of Cincinnati, Ohio. Fenwick had sent Rese (who later became the bishop of Detroit, Michigan) to Rome in 1827. After attending to business in Rome, Rese traveled to Vienna and Munich in 1828. During his

LEOPOLDINE FOUNDATION

visits in these two cities, Rese described the financial and spiritual troubles facing German Catholics in the United States. The prince archbishop of Vienna, Leopold Maximilian Graf von Firmian, received Rese warmly and helped Rese secure support for the creation of a mission society from the Austrian chancellor, Baron Metternich and the Austrian emperor, Francis I. After receiving the official sanction of Pope Leo XII in the Bull Quamquam plura sint (January 30, 1829), the Leopoldine Foundation (named after emperor Francis’s favorite daughter, the late Empress of Brazil, Leopoldine) was founded in Vienna on March 13, 1829. The goal of the society was to support Catholics in North America through the donation of funds and spiritual articles. The society drew its resources from membership dues, collections, and donations from the Austrian government. In addition, the society procured and transported German-speaking priests across the Atlantic. Such efforts were deemed particularly important given the overall shortage of priests, especially German priests, in the United States. German Catholics on both sides of the Atlantic claimed that a great many German Catholic immigrants had lost or were losing their faith because they lacked priests who could administer spiritual care in their native tongue. Officially the statutes of the foundation did not specify that the donations were to be distributed along national lines; rather, they were to go to the American bishops, who in turn were to allocate the funds to the parishes most in need. In practice, however, the majority of the funds were administered to parishes possessing a substantial German Catholic membership. The contributions of the so-

659

ciety enabled the construction of many Catholic schools and churches in the United States. American Protestant and nativist critics alleged that the Leopoldine Foundation was part of an Austrian plot (authored by Metternich) to subvert American democracy. The inventor of the telegraph, Samuel F. B. Morse, used his pen most vehemently against the “popery” of a monarchical Austrian state. In his Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United States through Foreign Immigration and the Present State of Naturalization Laws (1854), Morse argued that Metternich had wished to use the Leopoldine Foundation to undermine the Monroe Doctrine (1823) and spread reactionary sentiment, which dominated Europe after the Congress of Vienna (1815), across the waters of the Atlantic Ocean. Morse’s words carried weight with American nativists, who viewed Catholic Europe’s Ultramontanism as anathema to the American revolutionary tradition of political independence and free thought. Despite such criticisms, the society continued to aid the American Catholic Church until World War I caused its termination in 1914. Kevin Ostoyich See also Ludwig-Missionsverein References and Further Reading Blied, Benjamin J. Austrian Aid to American Catholics, 1830–1860. Milwaukee, WI, 1944. Kummer, Gertrude. Die Leopoldinen-Stiftung (1829–1914): Der älteste österreichische Missionsverein. Wien: Wiener Dom-Verlag, 1966. Roemer, Theodore, O. F. M. Cap. The Leopoldine Foundation and the Church in the United States (1829–1839). New York: The United States Catholic Historical Society, 1933.

660

LEUTZE, EMANUEL GOTTLIEB

LEUTZE, EMANUEL GOTTLIEB b. May 24, 1816; Schwäbisch-Gmünd, Württemberg d. July 18, 1868;Washington, D.C. German American painter who produced the famous painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. In 1825 Leutze’s parents decided to leave Württemberg for the United States to avoid political persecution. The family settled in Philadelphia. After his father died in 1831, Leutze provided for the family by producing paintings. Interested in the arts, he enrolled in John Rubens Smith’s art classes in 1834. Two years later, he received his first serious commission. He was to paint portraits of famous figures for publication in Longacre and Herring’s National Portrait Gallery of Distinguished Americans. When this project failed, Leutze sustained himself as an itinerant portrait painter and was very welcome in the homes of the Fredericksburg area of Virginia. Supported by generous patrons, he went back to Europe in 1841 to study art. After a short stay in Amsterdam, he enrolled in the Düsseldorf Academy, at this time the most famous European school of art, to develop his painting skills. Christopher Columbus was the topic of his first painting in Düsseldorf. This painting depicted Columbus before the High Council of Salamanca and bore that title. A second painting showed Columbus returning in chains to Cadiz. In 1842 Leutze broke with tradition by opening an art studio rather than remaining at the academy as an apprentice for seven years. He avoided open conflict by leaving the city to travel for a few years. His journey took him to Munich and Italy. By 1845 Leutze was back in Düsseldorf, where he married Juliane Lottner, the daughter of a military officer, and con-

tinued his career as an independent artist. In spite of his fondness for life in Germany, Leutze thought of himself as an American artist who lived abroad. He considered himself a temporary resident who produced paintings for the American market. Not without reason, Leutze hoped for recognition in his home country—the United States. Both the Apollo Association and the American Art Union displayed and praised his paintings. However, he also gained a reputation among his German colleagues, who saw in him a leader of the nonacademic artists’ community. Upon his return from Italy, Leutze was elected president of the Union of Düsseldorf Artists for Mutual Aid and Support. Over the years, Leutze produced several paintings focusing on great men and women in history. He painted Oliver Cromwell and his Daughter (1842–1843), Elizabeth and Raleigh (1845), John Knox and Mary Queen of Scots (1845), The Mission of the Jews to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella (1846), and The Festive Reception of Columbus after his First Discovery of America (circa 1847–1848). All of these themes had been painted before. Leutze was in desperate need of a new and unique topic. He wanted to produce a series of pictures about the American struggle for freedom and civil liberties, in which the New World would occupy a prominent role as the perceived land of unlimited freedom and spiritual rebirth. In 1849 Leutze began work on his most famous painting Washington Crossing the Delaware. It was nearly finished in November 1850, when a fire broke out in his art studio and destroyed parts of this painting. After repairs it was exhibited in Düsseldorf, Cologne, Berlin, and in the Bremer Kunsthalle. The Allied bombings of Bremen during World War II

LEUTZE, EMANUEL GOTTLIEB

661

Washington Crossing the Delaware, 1851 painting by Emanuel Leutze. (Bettmann/Corbis)

destroyed the gallery and Leutze’s painting. However, it was not lost because Leutze had produced a copy of it immediately after the destruction of his studio. This second Washington Crossing the Delaware was sent to the United States and displayed in New York and Washington before the Metropolitan Museum of Art purchased it. Leutze was not the first to produce a painting that dealt with the prelude to George Washington’s attack on the British in 1776. In contrast to prior artists, Leutze, however, portrayed the actual crossing of the Delaware. It is not clear whether Leutze painted this picture for an American or German audience. After the failed revolution of 1848–1849, Leutze showed his fellow German liberals that it was possible to overcome a situation in which the enemies seemed to have all the advantages. The crossing of the Delaware offered hope to the beaten and humiliated German revolu-

tionaries. In the United States, audiences celebrated this naturalistic, although in some respects, historically inaccurate, portrayal of the American struggle for independence from Great Britain. After a short stay in the United States in 1852, Leutze returned to Düsseldorf and continued producing paintings about George Washington (Washington at Dorchester Heights, Washington as the Young Surveyor). Leutze thus participated and profited from the ensuing heroization of Washington throughout the nineteenth century. In 1854 he finished his painting Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth. In contrast to the very positive reception of his Washington Crossing the Delaware, art critics and art journals denounced this new painting. An influential art journal, The Crayon, commented that “an incident like this is not in the slightest degree heroic, and not calculated by its

662

LEWIS, SINCLAIR

commemoration to elevate the character of its hero in the minds of his countrymen; it is therefore not a subject which ought to be chosen for a picture” (Groseclose 1975, 45–46). However, American critics missed the point. They overlooked Leutze’s depiction of Washington’s zeal and courage that induced his soldiers to reestablish order and discipline. It was another reflection of Germany’s political conditions in the 1850s. In the words of art historian Barbara S. Groseclose: “If Washington Crossing the Delaware is a metaphor of encouragement to the politically despondent, Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth is a stimulus to action to reassembling scattered forces and renewing the fight” (Groseclose 1975, 46). The fight, however, was not the American Revolution but the fight for political freedoms in Germany. During the following years, Leutze produced several portraits (Ferdinand Lottner, 1852; Worthington Whittredge, 1856). He was respected by German colleagues and mentored several American artists (William Morris Hunt, Worthington Whittredge, George Hall, Eastman Johnson, and Albert Bierstadt, among others) who moved to Düsseldorf because they were attracted by Leutze’s fame. Political and economic pressures forced him to return to the United States in late 1858. He arrived at Boston in January 1859, hoping he would be commissioned to paint a mural of Washington Crossing the Delaware and Washington Rallying the Troops at Monmouth in the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This idea originally went back to a petition submitted by Leutze to Congress during his short American visit in 1852. Although invited to Washington, D.C., Leutze did not receive any news about this project over the next two years. Mean-

while, he was fully occupied with private commissions (The Founding of Maryland for C. M. Connelly of New York). In summer 1861, Leutze received a government contract for a painting to be titled Westward the Course of Empire Takes Its Way (popularly known as Westward Ho!). After an excursion into the Rocky Mountains, Leutze painted the mural directly upon the wall of the great stairway in the House of Representatives. When the project was completed, Leutze returned to Düsseldorf to bring his family to the United States. They settled first in New York then in Washington, D.C., where Leutze continued to paint. Thomas Adam References and Further Reading Goldstein, Ernest. Emanuel Leutze, Washington Crossing the Delaware. New York: Garrard, 1983. Groseclose, Barbara S. Emanuel Leutze, 1816–1868: Freedom Is the Only King. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1975. Stehle, Raymond L. The Life and Works of Emanuel Leutze. Washington, DC, 1972.

LEWIS, SINCLAIR b. February 7, 1885; Sauk Centre, Minnesota d. January 10, 1951; Rome, Italy American author who resided in Berlin in the late 1920s. Berlin and Germany occupy prominent places in his writing. Lewis attended Yale University and held various jobs before devoting his full time to writing in 1915. With his triumphant bestselling novels Main Street (1920) and Babbitt (1922), he rapidly established an international reputation, which culminated in the award of the Nobel Prize for literature

LEWIS, SINCLAIR

in 1930. He thus became the first American writer honored with this prestigious award. In the aforementioned novels and also in most of his other novels, Lewis satirized and criticized the American middle class and attacked its way of life—its provincialism, religious and moral hypocrisy, money grabbing, conformity, and racial prejudices. As a result, his books have raised storms of protest; he has been alternately maligned and praised. Babbitt was not only his most important novel, but, in the opinion of many critics, his best. The name of the novel’s leading figure, Babbitt, has passed into general usage in American English. After World War I, some American writers became very popular, not only in the United States but also in the Old World and especially in Weimar Germany. The best known of all was Lewis, whose award of the Nobel Prize was publicized in large, capital letters on the front page of the November 6, 1930, issue of the Berliner Tageblatt. This was not terribly surprising. Lewis’s relationship with Berlin was of a special kind. During his many visits to Europe, he had often traveled in Germany and regularly made Berlin a residence of his, particularly in the years 1927–1928, when he not only contacted such leading representatives of the literary scene of the Weimar Republic as Thomas, Heinrich, Klaus and Erika Mann, Lion Feuchtwanger, Carl Zuckmayer, and Ernst Rowohlt, but also met the woman who would later become his second wife, the journalist Dorothy Thompson, who was then the Berlin correspondent of the Philadelphia Public-Ledger and the New York Evening Post. Lewis’s marital crisis and the turbulent events of his private life at the end of the

663

Poster for Detroit Federal Theatre Project presentation of It Can’t Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis at the Lafayette Theatre, ca. 1936. (Library of Congress)

1920s were fictionalized in his novel, Dodsworth (1929), part of which is situated in Berlin. The protagonist’s impressions of the German capital at various places in this highly autobiographical novel more or less directly reflect the author’s own view of Berlin and his personal Berlin experiences. The retired midwestern businessman, Sam Dodsworth, simply abhorred the “Manhattanization” of Berlin, called the city’s architecture disgusting, disliked the arrogant aristocrats he had met, and was shocked by the decadence and moral degeneration of the German capital’s nightlife. He preferred the outdoor lunch at a low Volk Lokal where he watched and liked the Berliners on their Sunday excursion. To the German literati of the Weimar Republic,

664

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT

Lewis’s novels became the very symbol of modern American literature. They enormously stimulated a new phase of the German American cultural relationship and intensified the transatlantic literary exchange. Klaus Mann confessed that it was Lewis who transmitted to him an authentic and plastic image of America. Kurt Tucholsky praised Babbitt as the “American Buddenbrooks,” and Arnold Zweig accentuated in his Impressionen über Sinclair Lewis (1931) the American author as a social critic unique in kind and of great importance to world literature. Lion Feuchtwanger even went so far as to americanize his name to “Wetcheek” when he published his book, Pep. H. L. Wetcheek’s American Songbook (1928), which he dedicated to the much-admired “good American, Sinclair Lewis.” Irritated and aroused by the growing activities of rightist organizations and Hitler admirers in the United States and strongly backed by his wife, Dorothy Thompson, herself an unrelenting antiFascist, Lewis wrote at red-hot speed and intensity his utopian novel, It Can’t Happen Here (1935), in which he depicted his own country in the iron grip of a homegrown American dictator. This vision of a native American fascism also was greatly influenced by the book, Fatherland (1935, the English version of Schutzhäftling Nr. 880), a chronicle of life in a Nazi concentration camp, by Karl Billinger (a pseudonym for Paul W. Massing, who emigrated to America in 1934). Lewis not only made ample use of the German author’s shocking prison experiences but also expressly named Billinger and Fatherland in his novel. Eberhard Brüning

See also Huebsch, Ben W., and the Viking Press Imprint; Mann, Thomas; Thompson, Dorothy; Travel Literature, German-U.S.; Zuckmayer, Carl References and Further Reading Brüning, Eberhard. Sinclair Lewis und die endgültige Emanzipation der amerikanischen Literatur. Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Phil.-hist. Klasse. Bd. 123, Heft 1. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982. ———. “Berlin as Seen by American Writers 1890–1940.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik no. 2 (1990): 112–128. Schorer, Mark. Sinclair Lewis: An American Life. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT The Liberal Republican movement was a political schism that originated among disaffected Republicans, including prominent German Americans, during the first term of Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency. As this intraparty conflict intensified, a rift nearly opened between Prussia and the United States. The movement culminated without causing a rupture in German American relations when Grant defeated Horace Greeley, the nominee of the newly formed Liberal Republican Party and the editor of the New York Tribune, in 1872. German Americans were an important voting bloc as a result of rapid emigration before the Civil War. Yet increasing class and religious tensions produced wedge issues that fragmented the community’s influence. Political parties freely vied for the support of German Americans as a result. The war temporarily united a majority of German Americans—including FortyEighters who immigrated to the United States after failed revolutions in Europe— behind the Republican Party in a “second

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT

fight for freedom” against slavery. But lasting differences quickly emerged within this majority as well. Several German Americans were among those who nominated John Frémont to run against President Abraham Lincoln in 1864, and some of these Radical Democrats would rally behind another cause that stressed efficiency and honesty in the administration of government: the Liberal Republican movement. As the issue of Reconstruction waned in importance after the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s successor, and with the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Liberal Republicans sought to place new issues on the national agenda. Tariff, revenue, and civil service reform became the rallying cries of political and ethnic clubs in cities like Chicago, Cincinnati, Louisville, New Orleans, San Antonio, and St. Louis. Building upon this western program, Senator Carl Schurz (R–Missouri) and the “best men” in politics soon joined northeastern qualms about Grant’s plan to annex San Domingo (the modern Dominican Republic) with southern calls for a general amnesty bill. As the popularity of the Liberal Republican movement grew rapidly around the country in 1871, Grant (in an effort to preserve party unity) addressed the concerns this development raised during the last session of the Forty-First Congress (December 1871–March 1872). Cognizant of the possibility that their issues were in danger of being co-opted, Liberal Republicans in turn sought to use this session to their advantage; thus a series of investigations based on Congress’s right to oversee and inquire allowed them to refine

665

and reinforce their case against Grant. Of the investigations Liberal Republicans called for, perhaps the French arms scandal was the most significant. During the Franco-Prussian War, the American government sold hundreds of thousands of surplus rifles (and newly manufactured rounds of ammunition) to the French. Though not against the law, the sale, which was discontinued in 1871, ran contrary to America’s stated position of neutrality (as expressed in relations with Great Britain and Spain). The scandal was raised anew a year later when it was charged that the War Department had been cheated of its rightful share of the sale’s profits. To Liberal Republicans, this demonstrated the incapacity and corruption of the Grant administration. The facts of the initial sale, however, were just as troubling, if not more so, to German Americans who championed the cause of their homeland. Though damage to the reputation of the United States was largely avoided as a result of Prussia’s victory, had not the fall of the French emperor, Napoleon III, occurred before the war’s end (in favor of a republican government), outrage at the administration’s aid to a country that had recently worked against American interests (by violating the Monroe Doctrine in Mexico) might not have been mitigated easily. Ambassador Elihu Washburne’s willingness to shield Prussians in Paris from French reprisals similarly mollified Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The accusations Liberal Republicans lodged against the administration were difficult to prove, and a congressional committee made up largely of Grant supporters quickly put the issue to rest, but not before

666

LIEBER, FRANCIS

harm had been done to the Republican Party’s reputation in the German American community. Grant’s position improved after the Liberal Republicans selected Greeley (who was not as popular among German Americans as other candidates might have been) as their nominee, though not to the extent that Republicans could assume victory was foreordained; Grant’s reelection depended on his party’s ability to limit defections, particularly among German Americans. To counter the injury done by the French arms scandal and generate turnout among German Americans, Republicans took several steps during the campaign. Major General Franz Sigel, the highestranking German American officer during the Civil War, was recruited to speak on Grant’s behalf, most notably in September at a soldiers’ and sailors’ convention in Pittsburgh. Lesser-known federal bureaucrats like Simon Wolf, the register of deeds from the District of Columbia, made speeches in German—head-to-head with followers of Schurz like Joseph Pulitzer— in swing states like Indiana. The party also subsidized the German-language press, so much so that by one tally in August, 119 German American papers supported Grant to the 105 such papers that supported Greeley. Organizations loosely tied to the party, like the German-American United and the German-American Progressive Associations, also worked diligently on Grant’s behalf, coming together at a celebratory Grand German National Convention in New York in October. The Republican Party (through the Union Republican Congressional Committee) put out several German-language pamphlets as well. Grant’s military fame, concerns about the progress of Reconstruction, and the

Liberal Republican failure to fuse with the Democratic Party would prove too much for the movement to overcome in light of the success Republicans had in minimizing their vulnerabilities. The strength of Grant’s victory—he won with 55.6 percent of the popular vote—has since overshadowed the uncertainty that surrounded the election. Greeley’s unexpected demise less than a month after the polls closed would be the legacy most associated with the movement’s collapse, though the politicization of America’s foreign policy during the Gilded Age had just begun. Robert Burg See also Forty-Eighters; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Politics and German Americans; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz References and Further Reading Engle, Stephen D. Yankee Dutchman: The Life of Franz Sigel. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, 1993. Levine, Bruce. The Spirit of 1848: German Immigrants, Labor Conflict, and the Coming of the Civil War. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1992. Nevins, Allan. Hamilton Fish: The Inner History of the Grant Administration. 2 vols. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1936. Trefousse, Hans L. Carl Schurz: A Biography. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1982. Wittke, Carl. Refugees of Revolution: The German Forty-Eighters in America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1952.

LIEBER, FRANCIS (FRANZ) b. March 18, 1800; Berlin, Prussia d. October 2, 1872; New York City German American jurist, scholar of international and constitutional law, penologist, educator, and author. As a teenager, Lieber fought against Napoleon. After recovering

LIEBER, FRANCIS

from his wounds, he returned to Berlin to study at the Gymnasium under Friedrich Ludwig Jahn, the founder of the modern Turner movement, and then at the University of Berlin under Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Jakob Friedrich Fries, and Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher, where his participation in the activities of the student fraternities (Burschenschaften) brought him into conflict with the conservative and reactionary forces of the time. The defeat of Napoleon had given fuel to the nationalist and democratic aspirations of the students, who were critical of the Prussian government. The assassination in 1819, by a member of the Jena Burschenschaft, of Karl Ludwig Sand, a popular poet and conservative writer, gave the authorities the excuse they needed to repress the growing student movement and the activities of political liberals throughout the German states. Among others, Lieber was arrested and imprisoned because of some poems in his notebooks. Later he would say that he thus got a reputation as a poet in spite of himself. Upon his release, forbidden to study at any Prussian university, he finished his studies at Jena. And when the Greek revolution began in 1822, like many other idealists across Europe, he made his way to the land of classic learning, where, after much hardship and penury, he made his way to Rome on foot. There he made the acquaintance of the historian Reinhold Niebuhr and served as his son’s tutor for a year. He then returned home, only to be imprisoned once more, whereupon with Niebuhr’s help he was again released. Fearing further prosecution and finding it impossible to live under such a reactionary and illiberal regime, he made his way to England in 1826, where he eked out a living working as a tutor and journalist.

667

These early experiences forever set him against despotism and absolutism of all kinds and instilled in him a love of liberty and order, of freedom guaranteed by laws and the nation-state that is the realization of those laws. For Lieber, these freedoms and liberties develop through the habit of self-governance in the day-to-day experiences of a people, those historical institutions that arise from the customs and morés of a society out of its material and spiritual needs and activities. This was Lieber’s guiding and central idea. When he arrived in Boston in 1827 to teach gymnastics, he hoped to bring the ideas of Jahn and the new discipline of the Turnkunst, the collective practice of physical fitness tuned to the ethos of the regimental army, to the sons of New England. However, he quickly found that such ideas were alien to American soil. While in Boston, he produced and edited the first American encyclopedia, an adaptation of the Brockhaus KonversationsLexicon (Conversations-Lexicon). In so doing, he improved his facility with the English language and wrote many of the articles himself, embarking on a literary career that would encompass political theory, historical biography, and penal and educational reform. He elaborated the legal and social bases of the nation-state as an organic and historical development arising out of the institutions and social needs of a given people, helping to level the Rousseauian contract theory of the state and its natural rights ideology. In 1835, at much personal cost, he took a post in the heart of the Black Belt at the College of South Carolina where he taught history and political economy and served as acting president during the year of 1849. By 1854 the presidency of the college had again

668

LIEBKNECHT,WILHELM

become vacant, and Lieber genuinely believed he would be chosen to fill it. After a suspenseful year of waiting, his bid to become college president failed. Suspected by his Southern colleagues of having Republican and abolitionist sympathies, yet accused of being a pro-slavery man by his Northern friends because of his deep respect for the Constitution and the Union (he had worked tirelessly against the secession of South Carolina after the Compromise of 1850), he could no longer contain his moral repugnance on the issue of slavery. He resigned his appointment, sold his slaves, and left the South. Freed from his economic ties to the South, he took a violent stand against slavery and would join his fellow émigré Carl Schurz in support of Lincoln and the Republican Party. In 1856 he accepted a position at the School of Jurisprudence at the newly reorganized Columbia College (now University). While at the College of South Carolina, he developed his ideas of nationalism and fought for unity against Southern secession, articulated the legal and constitutional bases of Unionism, and produced the two volumes upon which his reputation rests: Political Ethics (1838–1839) and Civil Liberty and Self-Government (1853). At Columbia he was given the honor of titling his chair “Professor of History and Political Science,” thus becoming the first to do so in the United States. During the Civil War, he gave of himself personally and professionally. His oldest son died for the Confederacy, while his other two sons fought for the Union. President Abraham Lincoln and his generals solicited from him the rules for the conduct of the armies in the field and the laws of war, the most famous of which, General Orders No. 100, “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United

States in the Field,” later served as the model for the rules of warfare that would emerge from The Hague and Geneva. After the war, he helped to found the American Social Science Association and laid the groundwork for the school of political science established by his successor, John W. Burgess. Tibor Baukal See also Burgess, John William; Encyclopaedia Americana; Turner Societies References and Further Reading Brown, Bernard E. American Conservatives: The Political Thought of Francis Lieber and John W. Burgess. New York: Columbia University, 1951. Curti, Merle. “Francis Lieber and Nationalism.” In Probing Our Past. New York: Harper, 1955, pp. 119–151. Dorfman, Joseph, and Rexford Guy Tugwell. “Francis Lieber: German Scholar in America.” Columbia University Quarterly vol. 30 (September, December 1938): 159–190. Freidel, Frank. Francis Lieber, NineteenthCentury Liberal. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1947. Perry, Thomas Sergeant, ed. The Life and Letters of Francis Lieber. Boston: J. R. Osgood, 1882.

LIEBKNECHT,WILHELM b. March 29, 1826; Giessen, Hesse d. August 7, 1900; Berlin, Prussia German Social Democratic leader who influenced the development of the Socialist movement in the United States. Liebknecht participated in the Revolution of 1848. After its repression he ended up in exile in England from 1850 to 1862. There he met Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and accepted most of their understanding of class, history, and politics. He represented German labor at the First International

LIEBKNECHT,WILHELM

(1868–1872) and with August Bebel founded the Eisenacher Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei (Eisenacher Social Democratic Labor Party), which later merged with the Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein (General German Workers Association) and finally became the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD, German Social Democratic Party). Liebknecht continuously sought to maintain labor unity and served as an editor of newspapers such as Volksstaat (People’s State) and Vorwärts (Forward). During the time of the anti-Socialist Laws (1878–1890), Liebknecht went into exile in Zurich and London. He advocated and advanced the Marxian materialist perspective, although he maintained his earlier idealistic outlook. By his commitment, popular sayings (“Knowledge is power— power is knowledge”), informed writings on history and contemporary problems, as well as his adroit tactics, he became known to social activists around the world. In that capacity the American Socialists invited him to visit. Liebknecht, who spoke and wrote English fluently, visited the United States for three months during 1886 with Edward Aveling and Eleanor Marx. He spoke to crowds of 25,000 in New York according to the New Haven Workmen’s Advocate of September 26, 1886. New Haven (in Germania Hall), Detroit, and Milwaukee saw similar receptions, accompanied by the playing of the “Marseillaise.” In Chicago, where the Haymarket massacre had placed the city in a state of siege, debates with the competing anarchists occurred. At the end of his trip, when the Socialist Singing Society presented Heinrich Heine’s “Die Weber” (“The Weavers”) at the Cooper Union, Liebknecht commented (as re-

669

ported in the Workmen’s Advocate of December 5), that in the United States he had found “a large, intelligent audience of Socialists.” He noted that bourgeois journalists had “at first misrepresented the moment; they confounded us with Anarchists, dynamiters, and goodness knows what. Toward the end of my visit I have noticed a marked improvement.” Liebknecht would write a booklet, Ein Blick in die Neue Welt (Views of the New World), about his American experiences. Published in 1887 and composed mainly of his letters and speeches, this work generally offered a very positive view of the United States. Liebknecht’s booklet helped many German Socialists see the New World as a land of opportunities, and he often thought of emigrating there. Already earlier Liebknecht had fostered international Socialist relations. One of the historians of the U.S. Socialist and labor movement, Philip S. Foner, has edited Liebknecht’s lengthy letters and commentaries that appeared in the Chicago Workingman’s Advocate from November 1870 to December 1871. Through those letters, workers in Chicago could learn about the fundamental principles of the German labor movement as well as its stance on the Franco-Prussian War. Liebknecht continued to write for various radical American newspapers during the 1880s and he helped to disseminate an understanding of European labor and politics. Dieter K. Buse See also Anarchists; Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Haymarket References and Further Reading Foner, Philip S., ed. Wilhelm Liebknecht. Letters to the Chicago Workingman’s Advocate, November 26, 1870–December 2, 1871. New York: Holmes, 1983.

670

LINDBERGH, CHARLES AUGUSTUS Pelz, William A., ed. Wilhelm Liebknecht and German Social Democracy: A Documentary History. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1994. Shore, Eliott, et al., eds. The GermanAmerican Radical Press: The Shaping of a Left Political Culture, 1850–1940. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1992.

LINDBERGH, CHARLES AUGUSTUS b. February 4, 1902; Little Falls, Minnesota d. August 26, 1974; Maui, Hawaii American pilot who was the first to cross the Atlantic in an airplane in 1927. During the 1930s, he became an admirer of Germany’s air force and the Nazi dictatorship. By March 1936, with the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the American military attaché in Berlin, Major Truman Smith, was eager to obtain further analysis of German air power. The Luftwaffe, banned under the Versailles Treaty, had been reactivated, but its true strength was unclear. Lindbergh, who had remarked upon the weakness of French military aviation, was asked in June 1936 whether he would be willing to act as an observer. He accepted Luftwaffe chief Hermann Göring’s invitation to visit Germany. The nine-day trip involved flying a Junkers 52 transport, visiting factories, and meeting with officials. A speech he gave on the dangers of air power was printed in the German media, and the visit concluded with his attendance at the opening ceremonies of the Berlin Olympic Games. Lindbergh’s report on what he had seen, although couched in the neutral tones of an independent observer, failed to hide a definite admiration for the progress the Luftwaffe had achieved, but also for a “German spirit” of work and ded-

ication that was missing elsewhere in Europe. It also turned out to have grossly overestimated the strength of the German air force, which would take years to achieve the levels of power found in the report. A second visit followed in October 1937. Despite its private nature (there was no official reception committee), the Lindberghs were allowed to visit aircraft factories. Lindbergh’s overall analysis by then was that although Nazi Germany’s methods were abhorrent, they appeared less dangerous than communism. However, in 1938, it was his third trip that prompted accusations of collusion with the Nazis. Lindbergh again met with Göring, who awarded him the Verdienst Kreuz deutscher Adler (Service Cross of the German Eagle). Although to Lindbergh it appeared as little more than another award for his Atlantic exploit eleven years earlier, the ceremony did cause some concern, especially because Lindbergh and his wife had thought of moving to Berlin. Their plans, which went as far as locating an apartment, were cancelled following Reichskristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) on November 9 and 10. Lindbergh’s final visit to Germany came in January 1939, after which he returned to the United States. His reporting on the military power of Germany as compared with that of France or England played into the hands of Ambassador Joseph Kennedy in London, who favored negotiations with the Germans. To Lindbergh, though, the situation was more serious, for he viewed Europe’s potential war as an unavoidable fratricidal action that called for noninvolvement from the United States and the building of American defenses against future aggression. The reports Lindbergh wrote, as well as his correspondence, couch such visions in the vo-

LINDBERGH, CHARLES AUGUSTUS

671

Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh (left), with R. Douglas Stuart Jr., national director, when the flyer enrolled in Chicago as a member of the America First Committee, April 19, 1941. (Bettmann/Corbis)

cabulary of race as the definition of nationality. Although shocking by present-day standards, such references are nonetheless reflective of a prevailing attitude in many circles in the United States and Western democracies—one that was appalled at Nazi brutalities, yet refused to take in German Jewish refugees. In Lindbergh’s case, though, his association with Henry Ford on the one hand and French Nobel Prize winner for medicine Alexis Carel on the other may have further influenced his rhetoric in these matters, as he warned of an impending Asiatic threat against the West. The threat was not Germany, whose strength might, he felt, balance the challenge brought on by communism.

When World War II began, Lindbergh publicly argued for a position of neutrality and became involved in October 1940 with the America First Committee (an isolationist group with over 800,000 members). As Lindbergh spoke in favor of nonintervention, others came to view him as part of a “fifth column” of Nazi sympathizers. Citizens contacted the FBI, which opened a file on him. One of Lindbergh’s speeches, in September 1941, openly questioned Jewish interests, defining these as separate from American ones. By then, Harold Ickes had publicly condemned Lindbergh, and Franklin D. Roosevelt had even called him a “copperhead,” a pejorative term used during the

672

LIST, FRIEDRICH

Civil War for Northerners who favored peace with the South. The attack on Pearl Harbor swiftly ended the anti-intervention power of America First and Lindbergh supported the war effort, though on the Pacific front. After the war, he agreed to visit Germany, in part to assess the advances Germans had made in aerospace science. Some of his notes reflect recommendations for transferring technological knowledge to the United States in the face of a Soviet threat. Lindbergh expressed dismay and shock upon seeing concentration camps, but also felt disgust at the behavior of American troops on German soil. In so doing, he faced criticism from Americans who remembered his noninterventionist stand. Guillaume de Syon See also Antisemitism; Ford, Henry References and Further Reading Berg, A. Scott. Lindbergh. New York: G. P. Putnam’s, 1998. Cole, Wayne S. Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle against American Intervention in World War II. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1974. Wallas, Max. The American Axis: Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rise of the Third Reich. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003.

LIST, FRIEDRICH b. August 6, 1789; Reutlingen, Württemberg d. November 30, 1846; Kufstein, Austria German American entrepreneur who introduced the American technology of railway construction to the German states. List attended the Latin school in Reutligen and later trained in his father’s tannery workshop. After completing his apprenticeship, he entered the civil service at the

age of fifteen and began a career as a copyist (Schreiber) in Blaubeuren. Three years later he passed his “Substitute” examination and worked as a civil servant in Schelklingen, Wiblingen, and Ulm. Between 1811 and 1814 he became an Oberamtsaktuar. This position involved public financial studies at the University of Tübingen. While he was fulfilling his duties as a Oberamtsaktuar he was engaged in several governmental commissions. In 1816 he was promoted to the position of Rechnungsrat and became a tenured civil servant. He then received a professorship in Tübingen. It was in his official capacity as Rechnungsrat that List first came into contact with the New World. The state of Württemberg had been hemorrhaging several hundred of its inhabitants to emigration with every passing day. More than 20,000 people in total had moved to North America in 1816 and 1817. At the age of twenty-seven List was given the task of questioning emigrants between April 30 and May 6, 1817, to uncover the reasons for this large-scale emigration. Taking full advantage of his opportunity to question emigrants, he wrote a critical report about the political situation in the kingdom. His account is a result of his interviews with several hundreds emigrants. Their answers included numerous strong complaints about the political system and royal government. Predominant reasons he recorded were the prohibitively high taxes, exorbitant administration fees, the slow process of justice, and the suppression by mayors, civil servants, forest wards, and landlords. The list continues with further reasons such as crop failure, unemployment, the increase in prices, or religious reasons. All in all many emigrants argued,

LIST, FRIEDRICH

“One should give them work that they could earn the money for their own bread. They do not need support of food because they are men who can work. They are full of hope to earn the bare essentials in America that they miss at home” (Moltmann 1979, 134). The complaints List gathered during his questioning and that he documented in his account strengthened his liberal views. The contact with the disappointed and embittered emigrants left a deep impression with List and influenced his further political development. He became a leading liberal and demanded political representation of the people on the communal level and less taxation. List left the civil service, gave up his professorship at the University of Tübingen, and became a leading figure in the liberal association for trade and industry. The government observed his political activities and opinions with growing mistrust. Eventually it initiated a criminal investigation that resulted in a ten-month imprisonment from 1821 to 1822. At first he refused to go to prison and escaped via Straßburg into Switzerland. But in the end he returned and went to the Asperg Prison. After five months he was given a reprieve on the condition that he leave the state. List decided to emigrate to North America. In the United States he first worked as a farmer in Pennsylvania, then as a journalist for a German American newspaper. After List discovered coal fields in Pennsylvania, he became a wealthy entrepreneur. In the course of developing the coal fields, List built one of the first American railway lines in 1829. It was the 22 kilometer (14 miles) rail line from Tamaqua to Port Clinton at the Schuylkill Canal. This project changed List’s life tremen-

673

dously. In 1832 he decided to return to Germany. At this point the construction of railways was hotly discussed in Germany. After waves of enthusiastic accounts of the first successful railway line in England, German railway enthusiasts were taken aback when they learned how expensive (£800,000) the construction of the Liverpool-Manchester line had been. American railway projects were much less costly and therefore favored among German investors. List was to play a key role in the introduction of railway technology to the German states. In 1827 he contacted the railway enthusiast Joseph von Baader, who introduced him to the German railway debate. Afterward, List suggested the construction of a railway line from Dresden to Leipzig in a brochure that he wrote for the government of Saxony. In this pamphlet, List argued energetically against the expensive English method of constructing railways and favored a more speedy construction method to be modeled on the American example. His calculation became a persuasive argument for building railways the American way, both pragmatically and cheaply. His detailed reasons and extensive argumentation for a transfer of American technological innovations was speedily taken over by other railway pioneers. In close cooperation with List, Baader had also directed the attention of the people in the public debate toward the railways in North America. As an example he described the railways in the Ohio valley. Friedrich Harkort admired the progress of railways in America and listed for the state of New York alone no less than twenty-four projects in 1833. Friedrich Glünder who was engaged in

674

LITERATURE (CANADIAN), GERMANY AND GERMANS

railway planning in Hamburg, Bremen, and Hanover was of the opinion that construction costs would decrease by one-third if Germans would build as the Americans did. Harkort declared in the end it would not be wealthy England that would be the model but rather the “poor American.” The Nuremberg railway committee was proof of how important the American example was for Germany. One reason why the committee engaged the railway engineer Paul Camille Denis for the construction work was his experience with the American railways. Because of his enthusiastic interest in the American system of railway construction from its very beginnings, the great railway pioneer Franz Anton von Gerstner wrote a detailed documentation on North America’s railways that became very popular. Thanks to List, America became the great model for the German railway system. It was especially the American method of building as cheaply and simply as possible that became a major consideration during a critical period in the introduction of the whole system. Although List’s proposal for the Dresden-Leipzig line failed, he continued to employ his American experience in developing plans for railroad construction. He tried to employ them for the development of German and European communication networks. In 1846, shortly before he died, he drew a sketch of a worldwide network of railways and steamships that included all the main lines in North America and Europe that later actually were built. List’s visionary potential is also documented in his brochure Politics of the Future (1841). In this booklet he envisaged the construction of a telegraph line to India, the Baghdad railway, and above all the rise of the United States

IN

and Russia to the status of superpowers that would eventually direct economic and political developments in the twentieth century. Ralf Roth References and Further Reading Gehring, Paul. Friedrich List, Jugend- und Reifejahre, 1789–1825. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964. Krause, Robert. Friedrich List und die große Eisenbahn Deutschlands. Ein Beitrag zur Eisenbahngeschichte. Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Strauch, 1887. Moltmann, Günter, ed. Aufbruch nach Amerika. Friedrich List und die Auswanderung aus Baden und Württemberg 1816/17. Dokumentation einer Bewegung. Tübingen: Wunderlich, 1979. Wendler, Eugen. Friedrich List, der geniale und vielverkannte Eisenbahnpionier. Reutlingen: Verlag Harwalik, 1989.

LITERATURE (CANADIAN), GERMANY AND GERMANS IN The depiction of German culture in Canadian literature has been largely, though not exclusively, confined to the works of German Canadian writers. Immigrant authors such as Walter Bauer (1904–1976) and Henry Kreisel (1922–1991) reflected on the German migration experience in Canada and, in so doing, commented on their own German cultural identity. Mennonite writers have produced similar works, albeit from the narrower perspective of Mennonite culture in Canada. Writing in English, Rudy Wiebe’s historical fiction about Mennonites, most notably Sweeter Than All the World (2001), examines the impact of Canada on Mennonite culture. The existence of the German cultural imaginary in works of Canadian literature not normally classified as German Canadian is small but worth noting, although

LITERATURE (GERMAN AMERICAN)

the presence of Germans and Germany in Canadian literature is generally confined to the topics of migration and settlement on the one hand and Nazism and the Holocaust on the other. Margaret Laurence’s The Stone Angel (1964) contains a minor character, Mrs. Dobereiner, a non-Englishspeaking German immigrant who spends her time in the hospital singing melancholic German Lieder (songs) that echo the depression of Hagar, the protagonist. But Dobereiner also serves as a reminder of the difficulties that immigrants had in adjusting to the New World, especially the Canadian west. Jane Urquhart’s The Stone Carvers (2001) renders the partly German community of Shoneval (based on Formosa, Ontario) as a romantic sanctuary of Old World artistic traditions in a new world whose roughness calls those very traditions into question. A larger spate of novels portray Germans in relationship to the Third Reich, its crimes, and the aftermath of World War II. Numerous Canadian plays, novels, and films have examined the Holocaust and in so doing often have German characters or elements, though these rarely provide more than background context or “color.” Some Canadian authors have attempted to provide more thorough treatments of this period. David Gurr’s novel The Ring Master (1987) is an epic treatment of the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler’s relationship to Richard Wagner’s music. A portion of Marliyn Bowering’s Visible Worlds (1997) is set in Nazi Germany, and the plot of the novel depends on using that period in history as a backdrop to postwar developments in the lives of a group of western Canadians of mixed cultural heritage. Anne Michael’s Fugitive Pieces (1996) and Martha Blum’s The Walnut Tree (1999) narrate the stories of Holo-

IN THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

675

caust victims who eventually emigrate to Canada; in both, Germany and Germans are understandably cast as enemies. Mavis Gallant moved beyond the atrocities in order to understand their effects on the culture that perpetrated them; some of her stories from the 1960s have been shown to reveal the German “inability to mourn” that was theorized by Alexander and Margarete Mitscherlich at the same time. James M. Skidmore See also Literature, German Canadian References and Further Reading Antor, Heinz, Sylvia Brown, John Considine, and Klaus Stierstorfer, eds. Refractions of Germany in Canadian Literature and Culture. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2003.

LITERATURE (GERMAN AMERICAN) IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY The nineteenth century saw the heyday of the production as well as reception of German American literature. However, there are three major obstacles to its evaluation. As an emigrant mode of writing, it is of necessity both epigonal, as far as its relation to the ongoing literary history in the country of origin is concerned, and hybrid, due to the necessary exchange of modes and ideas with the culture(s) of the immigrant country. Because of the political and social conditions triggering emigration, the bandwidth of German American literature in the nineteenth century was different from the respective production in the German states. On top of these differences, the fact that German American literature is comparatively well documented, but at least so far has been almost unanimously denounced as epigonal and of low quality,

676

LITERATURE (GERMAN AMERICAN)

has been most detrimental to serious research and unbiased critical judgment. Much of German America’s nineteenthcentury literary production was, of course, regional in scope and outlook, including the multitude of poems that saw print in newspapers and journals. Lyrical and sentimental poetry was extremely popular during the period. Most German newspapers and all journals had special sections or at least allowed some space for poetic contributions (see, for instance, Heinrich Rattermann’s Der deutsche Pionier [The German Pioneer, 1869–1887], Die Laterne [The Lantern, 1877–1904], DeutschAmerikanische Gartenlaube [German American Summer House, 1864– 1870], or the German version of Frank Leslie’s Illustrierte Zeitung [Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper]). Many individuals, including civic officials, soldiers, bankers, and craftspeople, wrote poetry on the side, which was printed in local papers or collected into hundreds of often small volumes. A handful of major anthologies (Rattermann, Conrad Marxhausen, and others) have preserved at least a cross section. The majority of these poems and plays were written in the received standard of German, but notably poetry came also in Low German, various High German dialects, and nineteenth-century Pennsylvania Dutch. Not all of the “German dialect” writing was done by Germans: Charles G. Leland’s “Hans Breitenstein” ballads were often satirical. In style as well as content they are the acme of writing in the “Lengevitch”—the mixture of German and American English half-assimilated immigrants supposedly spoke. Regional in range but not really in scope were the various serialized novels that appeared in the German press, notably in

IN THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

the decade preceding the Civil War. The authors were often journalists and editors of the journals that printed the novels: Heinrich Boernstein’s (1805–1892) The Mysteries of St. Louis (1850), as well as Ludwig von Reitzenstein’s analogously titled book about New Orleans, and Emil Klauprecht’s (1815–1896) Cincinnati, oder Die Geheimnisse des Westens (Cincinnati, or the Mysteries of the West), as well as Rudolf Lexow’s (1823–1909) Amerikanische Kriminalmysterien (American Crime Mysteries, 1854) about crime in New York, all contain a certain amount of local color and regional detail, yet all follow the formula set by the French writer Eugene Sué, with Lexow already pointing ahead to the late nineteenth and early twentieth century wave of American crime and mystery writing. A second line of popular topics and format came about through the success of James Fenimore Cooper’s type of historical novels. Writers in his vein were, among others, Friedrich Gerstäcker (1816–1872), Charles Sealsfield (pseudonym of Karl Anton Postl, 1793–1864), Friedrich J. Pajeken (1855–1920), Friedrich August Strubberg (1806–1889), and Heinrich Balduin Möllhausen (1825–1905), who was hailed as “the German Cooper.” Other than Karl May (1842–1912), creator of the famous Winnetou novels, these authors all wrote from personal experience, having at one point in their lives emigrated to North America and at least considered staying. Eventually, all of them returned to Europe, and most of their literary successes were achieved on the German literary market, but they were also widely received in German America. A similar German American was Otto Ruppius (1819–1864), who also returned to Germany after living in differ-

LITERATURE (GERMAN AMERICAN)

ent American cities between 1851 and 1861. He was one of the most popular and most widely read novelists of the nineteenth century on both sides of the Atlantic. Less popular, yet more interesting in terms of their literary historical value, are the female novelists of the period; notably Maria Doris von Scheliha (1847–1925), Kathinka Sutro-Schücking (1835 to after 1898?), and especially Therese Robinson (1797–1870), who wrote under the acronymous pen name Talvj (T. Albertine Louise von Jakob, her maiden name). She not only wrote novels and short fiction but was also a noted scholar. Many of her texts appeared in English translation. The most wide-ranging and effective in terms of constructing social community, yet also the least well documented part of German American literary production was in the field of drama and theater. German Americans were notorious for their love of the stage, and all urban centers with larger German immigrant populations had at least one German theater. Heinrich Börnstein and Adolf Heinrich Neuendorff (1843–1897) founded important theaters in St. Louis and New York; Konrad Nies (1861–1921) and Emil Pohl (1824–1901) were among the playwrights whose works were performed there. Most of the popular poets and fiction writers at least dabbled in playwriting. Fictional texts were often dramatized in addition to their popular success in print, with the adaptation often done by other hands. Considering the situation of theaters in American cities, with their almost total lack of public subsidies, it comes as no great surprise that the vast majority of the plays written and produced were either already time-honored traditionals— Friedrich Schiller’s Die Räuber (The Rob-

IN THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

677

bers) and even more so Wallenstein; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Iphigenie—or else the light comedy and sentimental melodrama typical of the period and connected with names like Fritz von Schönthan and Gustav Kadelburg, whose works were also played extensively in English translation. A German specialty briefly flourishing in the decade after 1871 was heroic national drama topicalizing the German national union. Another substantial percentage of nineteenth-century German American literature was of a religious nature, giving voice to the many and widespread religion-based, more or less utopian communities, ranging from Herrenhut and the Moravians via the Dunkers, the Wisconsin Catholics and the various Missouri fundamentalist Protestant groups to Wilhelm (Christian) Weitling’s Christian-Communist project. All this literature is topical, and even though some writers like Maximilian Oertel (often referred to as the “German American Abraham a Sancta Clara.” “Abraham a Sancta Clara” [Abraham of/from St. Clare] was the name given to the Augustine [“Barefeet”] monk Johann Ullrich Megerle [1644– 1709], who had a reputation for his satirical, drastic, and often funny sermons.) were good rhetoricians, there is little among the surviving material that would be worthy of literary note. Another body of important German American texts is formed by the literature of refugees and emigrants, following the various revolutionary efforts in the German states before 1870 and the persecution of Socialists in imperial Germany. Whereas regionalist poetry, religious writing, sentimental novels, and popular plays are all literary forms that were equally widely written and read in the German states, the

678

LITERATURE (GERMAN AMERICAN)

amount and the quality of this refugee writing sets German American texts apart from the literary scene in Europe. It needs to be said at this point that the most popular poet and playwright in nineteenth-century German America was Friedrich Schiller. Not only had Schiller at one time in his life seriously pondered the idea of emigrating to the United States; but also he was the one author that most factions within the German communities in the United States could agree on: With the exception of the church, Schiller’s liberalism united Germans of many different political convictions. Schiller’s plays were frequently performed on the German American nineteenth-century stage, and Schiller’s poems served as role models far into the nineteenth century. The Schiller centennial celebrations of 1859 were huge affairs inside Germany, though official circles as well as schools were discouraged from displaying or performing his more radical texts and plays. In the United States, Schiller was celebrated throughout the nation, in at least twenty-three states, from the urban centers of German American culture in the East to small California gold mining towns. In New York, festivities lasted for four days. All German American literature has to be seen against the background of his impact and importance. The refugees of the 1830s uprisings in Germany and even more so the FortyEighters brought with them a reformist and Socialist pathos that harkened back to Schiller’s more radical early works and came to new bloom upon meeting the democratic notions of Americans. Arguably the best German American poet and the best writer of fiction of the nineteenth century came out of this mold: the revolutionists Heinrich Schnauffer (1822–

IN THE

NINETEENTH CENTURY

1854), founder of the Baltimore Wecker (Baltimore Watchclock), and Reinhold Solger (1817–1866), author of Anton in America (1862). Both died lamentably young. Konrad Krez (1828–1897), also from this group, belongs among the best poets. As a further development, younger and more radical writers started translating the ideas of socialism and increasingly of anarcho-syndicalism onto the stage and into poetry: one prominent example was Robert Reitzel (1849–1898), publisher and editor of the literary magazine Der arme Teufel (The Poor Devil), and another was the dramatist and editor Wilhelm Ludwig Rosenberg (1850–1934). Georg Biedenkapp’s (1843–1925) drama Die Hungrigen und die Satten (The Hungry and the WellFed) was also popular, mostly among working-class Germans. The erosion of German-language literature was gradual. The outcome of the Civil War and the creation of the German Empire in 1871 aided the integration of ethnic Germans into the fabric of American society, saving democracy for the United States and closing out all hopes for a republican Germany. Novels thematizing the Civil War and its aftermath were Friedrich Gerstäcker’s In Amerika (1873), Adolf Schirmer’s Die Sklavenbarone (The Slave Barons, 1873), and Heinrich Balduin Möllhausen’s Die Familie Melville (The Melville Family, 1889). As the generation of the famed Forty-Eighters passed on and with the promises of a modern American lifestyle surpassing the benefits of hanging on to German language and customs, theaters closed and journals folded, and for many of the younger generation writing poetry or prose in German held no particular thrill. By 1900, the Germans were more thoroughly amalgamated into the

LITERATURE, GERMAN CANADIAN

melting pot than most of the other central and eastern European ethnic groups in the United States. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also Anarchists; Forty-Eighters; May, Karl Friedrich; Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Ruppius, Otto; Sealsfield, Charles; Strubberg, Friedrich August; Weitling, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Lexow, Friedrich, Rudolph Lexow, and Karl Dilthey. Deutsch-Amerikanische Bibliothek. 10 vols. New York: E. Steiger, 1872. Neeff, Gotthold A. Vom Lande des Sternenbanners. Eine Blumenlese deutscher Dichtungen aus Amerika. Heidelberg/Ellenville: C. Winter, 1905. Rattermann, Heinrich A., ed. DeutschAmerikanisches Biographikon und DichterAlbum der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. 3 vols. Cincinnati: Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1911 [Gesammelte Ausgewählte Werke 10–12]. Stuecher, Dorothea. Twice Removed: The Experience of German-American Women Writers in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Peter Lang, 1990. Tolzmann, Don Heinrich. German-American Literature. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1977. Ward, Robert E. A Bio-Bibliography of German-American Writers, 1670–1970. White Plains: Kraus International Publications, 1985. Zimmermann, G. A., ed. Handbuch der deutschen Literatur Europa’s und Amerika’s: Ein klassisches Lesebuch für Schule und Haus. 2 vols. Chicago and New York: H. Enderis; Baker, Pratt, 1876.

LITERATURE, GERMAN CANADIAN Like all minority ethnic writing, German Canadian literature is as fluid in its scope as the nature of the German Canadian community. As German immigration to

679

Canada subsides, however, and the German Canadian cultural community becomes absorbed in a more heterogeneous Canadian culture, the place of German Canadian writing in Canadian letters will shrink. Four subcategories that reflect historical and sociological developments can be used to categorize the varieties of German Canadian literature: memoir and travel writing in German, German Canadian journalism, German-language belles letters, and writing in English by members of a German-heritage community. The first German Canadian texts are connected with the American Revolution. August Ludwig von Schlözer’s Vertrauliche Briefe aus Kanada und Neu-England vom Jahre 1777 und 1778 (Confidential Letters from Canada and New England, 1777 and 1778; 1779) contain informants’ reports about life in the British colonies, as do the journals of the brothers du Roy, Anton Adolf and August Wilhelm, who were stationed in Quebec at the same time, but whose writings were first published in the twentieth century. Letters from the same period by Friederike Charlotte von Riedesel, whose husband was a general in the British campaign against the Americans, are remarkable for their descriptive qualities and sympathetic portrayal of Canada. Other travel writings, for example, Friedrich Ludwig Kölbing’s Die Missionen der evangelischen Brüder in Grönland und Labrador (The Missions of the Protestant Brothers in Greenland and Labrador, 1831), Heinrich W. Klutschak’s Als Eskimo unter den Eskimos: Eine Schilderung der Erlebnisse der Schwatka’schen Franklin-Aufsuchungs-Expedition in den Jahren 1878–80 (Living as an Eskimo among the Eskimos: An Account of Experiences during the 1878–1880 Schwatka’schen Franklin

680

LITERATURE, GERMAN CANADIAN

Search Expedition), Wilhelm Cohnstaedt’s western Canadian travel letters from 1909, and Else Lübcke Seel’s (1894–1974) Kanadisches Tagebuch (Canadian Diary, 1964) are further examples of impressions of Canada from Germans who were either temporarily in Canada or viewed the country, initially at least, as strangers. German Canadian journalism dates back to the appearance of the Neu-Schottländische Calender (Nova Scotian Calendar, 1788–1801), published by Anton Heinrich in Halifax. Journalism flourished in Ontario during the latter half of the nineteenth century, with papers such as the Berliner Journal and Kalender für der Versammlungen der Mennoniten-Gemeinden in Ontario (Calendar of the Assemblies of the Mennonite Communities in Ontario—an annual publication that started in 1836 and is still published). Such publications provided a forum for a variety of literary genres, including anecdotes, memoirs, and poetry. Canadian-born John Adam Rittinger’s (1855–1915) fictitious Pennsylvania German letters of Joe Klotzkopp appeared in his papers Ontario Glocke and Berliner Journal from 1890 to 1915 and are treasured for their humorous insight into German Canadian life in southern Ontario at the turn of the century. The religious songs of the Mennonites who settled in Ontario in the nineteenth century and the poems of Lutheran ministers of the same time and place are perhaps the earliest German Canadian works in the traditional sense. German-language Belletristrik belles lettres with strong ties to Canada became more noticeable in the twentieth century. Best known in this regard are Fritz Senn, the pseudonym of Gerhard Johann Friesen (1894–1983), who lived in Manitoba and Ontario from 1924

to 1938 and published a number of poems about the Mennonite experience in Russia; Walter Bauer (1904–1976) who, after his arrival in Canada in 1952, continued his career in prose and poetry with a Canadian slant; Hermann Boeschenstein (1900– 1982) from Switzerland, who along with Bauer taught German at the University of Toronto and examined the immigrant’s experience in his modest literary output; and Valentin Sawatzky (born 1914), a Mennonite poet. By far the largest number of contributions to German Canadian letters comes from those writers who share in one of the varieties of German cultural heritage but who have made their careers in English. Apart from some early autobiographical memoirs by German settlers that appeared in the nineteenth century in English, the first writer of note in this regard is Frederick Philip Grove (Felix Paul Greve) (1879–1948), whose novels of the immigrant experience in western Canada (Settlers of the Marsh, 1925; Fruits of the Earth, 1933) were hallmarks of Canadian realist fiction, but whose fame today is due largely to the discovery of his faked suicide in Germany and his reinvention as a Swede in pre–World War I Manitoba. Henry Kreisel (1922–1991) came from Austria via England and enjoyed a successful university career while also writing prose that dealt with his own internment as well as the aftermath of World War II in Europe and Canada. Rudy Wiebe (born 1934) is best known for his historical fiction of the Canadian west, but he also dealt with the experiences of Mennonite twentiethcentury diaspora. Robert Kroetsch (born 1927) is seen as one of Canada’s most important postmodern writers, yet he, too, has examined his German Canadian her-

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

itage, most notably in his long poem, “The Ledger.” Henry Beissel (born 1929 in Cologne) came to Canada in 1951 and has published widely in a variety of literary forms, but his writing scarcely deals with the German Canadian experience. Derk Wyand (born 1944 in Germany) and Andreas Schroeder (born 1946 in Germany) are two more German Canadians whose writing is essentially Canadian in content. The same can be said of younger Canadian-born writers of German or Mennonite heritage, such as Miriam Toews (born 1964) and Suzette Mayr, even if their work contains traces of the German Canadian experience. James M. Skidmore See also Ontario; Rittinger, John Adam References and Further Reading Froeschle, Hartmut, ed. Nachrichten aus Ontario: Deutschsprachige Literatur in Kanada. Hildesheim: Olms, 1981. Riedel, Walter F., ed. The Old World and the New: Literary Perspectives of GermanSpeaking Canadians. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1984. Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. “Early GermanCanadian Ethnic Minority Writing.” Canadian Ethnic Studies/Etudes ethniques au Canada 27 (1995): 99–122.

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES IN The reports of the discovery of America were flanked by the emergence of literary phantasmagoria that created lasting constructs of image and, depending on the author’s view, manifested themselves in ever new themes, myths, and symbols reflecting the social, political, and cultural changes in Germany and Europe, always oscillating between admiration and fear, yearning and contempt. Literature is in that context a re-

IN

681

In 17th-century German literary portrayals of America, Christian behavior was projected onto such characters as Pocahontas (here, depicted saving the life of Capt. John Smith). (Library of Congress)

flective medium of cultural processes that sheds light on the history of the sketches and descriptions of America and the selfobservations and classifications of foreign culture expressed in them. In the literature of the early modern age and the seventeenth century, the southern hemisphere was considered synonymous with America. The travel and research reports appearing chiefly after the German translation of the so-called Columbus Letter in 1697 were dominated by curiosity about the menacing and a fascination for the unknown, with nature and primitivism either being celebrated as natural and paradisiacal by those with a critical stance toward civilization or feared, scorned, and dismissed as barbarism with religious and progress-oriented fervor. The land of gold and naked people, wealth, and the innocence of nature were the literary themes of the early modern age, appearing chiefly as satirical curiosities and images of paradise and Eldorado, such as in Sebastian

682

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

Brant’s Narrenschiff (The Ship of Fools, 1694). On the whole, America did not play a significant role in fictional literature, featuring only in allusions (Cleopatra und Sophonisbe, 1661, by Daniel Casper von Lohenstein). Reports of a missionary and political ilk were more widespread, emphasizing the cruelty and barbarism of primitive people. They were flanked by religiously motivated writings, in which Christian behavior was projected onto the character of the noble wild man or the magnanimous Pocahontas. However, it was the collections and compilations of popular and academic history books, works on geography, and travel reports that shaped the themes, motifs, and assessment of America in the seventeenth century (Erasmus Franciscis, Ost- und Westindischer wie auch Sinesischer Lust- und Stats-Garten [East and West Indian and Chinese Pleasances and State Gardens], 1668; Eberhard Werner Happel, Der Insulanische Mandorell [The Island Residence], 1682; Eberhard Werner Happel, Gröste Denckwürdigkeiten der Welt [The Greatest Memorabilities of the World], 1685). The literary portrayals of America into the baroque period discussed theological issues such as original sin and the equality of human beings while considering the correlation between morality, religion, and culture and attempting to draw complex comparisons between Christians and pagans, nature and civilization. In the eighteenth century this discourse continued and was modified. Albrecht von Haller took a more anthropological and scientific approach in his reviews of travel reports in the Göttingischen Gelehrten Anzeiger (Göttingen Scholar’s Gazette), as well as in the Sammlung neuer und merkwürdiger Reisen (Collection of New and Strange Travels, 1750).

IN

In his educational poems Über den Ursprung des Bösen (On the Origins of Evil) and Über die Falschheit der menschlichen Tugend (On the Falsity of Human Virtue, 1730), he presents philosophical and socially critical ideas in which he saw Indians and Europeans as equals, allowing both to share morality through enlightenment. As a result of literary primitivism (the belief that primitive peoples were more noble and less flawed because they had not been subjected to the tainting influence of civilized society), the ideal character of the wild man was increasingly used to present the ideas of the Enlightenment and criticism of social, religious, and moral institutions in Germany, as well as to discuss issues of humanity (Joachim Heinrich Campe, Entdeckung von Amerika [Discovery of America], 1781–1782; Andreas Georg Rebmann, Hans Kiekindiewelt [Hans Look-at-the-World], 1794). The “Inkle und Yariko-Geschichten” (Inkle and Yariko Stories), as they were initially referred to by Christian Fürchtegott Gellert in 1746, underscored the contrasts between Indian virtues and European Christian dastardliness (cf. Johann Jakob Bodmer, Salomon Gessner, and Johann Gottfried Seume Der Wilde [The Wild One], 1797). The Pocahontas theme was also handed down (Carl Friedrich Scheibler, Leben und Schicksale der Pokahuntas, einer edelmüthigen amerikanischen Prinzessin [Life and Fate of Pokahuntas, the noble american princess] [1781], Johann Wilhelm Rose, Pocahontos [1784], and Klaus Theweleit, Pocahontas [1999]. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the depiction of the Indian lost the element of religious and cultural criticism, such as in Friedrich Schiller’s Nadowessiers Lied (Nadowessier’s Song, 1797).

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

In the eighteenth century, the modern image of the United States emerged. Following the creation of the United States in 1776, the German states displayed an acute interest in the country of the revolution and constitution. The philosophers of the Enlightenment projected the principles of equality, freedom, and brotherhood and demands for a republic and human rights on the United States. Thus, the central mouthpiece of the Enlightenment, the Berlinische Monatsschrift (Berlin Monthly Journal), celebrated the victory of the American Republic over the European aristocracy. This dichotomy consequently became a theme in the discourse on the United States, in which the differences between the Old World and New World were chiefly discussed from a political and philosophical viewpoint and were transformed into the new contrasts of reason and despotism. The human rights statement was linked with demands for personal and political freedom embedded in positive law (such as in Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart’s Deutsche Chronik [German Chronicle, 1774–1778]). This depiction of the United States was then personified by Benjamin Franklin (in works by Schubart; Johann Gottfried Herder; Johann Wolfgang von Goethe; Georg Forster, who met Benjamin Franklin in person in 1777; and Johann Jakob Meyen’s poem in five songs, Franklin der Philosoph und Staatsmann [Franklin, Philosopher and Statesman], 1787). Both the aristocracy and ennobled authors who felt thus threatened considered the United States a stronghold of unrest (Albrecht von Haller, Johannes von Müller, Gottlob Benedikt von Schirach, Johann Georg von Zimmermann). Criticism was also voiced by a handful of bourgeois authors such as Wilhelm Ludwig

IN

683

Wekhrlin (Chronologen [Chronologies], 1779–1781), who, however, later welcomed the emigration to the United States (Das graue Ungeheuer [The Gray Monster], 1784–1787). At the turn of the century, as a result of the debates of the Enlightenment, German literary works increasingly stylized the United States as a haven where fleeing Europeans became familiar with the concept of community (Friedrich Maximilian von Klinger, Der Wirrwarr, oder Sturm und Drang [Muddle, or Storm and Stress], 1776; Sophie Merau-Brentano, Das Blüthenalter der Empfindung [The Blossoming Age of Sentimentalism], 1794; Dorothea Schlegel, Florentin, 1801), and where they could live in a free society (Heinrich Stilling, Die Geschichte Florentin von Fahlendorf [The Story of Florentin von Fahlendorf ], 1781; Heinrich Zschokke, Prinzessin von Wolfenbüttel [The Princess of Wolfenbüttel], 1804). It was not until the beginning of the nineteenth century, with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and the increasing political and economic loosening of ties between the United States and Europe, that the United States was portrayed more negatively in German-language fictional and journalistic texts. When, during the era of the Restoration under Baron Metternich, aiming to restore the Bourbon and emperors regime and suppressing the liberal movements, political progress ground to a halt and the pace of economic progress fell behind that of the United States and Britain, a European identity was construed that was defined by cultural values stigmatizing the United States as a country without original arts, without culture, the “country without a nightingale” (“Land ohne Nachtigall,”

684

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

Nikolaus Lenau). Authors such as Friedrich Hebbel, Heinrich Heine (Über Ludwig Börne [The Book of Börne], 1840), Ferdinand von Freiligrath (Die neue Welt [The New World], 1843), and Moritz Saphir (Der Auswanderer [The Emigrant], 1863) propagated the theme of American materialism, which was subsequently used into the twenty-first century whenever criticism was voiced over the modernization process dubbed Americanization. This led to the coining of the Amerikamüden (those who are tired of America), originating from a novel of the same name by Friedrich Kürnberger (1857), in which profiteering and commoditization of all cultural and social values were seen as American characteristics (see also Adalbert Baudissin, Peter Tütt, 1862). The criticism of the Yankee was directly linked to the portrayal of commercial business (Anton Solger, Anton in Amerika [Anton in America], 1862) and Gustav Freytag, Soll und Haben [Credits and Debits], 1855). At the same time, German literature celebrated the United States just as frequently as the country of the future, which was used as a contrast to the political and social conditions prevailing in Germany but was derived neither from personal experience nor from travels through the United States. The authors of the Junges Deutschland (Young Germany) movement (Ernst Willkomm, Die Europamüden [Those Who Have Tired of Europe], 1833; Heinrich Laube, Die Bürger [The Citizens], 1837) projected their demands for freedom and equality onto the idealistic construct known as the United States. The same can be said of the authors of the prerevolution Vormärz period (1815–1848) (Anastasius Grün, Schutt [Ruins] 1833). Whereas the romantics dismissed the

IN

United States as a dystopia by mythologizing the Middle Ages, the political authors, including Goethe in his Wilhelm-Meister novels, discovered the values of liberalism in the New World. Inspired by Alexis de Tocqueville’s analysis of American democracy, the Republican supporters of the 1848 revolution (Friedrich Hecker, Gottfried Kinkel, Wilhelm Weitling) saw the United States, the only major power to recognize the St. Paul’s Church Assembly (Paulskirchenparlament) as a representative body of the people, as a flame of hope for change. The exodus starting around 1850 bears witness to the expectations of freedom, wealth, and social mobility associated with the United States. Set in the context of the mass exodus, innumerable authentic travel reports, fabricated ones written as propaganda (Gottfried Duden), guidebooks for emigrants, and novels and narrative texts on America (Gerstäcker, Möllhausen, Strubberg) molded the images of the New World, complementing the private letters of emigrants to those who stayed at home: these images include a yearning for an economic paradise providing work for all, commercial and religious freedom, the self-help myth, a policeless state, and so forth. From the midnineteenth century onward, an abundance of light fiction adventure novels appeared (Balduin Möllhausen, Friedrich A. Strubberg), set during the Gold Rush in California (Friedrich Gerstäcker, Gold, 1858) or portraying the pioneering and frontier spirit, and accompanied by the late romantic Indian stories of Karl May, which were in keeping with the tradition of James Fenimore Cooper’s works. The novels of Otto Ruppius and Karl Theodor Griesinger broached the additional themes of the integration of German immigrants and the

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

United States as a melting pot. The literature of the poetic realists, such as Gottfried Keller, Wilhelm Raabe, Berthold Auerbach, Friedrich Spielhagen, and Theodor Fontane, frequently featured the motif of characters returning from the United States. In this context the United States was portrayed as a school for proving one’s worth and perfecting the individual. By the turn of the century, literary interest in the Wild West had dwindled, and the industrial East Coast edged into view. Fantasy and exoticism were eclipsed by the technically oriented modern age. This change was fueled by the social misery of Wilhelm II’s reign, caused by an unprecedented level of mass unemployment that rekindled the dream of the United States. The American modern age became associated with technological progress, as is manifest in capitalism, industrialization, urbanization, and the mass media. Above all, in the genre of science fiction literature, novels of the United States as a utopia appeared, such as Bernhard Kellermann’s Der Tunnel (The Tunnel, 1913) and Peter Rosegger’s Der Golfstrom (The Gulf Stream, 1913), in which the focus fell on the process of modernization and the desire for global brotherhood. The novels of Franz Kafka (Der Verschollene [The Missing Man], 1927) and Gerhart Hauptmann (Atlantis [1912] and the drama Dorothea Angermann, 1926) were very different. They portrayed the isolation of the individual in a rationalized working world and the struggle for life. The utopia of social integration with the fulfillment of the American dream was stripped of its illusory character in the biographies of their protagonists, who fled American reality, seeking refuge in places of cultural interest. Painting a largely vague

IN

685

and unreal picture of the United States, both authors created models that were more in line with the thesis of the Viennese expressionist Robert Müller, who claimed that the United States only existed as a presentation of its own image. In Bertolt Brecht’s works as well, the United States consisted only of scattered images. He associated archaic myths with visions of progress, shaping ideas such as the urban jungle (Im Dickicht der Städte [Jungle of Cities], 1923). The abattoirs of Chicago became the literary setting of Americanization and the political debate on capitalism and the reflection of the conditions prevailing in Germany (Brecht, Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui [The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui], 1941; Alfons Paquet, Fahnen [Flags], 1924). This new functionalist literature (Neue Sachlichkeit) was also shaped by the encounter with American literature, particularly with the muckraking movement à la Upton Sinclair. After World War I, the intellectuals and pacifist poets of the Weimar Republic made open professions of support to the United States, with which they associated optimism, technological progress, sportsmanship, and vitality. This rapid change was illustrated most clearly by the diplomat Harry Graf Kessler, who rejected Woodrow Wilson’s peace ideas in September 1918, only to become an admirer of the League of Nations and the U.S. president just three weeks later. A short-lived pro-American euphoria broke out in the “Golden Twenties,” when cultural imports from the United States, facilitated by the Dawes Plan, left their mark on fashions in art, film, and music. Particularly music (jazz, swing), architecture, and dance (Josephine Baker, the foxtrot, onestep, Boston, shimmy) developed into icons of freedom. The fascination with silent

686

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

movies from Hollywood opened up new distribution channels for the literature of Sinclair Lewis and F. Scott Fitzgerald. These cultural imports were widely discussed in literary texts (Alfred Döblin, Georg Kaiser, Iwan Goll, Fritz von Unruh). They often constituted conscious reactions against intellectual anti-Americanism arising from the economic war between the German Empire and the United States, as well as World War I. This anti-Americanism grew from the idea of an America devoid of history and culture in the Gründerzeit (the years of rapid industrial expansion in Germany from 1871), through conservative and national liberal beliefs regarding the weak U.S. civil service, its mechanization of human beings, and the dominance of economism and unilateralism (Hugo Münsterberg, Die Amerikaner [The Americans], 1910), to propagandist hate (Adolf Halfeld, Amerika und die Amerikaner [America and the Americans], 1927), which was adopted by the National Socialists. In the Third Reich the Nazis gave antiAmericanism a racial foundation. The United States was considered the “Jew state” and the center of Jewish imperialism as portrayed by Giselher Wirsing in his journalistic piece Der maßlose Kontinent (The Excessive Continent, 1943). However, this view, which was borne out by a ban on all American cultural forms, such as jazz and swing, rapidly disappeared after the war, bowing to a more, though not exclusively, pro-American image. Mainly on the basis of reports of Germans living in exile, many authors, including left-wing intellectuals, considered the Americans not only guarantors of freedom and wealth but also an occupying power (Hans Werner Richter, Die Geschlagenen

IN

[The Beaten]; Ernst von Salomon, Der Fragebogen [The Questionnaire]; Hans Hellmut Kirst, Sagten Sie Gerechtigkeit, Capitain [Did You Say Justice, Captain?]). Even so, transatlantic solidarity continued almost without interruption into the 1960s and the presidency of John F. Kennedy. Several anthologies appeared in which literature was recognized as having a political mediatory function between both states (Max Rohrer, Amerika im deutschen Gedicht [America in German Poetry], 1948; Ernst Fraenkel, Amerika im Spiegel des deutschen politischen Denkens [America as Reflected in German Political Thinking], 1959; Alfred Gong, Interview mit Amerika [Interview with America], 1962; Wolf Stratowas, Spektrum Amerika [Spectrum America], 1964). Above all, the concept of the “American Dream” and a “country of unlimited opportunity” fueled the social optimism of progress. However, these dreams were also considered critically, particularly under the influence of the Frankfurt School (Arno Schmidt, Die Gelehrtenrepublik [The Egghead Republic]; Stefan Anders, Der Mann auf der Brücke [The Man on the Bridge]; Hans Henny Jahn, Trümmer des Gewissens [The Ruins of Conscience]) and in the 1970s were portrayed as private debates about one’s own subjectivity (Peter Handke, Der kurze Brief zum langen Abschied [Short Letter, Long Farewell], 1972). Along with the protests against the Vietnam War during the student revolution and in left-wing intellectual circles, criticism of the United States became more radical. Hans Magnus Enzensberger, Ernst Bloch, and Herbert Marcuse supported the anti-American stance of the student movement by announcing their solidarity with Vietnam, while Erich Fried expressed his

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

support in his political poems (und Vietnam und [and Vietnam and], 1966) and Peter Weiss in his documentary theater Viet Nam Diskurs (Viet Nam Discourse, 1968). Symbolically, this criticism of the United States led to the image of the crying Statue of Liberty, an expression of the disappointment over the abuse of freedom and human rights as portrayed in Rolf Hochhuth’s dramas (Guerrillas, 1970; Judith, 1984). Although the majority of authors underlined the differences between the United States and Germany with a polemical or political intention, Max Frisch emphasized the similarities through the mental representations of the self and the other in his novels (Stiller, 1954; Homo Faber, 1957) and his diaries, discussing also “our arrogance toward America” (Unsere Arroganz gegenüber Amerika [Our Arrogance toward America], 1952). At the same time, he deconstructed American self-images such as the “American way of life.” In the 1960s German authors started criticizing capitalism, a phenomenon almost entirely associated with the United States (Herbert Heckmann, Der große Knockout in sieben Runden [The Big Knockout in Seven Rounds], 1972). The fear of an economic dictatorship led Reinhard Lettau in his work Täglicher Faschismus (Daily Fascism, 1970) to draw parallels between National Socialism and American politics. These views were similar to the German Democratic Republic’s portrayal of America. The American ideals of freedom, freedom of the press, and democracy were exposed in Socialist fiction as chimera, racism, anticommunism, and exploitation. Particularly in the Ulbricht era of the cold war, the American is portrayed as an anti-Communist agitator and imperi-

IN

687

alist (Gustav von Wangenheim, Auch in Amerika [Also in America], 1950; Maximilian Scheer, Die Rosenbergs [The Rosenbergs], 1953). An analysis of the McCarthy era is found in the Goldsborough novels (1954) and The Cannibals, which the U.S. Army officer Stefan Heym wrote both in English and German. The Vietnam War fueled criticism of the U.S. government, which was expressed particularly in lyrical texts (Volker Braun, Wolf Biermann). An aesthetic deconstruction of American myths from the world of film and history was presented by Hans Christoph Buch (Aus der Neuen Welt [From the New World], 1975), Dieter Kühn (Festspiele für Rothäute [Festivals for Redskins], 1974), Gerlind Reinshagen (Leben und Tod der Marilyn Monroe [The Life and Death of Marilyn Monroe], 1971), and Alfred Andersch (Der Tod des James Dean [The Death of James Dean], 1973). At the end of the 1960s, a new, decidedly literary image of the United States found its way into German literature. The authors of pop literature such as Rolf Dieter Brinkmann, Peter O. Chotjewitz, and Jörg Fauser focused their view of the United States on beat literature and the postmodern reception of individual myths (comics, Westerns) and entertainment media (pornography, film). The United States of America is no longer perceived as a political symbol, but as a fatherland of new cultural forms. This pattern was also evident in the East German literature of the 1970s. In the Honecker era and the initial liberalization phase, American symbols such as jeans and rock music were discussed in works such as Ulrich Plenzdorf ’s Die neuen Leiden des jungen W. (The New Sorrows of Young W., 1973). In spite of reproaches over pornography and aesthetic

688

LITERATURE (GERMAN), THE UNITED STATES

and political discrimination, the reception of American literature has far-reaching consequences, with the authors of the “Prenzlauer Berg” (Adolf Endler, Gert Papenfuß-Gorek) being greatly influenced by beat literature (Jack Kerouac). In the 1980s, the image of the United States developed many more facets. The United States was no longer seen only in a negative light. As a result of the post-colonial transition, left-wing authors of the Federal Republic of Germany started in the 1970s to extend their perspective to America, with the countries of Southern and Central America also edging into view. Particularly Hubert Fichte (Geschichte der Empfindlichkeit [The Story of Sensitivity], 1974ff.) and Hans Christoph Buch (Rede des toten Kolumbus am Tag des Jüngsten Gerichts [Speech of the Deceased Columbus at the Last Judgment], 1992) have portrayed the other America through ethnological and socially critical approaches. The Watergate affair and the NATO rearmament debate of the 1980s strengthened the stereotypes of military predominance and a world police force in German literature. This critical view and the images of imperialism, materialism, and the double standards of the American superpower became entrenched during the 1990s and the 1991 and 2003 invasions of Iraq. Thus, authors during the 1990s increasingly reacted in their writings to the global and political upheavals, in which the United States was either criticized as a world police force (Durs Grünbein, PAX Americana, 2000) and financial center (Botho Strauß), or seen as a contrast to the perceived European inability to act as a military and political leading power (Wolf Biermann). After September 11, 2001,

IN

German authors expressed their sympathy for the United States by portraying the terrorist attacks as traumatic experiences and interpreting their own sadness as signs of their amiable political and cultural relationship with the United States. Above all, through the medium of the diary, which was resurgent in the 1990s, apocalyptic fears were expressed and bear witness to the loss of language in describing the indescribable (Durs Grünbein, Peter Rühmkorf, Else Buschheuer). Authors were quick to react with texts (René Pollesch, Smarthouse I + II, 2001) in which the terrorist attack was perceived as an aesthetic initiation or recovery of realism (Kathrin Röggla, Really Ground Zero, 2001). Above all, September 11 was seen as a global turning point (Dagmar Leupold, Kerstin Hensel, and Marica Bodroûic, 11.9.—911 Bilder des neuen Jahrhunderts/ Images of the New Millennium, 2002). However, this revaluation of the U.S. image in German literature is accompanied and often eclipsed by a critical reserve toward the United States, which in the 1990s became the symbol of globalization and of economic liberalism as well as the perceived enemy of the environment. Critical tones and even extreme anti-American views were voiced after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, in which fears of imperial unilateralism are expressed (Stefan Heym, Franz Xaver Kroetz). German authors wrote open letters to George W. Bush (Matthias Altenburg, Maxim Biller, Moritz Rinke, Sibylle Berg, Feridun Zaimoglu). In Bambiland (2004), Elfriede Jelinek destructed a Walt Diseny view of the world molded by mass media. This fundamental criticism of the media and its manipulative mass influence in the United States is a re-

LLEWELLYN, KARL NICKERSON

peated complaint (Kathrin Röggla, Thomas Hürlimann), recurring since Wolfgang Koeppen. New York enjoys a special place in German literature. Above all in the twentieth century, the metropolis evokes a lasting literary fascination (Rose Ausländer, Amerika-Herold-Kalender, 1922; Klaus Mann, Der Wendepunkt [The Turning Point], 1949; Max Frisch, Hilde Spiel, The Darkened Room, 1961; Uwe Johnson, Jahrestage [Anniversaries] 1970–1983, Gerhard Roth, Der große Horizont [The Wide Horizon], 1974; Gert Hofmann, Die Dununziation [The Denunciation], 1979; Alban Nikolai Herbst, In New York, 2000). Whereas Jürgen Federspiel criticizes the morbidity and social neglect in his satire Museum des Hasses: Tage in Manhattan [Museum of Hate: Days in Manhattan] (1969), the majority of authors perceive New York’s architecture, its transportation and roads, the clashes with a foreign culture, and the social and cultural diversity as a literary challenge and a biographical experience that is noted in chronicles, diaries, and memoirs. New York can be said to be the goal of numerous GDR authors, who, in the wake of the velvet revolution, use their renewed freedom to travel to visit the America. Claude D. Conter See also Americanization; Brecht, Bertolt; Duden, Gottfried; Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von and the United States; Griesinger, Karl Theodor; Hecker, Friedrich; Heym, Stefan; Marcuse, Herbert; May, Karl Friedrich; Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin; Münsterberg, Hugo; Ruppius, Otto; Strubberg, Friedrich August; Weitling, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Bauschinger, Sigrid, ed. Amerika in der deutschen Literatur: Neue Welt—Nordamerika—USA. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1975.

689

Brenner, Peter J. Reisen in die neue Welt: Die Erfahrung Nordamerikas in deutschen: Reiseund Auswandererberichten des 19. Jahrhunderts. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991. Cobbs, Alfred L. The Image of America in Postwar German Literature. Bern: Peter Lang, 1982. Dobert, Eitel Wolf. Dt. Demokraten in Amerika: Die Achtundvierziger u. ihre Schriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1958. Durzak, Manfred. Das Amerika-Bild in der dt. Gegenwartsliteratur. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1979. Galinsky, Hans. Amerikanisch-deutsche Sprachu. Literaturbeziehungen: Systematische Übersicht u. Forschungsbericht, 1945–70. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum-Verlag, 1972. Jantz, Harold: “Amerika im dt. Dichten u. Denken.” Deutsche Philologie im Aufriß. Ed. Wolfgang Stammler. Berlin: E. Schmidt, 1962, 3:309–372. Mikoletzky, Juliane. Die dt. AmerikaAuswanderung des 19. Jh. in der zeitgenössischen fiktionalen Literatur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1988. Osterle, Heinz D., ed. Amerika! New Images in German Literature. New York: Peter Lang, 1989. Ritter, Alexander, ed. Deutschlands literarisches Amerikabild. Hildesheim, NY: Olms, 1977.

LLEWELLYN, KARL NICKERSON b. May 22, 1893; Seattle,Washington d. February 13, 1962; Chicago, Illinois American jurist. Llewellyn studied in Germany, taught at the University of Leipzig, and thus was enabled to introduce into American law key concepts of German civil law. He was one of the most influential American academic jurists of the twentieth century, not only as scholar and teacher, but as a codifier. Llewellyn graduated from Yale Law School in 1918 and taught briefly

690

LLEWELLYN, KARL NICKERSON

there in 1919. He then spent two years in banking practice in New York City, then he returned to Yale to teach, where he remained until 1925, when he was appointed to the faculty of Columbia University School of Law. In 1951 he resigned from Columbia and moved to the University of Chicago Law School. Llewellyn’s reputation rests principally on his work in commercial law and legal philosophy. He is considered the father of both the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and the legal realist movement. He began his teaching career with commercial law and contracts. His commercial law work led to his being called upon in 1940 to be principal draftsman and chief reporter of what became the Uniform Commercial Code that now governs commercial transactions throughout the United States. Beginning in the late 1920s Llewellyn also turned to issues of legal philosophy, including issues of legal process and legal methods. In this area he became renowned as the founding father of the school of legal realism. The legal realists sought to examine the law as it actually is implemented. Llewellyn was also one of the first American legal academics to work in the area of the anthropology of law. Llewellyn’s life mirrors the decline in influence of German culture on American intellectual life. When Llewellyn was born, German influence in America was near its zenith. Llewellyn’s father, William Henry Llewellyn, was favorably impressed by the German educational system. When his son at age sixteen ran out of challenges at the Boy’s High School in Brooklyn, he sent young Karl to the Gymnasium (academic high school) in Schwerin in Mecklenburg. Llewellyn spent three happy years there and graduated in 1911, before returning

home to enter Yale College. When World War I began in 1914, Llewellyn happened to be in Paris. He quickly left for Germany and joined up with the German army. Wounded in combat, he was awarded the Iron Cross. Discharged because he would not give up his American citizenship, he returned to the United States and spent the remainder of the war as a student at Yale. As a young professor, in 1928–1929 and again in 1932, Llewellyn was visiting professor at the University of Leipzig Faculty of Law. In 1933 he published in Germany in German one of his most important jurisprudential works (Präjudizienrecht und Rechtsprechung in Amerika) which was not translated into English until 1989 (The Case Law System in America). The Nazi dictatorship even more than World War I naturally cooled Llewellyn’s public enthusiasm for things German. When Stefan A. Riesenfeld arrived in America in flight from Nazi Germany in 1935, Llewellyn cautioned him that to identify an idea as having its origin in Continental Europe was to give it the “kiss of death” (Riesenfeld 1993, 91). Although publicly Llewellyn avoided references to things German, privately he continued to draw on German legal science in his work in commercial law and legal philosophy. Llewellyn is the acknowledged inspirer and principal draftsman of the Uniform Commercial Code. More than any other American legislative work, it comes closest to the great Continental codifications such as the French Code Civil (Code Napoleon) and the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB—Civil Code). Not only in form, but in many specific points, in the dark days of World War II Llewellyn drew upon this, one of the great achievements of German culture, for his work on the UCC. Although it is little recognized in

LOEB, JACQUES

the United States, fundamental concepts in American commercial law such as “good faith” and “unconscionability” have origins in Llewellyn’s reading of the German Civil Code. After World War II, Llewellyn sought privately to restore his ties to Germany. He followed the work of the German Federal Supreme Court and campaigned to save East German cathedrals from destruction. At the time of his death he was working on a series of lectures that he was to give in Germany that were to provide a comprehensive picture of his thought. James R. Maxeiner References and Further Reading Ansaldi, Michael. “The German Llewellyn.” Brooklyn Law Review, vol. 58 (1992): 705–777. Drobnig, Ulrich, and Manfred Rehbinder, eds. Rechtsrealismus, multi-kulturelle Gesellschaft und Handelsrecht: Karl. N. Llewellyn und seine Bedeutung heute. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994. Hull, N. E. H. Roscoe Pound & Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1997. Riesenfeld, Stefan. “The Impact of German Legal Ideas and Institutions on Legal Thought and Institutions in the United States.” The Recption of Continental Ideas in the Common Law World 1820–1920. Ed. Mathias Reimann. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1993, 89–99. Twining, William. Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1985. Whitman, James. “Commercial Law and the American Volk: A Note on Llewellyn’s Sources for the Uniform Commercial Code.” Yale Law Journal, vol. 97 (1987): 156–175.

LOEB, JACQUES b. April 7, 1859; Mayen (Rhineland), Prussia d. February 11, 1924; Hamilton, Bermuda

691

German Jewish scientist who emigrated to the United States in 1891. He fostered scientific exchange among German and American scholars. In times of global shortage in Germany after World War I he actively supported German biologists in raising funds for their research projects. Loeb was a central figure in American German scientific relations of his time. After Loeb had studied medicine, he started his scientific career in Germany working under the physiologist Friedrich Goltz (1834–1902) in Straßburg. In 1884 he finished his thesis on cerebral localizations of bodily functions in dogs. Having continued these neurophysiological studies at Nathan Zuntz’s (1847–1920) institute in Berlin, he moved on to Würzburg where he worked as an assistant to Adolf Fick from 1886 to 1888. In Würzburg he was strongly influenced by the studies of the botanist and plant physiologist Julius Sachs (1832–1897). Sachs studied the reaction of plants to external stimuli like light and gravity. Following these studies, Loeb tried to show that the movements of lower animals were not directed by any vitalistic instinct or “will” but by light (heliotropism) and other external factors. In 1888 Loeb returned to Straßburg. During the winter of 1889–1890 Loeb visited the Naples Zoological Station. Here he met the supporters of a new trend in biological research called “developmental mechanics,” among them leading proponents of this discipline. Loeb became acquainted with their methods of research and started his own experiments on embryology and regeneration using sea urchins. During this time he also developed an interest in the philosophical theories of the physicist Ernst Mach (1838–1916). Mach’s mechanistic philosophy and his theory of cogni-

692

LOEWENSTEIN, KARL

tion that considered science as being directed to influence the environment to fit human needs formed the theoretical basis of Loeb’s further studies. Growing antisemitism, poor job prospects, and his marriage to the American Anne Leonard made Loeb look for an academic position in the United States. In 1891 he left for the United States and after stays in Bryn Mawr, Chicago, and Berkeley, he came to the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in 1910, where he held a research position until his death. In America, Loeb was able to continue his studies on the physiology of development. From 1892 on he regularly visited the newly established Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole to do research and give summer courses. Woods Hole offered similar research conditions as the Naples Zoological Station. Thus, Loeb could transfer and apply the methods he had learned in Europe. Loeb’s research on the physiology of development made him a well-known scientist. Experimenting on the influence of inorganic substances on sea urchin eggs, he was able to publish in 1899 his most famous finding: “On the Nature of the Process of Fertilization and the Artificial Production of Normal Larvae (Plutei) from the Unfertilized Eggs of the Sea Urchin.” Loeb found that he was able to initiate embryological development by treating sea urchin eggs with inorganic salt solutions. This finding called “Artificial Parthenogenesis” attracted attention all over the world. For this discovery Loeb was nominated for the Nobel Prize. The correspondence Loeb exchanged with the leading scientists of his time from Europe and America indicates that he was

not working on his own as an isolated scientist but that he tried to foster scientific exchange and international transfer of knowledge. With growing intensity he observed and commented on the political changes that occurred in Germany and America before and during World War I. He feared that the war could stop any scientific dialogue between countries. After the war he tried to help German scientists to keep up their work under disastrous working conditions in troubled times by sending urgently required scientific journals, offering scholarships, and inviting some of them (among them the future Nobel Prize winners Otto Warburg and Otto Meyerhof ) to work with him in the United States. Heiner Fangerau and Irmgard Müller References and Further Reading Osterhout, Withrop, and John Van Leuven. “Jacques Loeb.” The Journal of General Physiology 8 (1928): ix–xcii. Pauly, P. J. Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. New York, Oxford: Oxford University, 1987. Rasmussen, C., and R. Tilman. Jacques Loeb: His Science and Social Activism and Their Philosophical Foundations.” Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 229. Philadelphia, 1998. Reingold, N. “Jaques Loeb, the Scientist: His Papers and His Era.” Library of Congress: Quarterly Journal of Current Acquisitions 19 (1962): 119–130.

LOEWENSTEIN, KARL b. November 9, 1891; Munich, Bavaria d. July 10, 1973; Heidelberg, BadenWürttemberg German American political scientist. Loewenstein was a promising young aca-

LOEWENSTEIN, KARL

demic when the Nazis came to power and forced him to flee to the United States on account of his Jewish heritage. He became a political scientist of international renown at Amherst College in Massachusetts. Loewenstein grew up in Munich, where he completed the Gymnasium (academic high school) in 1910. He studied law at the universities in Munich, Berlin, Heidelberg, and Paris. Just before the outbreak of World War I he passed the first state examination toward law practice. From 1914 to 1917 he served with the German army on the western front, but was released from service for poor vision. In 1918 he completed his second state examination and was admitted to the legal profession. In 1919 Loewenstein finished his dissertation on the topic of the French National Assembly of 1789 and was awarded a doctorate in law (Dr. jur.) by the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich. From 1919 he practiced law in Munich until 1933, when he was disbarred because he was Jewish. In 1931 he completed his second dissertation (Habilitationsschrift) on the topic of constitutional amendment and was appointed an assistant professor (Privatdozent) at the University of Munich. After Adolf Hitler came to power, Loewenstein went to the United States in December 1933, having received a twoyear appointment at Yale University that was supported, in part, by the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced Foreign Scholars. In 1936 he was appointed to the faculty of Amherst College. During World War II, while maintaining his position at Amherst, he worked for the departments of Justice and State. He was involved in a working group of the American Law Insti-

693

tute that was established to draft an international convention on human rights. After the war Loewenstein was legal adviser to the military government in Germany in the Allied Control Council in Berlin, where he had substantial effect on legal developments in postwar Germany. In 1946 he returned to Amherst, where he taught until he took emeritus status in 1961. Loewenstein was a well-known political scientist in both Germany and the United States. He published many scholarly books and articles on public law and comparative government. Upon the outbreak of World War II he published a popular book, Hitler’s Germany, the Nazi Background to War (1939), in which he warned Americans of the Fascist threat. American troops marched into Germany with his guide “Government and Politics in Germany,” in volume 1 of Governments of Continental Europe, War Department Education Manual E-254 (1944). After 1945 Loewenstein played an important role in the development of political science in Germany through his involvement in the reopening and reorganization of universities. The German government recognized Loewenstein’s work by awarding him the Bundesverdienstkreuz (Order of Merit). James R. Maxeiner See also American Occupation Zone; Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Commager, Henry Steele, et al. Festschrift für Karl Loewenstein aus Anlaß seines achtzigsten Geburtstages. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1971. Stiefel, Ernst C., and Frank Mecklenburg. Deutsche Juristen im amerikanischen Exil (1933–1950). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991.

694

LÖHE, JOHANNES KONRAD WILHELM

LÖHE, JOHANNES KONRAD WILHELM b. February 21, 1808; Fürth, Bavaria d. January 2, 1872; Neuendettelsau, Bavaria Bavarian pastor, theologian, and architect of confessional Lutheran missions to the United States. Löhe studied at Erlangen, and eventually settled into a pastorate in Neuendettelsau. His ministry was characterized by a strict Lutheran confessionalism. Though he never visited America, Löhe was preoccupied with the spread of Lutheranism in North America during the 1840s and 1850s, writing Agende für christliche Gemeinden des lutherischen Bekenntnisses (The Lutheran Emigrants in North America, 1841) to encourage fidelity to the Lutheran confessional books and, especially, the Lutheran Church as an organic and divine institution. Particularly troubling for Löhe was the rise of interdenominational missionary organizations, which he believed undermined the integrity of the gospel by reducing it to the whims of individual Christians. Dozens of German churchmen responded to the passionate call of Löhe by settling frontier America, and during the 1840s, partly through reports by these missionaries, Löhe was able to offer news of American Lutheran growth through his journal Kirchliche Mittheilungen aus und über Nordamerika (Ecclesiastical Miscellanies from and about North America). As Walther Conser observed, Löhe turned his “parish at Neuendettelsau [into] an important headquarters for the missionary movement” (Conser 2001). Löhe was instrumental in the early history of the Missouri, Iowa, and Buffalo Synod branches of Lutheranism in America, as well as settle-

ments in central Michigan, and he contributed to the founding of a seminary at Fort Wayne, Indiana. He likewise helped to commit American frontier (now midwestern) Lutheranism to rigorous confessional standards and worship in the German language, believing that one could only learn the Lutheran faith from thoroughly German institutions. R. Bryan Bademan See also Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod References and Further Reading Conser, Walther H., Jr. “Moral Order on the American Frontier: Lutheran Missions in the 1840s.” In Ethical Monotheism, Past and Present: Essays in Honor of Wendell S. Dietrich. Eds. Theodore M. Vial and Mark A. Hadley. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001, pp. 120–137. Deinzer, Johannes. Wilhelm Löhes Leben, 3 vols. Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1880–1901. Schaaf, James L. Wilhelm Löhe’s Relation to the American Church: A Study in the History of Lutheran Mission. ThD dissertation. University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, 1961.

LONGFELLOW, HENRY WADSWORTH b. February 27, 1807; Portland, Maine d. March 24, 1882; Cambridge, Massachusetts Arguably the most acclaimed American poet of his era, remembered chiefly because of his poems such as Evangeline: A Tale of Arcadie (1847), The Song of Hiawatha (1855), and Paul Revere’s Ride (1863). Longfellow was among the most influential transmitters of German culture to America in the nineteenth century. After graduating from Bowdoin College in 1825, he made a

LONGFELLOW, HENRY WADSWORTH

three-year trip to Europe to prepare himself for the professorship of modern languages that he had been offered at his alma mater. After spending most of his time in France, Spain, and Italy, he eventually studied in Göttingen for three months, largely upon the recommendation of George Ticknor. During his brief stay in Germany he did not acquire the fluency in German that he later gained at the University of Heidelberg (1835–1836), where he prepared himself to become Ticknor’s successor at Harvard. While in Heidelberg, Longfellow began an intensive study of German literature, beginning with the Middle Ages, but focusing upon the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He was immediately attracted to the lyrical quality of German romantic literature, especially the works of Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg), Heinrich Heine, Ludwig Uhland, and Jean Paul Richter. Above all, he immersed himself in the study of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who ultimately was to become, along with Dante, one of the two focal points of Longfellow’s intellectual life. Upon his return to America, he began his eighteenyear teaching career at Harvard, where he taught German, as well as the Romance languages, and lectured on European and, particularly, German literature. In his Harvard lectures, as well as in his writing, he was one of the leading contributors to the growing popularity of Goethe in America. Many of his shorter poems reflect German romanticism, while German themes are clearly present in a number of his longer works, especially Voices of the Night (1838), The Golden Legend (1851), and above all, in his novel Hyperion, A Romance (1839), in which he conveyed the spirit of romantic poetry and devoted an entire chapter to Goethe. Longfellow also introduced the

695

broader reading public to German literature through his two anthologies, Poets and Poetry of Europe (1841, 1871), which included his own translations of two of Goethe’s poems, Wanderers Nachtlied I & II (Wanderer’s Night Song I & II, 1780). The increasing appreciation of Goethe in America, and especially in New England, to which Longfellow greatly contributed, reflected his own evolving enthusiasm for the German poet. While at Heidelberg he began to overcome prevailing American puritanical criticisms of Goethe, especially those of immorality and sensuality. At the beginning of his studies he preferred Friedrich Schiller to Goethe, but he became increasingly moved by the language and sentiment of Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (The Sorrows of Young Werther, 1774), even though he did not approve of Werther’s eventual suicide. At the same time he immersed himself in a number of other works of Goethe, above all Faust (1808, 1832), a work that was later to become a focal point of his academic lectures. At Cambridge he had to counter the negative image created by Charles Follen, who had censured the German poet for his aloofness from politics and his perceived commitment to the old European order. In his Harvard lectures Longfellow denied that Goethe’s works were immoral, presented the poet as the epitome of calm and dignity, and asserted that he had no rival in Germany. In his early novel Hyperion, Longfellow showed much more caution. Paul Flemming, the protagonist, presented the usual American puritanical views of Goethe, while Flemming’s counterpoint, the Baron, praised the poet, often with the same phrases Longfellow used in front of his students at Harvard. While neither side appeared to

696

LORRE, PETER

Years, 1795) and Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre (William Meister’s Travels, 1829). Longfellow’s Ballads and Other Poems (1841) were influenced by a number of German poets, particularly Ludwig Uhland (1787–1862), whom he greatly admired. Moreover, while visiting Germany in the summer of 1842, Longfellow developed a friendship with Ferdinand Freiligrath (1810–1876), a poet passionately involved in the struggle for German freedom and a united Germany. Apparently Freiligrath inspired Longfellow to write his Poems on Slavery, published later that year. John T. Walker Henry Wadsworth Longfellow is considered the most influential transmitter of German culture to America in the nineteenth century. (Courtesy of James Smith Noel Collection at Louisiana State University, Shreveport.)

win the debate, it is significant that its conclusion was followed by Flemming’s purchase of a statuette of Goethe, similar to the one that is still observed today in Longfellow’s study in Cambridge. German authors and themes influenced many of Longfellow’s works in diverse ways. His Voices of the Night, written in the aftermath of the death of his wife and the later disappointment of unrequited love, reflects the mysticism of the German romantic writer Novalis. Longfellow’s The Golden Legend is a creative amalgamation of Hartmann von Aue’s medieval work Der Arme Heinrich (Poor Henry, ca. 1190), with Goethe’s Faust. And the basic structure of Hyperion, cited above, is undoubtedly Longfellow’s attempt to write an Entwicklungsroman (Novel of Development), influenced by Goethe’s Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre (Wilhelm Meister’s Apprentice

See also American Students at German Universities; Follen, Charles; Göttingen, University of; Ticknor, George References and Further Reading Hatfield, James Taft. New Light on Longfellow: With Special Reference to his Relations to Germany. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1933. Long, Orie. Literary Pioneers: Early American Explorers of European Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1935. Pochmann, Henry A. German Culture in America: Philosophical and Literary Influences, 1600–1900. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1978.

LORRE, PETER b. June 26, 1904; Rosenberg, Slovakia (Austria-Hungary) d. March 23, 1964; Los Angeles, California German actor who emigrated to the United States in 1935 and became famous for his part as a Japanese detective in the Mr. Moto series. One of the most intense actors in film history, who appeared in some eighty movies, Peter Lorre was unfor-

LORRE, PETER

gettable in his first leading role for Fritz Lang’s thriller titled M (1931), in which he played the murdering pedophile. Lorre was born Laszlo Löwenstein (or Ladislav Loewenstein as in some accounts). A small man with a round face and bulging eyes, Lorre began his theater acting career onstage in Zurich, Vienna, and Breslau during the 1920s. The actor made his film debut in Germany in 1928. He became famous for his role in Lang’s M, which left him with the popular image of a psychotic man with a cherubic, pale face. Lorre’s character in the film always whistled before committing a crime, but Lorre apparently was unable to whistle at all. An anecdote has it that while shooting M, director Fritz Lang had to “dub” Lorre’s whistle by himself whistling into a microphone! The success of that film made both Lang and Lorre respected in the United States and known worldwide. As many Jewish artists, Lorre left Germany in 1933. He went first to Paris, where he played with Jean Gabin in a comedy directed by Georg Wilhelm Pabst, titled Du haut en bas (From Upstairs to Downstairs, 1933), and in Les Requins du pétrole (The Oil Sharks, 1933), before going to London. After two years in England, where he notably played in Alfred Hitchcock’s first version of The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) and Secret Agent (1935), Lorre emigrated to the United States in 1935. In Hollywood, Lorre played a tormented musician in a remake of Robert Wiene’s Olrac’s Hande (Mad Love, 1935). The same year, Josef von Sternberg gave Lorre the role of Raskolnikov in his adaptation of Dostoyevsky’s famous novel Crime and Punishment (1935). His strange physical appearance even allowed Lorre to play a Japanese detective in an eight-film

697

series produced by Twentieth Century Fox, titled Mr. Moto (1936–1939). Titles in the series include The Mysterious Mr. Moto, Mr. Moto Takes a Chance, Mr. Moto on Danger Island, and Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation. During his American period, Lorre’s most famous appearances were sustaining roles in two movies with Humphrey Bogart: in John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon (1941) and his short part in Michael Curtiz’s Casablanca (1943). Among other roles in postwar productions, Lorre played a police detective in the second U.S. remake of an important French film, Julien Duvivier’s Pépé le Moko (Casbah, 1937); the third version was a musical, also titled Casbah (1949). Lorre also appeared in Rope of Sand (1949), directed by William Dieterle. During a short return to West Germany, Lorre directed an anti-Nazi film in which he played the main role titled Der Verlorene (The Lost One, 1951). On location in Italy, he appeared again with Humphrey Bogart in John Huston’s Beat the Devil (1954). Shortly thereafter, back in the United States, Lorre was part of many transatlantic projects, as a supporting actor in Richard Fleischer’s adaptation of Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues under the Sea (1954). He also had a small part in Around the World in 80 Days (Michael Anderson, 1956) and one of the leading parts in Five Weeks in a Balloon (Irwin Allen, 1962). Although he was often asked to play villains and madmen in horror movies (The Boogie Man Will Get You, 1943), Lorre’s talent made him valuable in other genres: melodramas (Island of Doomed Men, 1940), and even comedies (Lorre played “Skeeter the clown” in the movie The Big Circus, 1959), and musicals (Silk Stockings, 1957). Roger Corman recognized Lorre’s talent and hired him for his

698

LOUISIANA

Edgar Allan Poe adaptations: Tales of Terror (1962) and The Raven (1963). Lorre’s last appearance in a movie was in Jerry Lewis’s comedy, The Patsy (1964). Yves Laberge See also Dieterle, William; German Film, U.S. Influence in; Intellectual Exile; Lang, Fritz; Sternberg, Josef von References and Further Reading The German-Hollywood Connection. Peter Lorre: Films & Links. http://www .germanhollywood.com/lorre_2.html (accessed May 11, 2005). Kaes, Anton. M. London: British Film Institute, 1999. Nationmaster Encyclopedia. Entry on Peter Lorre. http://www.nationmaster.com /encyclopedia/Peter-Lorre (accessed May 11, 2005).

LOUISIANA In 1717 Jean-Etienne Purry’s attempts failed to persuade the Duke of Orleans to invite German and Swiss emigrants to Louisiana, because the Duke feared that the foreigners could undermine French authority. The French government had always been reluctant to transport foreign nationals to their colonies despite the fact that the Swiss and Portuguese emigrants who arrived in Quebec in 1668 quickly assimilated. John Law, a Scottish emigrant to France and the founder of the Compagnie des Indoes (Company of the Indies), brought the first German settlers to Louisiana in 1720. Many Germans responded to Law’s propaganda booklets that circulated in the German states. They were promised a Garden of Eden, where crops could be harvested four times a year and gold and silver were abundant. However, only 330 of over 4,000 potential settlers survived the dangerous journeys of 1720

and 1721. Needless to say, the land that they found did not match the glorious description they anticipated. When Law’s monopoly position of overseeing the entire French overseas trade collapsed at the end of 1720, the Germans initially refused to stay in Louisiana, as they wanted to work only for John Law. Governor Jean Baptiste le Monye de Bienville persuaded them to reside in Louisiana by granting them concessions on a region 30 miles north of New Orleans. Under the leadership of the Swedish military officer Karl Friedrich von Arensburg (or D’Arensbourg) the thriving settlement became known as the Côte des Allemands, Les Allemands, or the German Coast, where the settlers founded the villages of Carlstein (or Charlesbourg, hence today’s name St. Charles Parish), Hoffen, Marienthal, and Augsburg. In 1722 the region was devastated by a hurricane that left 152 settlers dead; the 169 remaining Germans had to abandon Augsburg and Marienthal. However, the Côte des Allemands eventually flourished and was highly respected by the French. By 1766, when the Spanish took over Louisiana, the settlement was populated by 1,803 inhabitants (1,268 Germans and 535 slaves) and had 3,000 cows, 350 horses, and 540 pigs. The second and third generations abandoned their German heritage, customs, and language and completely assimilated. Many names had already been gallicized before the original settlers departed from French harbors, others took on French names when they entered French-Louisiana society. “Huber” became “Oubre” or “Hoover,” “Himmel” became “Ximel” and later “Hymel.” During the course of the nineteenth century, a number of these already changed names underwent another transformation, when they were anglicized.

LOUISIANA

699

Trade between Frenchmen and Indians at the mouth of the Mississippi River. This engraving was distributed by agents of John Law to promote investment in the Company of the West and emigration to the Louisiana Colony. (Historic New Orleans Collection, accession no. 1952.3)

Although the settlers faced considerable challenges during the early years of the Spanish occupancy, the colony continued to prosper and a number of plantations, including the Ormond, Destrehan, and Homeplace plantations, were built. Due to political, economic, social, and religious reasons, thousands of Germans left their homeland for America during the nineteenth century. The first of the three immigration waves was caused by the European famine of 1817. More than 50,000 Germans arrived in New Orleans between 1820 and 1850, and many made their home there. The second wave that began in the 1840s was triggered by political factors. At its peak in 1860, 24,614 Germans lived in Louisiana (5 percent of the state’s population), most of them settled in New Orleans, then the wealthiest city in the nation. In 1864 Louisiana saw the third wave of German immigrants that lasted until 1895. Anti-Catholic laws and the wars of

1864, 1866, and 1870 forced thousands of Germans to leave their country. During the course of the century, the German Society of New Orleans supported more than 250,000 German immigrants in various ways. Because Otto von Bismarck’s social and economic reforms of the 1880s were quite successful, fewer and fewer Germans saw the need to emigrate. As a result, Louisiana’s German population had significantly decreased by the turn of the twentieth century. During the nineteenth century, the cultural, social, and economic influence of the Germans in New Orleans was quite impressive. Germans founded bakeries and German newspapers such as the Staats-Zeitung (State Newspaper) and the even more significant Deutsche Zeitung (German Neswspaper). Many worked as goldsmiths, watchmakers, carpenters, architects, and shoe manufacturers. In addition, the printing and beer industries were monopolized by

700

LOUISIANA

Germans. The “German Coast” delivered vegetables, fruit, eggs, butter, and cheese to New Orleans. A number of German farmers and gardeners found their niche in growing flowers, as truck farming was dominated by other European immigrants. Clearly, by midcentury German culture flourished in New Orleans. The German Theater on Magazine Street staged plays by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing in the original language. German singing clubs such as the New Orleans Liedertafel, the Turn-Verein Singing Society, the New Orleans Frohsinn, the New Orleans Liederkranz, and the Haragari Men’s Glee Club attracted large audiences. In 1890 Hanno Deiler, a musically gifted German professor at the University of Louisiana (today’s Tulane University), organized the Twenty-Sixth North American Sänger Bund Festival in New Orleans. These efforts notwithstanding, the German language gradually disappeared from New Orleans. Even though the majority of German immigrants were either Catholics or Lutherans, several hundred German Jews came to Louisiana as well and built their own synagogues. Similarly, Catholics and Lutherans established their churches and schools, but their German identity hardly survived the beginning of the twentieth century. The only remaining German presence in New Orleans in the early twentyfirst century is the Deutsches Haus on South Galvez Street. The Deutsches Haus, which has its roots in the German Society of New Orleans, was founded in 1928. But not all German immigrants lived in and around New Orleans. In 1870 a handful of settlers from New Orleans founded a colony in modern-day Acadia

Parish, west of Lafayette. Under the leadership of Zeno Huber and Joseph Fabacher, several families and recent immigrants established a settlement on the prairies of southwest Louisiana. When the Fabacher settlement flourished, Joseph Fabacher promoted the founding of a second German settlement nearby. By 1882 Fabacher had recruited about eighty immigrants, among them Nicholas Zaunbrecher, who was one of the most important inhabitants of the newly established Roberts Cove settlement. Zaunbrecher played a key role in improving the infrastructure of Roberts Cove and he created artificial lakes to ensure the success of his rice harvest. The community experienced its golden age between 1900 and 1917. However, in 1922 the church school was forced to close its doors, and in 1930 the diocese of Lafayette took control over the town’s church, abruptly ending the line of German-speaking priests. Gradually the inhabitants assimilated, but in the 1950s the members of the widespread Zaunbrecher family began to revive their German identity by initiating family reunions. As a result, a number of descendents of other German settlers had a renewed interest in their German heritage, and in 1995 the first Roberts Cove Germanfest was celebrated. Today the town is particularly known for its Germanfest on the first weekend of October and for upholding its German traditions during the Christmas season. Gregor Thuswaldner See also Beer; Duden, Gottfried; New Orleans; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Blume, Helmut. The German Coast during the Colonial Era, 1722–1803. Destrehan, LA: The German-Acadian Coast Historical and Genealogical Society, 1990.

LÖWE, ADOLPH Kondert, Reinhart. From Geilenkirchen to Acadia Parish: A History of the Germans of Roberts Cove, 1880–1987. Lafayette: Center for Louisiana Studies, 1988. ———. The Germans of Colonial Louisiana, 1720–1803. Stuttgart: Hans-Dieter Heinz, 1990. Nau, John Frederick. The German People of New Orleans, 1850–1900. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1958.

LÖWE (LOWE), ADOLPH b. March 4, 1893; Stuttgart, Württemberg d. June 3, 1995;Wolfenbüttel, Lower Saxony Jewish Socialist and economic theorist who left Germany in 1933 and became an important member of the New School for Social Research in New York. After finishing high school, Löwe studied history, philosophy, sociology, and political economy at the universities of Munich, Berlin, and Tübingen. Conscripted during World War I, Löwe was put in charge of foodstuff control by General Erich von Ludendorff. He actively participated in the November revolution of 1918 on the side of the Social Democrats and advanced quickly to become the representative of the new provisionary government in the council responsible for the demobilization of the German army. In 1919 Löwe became the political adviser of the first minister for labor and later chancellor, Gustav Bauer. Between 1919 and 1926, Löwe was appointed to various positions in the ministry of economics and the statistical office of the government. In 1926 he was offered a professorship of economics (the chair was previously occupied by Ferdinand Tönnies) at the University of Kiel. In 1931 he accepted a professorship at the University

701

of Frankfurt am Main. Taking over this chair from Carl Grünberg, Löwe became a member of what later came to be known as the Frankfurt School of Critical Thought. Looking back, Löwe recognized already in 1927 that the Weimar Republic was in deep trouble. He even suggested that it might not survive. For Löwe the Social Democratic Party was the only political force that unconditionally supported the Weimar Republic. However, he faulted the Social Democrats for their alienation of religious voters and members as well as the failure to attract middle-class support. Against all hope, Löwe wanted to contribute to the integration of religion into social democracy. Therefore, he became a member of the Berlin circle of religious Socialists. This circle, founded by the theologian Paul Tillich, attempted to bridge atheistic Socialist thought with religious tradition. Because Tillich contended that Karl Marx’s concept of history was influenced by prophetical thinking and Jewish religious tradition, religious socialism also provided a bridge between Jews and Christians. When Adolf Hitler became chancellor in January 1933, Löwe had to leave the country immediately. He escaped to England, where he received a university position in Manchester. While he felt welcomed in 1933 as a persecuted Jewish Socialist, the situation became unbearable after England declared war against Germany, and Löwe was now treated as an enemy alien. When he received his British passport in 1939, the British authorities erased the dots on top of the “o,” thus anglicizing his name. Löwe did not object but decided to leave England for the United States. In 1940 he traveled to New York after he had received an invitation to join the New School for Social Research. Löwe

702

LUBITSCH, ERNST

would guarantee social justice. The question is therefore not whether central planning should happen or not, but just whether it should be carried out by democratic or autocratic means. Löwe rejected the model of state-run economies in Communist countries, but not socialism as an idea, which can serve as a goal for modern societies. As such, socialism is not a social and economic category that actually can be realized, but an ethical ideal that people strive to accomplish without ever reaching it. Michael Rudloff

Adolph Löwe, Jewish Socialist and economic theorist who left Germany in 1933 and became an important member of the New School for Social Research in New York. (Courtesy of Rachel Aubrey, Hanover, N.H.)

remained in New York until 1983. On his ninetieth birthday, he permanently moved back to Germany to live close to his daughter in Wolfenbüttel. Between 1983 and 1995, Löwe worked on a major treatment of ethical and philosophical aspects of his political economy. Based on his experience and his research as an economist, Löwe argued that modern economies cannot function independently of and without state regulation. Unlimited market economies necessarily produce mass unemployment and are limited only by moral norms imposed by family and church. The state, according to Löwe, has to step in and to take over the protective function of the family. Modern societies do not need less, but more, state control. A well-developed bureaucracy

See also Frankfurt School; Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Krohn, Claus-Dieter. Der Philosophische Ökonom. Zur intellektuellen Biographie Adolf Lowes. Marburg: Metropolis Verlag, 1996. Lowe, Adolph. On Economic Knowledge: Toward a Science of Political Economics. New York: Harper and Row, 1965. ———. Has Freedom a Future? New York: Praeger, 1988. Pfeiffer, Arnold. Religiöse Sozialisten. Dokumente der Weltrevolution, vol. 6. Olten/Freiburg im Breisgau: Walter, 1976.

LUBITSCH, ERNST b. January 28, 1892; Berlin, Prussia d. November 30, 1947; Hollywood, California German Jewish film director, producer, and actor who went to the United States in 1922 and produced several influential movies in Hollywood. Lubitsch was respected for his historical films while in Germany and later considered a master of comedy during his Hollywood period. In 1911, like many lucky young actors who became famous, Lubitsch began at nineteen to audition for minor roles in Max

LUDWIG-MISSIONSVEREIN

Reinhardt’s Deutsches Theater (German Theater). After playing on stage (Hamlet) and appearing on the screen, Lubitsch began directing short films in 1914 and longer movies (such as Die Augen des Mummie Ma [The Eyes of the Mummy Ma]) in 1918. He often cowrote his own scripts and sometimes played in the films of that early period. He was very productive and some of his numerous films were quite successful, among them Die Austerprinzessin (The Oyster Princess, 1919), Madame Du Barry (1919), Die Puppe (The Doll, 1919). In all, Lubitsch directed some forty silent films (most of them less than thirty minutes long) in Germany between 1914 and 1923. Lubitsch moved to Hollywood in December 1922 to direct Mary Pickford in Rosita (1923). From that moment on, all Lubitsch’s films were produced in the United States, often by his own company, giving him greater artistic freedom. Some of these American movies were set in Europe, such as So This Is Paris (1926) and The Student Prince in Heidelberg (1927). The 1930s were a golden era for Lubitsch. Some of his best films—Trouble in Paradise (1932), Design for Living (1933), Angel (1937), Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife (1938), and Ninotchka (1939)—were partly set in France. Lubitsch adapted twice on screen the French play Divorçons (1880) by Victorien Sardou and Émile de Najac in Kiss Me Again (1925) and That Uncertain Feeling (1941), transposed to New York City. He worked repeatedly with German actresses such as Pola Negri (Forbidden Paradise, 1924), and Marlene Dietrich (Angel, 1937), and actors such as Emil Jannings (The Patriot, 1928). He also helped younger directors, such as Otto Preminger, by supervising their debut films in Hollywood.

703

Lubitsch went back to Europe (Paris, Vienna, and Moscow) for a few weeks in 1936 to see films and prepare future projects, including his never-made film version of Richard Strauss’s Der Rosenkavalier. But Lubitsch was shocked to see antisemitism in Germany and Austria and did not stay for long; he had lost his German citizenship in 1935 because of the Nuremberg Laws. Back in Hollywood, he directed his best film, a brilliant satire on Nazism and Adolf Hitler, titled To Be or Not to Be (1942), about a theater troop that was set in Poland and often referred to Shakespeare’s famous play. A pale remake by the same name of that comedy was produced by Mel Brooks in 1983. Another great Lubitsch film from that period was an adaptation of a play by Hungarian author Nikolaus Laszlo titled Illatszetar, that became The Shop around the Corner (1940), about a seller who writes to a secret correspondent without knowing he is working just beside her every day. Two remakes of that popular comedy were made in the United States by Robert Z. Leonard (In the Good Old Summertime, 1949) and by Nora Ephron (You’ve Got Mail, 1999, with Tom Hanks). Yves Laberge See also Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene; Film (German), American Influence on; Hollywood; Jannings, Emil; Preminger, Otto Ludwig; Reinhardt, Max References and Further Reading Weinberg, Herman G. The Lubitsch Touch: A Critical Study. New York: Dutton, 1968.

LUDWIG-MISSIONSVEREIN The Ludwig-Missionsverein was formed with the permission of King Ludwig I of Bavaria on December 12, 1838, and directed by the archbishop of MunichFreising. It was one of three principal

704

LUDWIG-MISSIONSVEREIN

European mission societies for the promotion of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States during the nineteenth century—the other two were the Society for the Propagation of the Faith (Lyons, 1822) and the Leopoldine Foundation (Vienna, 1829). The American priest Frederic Rese, who had played an essential role in the formation of the Leopoldine Foundation, conceived the idea of a Bavarian mission society. He had been vicar general in Cincinnati when he first pitched the idea to Ludwig I in 1828 and the bishop of Detroit when he finally gained the king’s approval, two attempts and ten years later. Rising to the throne in 1825, the deeply religious Ludwig I differed greatly from his father, Maximilian I. Whereas the father had courted the favor of France (it was Napoleon who granted Maximilian the title of king), the son set his policy in direct opposition to the Hexagon. By the time of Rese’s third petition, the idea had become quite appealing to Ludwig I, given his desire to impede the growth of the French Society for the Propagation of the Faith within his kingdom. The mission society aimed to promote the Catholic faith in Asia and North America by granting financial support to churches and educational institutions. In its infancy the Bavarian society had to rely on the more established French Society for the Propagation of the Faith for the gathering of information from and the administration of funds to the American churches. Given his German nationalism and Francophobia, Ludwig I only begrudgingly accepted this arrangement. He did not endure the relationship very long. When he learned that German Catholics in the United States were complaining about the

allocation of the funds, he severed relations with the Society for the Propagation of the Faith and more vigorously pursued his aim of keeping German Catholics in America “German” and “Catholic.” From 1844 until World War I, the LudwigMissionsverein donated almost $900,000 in aid and helped transport Benedictines, Jesuits, and sisters of various orders to the American Catholic churches. In addition, the society supplied German American churches with spiritual articles and religious art. A large collection of Catholic art, which had been confiscated during the secularizing and military campaigns of the French Revolution, had been transferred to the Bavarian state during the reign of Maximilian I (again due to the congenial relationship between Bavaria and France during the Napoleonic era). Much of this art, as well as that of the Munich-based and Ludwig-sponsored German Nazarenes, made its way through the mission society to the German Catholic churches of the United States. Kevin Ostoyich See also Leopoldine Foundation References and Further Reading Mathäser, P. Willibald, O. S. B. Der LudwigMissionsverein in der Zeit König Ludwigs I. von Bayern. Seine Vor-und Gründungsgeschichte 1828–1838 und seine Entwicklung bis zum Jahre 1860. München: Druck der salesianischen Offizin, 1939. Roemer, Theodore. O. F. M. Cap. The Ludwig-Missionsverein and the Church in the United States (1838–1918). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1933. ———. The Catholic Church in the United States. St. Louis: B. Herder, 1950. Springer, Annemarie. Nineteenth Century German-American Church Artists: Old World Traditions and New World Innovations. New York: Peter Lang, 2000.

LUSCHAN, FELIX VON

LUSCHAN, FELIX VON b. August 11, 1854; Hollabrunn, Austria d. February 7, 1924; Berlin, Prussia Leading physical anthropologist of Germany who conducted extensive research on eugenics in the United States involving about 800 African Americans. In 1914 Luschan traveled to Australia to conduct fieldwork. In Sydney, Luschan spoke on eugenics before the British Association for the Advancement of Science, but his visit ended abruptly in August when war erupted in Europe. Luschan, an Austrian who directed Berlin’s Museum für Völkerkunde (Ethnological Museum), feared internment by the Australians and fled to Hawaii. While waiting for passage to California, Luschan organized the anthropological collection of the Honolulu Museum and measured contemporary adult males. When Luschan finally arrived in San Francisco, he was penniless. During his stay in the United States, Luschan delivered lectures and conducted research at sixteen American universities, including the universities of Chicago and Illinois; visited museums; and traveled widely, including a trip to the Grand Canyon where he marveled at Native Americans. In February 1915 Luschan addressed the American Anthropological Association on the subject of convergency, arguing that physical and cultural characteristics were related, not independent, variables. While in America, Luschan also conducted a little-known research project on Negroes before returning to Germany via Norway in April 1915. His American lectures underscored Luschan’s commitment to a nonracialist vision of the human species. At the University of Illinois, for example, Luschan criti-

705

cized American polygenists for justifying slavery and other forms of racial discrimination. He insisted that humans shared innumerable characteristics with one another. Luschan informed Americans that the essential unity of mankind eliminated race as a factor in social relations. People of various races had more in common genetically than the idea of “race” implied. Pulsing through the veins of white Southerners, then, were all kinds of blood, including African blood. Environment, Luschan maintained, determined the peculiar condition and progress of races. In another lecture, however, Luschan argued that heredity, not environment, held the key to understanding mental and bodily qualities, mental diseases, and criminality. Convinced that most persons were ignorant of the science of inherited traits, he praised the research in applied genetics conducted at agricultural experimental stations attached to America’s land grant universities. Heredity was more than the mere collection of data, Luschan said. For twenty years scientists had distinguished between the transmittance of what he termed “normal” racial and other bodily and mental characteristics, and the transmittance of abnormal, pathological qualities such as mental and physical diseases. In his American lectures, Luschan cited examples from the human, plant, and animal worlds to illustrate recessive and dominant characteristics and how certain characteristics recurred over time. To strengthen his research on eugenics, Luschan collected data on African Americans. To facilitate his research, he wrote to Booker T. Washington, asking for help in identifying a large number of black families with members spanning several

706

LUSCHAN, FELIX VON

generations. Years prior to this Luschan had conducted similar research on 320 Greek families on the Island of Crete. Washington recommended 10 American cities where Luschan might begin longitudinal studies. He found willing subjects in Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Virginia. Luschan measured their fingers and nostrils, coded skin colors of hundreds of children, and analyzed numerous photographs of black youth. At Virginia’s Hampton Institute, Luschan tested black students from within the same families to measure the influence of heredity. While on campus he also presented an illustrated lecture on heredity. Elsewhere in the United States 13 teachers responded to Luschan’s questionnaires and summarized the racial characteristics of 814 black pupils. Upon returning to Germany, Luschan published his findings on American blacks. Among other things, they showed that blacks were not dying off due to competition with whites; black men posed no sexual threat to white women; and Jim Crow laws segregated the races in public but they obviously mingled privately. The mulatto population was skyrocketing. Based on his admittedly unscientific research method, Luschan concluded that more than 75 percent of the 4,000 schoolchildren he studied came from mixed African European ancestry. White Americans’ arbitrary racial classification based on a drop of black blood was ludicrous, he wrote. Luschan considered racial mixing commonplace and unproblematic. American Negroes and Africans in Germany’s colonies generally benefited from the infusion of “white” blood, he maintained. Luschan insisted that while there was nothing inherently inferior about Ameri-

can Negroes or mulattoes, there nonetheless were inferior Negroes and mulattoes, much as there were inferior whites. All races, he said, had inferior elements. Committed fully to eugenics, Luschan emphasized the importance of eliminating what he termed inferior people among American Negroes by isolating them and preventing them from reproducing. Defining “racial hygiene” broadly, he favored elevating inferior blacks “at all costs in terms of health, morals, and intellect.” Once “inferior” elements in America’s black population had been improved, Luschan predicted that blacks would no longer pose a danger to whites. Most Negroes could be educated and would become useful citizens, he wrote, and they deserved equality with Caucasians. Luschan admired the vocational school model introduced at Hampton and perfected at the Tuskegee Institute, comparing these institutions favorably to Germany’s best technical schools. In them blacks received necessary skills and lessons in morality. All in all, Luschan commended the progress African Americans had made since emancipation. In 1919 Luschan complained to his former colleague Franz Boas that his research on American blacks had largely been ignored, assuming that his findings were too “pro-black” for conservative Americans and Germans. Three years later, in Völker, Rassen, Sprachen (People, Races, Languages, 1922), Luschan again commented favorably on American blacks. Though Negroes had made great strides educationally and contrasted positively with whites in morals and public health, anti-Negro prejudice remained rampant. White Southerners were obsessed by fears of miscegenation. Luschan predicted that whites would segregate blacks, isolating them in a “pure

LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD

Negro Republic . . . freeing the rest of the Union of this unwanted element” (Rusch 1986, 451). He considered the “Negro question” America’s most troubling issue, one with no answer in sight. John David Smith See also Eugenics and Euthanasia References and Further Reading Luschan, Felix von. “Die Neger in den Vereinigten Staaten.” Koloniale Rundschau 1 (January 1915): 504–540. Rusch, Walter. “Der Beitag Felix von Luschans für die Ethnographie.“ EthnographischArchäologische Zeitschrift 27 (1986): 439–453. Smith, John David. “Anthropologist Felix von Luschan and Trans-Atlantic Racial Reform.” Münchner Beiträge zur Völkerkunde 7 (2002): 289–304.

LUTHERAN CHURCHMISSOURI SYNOD The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS) is the second-largest Lutheran church body in the United States and, with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS), one of the two most conservative large Lutheran bodies. LC-MS members are referred to as “Old Lutherans.” This designation refers both to their cultural heritage in the German and Scandinavian immigrant communities of the Midwest and to their theological and historical connection to the nineteenth-century revival of sixteenth-century confessionalism. The most important features of this sentiment are allegiance to the verbal inerrancy of the Bible; the limitation of celebrations of fellowship, including prayer and worship— but especially the Eucharist—to individuals with the same correct understanding of its elements (“close communion”); and belief in justification by faith alone.

707

The LC-MS is the only large Lutheran body in North America not formed from a merger, a consequence of its slogan “no unity without unity” and a condition that enhances its reputation as an ethnic enclave. In 2004 the LC-MS counted approximately 2.5 million baptized members in 6,142 congregations. Its most important media outlets are The Lutheran Witness, a monthly periodical, and KFUO, the oldest religious radio station in the United States. It operates archives at the Concordia Historical Institute in St. Louis, Missouri, and supports a publishing venture, Concordia Publishing House, which has historically required publications to pass doctrinal review. It finances and staffs the Concordia University System and seminaries at St. Louis and Fort Wayne, as well as 91 high schools and the largest chain (1,786) of denominational preschools and elementary schools in the United States. It funds approximately 250 missionaries in 40 countries. The LC-MS is closely affiliated with the Lutheran Church-Canada (LC-C), a group of three former districts that made an administrative separation in 1988, and the churches of the International Lutheran Council, a union of confessionally oriented Lutheran churches. It is not affiliated with the Lutheran World Federation or the National or World Council of Churches. Tension in the immigrant experience between assimilation and exclusivity is highlighted in the group’s history. The synod stems from a Saxon group that immigrated in 1839 under the leadership of Martin Stephan, a Dresden pastor who studied at Leipzig and Halle and served after 1811 a Bohemian refugee congregation not subordinated to Saxon church administration. In 1817 Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia created a “union” church of

708

LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD

Lutherans and Calvinists via a new liturgy (the Agende) intended to allow or force common celebration of communion (theologically taboo because of differing understandings of the nature of the presence of Christ in the sacrament). Stephan, like Klaus Harms an opponent of union decrees, saw pietism as a remedy to the sort of perceived overrationalism of late Lutheran orthodoxy that supported unionism and returned to Martin Luther for inspiration. In the 1830s Stephan heavily influenced a handful of Leipzig theology students who became the group’s first clerical corps. Although the students struggled to find positions in the Saxon state church, no evidence suggests that Stephanite theology was forbidden or persecuted. Still, the theme of enforced sacramental fellowship would recur throughout the group’s history. Stephan’s popularity and his unconventional prayer meetings led to police observation and house arrest. In 1836 he founded an immigration society. Before the immigrants’ departure from Germany, a constitution for the new church legislated governance through a bishop. An emigration code established regulations for church discipline and financing through a credit fund of slightly over $80,000. Despite their theological conservatism, regulations mandated an eight-hour day for laborers and forbade women to wear corsets, both radical demands at the time. The group’s theological stance was one of firm commitment to orthodoxy, scriptural inerrancy, and allegiance to the Lutheran confessional statements (especially the 1580 Book of Concord) along with firm rejection of rationalism and unionism. Stephan’s group apparently selected its destination from Gottfried Duden’s Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten

Nordamerikas (Report on a Journey to the Western States of America and a Stay of Several Years along the Missouri [During the Years 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1827], 1829). The migration fractured families, recalcitrant members were threatened with damnation, and a few children were kidnapped. Stephan left his wife and eight children behind. Six hundred sixty-five immigrants (with an average age of 25) in five ships sailed from Bremen for New Orleans in 1839; one foundered with the company’s goods. At sea, Stephan demanded installation as bishop; he required loyalty statements from group members as they traveled by riverboat. About 600 settlers arrived in St. Louis and settled in Perry County, Missouri, on a riverfront property of 4,475 acres, for which they paid $9,234.25. A theological school, which later moved to become Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, was established in 1839. Quickly dissent over Stephan’s increasing demands for authority and extravagant expenditures came to the fore. When a delayed group of 108 settlers arrived, matters came to a head. A group of the clergy, including Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm Walther (1811–1887), a participant in the Leipzig group, charged Stephan with sexual and financial misconduct and excommunicated him after he failed to cooperate with the investigation of the allegations. The resulting chaos over governance threatened the group’s identity. Lay members charged that the group had committed corporate sin and should return to Germany. Walther filled the leadership gap, uniting settlers behind eight theses on the church and ministry at an 1841 debate in Altenburg, Missouri. Walther reaffirmed the legitimacy of the group’s call and its identification with the visible church. The

LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD

group was reconstituted with a modified congregational policy strikingly different from Stephan’s plan. Walther accepted a call to the pastorate of the group’s St. Louis church (Trinity) and assumed a decisive mantle of leadership, later serving as synod and seminary president. After 1844 he published Der Lutheraner (The Lutheran), an important source for the group’s history. It spread his unabashed confessionalism and hence was seen critically by churches of the General Synod, an organization of earlier Lutheran immigrations to the United States., many of which used English in worship. In 1843 Trinity’s constitution had mandated exclusive use of German in preaching. The Missouri Synod’s development was also influenced by the Neuendettelsau missionaries sent to the United States by Wilhelm Löhe in the 1840s. The “Löhe men” sought to serve German immigrants in the United States, but also conducted missions to the Chippewa in Michigan. They were organized by Friedrich Konrad Dietrich Wyneken (1810–1876) and founded a seminary at Fort Wayne, Indiana. In 1847 these groups joined in a synod as Die Deutsche EvangelischLutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio und anderen Staaten (The German EvangelicalLutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other states). A similar group, which had immigrated to Buffalo, New York, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, under the leadership of Johannes Grabau (a Prussian pastor jailed in Germany for his rejection of the Prussian Union), maintained its distance after an 1843 dispute over the office of the ministry and constituted itself as the Buffalo Synod. When it split in 1866, however, its largest faction joined the Missouri Synod. In addition to emphasis on the con-

709

gregational polity, these groups insisted on the inerrancy of the Bible and Book of Concord. These groups also insisted on German as the primary language for theology, preaching, and religious instruction. The Missouri Synod’s constitution required its exclusive use at synodical conventions. Still, the synod began English missions to former slaves in 1877. The Missouri Synod, rather than uniting with the General Synod, joined the Synodical Conference, a body organizing the conservative synods of the later nineteenth century including the Joint Synod of Ohio (also primarily composed of Germans) and the Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Norwegian synods. These groups united around limited fellowship and opposition to membership in secret societies. Disagreement occasionally flamed among them, as when the Ohio Synod accused Walther of embracing predestination. Ultimately such disagreements led to the separation of most churches that used English as their primary language. A number of Old Lutheran congregations holding English services petitioned for union repeatedly after 1887, but were only admitted as the “English District” in 1911, when the synod assumed control of their periodical, The Lutheran Witness. After 1911, use of English was permitted at conventions. After Walther’s death, theological continuity contrasted with the apparent need for a move to English. Membership had reached 500,000 by 1897. Insistence on German led to a shortage of adequate English religious literature, so that pastors and laity were influenced by debates in the Reformed tradition, such as the social gospel and the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. The Missouri Synod avoided these matters for fear of fellowship with church

710

LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD

bodies not in full doctrinal agreement. (Missouri’s position would not have been clear; it supported the inerrancy of scripture, for instance, but rejected millenarianism as well as the free-will doctrines of many fundamentalist denominations.) When World War I broke out, the synod initially cultivated neutrality. After the U.S. declaration of war, the group dropped “German” from its name, and 75 percent of synod congregations held Englishlanguage services by 1920. By 1927 its parochial schools taught mostly in English. The acceptance of English, however, opened the group to social changes. Women’s work in teaching after the midnineteenth century sparked persistent questions about female roles in the church. By 1926 the synod allowed women to be educated in a few of its colleges. The turn of the twentieth century also saw a growth in lay involvement, perceived at first as a challenge to the pastorate. Its first lay group was the Walther League (1893), a youth organization; it was followed by the Lutheran Laymen’s League (LLL), a fundraising organizations; and the Lutheran Women’s Missionary League (LWML, 1942). After 1930 the LLL produced an influential radio program, The Lutheran Hour. Despite its accommodation of these social changes, the synod resisted union with other church bodies in 1917 and 1929 (and has continued to resist the twentieth-century trend toward unionism in American Lutheranism). In 1932 its convention endorsed the “Brief Statement,” which delineated its differences from the other Lutheran church bodies, especially the American Lutheran Church (ALC), a church body stemming from earlier German immigration. The

“Brief Statement” was reendorsed in 1938, 1947, and 1956 as the doctrinal basis for future fellowship with other Lutherans. As the LC-MS pursued fellowship with the ALC after 1940, a conservative faction in the synod agitated against union in a periodical, The Confessional Lutheran. The synod’s strict confessionalism attracted some smaller immigrant churches to the LC-MS, like the Finnish-American National Evangelical Lutheran Church, a splinter group from the Suomi Synod (1964) and the Slovak Evangelical Lutheran Church (1971). In 1947 the group adopted its current name. Conflict between exclusivism and assimilation continued over other questions: the purchase of life insurance with other Lutherans (German immigrants of all theological colors joined Aid Association for Lutherans [AAL], a mutual aid society founded in 1902); women’s congregational suffrage; or participation in the military’s chaplain corps or secular youth organizations (Boy Scouts). The LC-MS embraced a less exclusivist position than the WELS, which condemned participation in the chaplain corps as syncretistic and founded its own youth organizations. The relatively ecumenical turn of the LC-MS in the later 1950s was dealt a sharp blow, however, by the 1961 WELS decision to sever fellowship. The break drew into sharp relief the influence of the ecumenical reform spirit of the age and the education of LC-MS seminary faculty outside of the synod. The 1969 LC-MS convention reflected the tensions: while a conservative president, JAO Preus, was elected (who had come from the more conservative, Norwegian-influenced Evangelical Lutheran Synod), the synod

LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD

entered fellowship with the ALC and extended congregational suffrage to women. In response to complaints in the conservative Lutheran press, Preus investigated the faculty at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis for doctrinal error. By 1972 this investigation focused on the exclusion of the “historical-critical” method of Bible interpretation, which emphasizes the importance of linguistic and contextual features for understanding the Bible. Under pressure to eschew this method, in 1974, the faculty and about 400 students left to constitute a seminary in exile (Seminex) and in 1976 a synod, the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC), both of which joined the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), a merger of liberal Lutheran church bodies, in 1988. Although its membership is now less “German” or even immigrant American than merely “white,” the LC-MS’s associational life continues to be affected by the assimilation/exclusivism dynamic. This issue is nowhere more apparent than in hymnal controversies. For much of its history the group used Walther’s 1847 German hymnal, itself a book “cleansed” of all but Reformation and pietist hymnody. Though some English hymnals were used, the first uniform revision was The Lutheran Hymnal of 1941 (known initially as the “blue hymnal” and by the 1970s as the “red hymnal” because of its binding), the common hymnal of the Synodical Conference. It added Scandinavian, Slovakian, and English elements that reflected the exposure of these groups to other liturgical traditions. In 1965 a hymnal commission was formed among the North American Lutheran churches, which re-

711

sulted in the Lutheran Book of Worship (the “green hymnal”) in 1978. The LC-MS’s withdrawal from ecumenism spawned publication of its own revision, Lutheran Worship (the “blue hymnal”) in 1982. The controversy shattered the LC-MS’s uniform liturgical tradition as its congregations chose between “red,” “green,” and “blue,” with many abandoning hymnals altogether in favor of a patchwork liturgical solution. The synod’s hope to restore its historical liturgical allegiances with the planned introduction of a new hymnal for 2005, The Lutheran Service Book, is probably illusory, given the cultural assimilation of its membership and widespread lay interest in more modern, diverse church music. Susan R. Boettcher See also Duden, Gottfried; Löhe, Johannes Konrad Wilhelm; Pietism; Walther, Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm References and Further Reading Burgdorf, Paul H. “Pastor Martin Stephan’s Published Sermons on the Christian Faith.” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 63 (1990): 91–96. Forster, W. O. Zion on the Mississippi. The Settlement of the Saxon Lutherans in Missouri 1839–1841. St. Louis: Concordia, 1953. Meyer, Carl S., ed. Moving Frontiers: Readings in the History of Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod. St. Louis: Concordia, 1964. Olson, Oliver K. “The Landing of the Saxons 1839–1989.” Lutheran Quarterly 3 (1989): 357–411. Todd, Mary. Authority Vested: A Story of Identity and Change in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. “The Curious Case of the Missouri Synod.” Lutherans Today: American Lutheran Identity in the 21st Century. Ed. Richard Cimino. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003, pp. 26–44.

M MAACK, REINHARD b. October 2, 1892; Herford (Westphalia), Prussia d. August 13, 1969; Curitiba, Brazil German Brazilian geologist and geographer who was a pioneer in the geoscientific exploration of the Brazilian state of Paraná. Maack received training as a surveyor in the land registry office in Herford between 1908 and 1911. After he had completed his training, Maack left Germany for German Southwest Africa, where he was in charge of surveying land and appropriating private farmland and public grassland. During World War I he was captured by British troops and interned as an enemy alien. He was, however, able to escape British internment and spent several months in the Kalahari Desert and, under an assumed identity, in Swakopmund. Maack achieved fame when, in 1917, he discovered ancient cave paintings in Brandberg. The cave was later named “Maack Shelter” in his honor. In 1919 Maack embarked on two private expeditions to the desert of Namib, where he explored the Tsondab river and produced a survey of the mineral resources in the Kakao-Veld for the British Survey Service. In 1921 Maack returned to Germany where he stayed for just two years. In

1923 he left for Brazil, where he explored the gold and iron ore resources in Minas Gerais for the German-Brazilian Mining Company. While surveying the Western Mountains, Maack found many geological similarities to the Kakao-Veld in Southwest Africa. It was this observation that caused him to adopt the continental drift theory of Alfred Wegner. To broaden his knowledge, Maack returned to Berlin to study geography and geology at the University of Berlin. In 1928 he went back to Brazil to organize the diamondmining industry in the region around the Rio Tibagí in Paraná and to investigate the manganese, chalk, and coal resources in Santa Catarina, as well as its geographic and geological conditions. In 1932 he acquired a farm in Paraná’s tropical forest and engaged in agriculture and pig breeding. With funding from Germany, Maack embarked on an expedition along the Rio Ivaí and in the northern part of Paraná in 1933 and 1934. He returned to Germany to finish his university education. In 1937 Maak left Germany for good and settled down in Brazil. He explored the coastal regions of Paraná and produced a map of this region. He climbed southern Brazil’s highest mountain, which he

713

714

MAACK, REINHARD

named Pico do Paraná. When the Brazilian government of Getulio Vargas engaged in a policy directed against ethnic minorities with the goal of “brazilianizing” all people living in Brazil, Maack defended the contributions of Germans to Brazilian society in his article “The Germans of South Brazil,” which was published in The Quarterly Journal of Inter-American Relations in 1939. Many Brazilian authors immediately attacked Maack for this publication—a fact that made him a perfect hero for National Socialist propaganda. During World War II Maack was, like so many other Germans, interned at the Ilha Grande camp for two years. In 1946, however, he was appointed professor of geology and paleontology at the University of Curitiba. The University of Bonn granted him a doctoral degree for his book Geologia e geografia da região de Vila Velha, Estado do Paraná e considerações sôbre a glaciação carbonífera no Brasil (Geology and geography of the Vila Velha Region, in the State of Paraná and thoughts on carboniferous glaciers in Brazil) in the same year. Throughout the remainder of his life, Maack dedicated his activities to the research of geological and geographical aspects of Paraná’s flora. By the beginning of the 1940s, he was criticizing the destruction of tropical forests and pointed to the dangers of soil erosion and uncontrolled growth of coffee plantations. His warnings that the clearing of the tropical forest would change the climatic and ecological conditions in this region were ignored for a long time. Among Maak’s most important scholarly accomplishments are a map of the geographic distribution of plants (Mapa fitogeográfico do Estado do Paraná, 1950) and

the geological map of Paraná (Mapa geológico do Estado do Paraná, 1953). At the age of seventy-six, Maak finally decided to retire from his teaching position at the University of Curitiba. In the last years of his life, he worked intensively on several projects. His Kontinentaldrift und Geologie des südatlantischen Ozeans (Continental Drift and the Geology of the South Atlantic Ocean, 1969), as well his book about the groundwater resources of the ParanáUruguay basin, Notas preliminares sôbre as agues do sub-solo da Bacia Paraná-Uruguai (1970), appeared posthumously. Maack was able to finish only the first volume (1968) of his projected multivolume work, Geografia física do estado do Paraná (Physical Geography of the State of Paraná). He received several awards and honors from both Germany and Brazil. In 1969, he was given the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany, and in Brazil one park in Curitiba (Bosque Reinhard Maack) and one school, close to his farm near Maringa (Fazenda Reinhard Maack), were named after him. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil References and Further Reading Kohlhepp, Gerd. “Das geographische Lebenswerk von Reinhard Maack.” Geographische Zeitschrift (Wiesbaden) vol. 59 (1971): 165–176. Kurowski, Ursula Maack. “Lebenslauf von Reinhard Maack.” Boletim paranaense de geografia. Curitiba, 1964, 7–24. Maack, Reinhard. “Es begann in Herford. Der Weg durch ein bewegtes Leben.” Herforder Jahrbuch vol. 8 (1967): 7–79. Reinhard Maack und seine lusitanischen Gegner. 5 Stimmen aus der Auseinandersetzung um das Lebensrecht des Brasiliendeutschtums. Stuttgart/Hamburg: Publikationsstelle, 1943 (Schriftendienst Ubersee: Reihe B; 2).

MAESER, KARL GOTTFRIED

MAESER, KARL GOTTFRIED b. January 16, 1828;Vorbruecke, Saxony d. February 15, 1901; Salt Lake City, Utah Eminent German educator in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) and educational founder and principal of Brigham Young University in Utah. Maeser’s formal education began at a respected elementary school in Meissen and continued between 1838 and 1846 at the famed Kreuz Gymnasium in Dresden. Having learned to read—and to love reading—when very young, he became an eager and gifted student. The budding polymath was interested in virtually everything taught at the school. Following graduation, he became a teacher and gained admission to the nearby Friedrichstaedter Paedagogische Hochschule (Friedrichstaedter Teacher’s College) in Dresden, from which he graduated in 1848. As a result of his formal education, Maeser became a devoted disciple of the famed German educational reformers Wilhelm von Humboldt, Friedrich Froebel, Jean Herbart, and especially the Swiss Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi. In these years, he developed more fully his own philosophy of a comprehensive integrated education of the “Head, the Heart and the Hand.” He was convinced that the best education was one that educated all parts of the human being and that would be taught best by example and kindness, but also according to high academic standards. For him, echoing Humboldt, no education was as valuable as one that encompassed the development of the whole human personality, one preparing each student to become a free being and citizen.

715

Following graduation from the Paedagogische Hochschule, he found his first employment as a tutor of children of German families living in the Sudetenland part of the Austrian Empire, just across the border from Saxony. At the time, he also counted himself a “liberal” and participated in the 1849 revolution in Dresden. Throughout Maeser’s teaching life, students soon came to understand how deeply he cherished freedom of all kinds, but especially political liberty. Soon after 1850 he found his first position as a teacher at the Budich Institute, a school for Evangelical Protestant girls. One result of this experience was a lifelong conviction of the importance of education for young women, a point of view not always shared either in Saxony or Utah. At the same time, he may have also been aware of the work of a contemporary, Henriette Szold, the leader of the nascent women’s rights movement in Saxony and Germany, also a Meissen native five years his senior. As a teacher at the Budich Institute, he became friends with a colleague, Eduard Schoenfeld. These two subsequently married the daughters of the school’s principal, Benjamin Mieth. Their lives would thereafter become inextricably linked together. Like many German intellectuals of his day, Maeser had become agnostic about Christianity and the doctrines of the Protestant state church. With his lifelong keen sense of integrity, he questioned what he could honestly teach his students as religious truth in that part of their curriculum. He first learned about Mormonism in the early 1850s from a tract written by a German journalist and later Bismarck biographer, Moritz Julius Busch, who had

716

MAESER, KARL GOTTFRIED

traveled to St. Louis and had there heard accounts about the Mormon trek west and of their unique settlements and achievements in the Rocky Mountain West. Maeser’s curiosity was piqued; he wanted to learn more about these Mormons. Following letters to European church headquarters in London, he was sent a missionary, William Budge, who taught him, his wife, and the Schoenfelds the doctrines of Mormonism, which they accepted after a series of transforming, life-defining spiritual experiences that would remain with them, and especially Karl, throughout their lives. However, because of religious persecution, following their clandestine baptism in the Elbe River, Maeser and Schoenfeld were forced to give up their teaching careers in their homeland and join the growing number of European Mormon converts who even then were emigrating to their new Zion in the American West. Because of the lack of funds, it took the Maesers several years to reach Utah. Along the way, Karl served for a time as a missionary in the United Kingdom, where he improved his English and his understanding of Mormonism. In July 1857, having buried a young son at sea, the family finally arrived in the United States and settled temporarily in Philadelphia, then in Virginia, where, on discovery of his pedagogical skills, Maeser was engaged to teach a number of children in Richmond, including those of U.S. president John Tyler. When the Maesers left for Utah in June 1860, they were not typical Mormon pioneers. Karl had few skills needed by westering frontiersmen and especially found it difficult driving his oxen and wagon. Equally daunting was finding a profitable place for his educational abilities in a society striving to establish itself with

the basics of food, shelter, and clothing in the forbidding western desert. Church leaders and members wanted his knowledge, but found it difficult to pay for it. For most of the rest of his life, Maeser struggled as a teacher in pioneer Utah just to provide adequately for his growing family, let alone give them some of the cultural amenities he and his wife treasured from their German upbringing. Still, from the beginning Mormon leaders, especially Brigham Young, promoted education for Mormon youth and found in Maeser a unique and quintessential teacher. The family lived for its first sixteen years in Salt Lake City, where Maeser taught in a number of local private, Mormon Church–related schools, including one he started in his own neighborhood. Parents usually paid him in produce. For part of the time, he taught languages at the University of Deseret, established in 1850, later the University of Utah, and even became engaged to teach some of Brigham Young’s own numerous children. As an expression of his devotion to his church and leaving his family behind for two years, in 1869 he answered a call from church leaders to serve a proselytizing mission in Switzerland and Germany, where he subsequently became the mission president. Here, he founded a journal, Der Stern (The Star), for German-speaking Latter-Day Saints that would continue until 1974. Under his guidance, the journal was a virtual one-man operation. For it, he wrote editorials, composed poetry and hymns, translated doctrinal articles from English, and wrote original articles of his own, all the while supervising the work of the rest of the missionaries working in those countries. Der Stern educated, informed, and inspired new German-speak-

MANN,THOMAS

ing converts not yet able to emigrate to America. This was also a time of enormous spiritual and intellectual growth for Maeser. While he was gone, his wife and son Reinhard cared for the needs of the family left behind. Maeser’s major life work began in 1876 when he was called by Mormon Church president Brigham Young to become principal of the Brigham Young Academy, which had been established in Provo the year before. From 1876 until 1891, Maeser became the mind, heart, and soul of this combination grade school, high school, and college. Under his guidance, the academy grew, attracting some of the best and most motivated students in Utah and surrounding states. In this capacity Maeser essentially and personally educated and trained many of those educators who would provide the educational leadership for LatterDay Saints for generations to come. Maeser was held in such high esteem by Mormon Church leaders that in 1892 he was called to serve as commissioner of education for the church, a position of responsibility for the educational interests of the whole church, including continuing to have some influence over Brigham Young Academy, soon to become Brigham Young University. During the 1890s he also served as a leader of the growing churchwide Mormon Sunday school organization, which was dedicated to improving the teaching of church doctrines to every member and helping the church develop better teachers and better teaching methods. In 1894, encouraged by Democratic Party friends, he ran on the Democratic Party ticket for state superintendent of public instruction, but was defeated. One year later, in 1895, he was chosen a member of the committee to write the constitu-

717

tion for the state of Utah that led to its admission to the Union in 1896. Elements of his educational philosophy became part of that document. Encouraged by his students, Maeser also published the only book he ever wrote, the semiautobiographical School and Fireside (1898), wherein he laid out the origins and principles of his educational background and philosophy. Douglas F. Tobler See also Humboldt, Wilhelm von References and Further Reading Maeser, Reinhard. Karl G. Maeser: A Biography. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1928. Sutherland, George. A Message to the 1941 Graduating Class of Brigham Young University. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1941. Tobler, Douglas F. “Karl G. Maeser’s German Background: The Making of Zion’s Teacher.” Zeitschrift fuer Religions-und Geistesgeschichte 24 (1977): 325–344. Wilkinson, Ernest L., et. al., eds. Brigham Young University: The First Hundred Years. Vol. 1. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University, 1975

MANN,THOMAS b. June 6, 1875; Lübeck d. August 12, 1955; Kilchberg, Switzerland One of the twentieth century’s most important literary figures who won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1929, was forced to leave Germany in 1933, and found a new home in the United States. Mann was born to a wealthy merchant family. His father, Heinrich, was later a senator. Mann had three siblings, Heinrich (also a novelist and playwright), Julia, and Carla. In his first novel, Die Buddenbrooks (1901, The Buddenbrooks), Mann describes the gradual

718

MANN,THOMAS

decay of a family such as his own in the course of three generations. While in school, Mann published poetry under the pseudonym Paul Thomas in a school magazine, Der Frühlingssturm (The Spring Storm), for which he was also responsible. After the death of his father in 1891, Mann moved with his family to Munich, where he worked as a clerk in an insurance office. His first novella, Gefallen (Favor), appeared in 1894 in the newspaper Die Gesellschaft (The Society). Because of the success of this first publication, Mann decided to work as an independent writer. During the years 1895–1896, he assisted his brother, Heinrich, in the publication of the conservative journal, Das zwanzigste Jahrhundert (The Twentieth Century). In 1896 the brothers traveled to Italy, where they remained until 1898. During the years 1898–1900, Mann worked on the staff of Albert Langes’s satirical journal, Simplicissimus. The story Der kleine Herr Friedmann (The Little Herr Friedmann) was published in 1898 and the novella, Tonio Kröger in 1899. However, it was not until Buddenbrooks appeared in two volumes in 1901 that Mann achieved true recognition as a writer. For this novel, as well as for his other literary achievements, Mann was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1929. Other publications of the period are Tristan (1903), the novel Königliche Hoheit (Royal Highness, 1909), Der Tod in Venedig (Death in Venice, 1912), Das Wunderkind (The Wonder Child, 1914), the critical essay Betrachtungen eines Unpolitischen (Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man, 1918), and the novel Der Zauberberg (The Magic Mountain, 1913–1924). In these and later works, the place of the artist in society— the tension between bourgeois society and

Thomas Mann,1938. One of the twentieth century’s most important literary figures, Mann won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1929 and was forced to leave Germany in 1933 to find a new home in the United States. (Library of Congress)

the artist—is questioned and the differences between art and life are explored. In 1905 Mann married Katia Pringsheim, with whom he had six children. Three of his children—Erika, Klaus, and Golo—would become authors in their own right. In 1930 Mann gave a speech in Berlin entitled “Deutsche Ansprache—Ein Apell an die Vernunft” (German Address: An Appeal to Reason). His story, Mario and der Zauberer (Mario and the Magician), which warns against fascism, was also published. As Hitler came to power in 1933, Mann was forced to flee Germany. After a short stay in the south of France in 1933, Mann settled with his family in Switzerland. In 1936 his work was banned in Germany and he was officially stripped

MARCUSE, HERBERT

of his German citizenship. The honorary doctorate that Mann had received from the University of Bonn in 1919 was revoked. He answered this revocation with his Briefwechsel mit Bonn (Letter Exchange with Bonn), which appeared in almost every European country. In 1938 Mann was invited to serve as a guest professor at Princeton. A year later, his novel Lotte in Weimar (or The Beloved Returns) was published. In 1941 Mann moved with his family to the Pacific Palisades in California, where they remained until 1952. While in America, Mann wrote numerous anti-Fascist essays and speeches for the BBC (1940–1945, sixty in total). Joseph und Seine Brüder (Joseph and His Brothers), a novel in four volumes, was written between 1933 and 1944. In these novels, Mann attempts to demonstrate the importance of tradition as a source of positive human experience. In 1947, Mann’s last novel, Doktor Faustus (Doctor Faustus) was published. Two years later, Mann’s selfcommentary to the novel Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus (The Development of a Novel) appeared. In 1949 Mann finally visited Germany, where he was awarded the Goethe Prize in Frankfurt am Main. After Mann was accused before Congress of being a Communist fellow traveler, he left the United States and moved to Switzerland. Kerri Snead See also Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt; Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Hayman, Ronald. Thomas Mann: A Biography. New York: Scribner, 1995. Kurzke, Hermann. Thomas Mann: Life as a Work of Art: A Biography. Trans. Leslie Willson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2002.

719

MARCUSE, HERBERT b. July 19, 1898; Berlin, Prussia d. July 29, 1979; Starnberg, Bavaria German philosopher, social theorist, and political activist, who gained world renown during the 1960s as the “father of the New Left.” Marcuse gained notoriety when he was perceived as both an influence on and defender of the New Left in the United States and Europe. His theory of “onedimensional” society provided critical perspectives on contemporary capitalist and state Communist societies, and his notion of “the great refusal” won him renown as a theorist of revolutionary change and “liberation from the affluent society.” Consequently, he became one of the most influential intellectuals in the United States during the 1960s and into the 1970s. After receiving his PhD in literature from the University of Freiburg in 1922 and following a short career as a bookseller in Berlin, he returned to Freiburg in 1928 to study philosophy with Martin Heidegger, then one of the most influential thinkers in Germany. Marcuse’s first published article (1928) attempted a synthesis of the philosophical perspectives of phenomenology, existentialism, and Marxism—a synthesis that decades later would be carried out again by various “existential” and “phenomenological” Marxists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Maurice MerleauPonty, as well as American students and intellectuals in the New Left. In 1933 Marcuse joined the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute for Social Research) in Frankfurt and soon became deeply involved in its interdisciplinary projects, which included working out a model for radical social theory, developing

720

MARCUSE, HERBERT

a theory of the new stage of state and monopoly capitalism, and providing a systematic analysis and critique of German fascism. Marcuse deeply identified with the “critical theory of society” developed by the Institute, which attempted to update Marxism and provide a critical analysis of the contemporary era, and throughout his life was close to Max Horkheimer, Theodore W. Adorno, and others in the Institute’s inner circle. In 1934 Marcuse—a German Jew and a radical—fled from Nazism and emigrated to the United States, where he lived for the rest of his life. The Institute for Social Research was granted offices and an academic affiliation with Columbia University, where Marcuse worked during the 1930s and early 1940s. His first major work in English, Reason and Revolution (1941), traced the genesis of the ideas of Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, Karl Marx, and modern social theory. It demonstrated the similarities between Hegel and Marx and introduced many English-speaking readers to the Hegelian-Marxian tradition of dialectical thinking. During World War II, Marcuse worked for the Office of War Information and then the Office of Secret Services, entering the State Department after the war. He remained in the United States to pursue an academic career after Adorno, Horkheimer, and others of the group returned to Frankfurt. During the 1950s, Marcuse turned to the study of Sigmund Freud and psychoanalysis and intensified his studies of art and culture, producing a highly influential philosophical interpretation of Freud in his Eros and Civilization (1955). The book provided a splendid access to Freud’s thought and the ways that

psychoanalytic ideas could be merged with critical social theory and emancipatory culture and practice. In an uncanny way, the text, with its emphasis on polymorphic sexual liberation, play, cultivation of an aesthetic ethos, and burning desire for another world and way of life, anticipated the counterculture of the 1960s that lived out many of the key ideas in Marcuse’s text. In 1964 Marcuse published a wideranging critique of both advanced capitalist and Communist societies in OneDimensional Man. This book theorized the decline of revolutionary potential in capitalist societies and the development of new forms of social control. Marcuse argued that “advanced industrial society” created false needs that integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption. Mass media and culture, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought all reproduced the existing system and attempted to eliminate negativity, critique, and opposition. The result was a “onedimensional” universe of thought and behavior in which the very aptitude and ability for critical thinking and oppositional behavior was withering away. One-Dimensional Man was followed by a series of books and articles that articulated New Left politics and critiques of capitalist societies in “Repressive Tolerance” (1965), An Essay on Liberation (1969), and Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972). “Repressive Tolerance” attacked liberalism and those who refused to take a stand during the controversies of the 1960s. It won Marcuse the reputation of being an intransigent radical and ideologue for the Left. An Essay on Liberation

MARKGRAF, GEORG

celebrated all of the existing liberation movements from the Viet Cong to the hippies and exhilarated many radicals, while further alienating establishment academics and those who opposed the movements of the 1960s. Counterrevolution and Revolt, by contrast, articulated the new realism that was setting in during the early 1960s, when it was becoming clear that the most extravagant hopes of that decade were being dashed by a turn to the right and a “counterrevolution” against them. In 1965 Brandeis University refused to renew his teaching contract, and Marcuse soon after received a position at the University of California at La Jolla, where he remained until his retirement in the 1970s. During his last two decades —the period of his greatest influence—Marcuse also published many articles and gave lectures and advice to student radicals all over the world. He traveled widely and his work was often discussed in the mass media, making him one of the few American intellectuals to gain such attention. Never surrendering his revolutionary vision and commitments, Marcuse continued to his death to defend the Marxian theory and libertarian socialism. Douglas Kellner See also Adorno, Theodor W.; Frankfurt School; Horkheimer, Max References and Further Reading Kellner, Douglas. Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. London and Berkeley: Macmillan and University of California, 1984. Marcuse, Herbert. Technology, War and Fascism. Ed. Douglas Kellner. London and New York: Routledge, 1998. ———. The New Left and the 1960s. Ed. Douglas Kellner. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.

721

MARKGRAF, GEORG b. September 20, 1610; Liebstadt, Saxony d. July or August (?), 1644; São Paulo de Loanda (Angola) Explorer and cartographer from Saxony who worked for the Dutch West Indies Company in Brazil. Markgraf was one of the earliest German-speaking explorers in South America. In 1627 Markgraf entered the University of Leipzig, where he studied medicine and mathematics. He later continued his studies at the universities of Erfurt, Wittenberg, Straßburg, Basel, Greifswald, and Rostock before entering the University of Leiden in 1636. There he became interested in botany and astronomy. When his teacher Willem Piso was appointed personal physician to Count Johann Moritz von Nassau-Siegen, the governor of the Dutch colony in Brazil, in 1638, Markgraf accompanied him to Pernambuco (Recife) where he became his personal assistant. Markgraf enjoyed the support and patronage of the governor, who made him the court mathematician. When the governor ordered the construction of an observatory (the first European-style observatory built in the Southern Hemisphere) to observe a predicted solar eclipse in November 1640, he put Markgraf in charge of the observation of the eclipse. During his travels in the Brazilian interior, Markgraf collected plant and animal specimens, which were integrated into the zoological and botanical garden he had created for the governor’s park. In 1640 this botanical garden included over 800 trees— among them the first coffee plants introduced from Batavia (Indonesia) into South America. Following an order of the governor, Markgraf traveled to the Dutch colony

722

MARTIUS, CARL FRIEDRICH PHILIPP VON

of São Paulo de Loanda (Angola) in 1644, where shortly after his arrival he died of malaria. His benefactor, Johann Moritz, brought the collected knowledge of Markgraf to Europe, where it was distributed to several museums. Unfortunately Markgraf ’s most important scientific work is lost: the manuscript Progymnastica Mathematica Americana (Mathematical Studies on America), in which he described the signs of the zodiac of the Southern Hemisphere, celestial navigation, and the tables of planets. Markgraf ’s plant and animal collections were brought to Leiden and Copenhagen. His notes on the flora and fauna of Brazil and his meteorological, geographical, and ethnographical descriptions of Brazil survived and were integrated into the Historia Naturalis Brasiliae (Natural History of Brazil), which was authored by Jan de Laet and published in Amsterdam by Caspar Barlaeus in 1648. This 300-page text contains 429 woodcuts based on Markgraf ’s drawings. Of equal importance are Markgraf ’s 24 manuscript maps. These maps were the result of his exploration of the coastal region of Brazil between the fifth and eleventh parallel of latitude. They were the basis for copperplates made by Joan Blaeu, which were published from 1647 onward. The first four copper prints were published in Caspar Barlaeus’s Rerum per Octennium in Brasiliae . . . historia (Events in eight years of Brazilian history) in 1647. In the same year, Blaeu published a large-scale four-part map Brasilia qua parte paret Belgis (On the Dutch Part of Brazil) based on Markgraf ’s map. This monumental map (161 by 101 centimeters) on a 1 to 400,000 scale is the first map of Brazil based on exact cartographic measurement. This map shows the coastline of

Brazil between the Rio Grande to the north and the Rio São Francisco to the south, as well as some of the interior regions of the country. On its margins and in place of the unexplored parts of Brazil, the map displays texts and drawings about ethnographic and economic aspects of the land. This map was frequently reprinted and included in all major map collections of its time. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil References and Further Reading Hauswald, Gerd. “Forschungsreise nach Brasilien. Wiederentdeckung eines sächsischen Naturforschers.” Sächsische Heimatblätter vol. 7 (1961): 271–274. Klemp, Egon. “Georg Markgraf als Naturforscher, Landmesser und Kartograph in Brasilien (1638–1643).” Cartographica helvetica 1993 no. 8: 44–46. Lindgren, Uta. “Markgraf, Georg.” In Neue Deutsche Biographie, vol. 16. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1990 p. 167.

MARTIUS, CARL FRIEDRICH PHILIPP VON b. April 17, 1794; Erlangen, Bavaria d. December 13, 1868; Munich, Bavaria German explorer who collected plants and animals in Brazil and is considered one of the most important nineteenth-century explorers of the Amazon and the founder of Brazilian ethnology. His family came from Italy and migrated to German-speaking lands via Hungary. Martius entered the University at Erlangen to study medicine at the age of sixteen. At the age of twenty, he received his doctoral degree in medicine. In 1816 he was appointed an assistant at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences in Munich. In the same year he was asked to embark

MARTIUS, CARL FRIEDRICH PHILIPP VON

on a large-scale Austrian expedition to Brazil, together with the Bavarian physician Johann Baptist Spix (1781–1826). This Austrian expedition was occasioned by the new Austrian interest in South America that arose after Princess Leopoldine (1797–1826), the daughter of Emperor Francis I, in 1817 married the Portuguese crown prince, Dom Pedro. Dom Pedro declared Brazil an independent state in 1822 and assumed the position of emperor of Brazil. Fourteen explorers, physicians, and painters were invited to join this expedition. However, after their arrival in Brazil, conflicts broke out among the explorers over the goals and objectives of this enterprise. In the end, the expedition split up. Johann Christian Mikan and his team returned to Europe in 1818 with about 700 drawings and paintings, as well as extensive zoological, botanical, and mineralogical collections. Johann Emanuel Pohl remained in Brazil until 1821 and returned with two Botokude natives to Austria. The last to return from this expedition was Johann Natterer (1836) who had collected over 12,000 birds and nearly 33,000 insects. The two Bavarians, Martius and Spix, left Rio de Janeiro at the end of 1817. Traveling via the Sierra do Mar, both explorers arrived in São Paulo in early 1818. Throughout 1818 they remained in Minas Geraes and the province of Bahia, where they explored the territories of the Coroado, Coropo, and Curi tribes. In 1819 Martius and Spix embarked on their second large expedition into the provinces of Pernambuco and Maranhão. Both fell ill with malaria and only slowly recovered in the provincial capitol of São Luiz. In August 1819 both went on their third expedition to explore the Amazon. West of Manaus, both took separate paths—Spix

723

followed the Amazon to Tabatinga on the Colombian border, and Martius traveled by boat on the Rio Japurá. Reunited, Martius and Spix returned from Manaus in March 1820 and arrived back in Munich on December 8, 1820. They brought four natives of Brazil and extensive collections of flora and fauna with them. These collections, which were donated to the Ethnological Museum of Munich in 1867, included uncountable numbers of minerals, 86 mammals, 350 birds, 130 amphibians, 116 fish, 2,700 insects, and 6,500 different plants. Spix died in 1826, but Martius went on to receive high praise and many awards for his achievements. In 1826 he was appointed professor of botany at the University of Munich. Six years later, in 1832, he became the director of the Botanical Gardens in Munich and of its botanical collections. He published the account of his and Spix’s travel in Reise in Brasilien 1817–1820 (Travel in Brazil, 1817–1820), which included three volumes of text and one volume of tables (1823–1831). His reputation as an authority in the field of botany is due to the publication of three important projects: Nova genera et species plantarum, quas in itinere per Brasiliam annis 1817–1820 suspecto collegit et descripsit (New genera and species of plants, which were collected and investigated through Brazil in the years 1817–1820, published between 1824 and 1832 in three volumes with 300 colored drawings); Historia naturalis palmarum (Natural History of Palm Trees), which was published between 1823 and 1850 in three volumes; and the 40-volume Flora brasiliensis (The Flora of Brazil), which he initiated. More than sixty-five scientists worked on this encyclopedia before it was finished in 1906.

724

MAY, KARL FRIEDRICH

In addition, Martius wrote several books about the languages and ethnology of Brazil. In 1863 his Glossaria linguarum brasiliensium (Glossary of the Languages of Brazil) and in 1867 his Zur Ethnographie Amerika’s zumal Brasiliens (On the Ethnography of America, Especially Brazil) appeared. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil: Natterer, Johann Baptist References and Further Reading Büchler, Anne, Rolf Schumacher, and Stephan Kellner. Die Nachlässe von Martius, Liebig und den Brüdern Schlagintweit in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1990. Helbig, Jörg W., and E. J. Fittkau, eds. Brasilianische Reise 1817–1820. Carl Friedrich von Martius zum 200. Geburtstag. Munich: Hirmer,1994. Schmelz, Bernd. Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius (1794–1868). Hamburg: Selbstverlag, 2000. 200 Jahre Carl Friedrich Philipp Martius. Staden-Jahrbuch (São Paulo) vol. 42 (1994): 1–216. Zerries, Otto. Unter Indianern Brasiliens. Sammlung Spix und Martius 1817–1820. Innsbruck: Pinguin, 1980.

MAY, KARL FRIEDRICH b. February 25, 1842; HohensteinErnstthal, Saxony d. March 30,1912; Radebeul, Saxony Most famous German author of American Indian novels (Indianer Romane). He soared to fame as the creator of immortal fictional characters such as Winnetou (the “noble Indian”) and Old Shatterhand. May was born into the family of an impoverished weaver. There were fourteen children in the family, but nine died at an early age. Through his father’s determination to improve his only son’s lot, he was destined to

become a schoolteacher. May was enrolled at the teacher’s seminary in Waldenburg in 1856, but was dismissed three years later for stealing six candles, which he took home for Christmas. As this was considered only a minor misdemeanor, he was allowed to finish his education in Plauen, where he graduated in 1861. May’s career was soon ruined, however, when in 1862 he was convicted of the theft of a watch, which, he claimed, had been lent to him by his roommate. He was sentenced to six weeks in prison and lost his teacher’s license. This traumatic experience led to a psychological crisis and strengthened his wish to avenge himself on society. Between 1864 and 1874, May was twice arrested for theft and fraud—he masqueraded as, among others, a medical doctor—and spent seven years in prison, where he worked in the library and immersed himself in reading. May’s first novel, The Rose of Ernstthal, was published in 1874, soon after his release. He continued writing sentimental regional stories, which he issued in various magazines. In 1875 he moved to Dresden, where he spent the next three years working as a journalist and newspaper editor for Heinrich Gotthold Münchmeyer, a publisher. Münchmeyer commissioned May to write stories, which were published serially and anonymously. These five early novelettes were of poor literary quality, but May used them to develop his writing skills. His fascination with other countries and the Indian stories he had read as a boy led to his creating a whole set of adventure stories set in the American West. Among his bestknown works is Winnetou, published in three volumes between 1876 and 1893. The story depicts the friendship of Old Shatterhand, a German traveling the fron-

MAY, KARL FRIEDRICH

tier, and Winnetou, the noble Apache chief. May clearly sympathized with the Native Americans and regretted their fate as a “dying people.” He blamed the settlers pushing westward in search of land for most of the bad traits that were considered “typically Indian” by his contemporaries, such as slyness, greed, aggression, and bloodlust. Yet despite his compassion, May was a product of his time: he felt that Western civilization was superior and that Native Americans and other aboriginal people had to adapt to these “modern” values if they wanted to survive. May was a devout Christian and displayed his belief in his novels: he used the characters of Old Shatterhand and Winnetou to advocate friendship, compassion, and brotherly love. Both were always depicted as sparing their enemies and pleading for mutual understanding; although never a professed Christian, Winnetou, on his deathbed, declares himself to have become a Christian. May’s stories were enormously successful. Germans, who had contributed millions of immigrants to the United States and other countries, were very interested in these travel tales. Although May had never been to any of the places he so colorfully described in his novels, his use of the firstperson narrative gave readers the impression of actual experience. In trying to forget his impoverished and criminal background, he immersed himself in his own fictional characters so that, by 1880, he was pretending that he himself had lived through all these adventures—that he actually was Old Shatterhand. With the publication of his short story collections and novels, May gained fame in the 1890s, becoming one of the world’s alltime best-selling fiction writers. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, he was

725

Karl May, the most famous German author of American Indian novels (Indianer Romane), ca. 1905. (Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin)

arguably the most popular author of adventure stories in Germany. In 1895 May bought a house in Radebeul (near Dresden), which he named “Villa Shatterhand.” It became his home for the rest of his life. May was so desperate to live up to his selfmade Old Shatterhand legend that he commissioned a gunsmith to build the weapons described in the novels. He even posed for a photograph with these guns and other “travel souvenirs.” His readers— most of them young adults—were enthusiastic about his adventures, and several Karl May clubs were founded by his fans. In 1899 the widow of his former publisher, Münchmeyer, sold the company to Adalbert Fischer, who was mainly interested in May’s early novels. Disregarding

726

MAY, KARL FRIEDRICH

May’s copyright, Fischer tried to cash in on May’s reputation and published a new, unauthorized edition of his early works. Years of dispute and legal proceedings followed. May finally won both lawsuits against Pauline Münchmeyer and Adalbert Fischer, respectively, but they came at a huge cost. Lawyers and journalists found out about May’s humble past and published his criminal records. Subsequently, the quality of his novels became an object of widespread discussion in literary circles. May’s health suffered severely while he was trying to save his reputation and fight for his legal rights (he also published an autobiography in 1910). In 1903 he divorced his wife Emma, to whom he had been married since 1880. May then married Klara Ploehn, the widow of his best friend Richard, who had died in 1901. In 1908 he and his new wife finally traveled to the United States. May’s late work differed vastly from his former adventure and travel stories. Having created a fortune with his pen, May now wrote symbolical novels such as Et in terra pax (1901) and Ardistan and Dschinnistan (1909), in which he advocated peace and redemption. Nobel Prize winner Bertha von Suttner became one of his close friends. In the age of imperialistic politics, May supported pacifist views, which he vehemently defended in his writings and public speeches. Most of his readers, however, were not interested in his new books and kept to the adventure stories. In March 1912 May was invited to give a talk on peace in Vienna, which more than 2,000 people attended. Back home in Radebeul a week later he died from pneumonia. After 1945 May’s reputation as an author suffered from the fact that Adolf Hitler had praised his books. Hitler had

been impressed by the virtues of the Indian warriors and had 300,000 copies of Winnetou delivered to German soldiers in World War II. According to Albert Speer’s Spandauer Tagebücher (translated into English in 1976 under the title Spandau: The Secret Diaries, (1975), Hitler cited May as proof that “it was not necessary to know the desert in order to direct troops in the African theater of war” (p. 523). Due to Hitler’s admiration, May was viewed as an advocate of imperialism by officials in the German Democratic Republic. His books were not banned, but they were no longer considered to be appropriate reading material for young people. However, the fascination that readers for decades had felt when reading these adventure stories could not be suppressed and the government finally rescinded its disapproval of them. For generations May has ranked as one of the best loved and most widely read German writers. His books took his readers around the world, introduced them to other cultures and religions, and provided adventure and excitement—this combination has proved to be still attractive more than a century after their first publication, although nowadays May’s books are mainly read by juveniles. May’s sympathy for the oppressed, such as the aboriginal people in North America and the Kurds, has filled many of his readers with timeless idealism. May wrote under many different pen names, including Capitain Ramon Diaz de la Escosura, M. Gisela, HobbleFrank, Karl Hohenthal, Prinz Muhamel Lautréamont, Ernst von Linden, and P. van der Löwen. May wrote more than seventy books, and his tales of adventure—many of them set in the American West and the Middle East—have been translated into 33 languages and sold over

MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT

200 million copies. In spite of his Indian novels and his popularity in Europe, May did not gain much notice in the United States and is virtually unknown in the English-speaking world. Several of his novels were subsequently made into films in the 1960s, some of them starring wellknown international actors such as Lex Barker, Steward Granger, Klaus Kinski, Charles Aznavour, and Terence Hill under his real name Mario Girotti. A 2001 comedy of the Western genre, The Shoe of Manitou, using several of May’s characters with only slightly modified names, proved to be a hugely successful movie in Germany. The stories have also been presented on stage, the most famous of these presentations being the annual Karl May OpenAir Festival in Bad Segeberg (in northern Germany), attended by over 200,000 visitors each summer. Katja Wuestenbecker See also Indians in German literature References and Further Reading Frayling, Christopher. Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone. London/ Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981. May, Karl Friedrich. The Collected Works of Karl May. Ed. Edwin J. Haeberle. New York: Seabury Press, 1977. Sammons, Jeffrey L. Ideology, Mimesis, Fantasy: Charles Sealsfield, Friedrich Gerstäcker, Karl May, and other German Novelists of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998.

MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT McDonald’s restaurant is the most important food and eating-habit export of the United States to Germany and the world. It has become a synonym for the American way of eating and the complete industrialization of food processing and cooking.

727

The founder of this enterprise was Ray Kroc. Born on October 5, 1902, in Oak Hills near Chicago to a poor family, he became the incarnation of the American dream. He had not finished school and worked as a traveling salesman of bar blenders. As such, he sold two blenders to the brothers Dick and Mac McDonald, who had successfully run a drive-in restaurant in Pasadena, California, since 1937. By the year 1948 they had given it up, developed an entirely new restaurant system, and opened a new restaurant in San Bernadino. This new restaurant offered only a limited number of dishes, all of which could be eaten without a fork or knife. They insisted on high standards of hygiene and streamlined the food preparation by dividing it into separate tasks. Speedy service and low prices were integral elements of their concept. Finally, they gave their restaurant an appearance that could be easily recognized from the street: it was marked by the Golden Arches—the famous McDonald’s “M.” When Kroc met the McDonald brothers, they had already begun selling franchise licenses. After he entered the business, he bought the nationwide franchise to market McDonald’s products, and in 1961 he acquired the whole enterprise for $2.7 million. Although there were and are other fast food chains in the United States, such as Wendy’s, Burger King, and Sonic, none of these chains was as successful as McDonald’s. The number of McDonald’s restaurants rose from 200 in 1960 to 500 in 1963 and to 1,000 in 1968. Just a year before, in 1967, the effort to expand outside the United States began with the first McDonald’s outlet in Canada. When the expansion began to slow down in the United States during the 1970s, McDonald’s sought new

728

MCDONALD’S RESTAURANT

McDonald’s has a leading position in the German fast food and gastronomic sector and has been a major factor in changing German eating culture and behavior. (Owen Franken/Corbis)

markets overseas: In 1971 it opened its first European restaurant in Zaandam in Holland. In the same year, the first German McDonald’s was opened in Munich, where a hamburger was sold for 95 pfennigs. The number of German McDonald’s quickly increased from 27 in 1975 to 244 in 1986. McDonald’s aggressive expansion overcame traditional ways of eating. While older generations considered eating with one’s fingers and eating in the street as rude, McDonald’s propagated exactly that. German conservatives predicted that the family meal would lose its importance and with that families would break apart. In contrast to the United States, where McDonald’s was conceptualized and accepted as a family

restaurant, in Germany young people especially enjoyed the informal way of eating. This was part of the youth rebellion against rigid and narrow bourgeois manners and discipline of the 1970s and 1980s. However, left-leaning intellectuals of this youth movement criticized McDonald’s for the way in which it treated its employees: They had to dress in uniforms, were badly paid, and had to submit to a strict system of punishment and rewards. Membership in trade unions resulted automatically in losing one’s job. Günther Walraff ’s book Ganz unten (Totally down under, 1985) is the most famous literary discussion of these conditions in Germany. Walraff had worked undercover at a McDonald’s restaurant and even pretended to be a Turkish national living in Germany. He detailed the mistreatment at this restaurant from a very personal perspective. His book was a big success and resulted in high losses for the West German McDonald’s. To gain back the trust of the people, McDonald’s hired one of the most popular West German entertainers, Thomas Gottschalk, and embarked on an expensive public relations image campaign. However, despite these efforts, McDonald’s has become a symbol for the American way of life that is identified with aggressive behavior, exploitation of employees, and artificial food. German critics fight the “McDonaldization” of society, which, as George Ritzer puts it, destroys distinct cultures by eradicating differences and replacing them with uniformity. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, McDonald’s seems to have passed its peak in Germany. For a long time, it continued to grow, especially after the opening of the Berlin Wall and

MEUSEBACH, JOHN O.

the access to East Germany that began in 1989. In 1986 McDonald’s had 244 restaurants in West Germany. By 1998 this number had risen to 931 in the unified Germany. In 1999 the company opened the 1,000th McDonald’s restaurant in Berlin-Treptow (former East Berlin). Although the number of establishments rose further from 1,008 to 1,244, and the number of guests increased from 680 to 741 million per year from 1999 to 2003, the general growth slowed down from nearly 12 percent to 0.8 percent per year. Due to the public discourse on obesity and to the economic crisis in Germany, people began spending less money at McDonald’s restaurants. McDonald’s reacted with a new marketing and image campaign that included new meal options—such as salads, grilled chicken, fruit, yoghurt, and even milk from ecological farms. Furthermore, McDonald’s began to sponsor sports clubs for children. However, McDonald’s has a bad reputation in Germany. Asked for their opinion on restaurants, Germans ranked McDonald’s consistently at the lowest levels. Nevertheless, every second German admits to visiting a McDonald’s restaurant on a regular basis (Wagner 1995, 209). In fact, McDonald’s has a leading position in the German fast food and gastronomic sector and it has been a major factor in changing German eating culture and behavior. Snacking and eating out have become popular because of the pioneering role of McDonald’s in the fast food sector. Ulrike Thoms See also Americanization; Chewing Gum; Coca-Cola; Consumerism References and Further Reading Grefe, Christiane. Das Brot der Sieger. Die Hamburger-Konzerne. Bornheim: Lamuv Verlag, 1987.

729

Levenstein, Harvey. Paradox of Plenty: A Social History of Eating in Modern America. New York: Oxford University, 1993. Pater, Siegfried, and Kathrin Greifeld. McDonald’s beißt kräftig zu. Göttingen: Lamuv Verlag, 1989. Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation: What the AllAmerican Meal Is Doing to the World. London: Penguin, 2001. Wagner, Christoph. Fast schon Food. Die Geschichte des schnellen Essens. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus, 1995. Walraff, Günther: Ganz unten. Köln: Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 1985.

MEUSEBACH, JOHN O. b. May 26, 1812; Dillenburg, Duchy of Nassau d. May 27, 1897; Loyal Valley,Texas Successor to Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels in 1845 as director of the Texas operations of the Association for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas (Adelsverein). Meusebach overcame the administrative failures of his predecessor but was unable to offset many of the consequences of policies dictated by the profit-seeking orientation of the Adelsverein. He never received adequate funds for the association’s activities in Texas. His success in keeping the organization operating owed much to his ability to adapt to a new environment. Emblematic of this ability was his change of names upon arrival overseas. He dropped the title “Baron” (Freiherr) and changed his given names from “Otfried Hans” to a simple “John O.” Meusebach came from a family of high civil servants. His father served as president of the Royal Court of Review in Berlin. After attending the Mining and Forestry

730

MEUSEBACH, JOHN O.

Academy in Clausthal, Meusebach studied at the University of Bonn. Obtaining his first post in 1836, he embarked upon a career in law and public administration. Like his father, he also pursued wide-ranging intellectual interests, including the natural sciences. But Meusebach was too much of a child of his times to remain a Prussian administrator. Through his family, he came into contact from an early age with many of the literary and intellectual luminaries of Biedermeier Germany, and he was caught up in the intellectual and political ferment of the 1840s. When he accepted an offer by the Adelsverein to become its commissionergeneral in Texas, he was motivated by several considerations, including—characteristically—an opportunity to study nature, help less-favored Germans, and promote German commerce with Texas. Reaching Texas in May 1845, he witnessed chaos and misery. Hundreds of Germans had arrived in Galveston and Carlshafen (now Indianola), the harbor established by Solms-Braunfels on the Gulf Coast southwest of Galveston. The immigrants remained on the coast without adequate supplies and without the prospect of transportation to the Adelsverein’s interior lands. The association in Texas had run out of money and credit. The basic responsibility for the debacle lay with the princely leaders of the association in Germany. They had underbudgeted the expenses of operations in Texas, purchased unsuitable land from unprincipled speculators, and sanctioned the dispatch of settlers at times of the year inappropriate for arrival in Texas. The directors had made poor use of the funds received from thousands of people for passage to Texas, transportation within Texas to a German settlement, and farming land or a town lot.

Meusebach deserves his reputation as the man who turned the situation around. But as is often overlooked, he was aided by the good sense of his assistants, and even more by the energy of the German immigrants themselves. He obtained credit in Texas to pay for essentials, while he waited month after month for a letter of credit from Germany simply to pay debts incurred by his predecessor. Critical to his success was his ability to convince Englishspeaking Texans that the association’s plans were sound. Solms-Braunfels had sensibly concluded that the still unexplored, vast tract known as the “Fisher-Miller grant,” the largest and farthest from the coast of the association’s lands, was too remote to be reached without a base between it and the coast. To this end, he acquired a large area in which he founded New Braunfels. Meusebach realized that another intermediate base was needed. While negotiating an invaluable treaty with the Comanche Indians in 1847, he founded Fredericksburg, the second major Adelsverein settlement in Texas. Peaceful relations with the Comanche facilitated rapid surveying of the association’s lands and preparations for settlements. Above all, Meusebach managed to get a stream of Germans flowing from the coast to the new settlements before an incipient rebellion of desperate colonists reached serious proportions. Lack of trust in the leaders of the Adelsverein in Germany prompted his resignation, which became effective at the end of 1847. Meusebach eventually entered Texas politics, and his first official act following his election to the Texas state senate in 1851 was to introduce a resolution requiring translation of the governor’s address into Spanish and German. In 1854 the

MEXICO

governor appointed him one of four commissioners for the German Land Company, a successor to the bankrupt Adelsverein. In this office Meusebach issued land certificates to former colonists of the association. Many got an unexpected boon. The acreage promised by the Adelsverein was doubled because the association did not receive its half of the land granted by Texas to adult male immigrants. With this activity Meusebach’s highprofile public service came to a virtual end forty years before his death. He withdrew to private life. In 1852 he married the daughter of an Austrian immigrant. The couple had eleven children, seven of whom survived early childhood. In 1867 he sold the store he had operated in Fredericksburg and lived with his family in a succession of rural homes. Continuing his scientific pursuits in geology and botany, he devoted much of his time to his collections of Texan fossils and fauna. Walter Struve See also Adelsverein; Fredericksburg, Texas; New Braunfels, Texas; Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of; Texas References and Further Reading Biggers, Don H. German Pioneers in Texas. Fredericksburg, TX: Press of the Fredericksburg Publishing Co., 1925. King, Irene Marschall. John O. Meusebach: German Colonizer in Texas. Austin: University of Texas, 1967. Wurzbach, E. F. Life and Memoirs of Emil Frederick Wurzbach: To Which Is Appended Some Papers of John Meusebach. Trans. Franz J. Dohmen. San Antonio, TX: Yanaguana Society, 1937.

MEXICO Since Alexander von Humboldt’s travels in the early nineteenth century portrayed Mexico as a land of vast untapped riches,

731

Mexico has been a minor target of German immigration. Upon Mexican independence in 1823, there were approximately 200 Germans in the entire country, and in 1980 the number of ethnic Germans in Mexico probably did not exceed 15,000 (Buchenau 2004). Although Germans—and immigrants in general, for that matter—did not come to Mexico in large numbers, the case of the Germans in Mexico is significant as an example of elite and middle-class migration. Between independence in 1823 and World War II, the German community in Mexico primarily consisted of political refugees, prosperous merchants, and coffee planters. Since then, white-collar employees of German multinational corporations have dominated the community. Among the German community, we may distinguish between German nationals and ethnic Germans. The latter group includes a wide range of ethnic identities, ranging from the distant descendant who has lost all contact with German culture, to the first-generation Mexican fluent in German who has spent years of his or her life in a transatlantic existence. Further, the experience of Germans in rural Mexico, who often assimilated into the host culture within two generations, contrasted with that of immigrants in Mexico City and other large urban centers, where the existence of German cultural institutions significantly delayed the process of assimilation. Nineteenth-century Mexico attracted few of the traditional immigrants that characterized German diasporas elsewhere in the Americas. Rugged and mountainous, the country possesses precious little farmland of the kind that encouraged immigration to Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. Much of the arable land requires hard work and irrigation, and

732

MEXICO

by the coming of independence, the best lands were in the hands of a landed elite. To top it off, the Mexican government did not grant assistance to rural colonization projects. Existence as a rural wage earner doomed rural immigrants to compete for jobs with the Mexican peasantry. For artisans, low wages and a glut of skilled craftspeople made a migration to Mexico similarly unpalatable, and professionals bemoaned the lack of opportunity in a country with a tiny middle class. Until midcentury, merchants and intellectuals predominated among a mere trickle of German immigrants. The merchants in particular saw opportunities for enrichment in a country without a merchant class of its own. Beginning in the 1850s, Mexico attracted a growing number of Germans, as the liberal Reforma fostered free trade and individual ownership of land. Initially, the liberals’ continued struggles with their conservative rivals precluded an implementation of many of these measures. Ironically, it was the Austrian-born Emperor Maximilian, called onto the scene by a FrenchConservative alliance, who ensured the triumph of the liberals’ program. In a betrayal of his backers, Maximilian supported the Reforma, and he ended discriminatory legislation that had discouraged immigration. Enticed by the prospect of living under the rule of Maximilian, thousands of Germanspeaking immigrants flocked to Mexico in the mid-1860s. The vast majority of these immigrants were young, male, and single, and many of them returned home after Maximilian’s execution in 1867. Not surprisingly, most of the Germans considered themselves temporary residents rather than immigrants. Because most entrepreneurs anticipated a stay in Mexico of

relatively short duration, they sent their profits home rather than commit significant capital investments to the host society. Sharing the predominant view that “whiter” was better, they segregated themselves from the society around them. Prevailing attitudes among the Mexican elite furthered the gulf that separated the immigrants from their host society. As the old adage “Mexico: mother of foreigners and stepmother of Mexicans” indicates, European immigrants enjoyed a social prestige higher than that of many wealthy Mexicans. Thus, the Germans formed a sojourner community made up of temporary migrants with a limited personal stake in the host society. Three out of four Germans were male, and almost all of the women were married (Buchenau 2004). Although deep social divisions marked the German community, merchants unquestionably dominated the scene. Because most of them had made plans to return to their native country before starting a family, their interest in social life remained slight: as their only significant social club, they attended the Deutsches Haus (German House) in Mexico City. Founded in 1848 in an effort to unify German expatriates divided in their political loyalties, the Deutsches Haus soon became the central meeting point of all Germans in Mexico. In the absence of other associations such as schools, churches, athletic clubs, and beneficent societies, the German sojourner community did not yet become a diaspora in the true sense. By the late 1800s, the processes of Mexican modernization and German unification combined to forge closer relations between the two countries. Mexico entered an era of export-led economic growth dur-

MEXICO

ing the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911). Díaz attracted foreign investments to build a network of railroads, which led to a revival of the mining industry and a surge in the production of tropical products. He also attempted to “whiten” Mexico by a mass agrarian immigration—a project doomed to failure due to the continuing social conditions in the countryside. Meanwhile, German unification created the conditions for political and economic expansion into Latin America. Much as the Industrial Revolution had paved Otto von Bismarck’s way to the unified German Empire, the elimination of internal borders fostered industrialization and, subsequently, the search for export markets. In Mexico, German industrialists found a willing buyer of hardware, weapons, and chemical products, and the diplomats of the new centralized state soon identified it as a key area in which German exporters could displace their British and French competitors. As a result, German merchants from Hamburg and Remscheid figured among the founders of some of the first Mexican department stores, including Roberto Boker y Cía and Sommer, Herrmann in Mexico City. By the turn of the twentieth century, the German sojourner community in Mexico City had transformed itself into an ethnic enclave. According to a 1914 census by the German consul, the German population in the capital numbered 1,236 adults, not counting Austrian, Swiss, or naturalized Mexican citizens. Thirty-two percent of the adult population was female (up from 25 percent in 1865), and, even more importantly, the census counted more than 400 children (Buchenau 2004). Therefore, the nuclear family had surpassed the single trade conquistador in importance within

733

the German community. This larger and more socially diverse population spawned the emergence of a host of new German institutions. In 1912 a German travel guide to Mexico listed a German newspaper, the Deutsche Zeitung von Mexico (German Newspaper of Mexico), as well as fourteen associations: sporting clubs devoted to rowing, horseback riding, swimming, and gymnastics; two Masonic lodges; and a German school. In this ethnic enclave—but not in rural Mexico, where Germans were few and far between—the Germans led what one ethnic German has described as “life under the bell jar” (Buchenau 2004). Until the 1950s, this bell jar enclosed the “old” German families to such an extent that German, and not Spanish, remained the first language even of those born in Mexico. In most families, the children were forbidden to speak Spanish inside the family home, apart from necessary communication with the Mexican servants that tended to the family’s needs. The existence of a sizable German colony with its own institutions allowed Germans to raise their children in an expatriate German environment. The foundation of the German school constituted the most important moment in the transition from loose diaspora to ethnic enclave. In 1894 the Deutsche Schule von Mexico/Colegio Alemán de México opened its doors. While the school initially offered instruction in the first six grades only, in 1918 the Colegio Alemán graduated its first high school class, and four years later it became the first school outside Europe to win the approval of the German authorities for the Abitur degree. The Colegio Alemán pursued a threefold mission: to educate German children in the tradition of their ancestors, to teach Germans what

734

MEXICO

they needed to know about Mexico, and to acquaint Mexicans with German culture. This school reached out far beyond Mexico City in its enrollment of students, and many of the German coffee planters in distant Chiapas sent their children to be educated there. Efforts to promote German churches experienced far greater difficulties than the school. With the option of worshipping in Mexican churches, German Catholics did not organize until the late 1910s, and by then, the revolutionary state’s attack on the organized church did not allow the foundation of a German Catholic Church. A majority among the Germans in Mexico, the Lutherans experienced somewhat greater success. Since 1861 they had congregated in a variety of buildings, including a monastery, the British Episcopal Church, and a concert hall. It was not until the 1950s that German Catholics and Lutherans got their own church buildings in Mexico City. World War I accentuated the selfsegregation of the Germans in Mexico. After many decades during which the Germans had coexisted with other immigrant communities, the war drew a line between the German speakers on the one hand, and the British, French, and U.S. enclaves on the other hand. While the foreigners initially feared the revolution more than they did each other, the U.S. entry into the war in April 1917 brought the imperial rivalries to the fore. That year, the German legation sponsored the creation of the Verband Deutscher Reichsangehöriger (VDR, Confederation of Citizens of the German Reich). The VDR not only collected contributions to the German war effort and spread pro-German propaganda in the

Mexico City press, it also helped enforce political conformity among the members of the German colony. The sons of many merchants enlisted in the German military, and the colony greeted each notice that one of them had died with cries of patriotic pride. The Germans in Mexico emerged relatively unscathed from the twin threats of the revolution and World War I. New president Venustiano Carranza favored German investments as a counterweight to the rapidly increasing capital flow from the United States. In fact, Carranza expressed such pro-German sentiments that U.S. and German diplomats believed that he might enter a Mexican German alliance. Hence the ill-fated Zimmermann Telegram, which proposed such an alliance, helped bring the United States into the war against Germany. Ironically, the revolution contributed to a process that strengthened, rather than weakened, the German colony. For all German merchants the years of turmoil precluded a return to their home country in the foreseeable future and thus increased their stake in Mexico. By 1930 most affluent Germans had purchased a private residence, and some merchants even owned the buildings that housed their businesses. With so much capital invested in Mexico, the German merchants took a greater interest in their community and expended a considerable amount of time and money to help the enclave succeed. While most Germans still envisioned an eventual return to Germany, Mexico had emerged as the focus of their lives. Not surprisingly, their lives differed from those of their compatriots at home. While the Germans in Mexico enjoyed prosperity and a high social status despite

MEXICO

the revolution, most of Germany saw the same period as a time of war, hunger, national humiliation, runaway inflation, and sluggish economic growth. As a result of this discrepancy, the old German families cherished an image of a mother country that no longer corresponded to reality. Perhaps inevitably, this desire to cling to past greatness contributed to an almost unanimous rejection of the Weimar Republic among the Germans in Mexico. The issue that best demonstrated this conservative opposition to the Weimar Republic was the Flaggenstreit (debate over the German flag). The official flag of the Weimar Republic was black, red, and gold—since the Napoleonic Wars the flag of German democrats. The vast majority of Germans in Latin America refused to recognize these colors, preferring the black, white, and red flag of the empire. In 1922 a poll taken by the VDR favored the imperial over the republican flag by a vote of 1,800 to 2. Not surprisingly, most Germans in Mexico reacted with undisguised glee to Adolf Hitler’s seizure of power. Hitler’s minister, Baron Rüdt von Kollenberg, had little trouble bringing the expatriate Germans into line with Nazi policies, and at least 150 Germans joined the Nazi Party. Dependent on a government subsidy from Berlin, the German school, long a bastion of intercultural education, alienated scores of Mexican students and dedicated itself to teaching Nazi ideology. By 1939 all institutions of the German colony answered to the Auslandsorganisation (AO, Foreign Organization). The AO also supervised the activities of the small local branch of the Nazi Party, it attempted to bribe Mexican politicians, and it helped German intelli-

735

gence operations. Nonetheless, Nazi efforts to unify all Volksdeutsche (ethnic Germans) encountered limited success. Nazi repression created a dissident German-speaking diaspora, as more than 2,000 exiles, including hundreds of Jewish refugees, as well as novelist Anna Seghers and journalist Egon Erwin Kisch, soon joined a small number of German anti-Fascists in Mexico. These new immigrants wasted no time attacking Hitler’s totalitarian state. Given this new diversity in the German population, the Nazi goal of ideological conformity among German speakers in Mexico remained elusive. World War II dealt a crushing blow to the German community. Before the German attack on France, the Nazis and the German colony had enjoyed relatively free rein in their activities. Aware of the fact that most Mexicans favored a strict position of neutrality, the strongly anti-Fascist president Lázaro Cárdenas declared in May 1940 that his government did not worry about a fifth column in Mexico. But upon the German attack on France, he promised the U.S. government to support the coordination of hemispheric defense. By early 1941, his successor, Manuel Avila Camacho, had permitted U.S. agents to launch an intelligence campaign that destroyed the influence of the AO. Finally, the state of war between the United States and the Axis powers led to a U.S.-Mexican alliance. In December Camacho’s government froze the assets of Axis nationals as well as those of all Mexicans who traded with the Axis, and six months later Mexico declared war on Germany following the sinking of two Mexican tankers by German submarines. The Mexican government interned over 200 Germans in an old

736

MEXICO

fortress in Perote, Veracruz, and it also established a public agency that administered all German-owned businesses in trust. The postwar era witnessed a blurring of the formerly sharp lines between the German colony and Mexican society. Mexican society had changed too much to accept the continued self-segregation of foreign colonies. Industrialization produced a formidable Mexican middle class, whose members did not accept the artificial barriers existing between foreign enclaves and Mexican society. More Mexican families began to enroll their children in the schools of the foreign colonies—schools that enjoyed an excellent reputation for their stringent curriculum and their bilingual education. Finally, within the German colony the arrival of employees of multinational concerns marginalized the old merchant families. As most of these newcomers planned a relatively brief stay, the new arrivals further fragmented an already divided community. The Mexican elites and middle classes had gained self-confidence from victory in the war, and the abyss of totalitarianism had at last discredited the supposedly superior German ways. In addition, following the lead of the United States, Mexico began to produce mass culture appealing to the children and grandchildren of foreign immigrants. When young Mexicans used the new mass media to articulate their own version of the wave of counterculture made in the United States, their peers from foreign families discovered that it was “hip” to be Mexican. Meanwhile, import-substitution industrialization produced a sizable group of urban nouveaux riches who soon discovered the value and prestige of the foreign institutions such as

the German Club and the Colegio Alemán. Formerly exclusively German, the Club Alemán underwent a thorough mexicanization: of fourteen executive officers of the club in 2005, only four speak German as their native language. As Mexico City grew from a city of 1 million to a megalopolis of 20 million, the German colony became increasingly marginalized, and the use of Spanish more important. As of 2005, almost all ethnic Germans born in Mexico—whether of the first or the sixth generation—consider Spanish their native language, and most of those who have learned German speak it with a Spanish accent. Finally, the last thirty years of the twentieth century and into the early twenty-first have witnessed an increasing number of mixed marriages between Germans and Mexicans, usually alumni of the German school. The Colegio Alemán mirrored these changes. Between 1942 and 1948, the school was forbidden to offer instruction in German. As a result, the Mexican share of the student population increased to almost 75 percent, and Spanish became the language of currency among the students. This trend only grew stronger during the 1960s and 1970s, as the teachers contracted in postwar Germany increasingly failed to connect with their conservative German and Mexican students. To make matters worse, these teachers earned up to twenty times the salary of their colleagues contracted in Mexico, including those who spoke perfect Spanish and German and thus possessed the best qualifications to teach in this bicultural school. Nonetheless, Mexican elite families, including those of former presidents Luis Echeverría and José López Portillo, continued to send their

MEXICO

children to the German school. Wealthy Mexicans still believed that knowledge of German culture improved the moral fabric of their children. While it could not dissuade either Mexicans or Germans from attending the Colegio Alemán, the issue of the teachers highlighted the postwar crisis of the German community. The citizens of imperial and Nazi Germany had held their heads high at a time when German science and military power jockeyed for world dominance, and they had often regarded the Mexicans as an inferior people. With German unity shattered and the two successor states a pair of pawns on the cold war chessboard, however, segregating oneself from Mexican society was hard to justify. Moreover, the colony fell to infighting and mutual recriminations. The Nazi past divided those who had actively participated in the dictatorship from passive observers of the situation—not to mention from the refugees from Hitler’s terror. A further gap existed between these three groups and returnees from Germany, who had lived through five years of aerial bombings and bitterly complained about the materialistic attitude of the Germans in Mexico. In the view of these returnees, Germans had enjoyed an easy ride in Mexico. Finally, between 1960 and 1990, almost 17,000 Germans came to Mexico, many of them employees of multinational companies such as Volkswagen in the state of Puebla, who returned to Germany after a stint of several years (Buchenau 2004). Since World War II, the community of German speakers in Mexico has thus become a polydiaspora marked by increasing social and cultural differentiation. Jürgen Buchenau

737

See also Carranza, Venustiano; German Migration to Latin America (1918–1933); Humboldt, Alexander von; Intellectual Exile; Kisch, Egon Erwin; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Seghers, Anna; Volkswagen Company and Its VW Beetle; World War I References and Further Reading Bernecker, Walther L. Die Handelskonquistadoren: Europäische Interessen und mexikanischer Staat im 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Steiner-Verlag, 1988. Blancpain, Jean-Pierre. Migrations et mémoire germaniques en Amérique Latine à l’époque contemporaine: Contribution à l’étude de l’expansion allemande outre-mer. Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 1994. Buchenau, Jürgen. “Small Numbers, Great Impact: Mexico and Its Immigrants.” Journal of American Ethnic History 20, 3 (2001): 23–49. ———. Tools of Progress: A German Merchant Family in Mexico City, 1865–Present. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 2004. González Navarro, Moisés. Los extranjeros en México y los mexicanos en el extranjero, 1821–1970. 3 vols. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, 1993. Katz, Friedrich. Deutschland, Diaz und die mexikanische Revolution: Die deutsche Politik in Mexiko 1870–1920. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1964. Pferdekamp, Wilhelm. Auf Humboldts Spuren: Deutsche im jungen Mexiko. Munich: Max Hueber, 1958. Schuler, Friedrich E. Mexico between Hitler and Roosevelt: Mexican Foreign Relations in the Age of Lázaro Cárdenas, 1934–1940. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1998. Von Mentz, Brígida, et al. Los pioneros del imperialismo alemán en México. Mexico City: CIESAS, 1982. Von Mentz, Brígida, et al. Los empresarios alemanes, el Tercer Reich y la oposición de derecha a Cárdenas. 2 vols. Mexico City: CIESAS, 1987.

738

MEXICO, GERMAN JESUITS

IN

MEXICO, GERMAN JESUITS

IN Founded in 1572, the Jesuit Province in Mexico faced a perennial crisis in finding missionaries. Spain could not (or would not, as the Mexican province complained) supply enough missionaries to compensate, and the sharp lack of creoles interested in joining the Society of Jesus exacerbated the situation. The natural solution—to recruit non-Spanish Jesuits—was long resisted at the highest level. Already in 1518 the crown attempted to regulate even nonmissionary immigration to the colonies by insisting on purity of ideology and blood. Missionaries from territories belonging to the Spanish crown enjoyed a special priority, while subjects of collateral or allied dynasties, especially the Austrian line of the House of Habsburg, were less frequently accepted. The first “foreign” Jesuit to go to Mexico was the Sicilian Vicente Lanochi in 1574. Resistance also appeared in the German lands. On January 3, 1562, the Jesuit general declared that no German Jesuit could go into the missions because each one was needed in Germany. The first German Jesuit to serve as a missionary overseas appears to have been Peter de Gouveia from Edister, who was made coadjutor of the village of San Bernabé in Brazil sometime before 1598. Around 1603, Diego de Torres Bollo won permission to include twenty Italians in his expedition, causing quite a stir in Germany and a flourishing of indipetae (letters written to Rome by hopeful aspiring missionaries). In 1615–1616 fortynine letters to the general came from the Ingolstadt College alone. On January 23, 1616, news reached Germany that the Jesuit general Vitelleschi, motivated by the procurators’ difficulty in finding sufficient recruits from Spain, decided to authorize

the first contingents of German missionaries, including four from the college at Ingolstadt, for America. Ingolstadt went wild. One Johann Irling wrote a letter to Vitelleschi, remarking that “almost nobody thinks about studying anymore, the usual works stand paralyzed” (Duhr 1907–1928, II: 2, 596). Indeed, the professors “ought to resign themselves to silence until the inflamed spirit falls calm by itself ” (Huonder 1899, 12–13). Still, the old feelings endured: When he heard of the first missionaries’ departure, Jakob Rehm, the rector of the Ingolstadt College, was said to have exclaimed, “But why do they travel to the distant parts of the world? The time is near, when we in Germany ourselves will have an Indies, where the number of all the workers now in the province will not suffice” (Hattler 1881, 184). The prime agents behind the recruitment were the procurators. The American provinces regularly sent provincial procurators to Europe. For example, Diego de Torres Bollo, from the Paraguay Province, traveled through Germany, Italy, Poland, and Flanders looking for recruits (who would initially be prevented from going overseas by the Council of Indies). In 1574 Philip II (and his successor in 1603) prohibited the orders from sending recruiters to Spain. The Jesuits circumvented this decision by using the procurator and vice procurator sent by each province for the General Congregation to press the crown and the general for each new missionary expedition. Not all procurators worked for an expedition, but every expedition was achieved in this way. The written word proved crucial in recruitment efforts. The first German edition of letters written each year by Jesuit missionaries was published at Munich in

MEXICO, GERMAN JESUITS

1571, Sendschreiben und warhaffte Zeytungen, Von Aussgang un Verweiterung des Christenthums bey den Hayden in der neuen Welt Auch von Vervolgung und Heiliskeit der Geistlichen Apostolischen Vorsteher (Despatchs and True News about the Rise and Expansion of Christendom among the Heathens in the New World, also about the Persecution and Salvation of the Chief Apostolic Priests). The 1620 German edition of Auß America (From America), a similar collection of letters, also had the intention of supporting the Madrid mission procurator’s work against the crown’s growing mistrust. Thus, the editor excluded a particularly detailed ethnographical description, presumably to avoid leaking details about Spaniards’ distrust of foreigners—which could entail interrogation and imprisonment. The editor pessimistically predicted an increasingly illiberal royal policy toward German Jesuits in the Americas. Such predictions proved correct. In the middle of the seventeenth century the rise of new sea powers and Spain’s defeat at the hands of France intensified the xenophobic atmosphere. In the mid-1640s a large number (up to eighty-five) of foreign Jesuits had been gathered in Seville to embark for the missions. However, some of the German Jesuits had arrived dressed in secular garb, which they had worn through Protestant lands, among Protestant soldiers, and on the Protestant ships that had brought them to Cádiz. Intended to avoid trouble, this strategic subterfuge alarmed Seville’s royal officials, who took the Jesuits to be an expeditionary force for some enemy’s conquest of the New World. They immediately prohibited further passage and deported the Germans. The continued need for missionaries forced a second royal cédula (December

IN

739

10, 1664) to renew permission to subjects of the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs. The non-Iberians among these, however, were limited to a quarter of the total number of missionaries and were required to be chosen by the general of the order and to spend a year in the Province of Toledo, where their behavior and character could be observed. On November 29, 1664, General Gian Paolo Oliva sent a memo to the German and Belgian provinces announcing the decree and requesting suitable candidates. Around 1670 the German Assistancy had 6,601 members, well more than the Spanish (2,040) and Italian (2,937) assistancies combined (Plattner 1960, 17), and the German provinces could afford to be more generous with missionaries. Many German Jesuits adopted new names, often as a strategy to thwart Spanish immigration controls. Thus, before boarding his ship, Karl Boranga, a native of Vienna, had to announce himself as Juan Bautista Perez, “a native of Calatayud, that is, naturalized in Bilbilis in Aragon” (Welt-Bott. Augsburg and Vienne. 1728–1761. Nr. 2. [Vol. 1, p. 4]) and Augustin Strohbach from Iglau appeared as Carolus Calvanese de Calva, native of Milan—then a Spanish-Habsburg possession. Perhaps the Spanish mission procurator recommended this deception. Some explained the change as an attempt to sweeten harsh German sounds for Spanish ears. Spanish confusion and frustration over German political geography also contributed to the German Jesuits’ identity changes. For all their worries, the immigration authorities could not or would not sort out German geography. In 1691 Anton Sepp von Reinegg (1655–1733) wrote that the Spanish officials didn’t dis-

740

MEXICO, GERMAN JESUITS

IN

tinguish between different Germanies: “Being a Bavarian, Swabian, Swiss, Palatinate, etc., is just the same as if they were Tyrolese, or even Viennese,” for no one pays attention to this in Spain; it suffices that “we’re sent to the Indies, from the Upper German Province, and are not French, which is the only nation excluded and hated in Spain” (Sepp 1752, V, 681). Even in the 1690s the papacy felt it necessary to send letters to Spain recommending Austrian missionaries. Even at its zenith the German Jesuit presence in the capital remained quite modest: In 1696, only 2 of the 152 Jesuits in Mexico City were German, and they were both lay brothers. However, the newer missions in the north held sizable German cohorts: 4 of the 11 Jesuits in the Mission St. Francis Xavier in Sonora (Gilg, Kappus, Kino, and Januske), 2 of the 7 in the Tarahumara Mission of St. Joachim and St. Anna (Neumann and Verdier), and 3 of the 5 in the Mission of Guadalupe (Haller, Eymer, and Hostinsky). Once in the missions, Germans held a disproportionately high number of offices, despite official opposing sanctions and unofficial prejudice. In America, German missionaries complained about having to learn Spanish, “for the Spaniards,” Kall explained in 1687, “like the ancient Romans are firmly convinced that their language and their dominion should be advanced together in the world” (Welt-Bott. Augsburg and Vienne. 1728–1761. Nr. 52. [vol. 1, p.73]). Certainly adopting Spanish had obvious advantages. Kall further observed that, while using Latin did not facilitate integration into the New World, using Spanish created immediate friendship. However, a 1737 report by Segesser mentioned a disadvantage:

Indigenous people distrusted Spanish speakers. With the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession, all foreign missionaries, especially those subjects of Austria, Bohemia, and the other states of the Holy Roman Empire, were forbidden to travel to the colonies. The royal confessors often argued against this policy. For example, Juan Martínez de Ripalda, procurator for the Indies in Madrid, recommended (on March 22, 1702) eight German missionaries on the grounds that their superiors and rectors were Spanish, the Germans would be separated, and they had reputations for piety. Citing the law and the missionaries’ unproven loyalty to the Spanish crown, the authorities denied his request. In 1711 four Bavarians and a Swiss were forbidden permission. These restrictions would soon be lifted; Austrian missionaries resumed travel to the colonies in the 1720s. The early eighteenth century generally saw decreasing tolerance. Although the absolute number of German Jesuits increased during the first half of the century, in 1734 a royal cédula reestablished the quota at one quarter. The reigning absolute centralism of the age felt little sympathy for the international society. In 1760 Charles III ended all traffic of foreign missionaries into the colonies; in 1767 the society was suppressed in Spanish territory. Luke Clossey See also Kino, Eusebius Franciscus; Mexico References and Further Reading Bettray, Johannes. “Österreichische Missionare in Lateinamerika.” Zeitschrift für Lateinamerika 8 (1976): 54–67. Duhr, Bernhard. Geschichte der Jesuiten in den Länder Deutscher Zunge. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1907–1928. Hattler, Franz. Der ehrwüridge Pater Jakob Rem aus der Gesellschaft Jesu und seine Marienconferenz. Regensburg: Manz, 1881.

MEXICO, GERMAN-MEXICAN RELATIONS Hausberger, Bernd. Jesuiten aus Mitteleuropa im kolonialen Mexiko: Eine BioBibliographie. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur der Iberischen und Iberoamerikanischen Länder 2. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1995. Huonder, Anton. Deutsche Jesuitenmissionäre des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Missionsgeschichte und zur deutschen Biographie. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder’sche Verlagshandlung, 1899. Lázaro de Aspurz, P. La aportación extranjera a las misiones españolas del Patronato Regio. Madrid: Consejo de la Hispanidad, 1946. Plattner, Felix Alfred. Deutsche Meister des Barock in Südamerika im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Freiburg: Herder, 1960. Sepp, Anton. An Account Of a Voyage from Spain to Paraquaria, Perform’d by the Reverend Fathers, Anthony Sepp and Anthony Behme [translation of Reissbeschreibung (Nuremburg:1697)] (London: J. Walthoe [etc.] 1752). Sierra, Vincente D. Los Jesuitas Germanos en la conquista espiritual de Hispano-America. Institucion Cultural Argentino-Germana, no. 15. Buenos Aires, 1944. Treutlein, Theodore Edward. “Non-Spanish Jesuits in Spain’s American Colonies.” In Greater America: Essays in Honor of H. E. Bolton. Berkeley: University of California, 1945, pp. 219–242.

MEXICO, GERMAN-MEXICAN RELATIONS IN German states entered into political relations with Mexico shortly after Mexico gained independence from Spain. After Great Britain officially recognized Mexican independence in 1825, Prussia agreed to establish commercial ties with the new state. Louis Sulzer was appointed the first Prussian trade agent in Mexico. In summer 1826 both countries concluded a trade treaty based on the principle of mutual preferential treatment; and in summer 1830 Prussia sent its first consul general,

IN

741

Carl Wilhelm Koppe, to Mexico City. In February 1831 both sides signed a treaty guaranteeing mutual friendship as well as regulating the naval and trade relations between Prussia and Mexico. Prussia only reluctantly extended political recognition to Mexico, because the new government violated basic principles of traditional political legitimacy. In contrast, German Hanseatic cities, which were concerned with pragmatic economic interests, were much more interested in establishing trade relations with the new country quickly. However, the political climate in the post-Napoleonic era prevented these smaller German city-states from engaging in an active and independent trade policy. In 1825 the merchant Hermann Nolte was appointed trade agent of the Hanseatic League for their trade with Mexico. Two years later the three Hanseatic cities— Lübeck, Bremen, and Hamburg—entered into a friendship, naval, and trade agreement with Mexico. According to this treaty, both sides enjoyed the freedom of trade, movement, and settlement in each other’s countries. The main goal for the Hanseatic League in these trade negotiations was the recognition of the principle of reciprocity. Because of extreme economic nationalism and distrust of foreign interests, the Mexican government did not ratify this treaty. After long negotiations, a second treaty that significantly limited the rights of Hanseatic merchants in Mexico was concluded in 1831, but ratified only in 1841. These trade treaties included the political recognition of the new Mexican state. Mexico’s major export products were minted silver, cochineal, and dyewood. Indigo and vanilla played initially only a minor role in Mexican export trade. Only

742

MEXICO, GERMAN-MEXICAN RELATIONS

at the end of the nineteenth century did agricultural products become the second most important category among exported goods. Silver exports lost a significant share within the export industry, but remained the single most important export product (50 percent of all export goods) (Canales 1977, 30). Consumer products were Mexico’s main imported goods during the first half of the nineteenth century. More than 90 percent of all imported goods were finished and half-finished products (textiles, foodstuffs, ceramics, paper, and tools) (Canales 1977, 51). The German-Mexican trade seemed to take off quite promisingly after 1821. The naval trade experienced a boom, especially during the 1830s. In 1830 thirty-nine German merchant companies existed in Mexico, among which were the Rheinisch-Westindische Compagnie (Rhenish-West Indies Trade Company) and the Preußische Seehandlungsgesellschaft (Prussian Naval Trade Company). During the 1820s, about 20 percent of all Mexican imports came from the German states—the most important German import product being linen, especially Silesian platillas (Becher 1834, 220). Economic historians estimate the volume of German imports for the time of the Bustamante administration (1830–1832) at 10 million mark banco (this equaled 5 million Prussian talers and 4 million pesos) (Becher 1834, 160). By the mid-1830s, about onethird of all Mexican trade was handled by German trading companies in Mexico (Dispatch from Gerolt to Prussian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, México 18.3.1834: ZSAM [Zentrales Staatsarchiv Merseburg] 2.4.1. II 5218 f. 218). According to some estimates, more than one-third of all Mexican imports came from German states in

IN

1836 (Letter from Ancillon to King Friedrich Wilhelm III, Berlin 11.12.1836: ZSAM 2.4.1. II 652, f. 99–103). Mexican customers purchased more Prussian linen than North America and Brazil together. Other estimates, however, reject this statistic and suggest that, for instance, in 1835 only about 7 percent of all Mexican imports came from Germany (Zoraida Vázquez 1976). Besides trade, mining occupied a very important position in German-Mexican relations. The GermanAmerican Mining Corporation was active in Mexico throughout the first third of the nineteenth century. Next to linen, the second most important textile for German-Mexican trade was silk from the Rhine Provinces. In 1825 Charles O’Gorman, the British consul general in Mexico, concluded that: “German linens, of immense consumption, bear a decided preference to the imitation British manufactures in these markets; the quality of the Germans is generally better, and is cheaper to the consumer” (Trade Report from O’Gorman to Planta, México 1.3.1825: Public Record Office Foreign Office [PRO FO] 203/4, f. 253). Soon, however, Irish linen replaced German linen. Already at the beginning of the 1830s, British exporters succeeded in displacing German higher-quality textile products from Westphalia. Although Mexican consumers bought about 150,000 pieces of Silesian and Saxon Platillas Royales on an annual basis (Koppe 1831), the decline of German linen export to Mexico became very clear. The reasons for this decline are manifold: British cotton was in very high demand. English linen was, compared with the German, much cheaper because of the higher degree of mechanization in its manufacture. Silesian

MEXICO, GERMAN-MEXICAN RELATIONS

linen, furthermore, was of a poorer quality. Lastly, German import companies in Mexico diversified their businesses more than British trading companies. The decrease of German linen imports into Mexico did not result in a decrease of the total share of German trade in Mexico’s overall imports. The opposite was the case. The volume of German trade with Mexico increased during the 1840s. Linen, however, was replaced by now with iron and steel products from the Bergisches Land, toys from southern Germany, and silk from Elberfeld and Krefeld. At the end of the nineteenth century, Mexico bought German armaments from Krupp and Mauser. The original linen trading companies transformed into almacenes (warehouses) with a large variety of products. It has been said that about 20 percent of all Mexican imports during the 1840s came from Germany. German merchants, especially the merchants of the Hanseatic League, played an important role in the Mexican import and export trade. They not only managed the import trade from Germany, but also a large segment of the English and French trade. It has been estimated that in 1844 one-third of Mexico’s export/import trade was in German hands, and in 1860 three-fourths of Mexico’s export trade was said to be dominated by Germans (Potash 1953, 474–479). While German manufacturers were very interested in selling their products in Mexico, German customers’ interest in Mexican imports was very low. In 1910 about 13 percent of all Mexican imports came from Germany, but only 3 percent of all Mexican exports went to Germany (Darius 1927). In terms of direct investments, Mexico did not attract large amounts of capital. Only in the 1880s did

IN

743

some German banks invest in Mexican mining and petroleum production. Bleichröder was the first banker to extend loans to the Mexican government at the end of the eighties. After the turn of the twentieth century, the Deutsche Bank and the Frankfurter Metallgesellschaft (Frankfurt Metal Society) appeared on the Mexican market. The Frankfurter Metallgesellschaft, together with American investors, founded the Compañía Minera de Peñoles; Bleichröder invested in the Mexican Petroleum Company; and the Hapag (Hamburg-Amerika Linie; see entry on Hapag) closely collaborated with American shipping companies involved in the Mexican trade. After 1907 collaboration between Germany and the United States in Mexico was replaced by economic rivalry for market shares in Mexico. The Berliner Handelsgesellschaft (Berlin Trade Society), headed by Carl Fürstenberg, attempted to achieve control over Mexico’s train system. Fürstenberg, however, was able to acquire only 20 percent of the shares of the Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México. At the same time, the Dresdner Bank, together with the Schaffhausener Bankverein, established the Deutsch-Südamerikanische Bank (German-South American Bank), which was closely connected to the family of the later revolutionary president Francisco Madero. At the outbreak of the revolution, Germans had invested about 75 million pesos in Mexico: 42 million in trade, 13 million in agriculture, 10 million in industry, and 10 million in banking (Katz 1987). In addition, Germans had bought about 30 million pesos in government-issued bonds (bonos) (Katz 1987). Since the 1880s, Germans had bought coffee plantations in the Soconusco region and the state of Chiapas.

744

MEXICO, GERMAN-MEXICAN RELATIONS

In 1892 there were 26 German large-scale coffee plantations in the Soconusco region, which were supported financially by German banks and trade companies. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Mexico’s geopolitical position made it more and more attractive for Germany’s political and military leaders. The German Empire wanted to use Mexico to counterbalance the influence of the United States. Germany’s military even considered buying or leasing military bases in Mexico. The outbreak of the Mexican Revolution in 1910 surprised the German government. Opposed to the new Madero government, Germany and the United States found common ground and contributed to the downfall of Madero. During the Huerta dictatorship (1913–1914), German foreign policy focused on opposing the extension of the Monroe Doctrine to Mexico. Had the Germans been successful, they could have transformed Mexico into a kind of German protectorate. Between 1914 and 1917, the German government considered Mexico a tool to influence the foreign policy of the United States. Germany’s goal was to provoke a military conflict between the United States and Mexico to prevent the United States from interfering on behalf of France and Great Britain in World War I. The Zimmermann Telegram, in which Germany promised Mexico the return of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona if Mexico would join Germany in the war against the United States, represented the peak of this failed foreign policy. After 1917 Germany changed its policy. After Venustiano Carranza rejected the German offer of a German-Mexican alliance, Germany attempted to make Mex-

IN

ico a German protectorate. The German ambassador, Henrich von Eckhardt, mentioned German plans “to take control in Mexico” in his dispatches (Katz 1964). While all these attempts were condemned to fail, Germany succeeded in producing a pro-German mood in Mexican society. During the war years, German-Mexican trade, especially of oil and coffee, soared. After Adolf Hitler became Reich chancellor in 1933, German interest in Mexico increased again. On the one hand, Hitler needed to neutralize the propaganda of the Allies, and on the other hand, the Nazi leaders hoped that Germans living in Mexico would support the Nazi movement. Although Mexico refused to sign a bilateral economic treaty with Nazi Germany, German businesses successfully penetrated Mexico’s economy. However, German businesses replaced British but not American influence in Mexico. After the nationalization of foreign oil companies enacted by the government of Lázaro Cárdenas in 1938, Germany became an important trading partner for Mexico. Mexico delivered oil in exchange for German manufactured goods. In 1939 nearly two-thirds of Mexico’s entire oil production went to Germany (Schuler 1987, 173–186). When World War II broke out, Mexico declared its neutrality. German-Mexican economic relations lost their importance throughout the war years due to Germany’s chaotic economic organization. Mexico avoided as long as possible joining one or the other side in the war. However, as early as 1941, such a position could no longer be sustained. After Mexican newspapers had criticized harshly the racial policies and ideologies of the Third Reich, the Mexican government seized all German

MEXICO, GERMAN-MEXICAN RELATIONS

ships in Mexican ports in April 1941, closed all German consulates in the fall of the same year, and declared war in May 1942, as a reaction to the German attack and destruction of two oil tankers. Mexican authorities, furthermore, targeted German property. Several hundred Germans were interned in Fort Perote, their property was taken temporarily and later returned. German coffee plantations in Soconusco, too, were temporarily brought under government control. In 1952 West Germany and Mexico reopened diplomatic relations, after both countries had already concluded a trade agreement two years earlier. The German economic upswing during the 1950s led German entrepreneurs and bankers to invest large amounts of capital in Mexico again. Both countries entered bilateral agreements on economics, technology, culture, education, air transport, and taxes. In 1964 the Volkswagen Company established a production facility in Puebla. And in 1977 the first VW Beetle was exported from Mexico to Germany. In 1973 Mexico entered into diplomatic relations with East Germany. Both countries developed an extensive network of cultural and trade relations. Since the unification of both German states in 1990, German Mexican relations have constantly grown. Today, there are more than 840 German firms engaged in Mexico. More than 300,000 German tourists annually spend their vacations in Mexico. In July 2000 Mexico entered a treaty on economic association and political collaboration with the European Union. This treaty led to a tremendous growth of trade between Mexico and the European Union. Germany still remains the most important European trad-

IN

745

ing partner of Mexico. In general, Germany is second only to the United States in Mexico’s foreign trade volume. While Germany exports cars and car parts, optical and electronic instruments, machines, and chemical and pharmaceutical products to Mexico, Mexico exports cars and car parts, shoes, coffee, honey, copper, chemical products, and oil to Germany. In 2001 German exports to Mexico reached a total value of more than $6 billion, while German imports from Mexico were valued at $1.6 billion. Between 1995 and 2001, German businesses and the German government invested about $2.7 billion in Mexico. Walther L. Bernecker See also Carranza, Venustiano; Hapag; Mexico; Mining; Volkswagen Company and Its VW Beetle; World War I; World War II References and Further Reading Becher, C.C. Mexiko in den ereignißvollen Jahren 1832 und 1833. Hamburg, 1834. Bernecker, Walther L. “Las relaciones comerciales germano-mexicanas en el siglo XIX.” In Las relaciones germano-mexicanas. Desde el aporte de los hermanos Humboldt hasta el presente. Ed. León E. Bieber. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2001, pp. 91–130. Bopp, Marianne O. de. Contribución al estudio de las letras alemanas en México. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1991. Canales, Inés Herrera. El comercio exterior de México (1821–1875). México, 1977. Dane, Hendrik. Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen Deutschlands zu Mexico und Mittelamerika im 19. Jahrhundert. Cologne: Böhlau, 1971. Darius, Rud. Die Entwicklung der deutschmexikanischen Handelsbeziehungen von 1870–1914. Cologne: Max Welzel, 1927. Katz, Friedrich. Deutschland, Díaz und die mexikanische Revolution. Die deutsche Politik in Mexiko 1870–1920. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1964.

746

MEYER, HANS HEINRICH JOSEPH ———. La guerra secreta en México. 2 vols. México: Era, 1987. Koppe. Bericht über die merkantilische Lage der Republik Mexico im Finanzjahre v. 1. Juli 1830 bis ulto. Juni 1831. México, 29.12.1831: ZSAM 2.4.1. II 5216, f. 141–150. Krumpel, Heinz. “Acerca de la importancia de Guillermo de Humboldt en la historia de las ideas en México: una contribución al pensamiento intercultural.” In Las relaciones germano-mexicanas. Desde el aporte de los hermanos Humboldt hasta el presente. Ed. León E. Bieber. México D.F.: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2001, pp. 73–88. Mentz, Brígida von. Los pioneros del imperialismo alemán en México. México D.F.: Ediciones de la Casa Chata: 1982. Potash, Robert A. “El Comercio Esterior de México de Miguel Lerdo de Tejada: Un error estadístico.” El Trimestre Económico 20 (1953): 474–479. Schuler, Friedrich. “Alemania, México y los Estados Unidos durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial.” Secuencia (México, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luis Mora), núm. 7 (1987): 173–186. Zoraida Vázquez, Josefina. “Los primeros tropiezos.” In Historia General de México. México: El Colegio de México, 1976, t. 3, p. 50.

MEYER, HANS HEINRICH JOSEPH b. March 22, 1858; Hildburghausen, Thuringia d. July 5, 1929; Leipzig, Saxony German publisher, geographer, colonial politician, and explorer of the Ecuadorian Andes. Hans Heinrich Joseph Meyer and his brother Herrmann Meyer belonged to a famous publisher’s family. Their grandfather, Joseph Meyer (1796–1856), founded the Bibliographisches Institut in Gotha in 1826. This publishing house, since 1874

located in Leipzig, became one of the most important publishers of German literature and encyclopedias (Meyer’s ConversationsLexicon). From 1884 to 1914, the Meyer brothers took over the responsibilities of the Bibliographisches Institut from their father, Herrmann Julius Meyer (1826– 1909). In 1914 Hans left the family enterprise to dedicate his life to scientific exploration and adventure. Hans Meyer studied Nationalökonomie (political economy) with Gustav Schmoller at the University of Straßburg. After he received his doctoral degree in 1881, Meyer embarked on a two-year journey around the world. The experience of different people and distant places sparked his interest in ethnology and geography. He was especially fascinated by the German colonies in Africa. Meyer, accompanied by the Austrian mountain climber Ludwig Purtscheller, was the first European to climb Mount Kilimanjaro in October 1889. At this time, Kilimanjaro was part of German East Africa. In honor of Wilhelm II, Meyer named its highest peak Kaiser-WilhelmSpitze. In order to compare his geographical and geological observations on Mount Kilimanjaro, Meyer went on several further explorations to other volcanic mountain ranges. Together with the Munich painter Rudolf Reschreiter (1868–1938), Meyer headed to Ecuador in 1903 and explored the highest volcanoes of the Andes (Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, Antisana, Cerro Altar, Carihuairazo) for over half a year. As in Africa, Meyer took barometric measurements, determined the extent of the snow boundaries, and investigated glaciers and ablation forms. Meyer made detailed notes about his research in his dairies; he produced countless maps and numerous pho-

MEYER, HERRMANN

tographs. In addition, Reschreiter produced several drawings and paintings of these landscapes. This material became the basis for Meyer’s book In den Hoch-Anden von Ecuador, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi etc. Reisen und Studien (In the High Andes of Ecuador, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, etc.: Travels and Studies, 1907), which included highquality pictures. For research on glaciers in tropical regions, Meyer’s research was not only pioneering, it also withstood the test of time. Even in present times, Meyer’s research is still of importance to research on climate change and global warming. From 1915 to 1928 Meyer held a professorship in colonial geography and politics at the University of Leipzig. He combined his research with active political engagement in colonial politics. Meyer championed economic reforms for Germany’s colonies to increase their usefulness to the mother country. Further, he hoped to expand the interest in geographical and geological exploration of the German territories in Africa. Meyer, who was a wealthy man because of his family’s publishing house, employed his wealth in 1910 to fund a professorship for colonial geography at the University of Berlin. In Leipzig he supported the Museum for Ethnography and the Museum of Regional Geography (now Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde), which housed his collections and those of his brother’s Xingú expeditions. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Meyer, Herrmann References and Further Reading Brogiato, Heinz Peter, ed. Die Anden. Geographische Erforschung und künstlerische Darstellung. 100 Jahre Andenexpedition von Hans Meyer und Rudolf Reschreiter 1903–2003. Wissenschaftliche Alpenvereinshefte no. 37. Munich: Deutscher Alpenverein, 2003.

747

MEYER, HERRMANN b. January 11, 1869; Hildburghausen, Thuringia d. March 18, 1932; Leipzig, Saxony German explorer and founder of German settlements in southern Brazil; brother of Hans H. J. Meyer. Herrmann Meyer studied anthropology and ethnology at the universities of Leipzig, Berlin, and Straßburg. After he received his doctoral degree, Meyer embarked on a trip to the United States. Inspired by the career of his brother, Hans, he decided to follow up on Karl von den Steinen’s exploration of Brazil’s inner territory. In 1895 Meyer, together with Karl Ranke, a Munich physician and anthropologist, left for Brazil to find the source of the Rio Xingú. Before starting this expedition, Meyer visited the German settlements around Petropolis, Florianopolis, Blumenau, and those in Rio Grande do Sul. There he met Carlos Dhein, who had already accompanied Karl von den Steinen on his expedition. Dhein agreed to join Meyer on this new expedition. From Buenos Aires, Meyer’s team traveled by boat on the Rio Paraguay to Cuyaba, the capitol of Mato Grosso. From here, they continued their journey, first on the previously unknown Rio Jatoba, the Rio Ronuro, and the Rio Xingú. Along the way, Meyer discovered the Rio Atelchu, which he named Rio Steinen. For about half a year, Meyer, Ranke, and Dhein stayed in the area around the Xingú springs and collected anthropological data about the native population. After his return from this exploration, Meyer accepted an assistantship at the Ethnological Museum in Leipzig. However, after a short stay in his hometown, Meyer returned to Brazil in 1898 to continue his explorations. After a

748

MEYER, HERRMANN

Map of the Neu-Württemberg colony, Cruz Alta, southern Brazil, 1906. (Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde)

longer stay in Rio Grande do Sul, Meyer and the researchers who had joined him left for Cuyaba in the spring of 1899. Meyer’s team traveled by boat on the Rio Ronuro—the river that Meyer had previously recognized as the most important source for the Rio Xingú. Accidents, which resulted in the loss of all their equipment, and tropical ailments did not stop the expedition. When the men returned in the fall of 1899, they brought back a large ethnographic collection, as well as a collection of 3,000 botanical specimens. However, the scientific importance of Meyer’s endeavor cannot be compared to the Steinen expedition, which had a significantly greater impact on European knowledge of Brazilian interior geography.

Although Meyer did not receive great recognition for his explorations, he became a successful founder of German settlements in southern Brazil. Even before his second Xingú expedition (from the spring to the fall of 1899), Meyer developed an interest in establishing German settlements in Rio Grande do Sul. This province had been home to German settlers since the early 1820s. At the end of the nineteenth century about one-fifth of all people living in Rio Grande do Sul were of German origin. This southern Brazilian state seemed to offer ideal conditions for German large-scale settlement projects. In October 1898 Meyer, accompanied by Dhein, traveled to Rio Grande do Sul to prepare for German colonization. Two years earlier Dhein had bought four large plots of land in the area surrounding the upper Rio Uruguay. There Meyer planned to establish settlements for 400 families in his colony NeuWürttemberg. Each settler was to receive 250,000 square meters of land (1,000 meters long and 250 meters wide). Nearby, around smaller branches of the Rio Uruguay, another two, less successful colonies—Xingú and Guaryta—were created. To advertise his settlement projects, Meyer published in 1899 his Meine Reise nach den deutschen Kolonien in Rio Grande do Sul 1898–1899 (My Journey to the German Colonies in Rio Grande do Sul, 1898–1899). By 1903, 376 farms had been established in Neu-Württemberg. The Stadtplatz Elsenau (Plaza Elsenau), named for Meyer’s wife Else, formed the center of this colony. Smaller plots with shops, a pharmacy, a mill, and several craft stores surrounded it. The settlement had its own school and church (built in

MEYER, KUNO

1921–1922). In 1906 more than 650 people were living in Neu-Württemberg. By 1933 about 12,000 German immigrants (in all 14,000 inhabitants) had made NeuWürttemberg their new home (Faulhaberstiftung 1933, 7). While Meyer financially supported this colony throughout his life, he did not visit it after World War I. Hermann Faulhaber, who was appointed pastor of the settlement in 1902 and who was in charge of the German school together with his wife Marie, was appointed director of the colony in 1906 and became its driving force. Although Neu-Württemberg had not developed without problems, it was considered a model German settlement during the 1920s and 1930s. For his achievements in German migration to Brazil and the creation of German settlements, Meyer received the Deutscher Ring (German Ring), the highest award of the Deutsches Ausland-Institut (German Foreign Institute) in 1931. The colony NeuWürttemberg was renamed Panambi in 1945 and has about 35,000 inhabitants in 2005. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph; Steinen, Karl von den References and Further Reading Ackerbaukolonien Neu-Württemberg und Xingu in Rio Grande do Sul (Südbrasilien). Prospekt des Kolonisations-Unternehmens Dr. Herrmann Meyer. Leipzig, 1906. Faulhaberstiftung, ed. Neu-Württemberg. Eine Siedlung Deutscher in Rio Grande do Sul/Brasilien. Stuttgart: Ausland- und Heimatverlag, 1933. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol III. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1986, p. 457.

749

MEYER, KUNO b. December 20, 1858; Hamburg d. October 11, 1919; Leipzig, Saxony Professor of Celtic philology at Berlin University who engaged in German propaganda efforts among Irish Americans and German Americans in the United States during World War I. Meyer studied German and comparative philology at the University of Leipzig in the early 1880s; he focused on Irish literature and language and graduated with his doctoral dissertation on “Eine irische Version der Alexandersage” (An Irish Version of the Alexander Saga). In 1884 Meyer took on a lectureship at University College Liverpool (later Liverpool University), where he was to spend the next twenty-seven years of his life. Only in 1911 did he return to Germany to become professor of Celtic philology at Berlin University. Upon the outbreak of the Great War, which he viewed in the context of civilizational conflict between the Anglo-Saxon and the Germanic-Celtic worlds, Meyer proposed to the German government that he travel to the United States to facilitate the collaboration between German American and Irish American organizations with the goal of ensuring American neutrality. This purpose of Meyer’s visit to the United States was camouflaged by his participation in an academic exchange program operated by the Berlin-based Amerika Institut. Meyer arrived in the United States in November 1914 and remained there until the United States declared war against Germany. He received financial support from the German government. Meyer prepared his mission in close cooperation with Sir Roger Casement, who was on a fundraising tour for Sinn Féin in the

750

MIES VAN

DER

ROHE, LUDWIG

United States in the summer of 1914. Casement and Meyer effectively switched places, for Casement traveled to Germany in the fall of 1914 to rally German military support for a rising in Ireland. Meyer’s Irish American contacts in the United States were the leaders of Clann na Gael, especially Joseph McGarrity. Meyer’s propaganda activities among Irish and German Americans often took the form of public speeches on Irish history and civilization—and the brutal repression and annihilation of that civilization by British rule. In the course of some three years, he addressed more than 10,000 people directly at meetings. His itinerary lists, among other stops, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Baltimore, Portsmouth, Buffalo, Norfolk, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Urbana, and Chicago, where he appears to have made his headquarters in 1916. Meyer’s activities received much attention in the Irish American and German American press; The Times of London, however, also covered his public appearances on a regular basis, because Meyer was a well-known figure in British academic circles. Newspapers in the United States widely reported on his private meeting with Theodore Roosevelt at Oyster Bay on December 13, 1914, for Meyer claimed publicly the next day that Roosevelt had said that Germany would win the war. Upon his return to Germany in the fall of 1917, Meyer became president of the German-Irish Society and lobbied the German government for supporting another rising in Ireland. Following Germany’s defeat in World War I, he founded a Union of Raped Nations collaborating closely with Indian and Egyptian nationalists. Joachim Lerchenmüller

See also Amerika Institut; World War I References and Further Reading Lerchenmüller, Joachim. Keltischer Sprengstoff: Eine wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studie über die deutsche Keltologie von 1900 bis 1945. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1997. Lúing, Seán Ó. Kuno Meyer 1858–1919: A Biography. Dublin: Geography, 1991.

MIES VAN LUDWIG

DER

ROHE,

b. March 27, 1886; Aachen (Rhineland), Prussia d. August. 19, 1969; Chicago, Illinois German American architect (Bauhaus) who fled from Nazi Germany to the United States in 1937. Although lacking formal education in architecture, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe became one of the world’s most influential modernists, ranked with Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, and Walter Gropius. He described his buildings as “skin and bones,” walls of glass held together by the steel infrastructure revealed on the exterior. Although his designs for private homes, university buildings, high-rise apartment buildings, and office skyscrapers, which were primarily rectangular, starkly minimalistic, and austerely formalistic, became highly influential from the 1940s into the 1960s, only a few were ever built. Mies, who later added his mother’s maiden name van der Rohe, learned stonemasonry from his father, a stonecutter and mason. He attended the trade-oriented Cathedral School in Aachen for his last two years until his formal education ended at age fifteen. For the next four years, he served an apprenticeship as a drafter of ornamental stucco detailing for classical-style buildings. He worked for Bruno Paul, an

MIES VAN

interior and furniture designer in Berlin, in 1905. Mies launched his own architectural career in 1907 with the design of a classical-style house. He joined the office of pioneering architect Peter Behrens (1868–1940) in 1908 and until 1911 allied himself with fellow firm members Gropius and the Swiss French architect Le Corbusier. After a year working in The Hague, Netherlands, Mies van der Rohe returned to Berlin to open his own design office. World War I interrupted his architectural career as he served for four years in the German army. Back in Berlin in 1919, he experimented with designs never built, exhibitions, and writing theory. Wide publication of his work, especially in The Magazine G, founded in 1923, earned him a reputation as a visionary and appointment as first vice president and artistic director (1916–1932) of the Werkbund, a group of architects and industrialists aiming to improve German industrial design. His masterpiece, the German Pavilion for the Barcelona International Exposition, brought international fame in 1929. The “Barcelona” chair he designed for it, with curved steel bands cantilevered to hold cushions, became popular as an icon of modern art and is still mass-produced in 2005. The pavilion was demolished in 1930 when the fair closed, but was reconstructed on that site in the 1980s. Mies’s Tugendhat House (1930) in Brno, Czechoslovakia, also became famous, and was restored in 1986 after being damaged. Mies became director of the Staatliches Bauhaus (State Building School), the renowned school of arts and design in Dessau, in 1930, replacing Gropius and gaining an international repu-

DER

ROHE, LUDWIG

751

tation for his architectural philosophy. Nazi political pressure made the school move to Berlin in 1932 and to close in 1933. Mies fled to the United States in 1937, his reputation increasing despite many unbuilt designs or exhibition buildings temporarily installed at world fairs. In 1938, he was named director of the architecture school at the Armour Institute, later the Illinois Institute of Technology (ITT), and won the commission to design a new campus—work inspired by industrial forms built of brick, steel beams, and glass walls that occupied him until his 1958 retirement to independent practice in Chicago. Notable designs include Chicago’s Promontory Apartments (1949); the Farnsworth House in Piano, Illinois (1946–1950); the two-towers of Chicago’s 860 Lake Shore Drive Apartments (1948– 1951); the four-tower complex of that city’s Commonwealth Promenade Apartments (1953); and Neue National Galerie (1965–1968) in Berlin. One of his largest projects was New York’s Seagram Building (1954–1958) with Philip C. Johnson. Known for his “skin and bones” architecture, he won the Gold Medal of the Royal Institute of British Architects in 1959 and that of the American Institute of Architects in 1960. His design dictum entered the American vernacular: “Less is more.” and “God is in the details.” His last major building was the National Gallery (1968) in West Berlin. Although architectural modernism became passé, his design legacy can be seen in the design of lobbies, hotels, convention halls, and open office floors. Blanche M. G. Linden See also Bauhaus; Gropius, Walter Adolph

752

MILWAUKEE References and Further Reading Blaser, Werner. Mies van der Rohe: Continuing the Chicago School. Cambridge, MA: Birkhauser, 1981. Drexler, Arthur. Mies van der Rohe. New York: Braziller, 1960. Hilberseimer, Ludwig. Mies van der Rohe. Chicago: Theobald, 1956. Lambert, Phyllis, ed. Mies in America. Montreal: Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2001. Schulze, Franz. Mies van der Rohe: A Critical Biography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.

lation, with even greater numbers in nearby rural counties. German Americans of various generations constituted 64 percent of the 285,385 Milwaukeeans in 1900, with 68,969 born in Germany, making it the most Germanic of any American city. After a lull for decades and then a wave of Danube Swabians immigrating after World War II, native-born Germans composed 10 percent in 1990.

Political Influence

MILWAUKEE Germans arrived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, decades after becoming entrenched in Cincinnati and eastern cities, drawn by its reputation as a “boom town” emerging from its frontier era, yet strategically located as a Lake Michigan port. Swedish writer Fredericka Bremer described Milwaukee in the 1850s as dominated by “German houses” and “German physiognomies.” Milwaukee’s population was about a third German in 1850 and became the most proportionally German of any city a decade later. German settlement spread to wards One, Two, Six, and Nine throughout the city’s northwest quadrant, reaching the city limits in 1880, when German Americans made up a third of Milwaukee’s population of 115,587 and a large proportion of surrounding farmers. They were interspersed with Yankees and Irish on the South Side. By 1890 Milwaukee had far more nativeborn Germans than the long-established Cincinnati community or even Cleveland. At this time first- and second-generation Germans made up 69 percent of the popu-

The locally active Knights of Labor (KOL), heavily subscribed by Germans, laid the foundation for what would later become the hallmark of local politics—socialism. Richard Elsner (1859–1938) came to the city from Silesia in 1880. Becoming a member of the KOL, he helped form the Brewery Workers’ Union that organized the first national boycott against a brewery and led to unionization of that industry’s workers. With half of local workers unionized, most of them German, an 1886 strike brought in the state militia. Milwaukee had a series of German American mayors, beginning with German-born attorney Emil Wallber in 1884. John C. Koch (1841–1907), born in Hamburg, immigrated to Milwaukee in 1854 with his Lutheran family. He rose from a job in John Pritzlaff ’s hardware firm to become vice president by 1886 as the firm expanded. His ethnic background made him the choice of Republicans to rebuild the party in the special 1893 mayoral election, which he won. Reelected, he served until 1896, improving municipal services. William G. Rauschenberger (1855–1918), born in Prussia, immigrated to Milwaukee with

MILWAUKEE

his parents in 1860 and joined his father’s woodenware firm after finishing eight years of primary school. He entered local politics at age twenty-five as an alderman and school commissioner, then won the 1896 mayoral election as a Republican, moving into the grand new Flemish Renaissance Revival City Hall designed by local architects Henry C. Kohn & Esser. By then, a third of councilmen were German saloonkeepers, their establishments as in other cities serving as centers of political organization. Emil Seidel (1864–1947), born in Pennsylvania of Pomeranian immigrants who moved to Milwaukee in the 1870s, helped organize the city’s Socialist movement in 1875. He lived in Germany from 1886 to 1892, studying woodcarving and socialism. Paving the way, Austrian-born Victor L. Berger (1860–1929) and other Socialists formed the weekly paper Vorwärts (Progress, 1906), taken over by Milwaukee Social-Democratic Publishing in 1909. Seidel entered local politics, winning election as the first Socialist mayor from 1910 to 1912, campaigning on a platform of municipal ownership of public services to defeat the Democrat Vincerz Schoenecker. The same year, Berger was elected to Congress. Gerhard A. Bading (1870–1946), the son of John Bading (1824–1913), long president of the Lutheran Synod of North America, became city health commissioner in 1906 and an aggressive sanitary reformer. Bading defeated Seidel to serve as a nonpartisan mayor (1912–1916). Seidel, dubbed “Unser Emil,” became Eugene Debs’s running mate in the 1912 presidential election, but lost a second time to Bading in 1914 in the mayoral campaign.

753

Daniel W. Hoan, a second-generation German American, become mayor from 1931 to 1940 and was featured on the cover of Time magazine in 1936 as “one of the nation’s ablest public servants.” Otto R. Hauser (1886–1972), born in Tübingen, immigrated in 1906 to become minister of Immanuel or First German Baptist Church in Milwaukee in 1915. He entered Socialist politics in 1927, serving under mayor Hoan. He helped form the organization American Relief for Germany (1945–1951), sending over $3.5 million to rebuild Germany. West Germany awarded him the Cross of Merit, First Class, in 1956 for his efforts. Milwaukee had three German American mayors for twenty years from 1940 to 1960. Carl Frederick Zeidler (1908–1942), born in the city of Lutheran parents, worked his way through Marquette University to earn a law degree in 1931 and appointment as assistant city attorney in 1936. He won the 1940 campaign for mayor as a nonpartisan but anti-Socialist with the slogan “Americanism and Good Government.” Pledging municipal support to the national defense program, he volunteered for active duty in the navy in 1942 and died when his ship was hit in the South Atlantic by German U-boats. John L. Bohn (1867–1955), the son of German Lutheran immigrants and long active in local government, became acting mayor in 1942 when Zeidler went to war. After he was elected mayor, he began to clear the slums and introduced public housing. In 1948 Frank P. Zeidler (b. 1912), Carl’s brother and a land surveyor, succeeded Bohn and remained in office until 1960. Although he could not stop suburban secession, the size of the city

754

MILWAUKEE

doubled from 1946 to 1967. The last Socialist mayor remained politically active, running for the U.S. presidency in 1976.

Religion Germans were religiously diverse in Milwaukee—from freethinkers to various denominations of Protestants in addition to Lutherans, and Catholics and Jews. Milwaukee attracted more liberal, anticlerical freethinkers than most other cities, some of whom formed the Freie Gemeinde (Free Church). Many Lutherans came in the 1840s, unhappy with Prussia’s forced unification of Lutheran and Reformed churches in 1837. Many Catholics immigrated in the 1870s as Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s Kulturkampf led to the oppression of Catholics in Germany and a massive exodus of religious orders led the way. While readily assimilating in public life, German Catholics held onto the church as a bastion of ethnic culture and language as the city emerged as a national center of German Catholicism. For a time, Germans had a nationalistic anchor with Swiss-born priest Johann Martin Henni (1805–1881) from Cincinnati, who was appointed to Milwaukee’s new episcopate in 1844. By 1860 three other Germanborn bishops bolstered the cause elsewhere. German-born members of the St. Raphaelsverein directly petitioned Pope Leo XIII in 1886 for their own Germanlanguage parishes with a richer, more musical liturgy and many active Vereine. After lobbying in Rome to counter Irish hegemony in America, German Catholicism gained a foothold in 1891 with advancement of German-speaking Swiss Friederich Katzer to the archbishopric of Milwaukee; but it was a hollow victory, as Cardinal James Gibbons proclaimed at the investi-

ture, “We owe allegiance to one country, and that country is America,” dismissing the claims of Germans and other ethnicities for ethnic parishes. Subsequent decline of distinctly German parishes owed more to suburbanization and assimilationist trends than to an outright rejection of Cahenslyism, a movement in the church named after the German politician Peter Paul Cahensly who visited the United States in 1883 and called for nationalistic churches so Germans would not lose their culture.

Cultural Life Germans formed a culture parallel to the mainstream in the city they dubbed Deutsch-Athen. How ambitious it was to proclaim a “German Athens” on Lake Michigan’s Wisconsin shore except to provide a magnet for immigration already attracted elsewhere! Milwaukee had three daily German newspapers by 1850, reflecting the community’s ideological diversity. Dissatisfied with the public schools, in 1851 Germans founded a German-English Academy with a bilingual program and created the city’s first kindergarten. The Germania Press was the largest of several publishing houses that made the city a leader in German-language publications. Promoting all levels of education and high literacy remained a priority, but social activism was the underpinning. In 1849 Mathilde Franziska Anneke (1817–1884) arrived in Milwaukee. Three years later, she launched there the Deutsche Frauenzeitung (German Women’s Journal, 1852), a freethinking monthly that preached emancipation of women. That, along with lectures, made her part of the nascent women’s movement, inspiring Susan B. Anthony to fight for the right to

MILWAUKEE

vote. Anneke helped found the Wisconsin Woman Suffrage Association (1869) but devoted her attention to Milwaukee’s Töchter Institut (Daughter’s Institute, 1865) opened with Cecilia Kapp. This innovative German girls’ school attracted national attention in its eighteen years of existence. Anneke also played a prominent role in the Freie Gemeinde and in the Club der Radikalen (Radical Democracy Party). At first, after the German Revolution of 1848, many Catholic and Lutheran Milwaukeeans considered the Turner movement too radical and secular; yet Germans formed the Sozialer Turnverein (Social Turn Association, 1853), the first of several, meeting at Phillips Tavern but without a permanent space until 1882. Milwaukee hosted the American Turnerbund’s Normal College of the American Gymnastic Union, the nation’s oldest physical education school, from its 1866 founding until it moved to Indianapolis in 1907 to expand. The National German-American Teachers Association (1870) ran a training school for elementary-level educators nearby from 1878 to 1919. Germans, led by Lutherans, protested in vain Wisconsin’s 1889 nativist-inspired Bennett Law that stipulated that only schools that taught basic subjects in English met legal requirements for school attendance, essentially squelching bilingual elementary education. The beer culture was a hallmark of the German community. Milwaukee had 1 tavern for every 30 German households in 1860. Frederick Pabst of Milwaukee’s Phillip Best Brewing Company installed a mechanical ice machine in 1872 to expand Lagerbier production during summer months, thus becoming one of the nation’s leading breweries, producing 121,500 bar-

755

rels annually in comparison to local competitor Schlitz’s 79,500. All breweries were family owned and operated. Pabst expanded to 40 branches throughout the country by 1893, its advertising budget rising to $160,000 from $10,000 in 1878. He began buying saloons and renting them to operators in 1887. Local brewers—over two dozen in 1856—made multiple contributions to the cultural life of the community. Valentin Blatz and his son Albert, Adam Gettelman, Frederick Miller, and Josef Schlitz formed the Milwaukee Brewers’ Benevolent Association (1869) to funnel philanthropy to organizations like German churches, the Allomania Singing Society, the Infants’ Home, Liegel (gymnasium), Mission Kindergarten, St. Rosa’s Orphanage, Turnverein Vorwärts, and the Working Peoples’ Reading Club. A 1915 survey of German American associations nationally found that Milwaukee had over 200 Vereine, the highest concentration given the city’s size.

Shaping the City Milwaukee boasted many commercial beer gardens and summer pleasure grounds. H. Kemper opened Milwaukee Garden on three acres on Fourteenth Street in 1850. Pius Dreher bought it in 1854, adding seating for 3,000, a concert and dance hall, a theater, a bowling alley, and a menagerie. The grounds were lit by gas lamps for evening use. The Miller Brewery opened a beer garden with views over the Menomonee Valley’s rolling hills. Lueddeman’s-On-The-River (1872) occupied seven acres in East Milwaukee (now Shorewood). The Schlitz Brewing Company’s seven-acre Quentin’s Park on the North Side became popular by 1880 with its beer,

756

MILWAUKEE

music, theater, and panoramic views of the city and the bay. It had a hotel, sports facilities, and a menagerie. Its concert pavilion seated 5,000 and had a huge dance floor. It later evolved into the Schlitz Audubon Center. Pabst opened the Whitefish Bay Resort in 1889, a park on North Lake Drive with a Ferris wheel and other amusements to attract visitors from the city by streetcar. It remained open until 1914. He created another amusement park on the site of the Milwaukee Shooting Club in 1890, attracting crowds with open-air afternoon and evening concerts, a dance hall, a fun house, and a 15,000-foot roller coaster. The minor league Milwaukee Brewers began playing baseball at Borchert Field in 1902. Despite all the privately owned pleasure resorts, mayor Emil Wallber crusaded for state creation of the Board of Park Commissioners in 1889 with Christian Wahl, a retired Chicago industrialist, as its first head. Gustav Pabst and Louis Auer donated a small herd for a deer park in the 124-acre West or Washington Park (1891), the basis for the Milwaukee Zoo, in 1910. An equestrian statue of American Revolutionary War hero Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was dedicated at the Sherman Boulevard entrance in 1921. The Emil Blatz Temple of Music was constructed there in 1938. The park boasts a monument to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller with bronze life-sized standing portrait statues.

The Great War and Its Impact When Europe plunged into war in 1914, many German-born Milwaukeeans actively supported Wilhelm II, while the

city’s German Socialists declared pacifism and neutrality. When the United States entered the war in 1917, the Milwaukee Journal attacked the Germania-Herold for “disloyalty” and “hatred of this government.” Although Germanophobia was not as severe as in other cities in 1918, many families and societies americanized their names, and the Germania Publishing Building lost its allegorical nationalistic statue. American Protective League members enforced a ban on German-composed music. Seidel, then a city alderman, openly opposed the city’s 1917 loyalty ordinance and was arrested for an antiwar speech, while Bading enlisted in the army. Congress refused to seat Milwaukee socialist Victor Berger, twice elected, as he stood indicted for antiwar editorials. The war hastened the submergence of ethnic culture already underway by voluntary americanization. The enactment of Prohibition on July 1, 1919, forced local brewers to fold or retool to produce flavored soda, “near beer,” cheese, and candy, even as it put out of business the city’s 1,980 saloons, one for every 230 residents. In the wake of the destruction of German American culture, the Steuben Society of Milwaukee was organized in 1926 “to keep alive the many noble contributions of persons of German birth and ancestry in this country.” Blanche M. G. Linden See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; Beer; Berger, Victor L.; Cahensly, Peter Paul; Kindergartners; Milwaukee Socialists; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; St. Raphaelsverein Zum Schutze Katholischer deutscher Auswanderer; Steuben, Friederich Wilhelm von; Steuben Society of America; World War I and German Americans

MILWAUKEE SOCIALISTS References and Further Reading Bruce, William G., ed. History of Milwaukee: City and County. 2 vols. Chicago: S. J. Clarke, 1922. Coleman, W. W. Milwaukee: Das DeutschAthen Americas. 1880. Conzen, Kathleen Neils. Immigrant Milwaukee, 1836–1860. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1976. Goldberg, Bettina. “The German-English Academy, the German-American Teachers’ Seminary, and the Public School System in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1857–1919.” German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917. Eds. Henry Geitz et al. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995, 177–192. Gurda, John. The Making of Milwaukee. Milwaukee: Milwaukee County Historical Society, 1999. Knoche, Carl. H. The German Immigrant Press in Milwaukee. New York: Arno Press, 1980. Koss, Rudolf H. Milwaukee. Milwaukee: Herold, 1871. Merrill, Peter C. German-American Artists in Early Milwaukee. Madison: Max Kade Institute, 1998. ———. German-American Urban Culture: Writers and Theaters in Early Milwaukee. Madison: Max Kade Institute, 2000. Olson, Frederick I. The Milwaukee Socialists, 1897–1941. PhD thesis. Harvard University, 1952. Still, Bayrd. Milwaukee: History of a City. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1948.

MILWAUKEE SOCIALISTS In 1910 the local Socialist Party scored stunning victories in all Milwaukee elections. Emil Seidel was elected the city’s first Socialist mayor in March as his party gained control of both the city council and the county board. That autumn more than 7,000 local party supporters rallied to hear German radical socialist Karl Liebknecht speak in the Milwaukee Auditorium the

757

Sunday before their party dominated the area’s legislative delegation, and voters of the Fifth Congressional District sent party leader Victor Berger to Washington; he was the first Socialist elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. A grassroots organization modeled on the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Branch 1 of the Social Democratic Party of America was founded in Milwaukee just twelve years earlier, and its success altered the nature of local politics for the next ninety years. This startling electoral triumph resulted from two decades of courting Milwaukee’s large working-class ethnic community—mostly Germans—and delivering on the promise of reforming government to counter the excesses of both Republican and Democratic politicians. Touted as the “machine shop of the world,” Milwaukee had been surpassed by Chicago as a transportation and grain-shipping center. Its innovative factories, however, manufactured a variety of machinery, ranging from the minute to the gigantic, and the corporations tapped a constant flow of immigrant labor—much of it skilled and mostly trained in central Europe. Mayor Seidel of Milwaukee was born in Ohio to German parents, but he was converted to socialism during his apprenticeship training in Berlin. While learning his trade in the German capital, he attended a Socialist rally where he heard a speech by the SPD leader August Bebel. Seidel vowed that when he returned to Milwaukee he would join whatever Socialist party existed there, and he found a working-class movement well underway. The first known German Socialist to visit Milwaukee was none other than Wilhelm (Christian) Weitling, precursor of Karl Marx who fled Prussia after the 1848

758

MILWAUKEE SOCIALISTS

revolutions. Weitling found Milwaukee, a commercial town not yet industrialized, not at all receptive to what he was preaching and returned to Brooklyn. An itinerant printer named Josef Brucker founded Der Sozialist, the city’s first Socialist newspaper in 1875. That paper suspended publication after Brucker determined that the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln was progressive enough for his taste, and he abandoned socialism. The Knights of Labor—populists, not Socialists—organized the Bay View Rolling Mills strike in Milwaukee on behalf of the eight-hour day in May 1886, but local repression left the door open to Socialist agitation. At least eight strikers, most of them from Germanruled Poland, were killed when Wisconsin National Guard troops fired on the assembled strikers. Socialism reentered the scene when the actual founder of the movement in Milwaukee was arrested falsely in the aftermath of that strike action. Gaining freedom after his erroneous arrest, the Berliner Paul Grottkau took up where he had left off in Berlin and Chicago. Grottkau was a refugee from the Bismarckian anti-Socialist laws who avoided involvement in Chicago’s Haymarket riot. He founded and published Die Milwaukee Arbeiter Zeitung (Milwaukee Workers’ Paper) until he left the city in 1890 and passed the torch of socialism to another group of immigrants. Throughout the 1890s, the core membership of Milwaukee’s Socialist movement, Der Soczialistische Verein, held regular meetings in John Doerfler’s Saloon, a friendly neighborhood tavern near the city’s brewery district. At Doerfler’s through most of the final decade of the nineteenth century, the language of political discussion was German until several

“Yankee” intellectuals joined the club. A former language teacher who took over editing the Socialist newspapers (both in German and English) and sold insurance on the side, Victor Berger dominated the discussions at Doerfler’s and assumed leadership of the local party. Berger also took responsibility for contributing to the conversion of Eugene Debs to socialism. Debs, who became the party’s perennial presidential candidate, adopted socialism after Berger presented him a copy of Marx’s Das Kapital at his Woodstock, Illinois, prison cell (following his arrest after the famous Pullman strike). Berger worked closely with Debs at the national level after that. Milwaukee’s Socialists also formed a union with the Federated Trades Council, the governing body of the city’s trade unions. Opening the first decade of the twentieth century, Milwaukee’s Socialist publications carried constant news reports covering the progress of social democracy in Berlin and Vienna. No Socialist was elected to office until 1904, when Seidel, Fred Brockhausen, and three other Social Democrats won seats on the city council. Yet the Milwaukee Socialists built their party base on trade union membership and second-generation Americans mostly employed in the city’s factories, foundries, and breweries. They sponsored congenial social events—picnics in Schlitz and Pabst parks in summer, concerts and bazaars in winter—building a respectable electoral foundation that offered a clear-cut alternative to the morally degenerate Republican and Democratic political machines. Pabst Park picnics drew as many as 25,000 people to sample beer and sausage and listen to spirited political speeches on warm summer weekends. So-

MILWAUKEE SOCIALISTS

cialist Party events were perfectly acceptable social activities, and well-known brewers like Valentin Blatz even contributed to party finances. Conventional politicians and newspapers condemned Berger for “bossism,” while fellow Socialists more to the left attacked his lack of original ideology. However, the borrowed ideas worked well in Milwaukee. Frank J. Weber and other union leaders joined the Socialist movement, and their party became the choice of the blue-collar working class. Social Democrats became recognized as the heart of a legitimate reform movement. They gained acceptance in the community, and the Milwaukee victories marked a high point for Socialist politics in the United States. These victories resounded with a strong German accent. During their first two years in office, the Milwaukee Socialists incorporated “the Milwaukee Idea,” a doctrine of amalgamating trade unions into their political party for educational, social, and electoral purposes. They cooperated with the Progressives in Madison to enact social reforms (most notable was the country’s first workmen’s compensation law, a model for the later New Deal reforms of Franklin Roosevelt), acquired land to establish an extensive public park system, and modernized school curricula, incorporating physical education and extensive foreign-language training. Their voting base consisted of the immigrant working class, mostly German, but geared to Poles, Serbs, and other central Europeans. Editor of the Socialist publications in town, Berger reigned as the unquestioned leader of the Milwaukee movement and gave his party national prominence, before and after his election to Congress. Although “fusion candidates” of Demo-

759

crats and Republicans removed Socialists from key offices in 1912, Berger returned to Congress from 1922 to 1928. During World War I, Berger led the peace faction of the Socialist Party and faced charges of treason for editorials calling on Socialists to ignore the draft. His trial drew national attention, but the guilty verdict was overturned before he served prison time. Politics intervened to keep him in the spotlight, however. In a special election for the U.S. Senate in the spring of 1919, Berger did very well in rural counties of heavy German settlement, polling 150,000 votes statewide against the Progressive Party’s Irvine Lenroot. After the armistice, it was acceptable to be German again in Wisconsin. Daniel Webster Hoan (whose parents were Irish and German) and Frank P. Zeidler carried on the Socialist legacy as mayors of Milwaukee (1916–1940 and 1948–1960, respectively). Hoan was elected city attorney in 1910 and was returned to that post until he ran for mayor and won four years later. When the United States entered the war in 1917, Hoan deserted much of his party and supported it with patriotic fervor. Union leader Frank J. Weber led a Socialist faction in the state legislature into the 1920s, but party membership waned after the New Deal was introduced in the 1930s. Berger served as national party chairman for two years shortly before his death. Ultimately dubbed “Sewer Socialism,” the Milwaukee variety was modeled after the practical application of electoral politics that German Social Democrats practiced before 1914. The party shrank further in numbers after the Red Scares of the late 1940s and 1950s, but the Hoan and Zeidler mayorships maintained respectability for the party. Hoan

760

MINING

lost the 1940 election to Zeidler’s brother Carl, a Republican who was killed at sea during World War II. Frank Zeidler served Milwaukee with distinction during the second Red Scare and the McCarthy era, and left office with universal respect in 1960. Gareth A. Shellman See also Berger, Victor L; Haymarket; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Weitling, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Gavett, Thomas W. The Development of the Labor Movement in Milwaukee. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1965. Olson, Frederick I. The Milwaukee Socialists. PhD diss. Harvard University, 1951. Quint, Howard H. The Forging of American Socialism. New York: American Heritage Series, 1953. Shellman, Gareth A. “Toward a Better Beer Hall: Social Democracy from Berlin to Milwaukee.” In The Quest for Social Justice. Vol. II. Ed. Alan Corre. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1992. Wachman, Marvin. The History of Socialism in Milwaukee, 1890–1910. ChampaignUrbana: University of Illinois, 1945.

MINING At the beginning of the modern era or the early sixteenth century, the mining districts of central Europe—particularly those of the Tyrol, Thuringia, Saxony, and Bohemia—produced a large share of the metals used in international commercial exchange, and the merchants of the imperial cities of Augsburg and Nuremberg, who marketed these metals, contributed substantially to the transfer of mining technology from Europe to the New World. While German involvement in American mining in the sixteenth century focused on Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean, North America became a destination for

German miners in the eighteenth century. In the 1780s Spain, which had kept its American empire closed to foreign migrants and investors for more than two centuries, cautiously opened its colonies to attract technical experts who might revive the declining mining operations there. Germany once again began to furnish skilled personnel for Central and South American mines and continued to do so after Latin American independence. Many individual German mining ventures in the New World failed, but collectively they had a notable impact on the transfer of technology from Europe to America. In 1527 representatives of the Welser firm of Augsburg contracted with the Spanish crown to transport fifty miners from Saxony to America, where they were to extract precious metals on the island of Santo Domingo and other provinces. The following year the company also obtained exclusive gold-mining privileges in its own province of Venezuela and neighboring Santa Marta. The Welsers’ representatives in America, however, showed little interest in mining activities and recruited some of the miners for their military expeditions to the interior regions of Venezuela. Of the eighty to ninety miners whom the Welsers shipped to the New World, eleven are known to have returned to Saxony where some of them sued their former employers for neglect of their duties. In 1535 three south German merchants residing in Seville—Lazarus Nürnberger, his brother-in-law Hans Cromberger, and Christoph Raiser, agent of the Augsburg merchant Sebastian Neidhart—established a business partnership for trade with the New World that included silver mines in the Mexican regions

MINING

of Tasco and Zultepeque. About a dozen Europeans were sent to Mexico, but the mines apparently yielded little profit. In 1542 Nürnberger transferred his share to Cromberger, who continued operations for a few more years. After a Flemish expert had inspected the Cuban copper mines, Hans Tetzel (1518–1571), who came from an old patrician family in Nuremberg, traveled to the West Indies in 1542 to investigate conditions there. Back in Nuremberg, Tetzel successfully experimented with smelting Cuban copper. In 1546 he concluded a treaty with the Spanish crown that gave him exclusive mining and smelting privileges for ten years and formed a company with his brothers Jobst and Gabriel, two brothers-in-law, and Lazarus Nürnberger in Seville. The following year Tetzel traveled to America in the company of five Germans and one Fleming, and with the help of slave labor the group established a copper works near Santiago de Cuba. Tetzel encountered considerable opposition from local mine owners who resented his monopoly, until in 1550 he agreed to share his technical know-how. Cuban copper production flourished for a few years, and some copper was exported to Spain. From 1554 onward, pirate attacks on Santiago and natural disasters brought Tetzel to the brink of ruin, but he was apparently able to mobilize additional capital. In 1571 he journeyed back to Spain to renew his treaty with the crown and hire additional workmen but died before he could return to Cuba. Spanish and Portuguese investors continued his enterprise. In 1713 the Swiss nobleman Christian von Graffenried, who had founded a shortlived settlement in North Carolina a few

761

years earlier, recruited forty-two ironworkers and their families from the principality of Nassau-Siegen for Virginia governor Alexander Spotswood. They contracted to work for three years in an ironworks Spotswood planned to establish in the northern part of the colony. The Siegerlanders were placed in a small palisaded outpost above the falls of the Rappahannock, and an iron furnace was built at the settlement, which Spotswood named Germanna. While most of the Siegerlanders left Germanna in the early 1720s and settled on land nearby, other German-speaking migrants continued iron making there. In subsequent decades German miners, especially from Nassau-Siegen, were hired for ironworks in various colonies. Several dozen unemployed miners from Clausthal and Zellerfeld, an economically depressed region in the upper Harz Mountains, even received support from Hanoverian public officials when they emigrated to Nova Scotia, New York, and Pennsylvania in the early 1750s. As mining in the Harz region continued to decline in the nineteenth century, large numbers of workers emigrated to the New World, and the Hanover and Brunswick governments resumed subsidizing their emigration in the 1840s and 1850s. While iron making in the mid-Atlantic region was dominated by ironmasters from England and Scotland in the eighteenth century, some German speakers also entered the field. In 1743 Jacob Huber established Elizabeth Furnace, a small ironworks in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, which his son-in-law Henry William Stiegel and his partners, the Philadelphia merchants Charles and Alexander Stedman, greatly enlarged after 1757. Stiegel also branched out

762

MINING

into glassmaking but went bankrupt on the eve of the American Revolution. His nephew George Ege, who had learned the trade at Elizabeth Furnace, began a successful career in iron making in the early 1770s. In 1764 Peter Hasenclever from Remscheid in Westphalia won English investors for a company that was to produce iron and potash in America. Hasenclever hired 500 German and English miners, ironworkers, colliers, laborers, and their families to build a complex of five iron furnaces and seven forges in the hills of northern New Jersey. Due to poor planning and the unreliability of Hasenclever’s financial backers, the venture failed after a few years. After lengthy legal disputes in England, Hasenclever went to Silesia in 1773 and engaged in various industrial enterprises there. In 1786 the Spanish government asked Fausto d’Elhuyar (1755–1833), a former student at the mining academy at Freiberg, Saxony, who had become director of the Mexican mines, to investigate mining and smelting technology in Europe and recruit experts for Spanish America. D’Elhuyar and his brother Juan led two groups of Saxon engineers and miners to Mexico and New Granada, while the Swedish Baron von Nordenflycht and the German mining director Anton Zacharias Helms led a third group to Peru. During his four years in the viceroyalty (1788–1792), Helms introduced new machinery and a recently invented, more efficient amalgamation method, which was used to extract silver from the ore with the help of mercury. In a book he published upon his return, Helms blamed the obstinacy of Peruvian officials and mine owners for the failure of his efforts. Throughout the nineteenth century, the mining academies of Freiberg and

Clausthal played an important role in the transfer of technical knowledge from Germany to the Americas. At least thirty students from Spain and thirty-four from Latin America studied at Freiberg from 1766 to 1866. In 1792 Fausto d’Elhuyar founded the Real Seminario de Minería in Mexico, which was closely modeled on the Freiberg academy; employed German engineers and scientists as teachers; and used textbooks translated from German. A number of students from South America and Mexico also attended the academy at Clausthal, while at least seventy-five German students from Clausthal are known to have emigrated to Latin America. The Freiberg graduate Hermann Joseph Burkart (1798–1874) went to Mexico in 1825 to work for two English mining companies. After his return to Europe he entered the Prussian mining administration in 1836 and published numerous works on Mexican geology and mining. The most famous Freiberg graduate, however, was Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), who had worked in the Prussian mining administration for several years before embarking on his great American journey (1799–1804). Humboldt recorded numerous observations on mineral resources and mining conditions in Colombia and Peru and prepared detailed surveys and reports on Mexican mines. Of the numerous German technical experts, engineers, and geologists who worked for foreign companies or state enterprises in the nineteenth century, the Hessian nobleman Wilhelm Ludwig von Eschwege (1777–1855) deserves particular mention. After his studies in Göttingen, Marburg, and Clausthal, Eschwege went to Portugal in 1803 and became director of an

MINNESOTA HOLY LAND

ironworks there. In 1809 Eschwege, his collaborator Ludwig Wilhelm Varnhagen, and a number of miners and ironworkers traveled to Brazil and established several ironworks. Eschwege became general director of the gold mines in 1817. Like Varnhagen, Eschwege returned to Europe during the political crisis of 1821 that ushered in Brazilian independence, but he continued to publish extensively on the country’s geology and natural history. German entrepreneurs also invested in American mining operations. One of the largest enterprises of its kind was the Deutsch-Mexikanischer Bergwerks-Verein (German-Mexican Mining Society, later renamed Deutsch-Amerikanischer Bergwerksverein [German-American Mining Society]), formed in 1824 by a group of Rhenish and Westphalian merchants and manufacturers in Elberfeld. Several of the founders had already been active in trade with Mexico, and they now intended to reach out into the exploitation of mineral resources. Wilhelm Stein (1791–1870) from a Siegerland mining family became the company’s chief agent, and Friedrich von Gerolt his assistant. Both men had gathered experience in the mining administrations of Bonn and Düren. The company hired laborers, administrators, and technical experts from the Siegerland and leased a number of gold, silver, and lead mines in central Mexico. Due to high mortality among the immigrants, technical problems, and the political instability of the country, the costs of the enterprise far exceeded the profits, and the company went bankrupt in 1837. Several German miners remained in Mexico, however, and von Gerolt later became Prussia’s diplomatic representative there. Mark Häberlein

763

See also Brazil; Conquista; Eschwege, Wilhelm Ludwig von; Humboldt, Alexander von; Mexico; Mexico, GermanMexican Relations in References and Further Reading Bailyn, Bernard. Voyagers to the West: A Passage in the Peopling of America on the Eve of the Revolution. New York: Knopf, 1986. Bartolosch, Thomas A., and Marko Dillmann. “Siegerländer Berg- und Hüttenleute in Virginia. Ein Beispiel für den Technologieund Kulturtransfer von Europa in die Neue Welt im frühen 18. Jahrhundert.” Scripta Mercaturae vol. 34 (2000): 1–23. Großhaupt, Walter. “Bergbau der Welser in Übersee.” Scripta Mercaturae vol. 25 (1991): 125–177. Liesegang, Carl. Deutsche Berg- und Hüttenleute in Süd- und Mittelamerika: Beiträge zur Frage des deutschen Einflusses auf die Entwicklung des Bergbaus in Lateinamerika. Hamburg: Heitmann, 1949. Werner, Theodor Gustav. “Das Kupferhüttenwerk des Hans Tetzel aus Nürnberg auf Kuba und seine Finanzierung durch europäisches Finanzkapital (1545–1571).” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte vol. 48 (1961): 289–328, 444–502.

MINNESOTA HOLY LAND The German Catholic culture region of central Minnesota, commonly called the Minnesota Holy Land, is an area of land in central Minnesota that is known for its high concentration of Catholics and heavy German ethnicity among the population. It is more than 2,500 square miles in area, encompassing most of Stearns and Morrison counties and parts of Benton, Sherburne, and Todd counties. This rural region has three Catholic monasteries and two Catholic universities. It is characterized by the prevalence of agriculture and dairy farms, a lack of religious and ethnic

764

MINNESOTA HOLY LAND

diversity, immense brick Gothic and Romanesque churches that settlers built as symbols of their faith, and a very high concentration of parishes. German and Catholic holidays and festivals are observed. The cultural imprint of this region is most evident in the significant percentage of Germans and Catholics among the population. There are only small pockets of Polish, French, and Luxemburg Catholics in the region. By 1905 the region was nearly 70 percent German and mostly Catholic. As late as 1970, it was still more than 70 percent Catholic and 50 percent German (Vogeler 1976, 72, 76). The German communities have fervently avoided assimilation. One parish even had mass sermons in German until 1945, long after most ethnic enclaves in America assimilated. The Minnesota Holy Land is arguably the most enduring culture region in the state. Many factors contributed to that endurance and maintenance of culture, including religion, language, farming, closeknit families, and insular communities, among many other things. Because of its continued existence, the Minnesota Holy Land is not like many other ethnic areas and culture regions across the country, hence its significance. Roman Catholic missionary priest Francis Xavier Pierz (1785–1880) played an integral role in the origin and growth of the Minnesota Holy Land. In 1852 Pierz came to Minnesota Territory to work among the Ojibwe. After working in his Crow Wing mission for only two months, he traveled south to the village of Sauk Rapids along the Mississippi to establish a mission. In 1853 he began another mission farther north on the Mississippi for a settlement of French Catholics at the village of Belle

Prairie. As Pierz traveled around to his various missions, he took note of the fertile soil of the Sauk River Valley in what is now Stearns County. As a recognized authority on farming in Europe, Pierz immediately realized the economic potential of the Sauk Valley land. The land in central Minnesota was the best available for settlement at the time and Pierz was aware of that fact. Pierz knew from experience working with Indians and the U.S. government that European settlement would in time come to Minnesota just as it did to Michigan, where he had worked as a missionary. The government would restrict Indians to reservations and open their land for European settlers. Anticipating that eventuality, Pierz took it upon himself to use whatever influence he had to persuade Catholics to settle on land vacated by Indians. Working alone, as he always did in his missions, Pierz began a campaign urging Catholic immigration to Minnesota. He specifically attracted people from the Rhineland, Westphalia, and Bavaria. Pierz believed that rural Catholic settlements in the Sauk River Valley would not only benefit the state but also the nation. Moreover, he thought that German Catholics would be ideal immigrants, and would set an example for other farming communities and groups of settlers. Pierz’s experience in Michigan reinforced his belief that Yankee Protestant settlers would be favored should they be allowed to settle land in Minnesota before Catholics. To prevent that from happening, Pierz’s solution was to establish a significant number of Catholic communities and encourage Catholics to settle on the best farmland available before it was taken. Pierz first began recruiting settlers by writing letters to friends and relatives in his

MINNESOTA HOLY LAND

native Carniola, which was one of the Slavic provinces of the Habsburg Empire at the time. Ironically, Pierz did not at first appeal to immigrants to move because of religious reasons; he cited the social and economic benefits of Minnesota. Some of the earliest immigrants to heed Pierz’s call were his sister Apolonija and his nephew Jernej Pierz who arrived in 1854. Others came from Carniola as well and settled northwest of St. Cloud, where they established St. Stephen in Krain Township, the oldest Slovenian settlement in America. In 1855 Pierz published his book Die Indianer in Nord-Amerika (The Indians of North America). In 130 pages, Pierz gave a detailed account of his life as a missionary among the various tribes. He described his successes and failures of Catholic conversion and his adventures and gave his own perspective of the Indian way of life. Although the main focus of the book was on his work as a missionary, Pierz also unapologetically included an endorsement of Minnesota in the preface and appendix. The book was intended to be entertaining, but what made it important was the appendix. Entitled “Eine Kurze Beschreibung des Minnesota-Territoriums” (A Short Description of Minnesota Territory), the appendix was intended to supplement Pierz’s other recruiting letters and provide useful information for potential settlers. In it Pierz addressed eleven specific points and answered questions that settlers may have had about possibly migrating to Minnesota Territory. He described lakes and rivers, timber, climate, towns, and conflicts with Indians, among other things. With the exception of comparing the climate of Minnesota to regions in Europe, Pierz made no comparison of Minnesota to Germanic states or to Europe.

765

Like all promotional publications intended to attract settlers, Pierz’s exaggerated. He did not lie, however, about the availability of land and his wish for it to be settled by German Catholics. The information Pierz provided in “Eine Kurze Beschreibung” related to Minnesota Territory in general, but he specifically mentioned three areas by name that he wanted people to settle—the Sauk River Valley, the Platte River Valley, and the land near his mission in Belle Prairie. The Sauk River Valley is in Stearns County, and the Platte River Valley and Belle Prairie are both in Morrison County. Pierz also asked that only a certain kind of people settle in central Minnesota; devout German Catholics. He wrote in “Eine Kurze Beschreibung”: “I am sure that you will likewise do credit to your faith here in Minnesota, but to prove yourselves good Catholics, do not bring with you any free-thinkers, red republicans, atheists, or agitators” (Pierz 1855, 129). In addition to his Indian missions in northern Minnesota, Pierz was responsible for preaching to the German Catholic settlers of the Sauk River Valley. As a result of the influx of settlers, he founded parishes in Sauk Rapids, Swan River (now Sobieski), and Belle Prairie in 1853; St. Cloud and St. Joseph in 1854; and St. Augusta in 1855. Those six parishes formed the core of the new and expanding Minnesota Holy Land. The number of parishes in the region grew to nineteen by 1869, thirty-two by 1879, and forty-seven by 1889. The vast majority of those parishes were in Stearns County. As an instrumental force in bringing German Catholic settlers to the region, Pierz believed he was obligated to attend to their spiritual needs. But because the area

766

MINNESOTA HOLY LAND

he was responsible for was large, Pierz was able to visit each village only a few times a year. The pioneers who came at Pierz’s behest were disappointed that he could not say mass in their respective settlements more often. By 1855 his missionary and colonization efforts were so successful that he needed help with both his Indian missions in the north and his German missions in the south. With no help available from the still small Diocese of St. Paul, Pierz began to look for outside assistance. Persuaded by Pierz, Bishop Joseph Cretin wrote to the Ludwig-Missionsverein in Bavaria and asked for priests to assist Pierz in attending to the growing German Catholic population in central Minnesota. Unable to fulfill the request, the Ludwig-Missionsverein referred Cretin to St. Vincent’s Abbey near Latrobe, Pennsylvania. Eager to see the Benedictine Order grow in the United States, St. Vincent’s Abbot Boniface Wimmer listened to all appeals. In addition to Bishop Cretin in St. Paul, bishops from growing Catholic communities in St. Louis, Dubuque, and Milwaukee all requested help from St. Vincent’s. With limited resources of its own, St. Vincent’s could send assistance to only one of those locations. St. Paul, Minnesota, the most distant point from St. Vincent’s, was chosen. A group of five men left St. Vincent’s together for central Minnesota with the intention of building a monastery. The group comprised one priest, Demetrius di Margona; two soon-to-be ordained clerics, Cornelius Witmann and Bruno Riss; and two monks, Benno Muckenhalter and Patrick Greil. They arrived in St. Paul on May 2, 1856, and spent two weeks assisting Bishop Cretin before departing for St. Cloud. During that time, Wittmann and

Riss were ordained priests. Bishop Cretin escorted the group to St. Cloud himself and they arrived there on May 21. Pierz, busy as usual, was not even able to greet his new help and left a note welcoming them to his Sauk Rapids mission. With the arrival of the Benedictines in Minnesota, Pierz finally had the help with his missions and parishes in central Minnesota that he desperately needed. In 1856 those five clerics laid the foundation for St. John’s Abbey in St. Cloud. They soon opened a school of higher education that was incorporated by an act of the legislature in 1857. Ten years later, St. John’s Abbey and Seminary moved west to its current location of Collegeville. The Benedictines worked tirelessly and endured many hardships in their first years among the settlers of the Sauk Valley. The duties of operating the parishes, schools, and surrounding missions soon exceeded the ability of the Benedictines, and Father Margona appealed to St. Mary’s Benedictine Convent in Elk County, Pennsylvania, for assistance. In 1857 four Benedictine nuns and two candidates arrived in Minnesota to assist in teaching the children of the German Catholic pioneers. In 1863 the nuns moved west to St. Joseph and established the foundation for what would become the Convent and College of St. Benedict. A third religious family also formed within boundaries of the culture region: the missionary Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate Conception. Their mission was founded at Belle Prairie in 1873, and a convent was built in 1875. In 1888 it was destroyed by fire. They eventually reorganized and built a new convent five miles south in Little Falls three years later. By 1875, twenty-three years after Pierz

MÖLLHAUSEN, HEINRICH BALDUIN

came to Minnesota, three monasteries served the religious needs of the German Catholic settlers. Pierz was directly responsible for the arrival of the Benedictine monks, which led to the arrival of the Benedictine and Franciscan sisters. Immigration into central Minnesota increased when news spread of the arrival of the monks and nuns. Their establishment in central Minnesota encouraged other Germans to migrate to the area and is probably one of the most important factors in the growth of the culture region. These religious institutions expanded and grew rapidly alongside the population. As a direct result of Pierz’s colonization efforts, the number of parishes established in the Minnesota Holy Land increased annually. Consequently, the Diocese of St. Cloud, encompassing the entire Minnesota Holy Land, with additional counties to the east and west, was officially created on September 22, 1889. In the 37 years from 1852 to 1889, 47 parishes were established in the 5 county areas known as the Minnesota Holy Land, while only 36 were established in the remaining 11 counties that became the St. Cloud Diocese. Of the 140 parishes in the St. Cloud Diocese in 2005, 83 are in the Minnesota Holy Land. Tim Hoheisel See also Indians in German Literature; Ludwig-Missionsverein References and Further Reading Busch, Joseph F. A Century Living with Christ: Pastoral letter and brief historical sketch. Diocese of St. Cloud, Minnesota, 1852–1952. St. Cloud, MN: Diocese of St. Cloud, 1952. Conzen, Kathleen N. Making Their Own America: Assimilation Theory and the German Peasant Pioneer. New York: Berg, 1990.

767

Dockendorff, Thomas J. “Upper Mississippi Valley Landscape: A Legacy of German Catholic Settlement in Central Minnesota.” Pioneer America Society Transactions 8 (1985): 85–90. Massmann, John C. “German Immigration to Minnesota, 1850–1890.” PhD diss. University of Minnesota, 1966. Mitchell, William Bell. History of Stearns County, Minnesota. Chicago: H. C. Cooper, 1915. Pierz, Francis X. Die Indianer in NordAmerika, ihre Lebensweise, Sitten, Gebräuche u.s.w., nach vieljährigem Aufenthalte und gesammelten Erfahrungen unter den verschiedenen Stämmen. St. Louis: F. Saler u. Co., 1855. Vogeler, Ingolf. “The Roman Catholic Culture Region of Central Minnesota.” Pioneer America 8 (July 1976): 71–83. Yzermans, Vincent A. The Spirit in Central Minnesota: A Centennial Narrative of the Church of St. Cloud, 1889–1999. Vols. 1 and 2. St. Cloud, MN: Diocese of St. Cloud, 1989.

MÖLLHAUSEN, HEINRICH BALDUIN b. January 27, 1825; Jesuitenhof by Bonn (Rhineland), Prussia d. May 28, 1905; Berlin, Prussia German poet (known as the German James Fenimore Cooper) who wrote 150 novels and short stories in which he retold his adventures in the United States. After an unhappy childhood—his father abandoned the family and his mother died in 1837— Möllhausen emigrated to the United States in 1849. He started as a clerk in Belleville, Illinois. In 1851 he accompanied Duke Paul Wilhelm von Württemberg on his trip to Fort Laramie, Wyoming. When the duke continued his journey, he left Möllhausen behind. With no means of support, Möllhausen had only a tent to survive the

768

MÖLLHAUSEN, HEINRICH BALDUIN

“Bivouac, Jan 26,” ca. 1855 drawing by H. B. Möllhausen. Several trips that Möllhausen made to the United States in the 1850s gave him the material he used to produce illustrations, diaries, and fiction for nearly 50 years. (Library of Congress)

winter. He was saved from freezing to death by members of the Otoe tribe. For some time, he lived among the Omaha and fell in love with a fourteen-year-old girl of mixed ancestry (native and European), who later became the model for many characters in his novels. In 1853 he returned to Germany and went to Berlin to meet Alexander von Humboldt, who became one of his most important patrons. Möllhausen fell in love with Karoline Seifert, the presumed daughter of Humboldt’s chamber servant, who probably was in reality an illegitimate daughter of Humboldt himself. In the same year Möllhausen went back to the United States. Humboldt had written a letter of recommendation for him, which helped Möllhausen find a position as a topographer and artist in the government-sponsored expedition under

Amiel Weeks Whipples. This expedition was to determine the best route for the planned transcontinental railroad connection between Forth Smith, Arkansas, on the Arkansas River, and San Pedro in California. The official Whipple Report became well known because of its ethnographic description of Indian tribes and its drawings by Möllhausen. The experiences of this expedition provided material for Möllhausen’s first book Tagebuch einer Reise vom Mississippi nach den Küsten der Südsee (English edition: Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific with a United States Government Expedition, 1858). Helped by Humboldt, who wrote the introduction and publicly promoted the work, this book laid the foundation for Möllhausen’s literary fame. Responding to a request from the U.S. government, Möll-

MÖLLHAUSEN, HEINRICH BALDUIN

hausen embarked on his third transatlantic trip in the summer of 1857. President James Buchanan asked him to accompany Lieutenant C. Joseph Ives on his expedition to the lower Colorado River. This expedition crossed into lands not seen by any European before. As the first European, Möllhausen reached the Grand Canyon and produced the first drawings of it. From Albuquerque, where the expedition ended, Möllhausen traveled back to the East Coast on the Santa Fe Trail and returned to Europe in 1858. He would never set foot on American soil again. Back in Germany, Möllhausen settled down in Berlin and dedicated his life to literature. His second report on America and his participation in the Ives expedition, Reise in den Felsengebirgen NordAmerikas bis zum Hoch-Plateau von NeuMexico (Journey into the Rocky Mountains of North America to the High Plains of New Mexico, 1861), became a great success. His vivid description of the land and people and his captivating storytelling style attracted a wide audience. He wrote about 150 novels and short stories. His most successful works were Das Mormonenmädchen (The Mormon’s Daughter, 1864), Die Mandanen-Waise (The Mandan Orphan, 1865), Die Kinder des Sträflings (The Children of the Prisoner, 1876), Der Leuchtturm am Michigan und andere Erzählungen (The Light House on Lake Michigan and Other Stories, 1882), Der Fährmann am Kanadian (The Ferrymen on the Canadian River, 1890), and Der Spion (The Spy, 1893). Möllhousen’s novels made him one of the most popular nineteenth-century authors. He attempted to combine the classic topics of the entertainment novel (love,

769

family, and success) with the elements of the adventure and Indian novel. By adding his own experiences and adventures to the fictional contents (disrupted family life, and the adventures of his three America trips), Möllhausen captured the imagination of his readers. The structure of all his novels, however, is very similar: in the first part the main character is forced to leave Germany, in the second part this character has adventures, and in the third part he achieves happiness. Möllhausen criticized slavery, racism, and religious fanaticism and described the annihilation of America’s Indian tribes by white settlers. Harshly attacked by Friedrich Gerstäcker and later overshadowed by the success of the Indian novels of Karl May who, in contrast to Möllhausen, had no firsthand information about the American Indian tribes, Möllhausen was quickly forgotten after the turn of the twentieth century. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Indians in German Literature; May, Karl Friedrich; Paul Wilhelm Duke of Württemberg References and Further Reading Barba, Preston Albert. Balduin Möllhausen, the German Cooper. Philadelphia/New York: University of Pennsylvania, 1914. Graf, Andreas. Der Tod der Wölfe. Das abenteuerliche und das bürgerliche Leben des Romanschriftstellers und Amerikareisenden Balduin Möllhausen (1825–1905). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1991. ———. Abenteuer und Geheimnis. Die Romane Balduin Möllhausens. Feiburg: Rombach, 1993. Huseman, Ben Wayne. Wild River, Timeless Canyons: Balduin Möllhausen’s Watercolors of the Colorado. Tucson: University of Arizona, 1995. Miller, David Henry. Balduin Möllhausen. A Prussian’s Image of the American West. PhD thesis. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, 1970.

770

MORGENTHAU, HANS J.

MORGENTHAU, HANS J. b. February 17, 1904; Coburg,Thuringia d. July 19, 1980; New York City Eminent German Jewish political scientist who fled Nazi Germany in 1933 and emigrated to the United States in 1937. Though completely unknown when he arrived in the United States, Morgenthau quickly climbed the academic ladder in his adopted homeland, spending much of his professional life at the University of Chicago. But Morgenthau was not one to limit himself to the Ivory Tower. He pursued a dual career as a foreign policy commentator out of a belief that it is “impossible for a man dealing in a theoretical and academic manner with politics to remain silent when those great issues are before the public and before the government” (Morgenthau 1967). A persuasive and prolific writer, his influence was widespread in American foreign affairs, and policymakers from Henry Kissinger to Condoleeza Rice consider him their “intellectual mentor.” Morgenthau was confronted with antisemitism early in his life. When Morgenthau graduated from Coburg’s Gymnasium (university preparatory school), he was the valedictorian and thus chosen to lead an important school ceremony. When the townspeople heard that a Jew would preside, a wave of protest erupted. The eighteen-year-old Morgenthau prevailed nonetheless. After he delivered his oration, the attending dignitaries held their noses in disgust. During the subsequent parade, bystanders shouted obscenities at the young Morgenthau and spat upon him. He recalled the event as the “worst day of my life” (Morgenthau 1968). When Morgenthau entered the university, his father took great efforts to ensure

that his son acquired all the trappings of elite German society. For example, his father pressed school officials to admit his son to a fraternity that excluded Jews. Morgenthau was rejected but joined a Jewish fraternity that aped the customs of the Gentile students. His participation in fraternity saber duels left him with a permanent facial scar that impressed generations of American college students. The experience of antisemitism in his childhood made Morgenthau think deeply about the philosophical issues that would become crucial to his later work as an analyst of international politics— such as the impact of the lust for power on human existence, morality, and personality. At the University of Munich where he studied law, Morgenthau was exposed to the political theories that would shape his viewpoints on the way power functioned in society and the international arena. He also found inspiration in the active political involvement of his most beloved professors, some of whom risked their lives to oppose the Nazis. Two of his most influential professors were historian Hermann Oncken, whose specialty was Bismarckian foreign and military policy; and Karl Rothenbucher, a Max Weber expert. Morgenthau’s thesis adviser was Karl Neumeyer, an international law scholar (arrested by the Nazis) who dwelled on the limitations of treaty making as a way to resolve interstate disputes rather than diplomacy. Morgenthau’s dissertation, “The International Judicial Function: Its Nature and Its Limits,” examined the problems of managing world conflict through legal means because of the intrusion of politics. This would be the overriding theme of Morgenthau’s work for the next half century. From 1928 to 1930, Morgenthau served as a clerk to Hugo Sinzheimer, the prominent labor and crim-

MORGENTHAU, HANS J.

inal law judge who helped author the Weimar Constitution. In 1931 he was appointed acting president of the Labor Law Court in Munich, an unpaid position with less prestige than the title would suggest and one that Morgenthau was eager to escape for a life in academia. When Morgenthau was ready to start a university career in Germany, the doors shut completely on his ambitions with the Nazi law expelling Jews from the civil service (April 7, 1933). This dire situation led Morgenthau to move with his fiancé Irma Thormann to Geneva, where he continued to write about international political matters. In 1935 the Morgenthaus were forced to move again and settled shortly in Madrid. After the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Morgenthau began a fourcountry search for an exit visa to the United States. Eventually he secured the necessary papers in Switzerland by “dating” a Swiss girl who knew the inner workings of the American consulate. Morgenthau and his wife arrived in New York in July 1937. He brought his parents to the United States before they were deported, but a beloved grandmother was killed at Theresienstadt. After teaching night classes at Brooklyn College and at the University of Kansas City, Morgenthau landed a position at the University of Chicago in 1945. At Chicago, Morgenthau authored his most influential books: Politics among Nations (1948) and In Defense of the National Interest (1951). The former, which one reviewer called a “primer for utopians” (Chamberlain 1948) and another considered the “bible for realism” (Hoffmann 1977), was the best-selling foreign policy text for at least two decades. Today, they are considered cold war classics that helped make realism a prac-

771

tical guide to foreign policy making when the United States emerged as a global power after World War II. Though generally satisfied with cold war foreign policy in Europe, Morgenthau was a dissenter regarding U.S. affairs in Asia, where he believed adherence to “dogmatic anticommunism” undermined strategic goals. Morgenthau was one of the first foreign policy experts to publicly criticize U.S. military support for South Vietnam. The scholar viewed the conflict as a civil war with little impact on American national interest. Through his antiwar activities, including a famous 1965 television debate against Kennedy aide McGeorge Bundy, Morgenthau became known beyond elite foreign affairs circles. Ellen G. Rafshoon See also Intellectual Exile; Kissinger, Henry References and Further Reading Chamberlain, W. H. “Problems in the Realm of Statecraft.” Chicago Tribune Sunday Magazine October 17, 1948. Frei, Christoph. Hans J. Morgenthau: An Intellectual Biography. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 2001. Hoffmann, Stanley. “An American Social Science: International Relations.” Daedalus 106, no. 3, Summer 1977. Morgenthau, Hans J. “Concept of the Realist Theory in the Light of the War in Vietnam.” Unpublished lecture delivered at Columbia University, Oct. 1967, in Hans J. Morgenthau Papers, Manuscript Divison, Library of Congress. ———. Interview by Bernard Johnson 1968, tape recording Morgenthau Collection Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division, LOC, Washington, DC. Rafshoon, Ellen G. “A Realist’s Moral Opposition to War: Hans J. Morgenthau and Vietnam.” Peace and Change, January 2001: 55–77. Thompson, Kenneth W., and Robert J. Myers, eds. Truth and Tragedy: A Tribute to Hans J. Morgenthau. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1984.

772

MORGENTHAU PLAN

MORGENTHAU PLAN Henry Morgenthau’s plan to dismember and convert Germany into a predominantly rural society was one of the most widely debated and criticized schemes for the postwar treatment of Nazi Germany. The Morgenthau Plan was the most comprehensive scheme for the reconstruction of German society. This plan, named after its author, Henry Morgenthau Jr. (1891–1967), was published under the title Program to Prevent Germany from Starting a World War III. Morgenthau, U.S. secretary of the treasury between 1934 and 1945, argued that a powerful, industrialized Germany would inevitably attempt to wage war on its neighbors and the world again. He postulated that Hitler’s rise to power was the logical consequence of the German national character that had earlier produced Prussian authoritarianism and militarism. Only the country’s territorial

dismemberment and its political and economic impotence would assure future peace. When, by summer 1944, Allied victory over the Third Reich had become a certainty, members of the Roosevelt administration began considering in earnest what the future occupation of Germany would look like. While ultimately a compromise between the two options of punishment and rehabilitation of Germany was reached, for a short time the strictly “corrective” plan devised by the secretary of the treasury gained the upper hand. Morgenthau favored severe punishment of the German people, first in retaliation to the ghastly crimes committed by the Nazis, and second to ensure once and for all that Germany would never again upset the European balance of power. In his plan, Morgenthau did not confine himself to a tough line on topics such as the reeducation of the German population, the

MORGENTHAU PLAN

abolition of all Nazi Party organizations, and the punishment of its main figures, as well as the trials of war criminals. While these goals were shared among the Allies, Morgenthau’s economic vision for a defeated Germany was hotly contested among members of the Roosevelt administration and its military allies. Morgenthau wanted to transform Germany into a country principally agricultural and pastoral in character and, moreover, split up into several independent states. Furthermore, the Ruhr area, the hub of Europe’s heavy industry, was to be stripped of all existing industries to ensure that it could not in the foreseeable future become an industrial area. All industrial plants, mines, and equipment not destroyed by military action were to be either entirely dismantled or completely destroyed. Among the members of the Roosevelt administration, Morgenthau’s harsh punitive measures were far from unopposed. In fact, his ideas ran counter to the plans of both the State and War departments, which aimed at securing the German potential for the reconstruction of Western Europe. Henry M. Stimson, secretary of war, and Cordell Hull, secretary of state, were both aware of Europe’s dependence especially on the Ruhr coal and realized that without it European recovery would be impossible. Accordingly, they opposed the “corrective” policy and advocated a more constructive approach. Both argued, moreover, as Germany was grossly overpopulated owing to the cessation of territory and the influx of millions of expellees, it would be unable to provide sufficient food for its inhabitants. Consequently, to prevent starvation, U.S. taxpayers would have to shoulder an additional burden by supplying Germany with food.

773

Franklin D. Roosevelt, although more concerned with winning the war than with devising plans for the Allied occupation, decided to set up a Cabinet committee to deal with this matter. During discussions in the committee, on which all three above-mentioned secretaries served, Stimson again dismissed the Morgenthau Plan and stressed that the United States as a civilized power had the responsibility to treat its enemies humanely. For the secretary of war, the dire economic consequences of a purely negative policy were evident. In Stimson’s view, poverty in one part of Europe would induce poverty elsewhere. Among both the War and State departments, the idea of a dismembered and poverty-stricken Germany also raised fears for the political stability of Europe. Given this apparently incompatible dissent in the committee, it was not surprising that the secretaries were unable to agree on a common draft. In this atmosphere of uncoordinated and competing Cabinet planning, in spite of Stimson’s and Hull’s criticism and the fact that the Cabinet committee failed to reach a conclusion on the character of the occupation policy, Morgenthau managed to win over the president. He was the only Cabinet member invited to the Quebec conference, where Roosevelt urged him to present his plan to British prime minister Winston Churchill on September 15, 1944. Although Churchill initially had rather harshly rejected the scheme, on the following day, after much thought, both the president and the prime minister accepted the Morgenthau Plan in essence. However, only seven days later, Roosevelt withdrew his signature from the plan. The fact that the American public reacted violently to media coverage of details

774

MOSQUITO COAST, MORAVIAN MISSIONARIES

of the leaked Morgenthau Plan had helped to speed up the president’s change of mind. Just weeks before the November presidential elections, Roosevelt was careful not to make any decisions that were too unpopular. But the upcoming election was only one reason that helped to bring about this stunning shift of policy. In fact, it was the necessities of pragmatism that came to the fore and dictated a smooth shift away from punishment toward rehabilitation. Stimson’s and Hull’s view, that the West needed the German economic and political potential, won support among the political and economic elite in the United States. While this was the end of the Morgenthau Plan, some of its less radical provisions found their way into the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Directive 1067 on the treatment of Germany; e.g., certain stipulations concerning denazification and reeducation in this most important blueprint of American occupation policy for the immediate postwar period resembled the original plan very much. It has to be stressed, though, that there was no mention of a deliberate destruction of German industry. Nevertheless, it was only with Roosevelt’s death and the accession of Harry Truman that Morgenthau’s influence finally came to a complete halt. Truman tolerated the restrictive JCS 1067 that was put into practice, yet it was watered down by Military Governor Lucius D. Clay in favor of a more positive occupation policy. Ulrich Schnakenberg See also American Occupation Zone; Denazification; Nuremberg Trials; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany (1941–1945); World War II References and Further Reading Blum, John Morton. From the Morgenthau Diaries. Years of War 1941–45. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967.

Greiner, Bernd. Die Morgenthau-Legende. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition, 1995. Mausbach, Wilfried. Zwischen Morgenthau und Marshall. Düsseldorf: Droste, 1996.

MOSQUITO COAST, MORAVIAN MISSIONARIES Although the roots of the Protestant Unitas Fratrum (Brüdergemeine) can be traced to fifteenth-century Moravia, their constitution as a missionary church dates from 1722, when they were refounded in the Saxon, later Prussian, town of Herrnhut, by some exiled Moravians. This led to the name “Moravians” in English and Spanish, whereas in Germany they are known as “Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine.” Herrnhut was the possession of Count Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf, who established the policy of spreading the Gospel not only through the word, but also through social, educational, and medical work. In cooperation with the British Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, the Moravians soon started to work in the Caribbean, Surinam, and North America, where they worked mostly with plantation slaves. In the middle of the eighteenth century, the first Moravian missionary reached the Mosquito Coast via Jamaica; the real Christianizing work started, however, only a century later. One of the initiators and supporters of an ill-fated Prussian colonization scheme on the coast in the 1840s who was also a patron of the Moravian church, the Prussian Prinz zu Schönburg-Waldenburg, asked the union to consider establishing a missionary post among the Miskitu. With the consent of the British, who had made the Mosquito Coast, officially ruled

MOSQUITO COAST, MORAVIAN MISSIONARIES

by an indigenous king, their protectorate, the Moravians sent two of their brethren from Jamaica, Pastor Gottlob Pfeiffer and Abraham Amadeus Reincke, to explore the possibilities; and the first post was founded in 1849 in Bluefields. The large Englishspeaking black Creole population, who were formally baptized but hardly instructed in the Christian religion, entered the church as a symbol of their high social standing but were treated with suspicion by the missionaries, while the indigenous population was reluctant at first. After an inspection by the former director of the Moravian missions in Surinam and some following adjustments, the number of converted Miskito and Rama Indians grew from the middle of the 1850s onward. Contrary to the Catholic missionaries, the Moravians were more respectful, or at least careful, in handling indigenous cultural traditions that were incompatible with Christianity, especially the problem of polygamy. Due to the combination of catechization and instruction, as well as artisan work and healing, the Moravian missionaries soon became an important factor not only in the religious but also in the political and social life of the Mosquito Coast. In artisan workshops and the mission shops, where they traded imported goods, the Moravians practiced a form of Christianization that was integrated into daily life and proved of great success. Their medical knowledge often proved to be superior to that of the indigenous shamans, which, in addition to the establishment of schools, converted the missionaries into highly respected experts in worldly as well as religious matters. An English-Miskito dictionary, written by the first black Moravian brother on the coast, Peter Blair from Jamaica, added to this success.

775

At the same time, the gradual retreat of the British from Central America after the 1850 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty seemed to threaten the existence of the missions, because they had to fear an invasion by the Catholic Nicaraguans. Nevertheless, this did not happen. Instead, American companies slowly took the place of the British, and in the political vacuum that resulted from this situation, the Protestant missionaries became political advisers and the guarantors of continuity. In this situation of political and economic uncertainty, worsened by the fall of world rubber prices after 1879, the people on the coast looked for certainties and guidance in religion. Between 1881 and 1883, the most important wave of conversion on the coast, called the Great Awakening, took place, however, without direct intervention of the missionaries. It drove thousands of Creoles and Miskito Indians into the Moravian churches. The Great Awakening transformed the religious and social situation on the coast to a point at which missionaries no longer feared Catholic competition. Knowing that incorporation into the Republic of Nicaragua was inevitable, the Moravians slowly began to establish contacts with the Nicaraguans. This proved to be of great importance when the takeover finally occurred in 1894, and the missionaries acted for the years to come as mediators between the Spanish-speaking Nicaraguan and the English- and Miskito-speaking indigenous people and Creoles. At the same time, natives replaced the former mostly German pastors. In this process, Moravian Protestantism came to be the most important symbol of the ethnic identity of the Miskitu and Creoles on the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua. Barbara Potthast

776

MOSSE, GEORGE LACHMANN References and Further Reading Lioba, Rossbach. “ . . .die armen wilden Indianer mit dem Evangelium bekannt machen. Die Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine an der Mosquito-Küste im 19. Jahrhundert.” In Mosquitia. Die andere Hälfte Nicaraguas. Ed. Klaus Meschkat. Hamburg: Junius, 1987, pp. 65–98. Potthast-Jutkeit, Barbara. “El impacto de la colonización alemana y de las actividades misioneras moravas en la Mosquitia, durante el siglox XIX.” Mesoamérica 28 (1994): 253–288. Schneider, H. G. Moskito: Zur Erinnerung an die Feier des fünfzigjährigen Bestehens der Mission der Brüdergemeine in MittelAmerika. Herrnhut: Missionbuchhandlung, 1899.

MOSSE, GEORGE LACHMANN b. September 20, 1918; Berlin, Prussia d. January 22, 1999; Madison,Wisconsin One of the most influential cultural historians of the twentieth century, Mosse published over 300 books and articles on topics ranging from the Reformation to modern German Jewish history, to gender studies and fascism. Gerhard LachmannMosse (he later anglicized his name) was born into an eminent German Jewish family. His father was Hans Lachmann, grandson of Salomon Lachmann, a wealthy Prussian grain merchant and son of Edmund Lachmann, one of the first Jewish officers in the Prussian army. His mother, Felicia Mosse, was the only daughter of the media and advertising mogul Rudolf Mosse. The latter founded the Mosse publishing house, which published several newspapers, including the liberal Berliner Tageblatt (The Berlin Daily). By 1920 Rudolf Mosse had become one of the

wealthiest men in Germany. The same year, Rudolf Mosse died, and his son-inlaw, Hans Lachmann, took charge of the family business. In 1933, with the rise of the National Socialists to power, the prominent family was forced to flee Germany. Already during the 1920s the family had been targeted by the National Socialists because the Mosse family was seen as the face of liberal German Jewish culture. Fleeing from Germany to Switzerland, George Mosse’s family went to France, while Mosse went to England to attend boarding school at Bootham, York. He later began his university education at Downing College, Cambridge University. In 1939 Mosse joined his father in the United States and completed his bachelor’s degree at Haverford College in Pennsylvania. He pursued graduate studies at Harvard in early modern European history, completing his doctoral degree in 1946 under the direction of Charles Howard McIlwain. By this time Mosse had already worked at the University of Iowa for nearly two years. In 1955 George Mosse joined the history department at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, where he remained until his retirement in 1988. In 1969 Mosse, who had spent much time at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was given a joint appointment: from 1969, he spent half the academic year in Madison as Bascom professor and half a year in Jerusalem as Koebner professor of history. Throughout his academic career, Mosse was both a committed teacher and a prolific writer. As a professor, he influenced the scholarship of two generations of students on both sides of the Atlantic and helped young scholars build successful careers in various subfields of European

MOST, JOHANN

cultural history. Mosse began his career as a historian of early modern English history, but already by the mid-1960s he had changed his focus and begun studying twentieth-century European history. In many respects, his personal experience and identity became the focal point for his studies, though this identity remained secular and academic. He considered himself intensely German and was proud of the direction in which postwar Germany was moving. Yet, while never directly writing on the subject, his work remained a meditation on how something like the Holocaust happened. He wrote in his autobiography Confronting History, “Being Jewish dominated my fate, but did not lead to a preoccupation with Judaism” (Mosse 2000, 172). For Mosse, the personal and the historical were intertwined. As a selfdescribed outsider, both a Jewish and homosexual man, Mosse spent years studying fascism, Nazism, and German Jewish history. Near the end of his career, he turned his attention to gender and sexuality. Among his most noteworthy books are The Crisis of German Ideology (1964), Nazi Culture (1966), The Nationalization of the Masses (1975), Toward the Final Solution (1977), and The Image of Man (1996). Sarah Wobick See also Intellectual Exile; Plant, Richard References and Further Reading Kraus, Elisabeth. Die Familie Mosse: DeutschJüdisches Bürgertum im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1999. Mosse, George L. Confronting History: A Memoir. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 2000. Runge, Irene, and Uwe Stelbrink, George Mosse: ‘Ich bleibe Emigrant’ Gespräche mit George L. Mosse. Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1991.

777

MOST, JOHANN b. February 5, 1846; Augsburg, Bavaria d. March 11, 1906; Cincinnati, Ohio Johann Most was an architect of the revolutionary anarchist movement in the United States. Neither its founder nor its intellectual figurehead, Most made his mark as a fiery orator and sharp-tongued editor who promoted anarchism in the United States, while making headlines in the process. Following his arrival in New York in December 1882, the mainstream press treated him initially as a curiosity and eventually as a villain. But beyond the publicity and caricatures lay a restless soul with a deep commitment to his political ideals. Most’s youth was marked by loss and hardship. He lost his mother and a sister at an early age and later endured a rocky relationship with an often cruel stepmother. As a boy, Most contracted an inflammation of the jaw that was eventually cured by an operation, but that left his face markedly disfigured. His visible scars affected his confidence and shattered his dream of an acting career (an ambition he had inherited from his father). Instead, he was apprenticed to a bookbinder where he experienced unfair labor practices firsthand. Following that, he experienced a string of failed professional endeavors and personal rejections, which instilled in him a hatred of privilege and injustice. In 1867 Most attended a labor festival in Switzerland. The speakers confronted issues he had often struggled with in isolation. He soon became a familiar face at such gatherings and eventually addressed audiences himself. His eloquence and humor delighted the workers, and his popularity grew. But it was in Austria that Most was to build

778

MOST, JOHANN

“John Most, the anarchist, addressing a meeting of sympathizers at Cooper Institute, April 4th,” from a sketch in Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, New York City, 1887. (Library of Congress)

his first strong following, marking the real beginning of his labor movement career. A Marxist of sorts, his speeches were straightforward and popular, though not vulgar. In 1871 he was expelled from Austria and returned to Germany, where he enjoyed a wide and growing audience. As a result he was elected to the Reichstag in 1874, but soon grew disillusioned with parliamentary politics, so he returned to the labor halls and beer gardens to address workers directly. Most also excelled as the editor of a number of German labor journals, including the Chemnitzer Freie Presse (Chemnitz Free Press, 1871–1873), and the Berliner Freie Presse (Berlin Free Press, 1876–1878), of which he was coeditor. He explained complex theories in popular prose and

combined critical journalism with tonguein-cheek humor. Although he was a cardcarrying Social Democrat, his brash posturing alarmed Socialist leaders who believed Most had become a liability in Germany’s politically repressive climate. In December 1878 Most was expelled from Germany under the Anti-Socialist Law. He traveled to London, an exile haven, and took up the editorship of Freiheit (Freedom), an unofficial Socialist paper that was smuggled into Germany. Most steered Freiheit on an increasingly independent course, widening the rift between German exiles and the Socialist leadership at home, who shunned underground resistance. In August 1880 Johann Most was officially expelled from Germany’s Socialist Labor Party, largely because

MOST, JOHANN

of Freiheit’s rhetoric of violence and insurrection. From 1880 to 1882, Most fell under the influence of a handful of revolutionaries—some Blanquists, some anarchists— who opened his mind to anarchism. In 1881 British authorities imprisoned Most for publishing the article “Endlich!” (At Last!) following the assassination of Czar Alexander II. Following his release, Most arrived in New York on December 18, 1882. He was welcomed by members of the Social-Revolutionary Club of New York, many of whom had themselves been expelled from the Socialist Labor Party of America. Most—now an anarchist—brought Freiheit along with him, which continued publication until 1910. The majority of the prints were sent to London, the rest to new subscribers in cities like Philadelphia, Newark, Cincinnati, and St. Louis. During the spring of 1883, Most undertook two lecture tours across the northeastern United States, spreading a message of revolutionary anarchism. He revived a sleepy collection of radicals and converted many to anarchism. He was mocked in the mainstream press as a foreign lunatic. In October 1883 he helped organize a convention of social revolutionaries in Pittsburgh and almost single-handedly drafted a manifesto outlining principles of antiauthoritarian organization, the first such blueprint in American labor history. Thanks to his efforts, German American anarchists increasingly raised their voices, attended demonstrations, and appeared at picket lines. From 1882 until his death in 1906, Johann Most devoted nearly all his time to the cause of anarchism. He spoke at countless meetings, managed the affairs of Freiheit, and authored dozens of widely circulated pamphlets such as Die Eigenthumsbestie (The Beast of Property, 1883), Die Gottespest

779

(The God Pestilence, 1883), and Unsere Stellung in der Arbeiterbewegung (Our Position in the Labor Movement, 1890). He called for a radically new society that restored the independence of the worker. He advocated self-defense in the face of law enforcement violence, and penned his infamous manual on explosives, Revolutionäre Kriegswissenschaft (Revolutionary War Science, 1885). Most regarded loyalty to the cause as vital to survival in the face of repression. He viewed rival anarchist papers as competition and sought to maintain Freiheit’s monopoly. He was not known for tolerating dissenting opinions, and he easily ignited into impetuous rage. This pushed comrades away—even close friends like Emma Goldman and Justus Schwab. The result was a movement split into Mostian and autonomist factions. To some extent, Most never felt completely at home in the United States. Although his public reactions were hotheaded and acerbic, in private he displayed feelings of tenderness and integrity. He wrestled with personal frustrations and contradictions. He dreamed of rousing the American proletariat, but came to loathe their selfish materialism. Tom Goyens See also Anarchists; Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Freiheit; Schwab, Justus H. References and Further Reading Becker, Heiner. “Johann Most in Europe.” The Raven. Anarchist Quarterly I, 4 (March 1988): 291–321. Goldman, Emma. “Johann Most.” American Mercury 8 (June 1926): 158–166. Nomad, Max. Apostles of Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown, 1939. Rocker, Rudolf. Johann Most: Das Leben eines Rebellen. Foreword by Alexander Berkman. Glashütten im Taunus: Detlov Auvermann, 1973. Trautmann, Frederic. The Voice of Terror: A Biography of Johann Most. Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood, 1980.

780

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP

MOTLEY, JOHN LOTHROP b. April 15, 1814; Dorchester, Massachusetts d. May 29, 1877; Dorsetshire, England Historian, man of letters, and diplomat who is best known as the author of The Rise of the Dutch Republic (1856) and his other works on Dutch history, but who was also an important cultural intermediary between Germany and America. In his literary reviews, the native Bostonian was an incisive interpreter of German culture; at the same time, much of the impetus for his historical work was derived from German authors—above all, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller. His studies of Dutch history, as well as his views of the American past, were infused with a belief in the supremacy of German culture. And his lifelong friendship with Otto von Bismarck, stemming from their student days at Göttingen and Berlin, acquainted him with German power, as well as German intellect. Motley’s interest in German language and culture began when he studied German at the Round Hill School in Northampton, Massachusetts, cofounded by George Bancroft. Later at Harvard (1827–1831) he studied with Carl Follen, the college’s first professor of German, who introduced him to contemporary German writers, above all, Friedrich Schiller. At the same time Motley came to an appreciation of the genius of Goethe and the role he had played in the sudden flowering of German literature. Following graduation, Motley studied in Göttingen, where he formed a close relationship with his fellow student Otto von Bismarck, subsequently sharing accommodations with him when they studied at the University of Berlin. Bismarck would emerge in Motley’s first novel, Morton’s

Hope (1839), as the dueling, drunken, and rebellious Otto von Rabenmarck. In a sense, Motley was arguably Bismarck’s first biographer. Upon his return to Boston, Motley played a significant role as an interpreter of German literature in America, in addition to translating poems and other works of German authors. Most significant were his two lengthy reviews of Goethe’s works (Dichtung und Wahrheit [Poetry and Truth] and Faust, among others) in the New York Review in 1838 and 1839. Although the reasons for his decision to turn his attention to Dutch history are not well documented, his longstanding passion for Goethe and Schiller was a major factor. The background of Goethe’s Egmont was the Dutch revolt against Spain; it featured some of the important protagonists and themes of The Rise of the Dutch Republic. Schiller’s historical writings and his dramas most likely had an even greater influence on Motley’s choice of theme, as well as on his dramatic narrative style. Motley had read Schiller’s study of the Thirty Years’ War, Geschichte des Abfalls der vereinigten Niederlande von der spanischen Regierung (History of the Revolt of the Netherlands, 1788), as a youth, and it is likely that he also had read Schiller’s study of the Dutch revolt. In addition, Don Carlos, and Wilhelm Tell both dramatically portray struggles against tyranny, while Wallenstein is centered on a great historical figure. After Motley completed his research in archives in Dresden and Belgium and submitted his manuscript of the Rise of the Dutch Republic for publication, he had his first meetings with Bismarck after two decades. In 1855, and again in 1858, he visited his old friend in Frankfurt, where he was serving as Prussian envoy to the Diet of

MUCK, KARL

the German Confederation. Clearly their friendship had endured, in spite of their differing political views. Motley, enthralled by Bismarck’s political skills, predicted that he could very well reach the highest position in his government. This prediction had been fulfilled as they next met in 1864 in Vienna, where Motley was serving as American ambassador to Austria. Both men were clearly exuberant over their meeting, though their political differences still remained. With Germany’s unity achieved in 1871, Motley came to believe that his old friend, whom he had always viewed as a reactionary, was now leading Prussia and Germany toward progress and freedom. In fact, Motley had long believed in the ultimate triumph of freedom in Germany, the original European home of liberty. In his The Rise of the Dutch Republic, he had presented the ancient Germans as the vanguard of the historic struggle for freedom, which the Anglo-Saxon race eventually spread to the New World. Upon his return to the United States in 1868 he expressed this view of German superiority as well as his admiration for Bismarck in a speech to the New York Historical Society, entitled “Historical Progress and American Democracy.” His old friend was clearly playing a heroic role, just as William of Orange had been a hero in the Dutch struggle for independence. Motley and Bismarck did not meet again until the summer of 1872, a reunion marked by nostalgia and exultation over Bismarck’s stupendous political triumphs. Bismarck, in recounting the events of the last few years, buoyed the spirits of his longtime friend, who was still depressed over his inglorious dismissal from his position as ambassador in London two years

781

previously. It was the last time that the two men would see each other. It was also Motley’s final visit to Germany. Appropriately, one of his last excursions in Germany on his way home was his brief stay at the Brocken, where he reread the scene from Faust that has immortalized that mountain in German and world literature. John T. Walker See also American Students at German Universities; Bancroft, George; Follen, Charles; Göttingen, University of References and Further Reading Edwards, Owen Dudley. “John Lothrop Motley.” In Dictionary of Literary Biography. Vol. 30: American Historians, 1607–1865. Ed. Clyde N. Wilson. Detroit, MI: Bruccoli Clark Layman/The Gale Group, 1984, pp. 175–192. Levin, David. History as Romantic Art. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1959. Long, Orie. Literary Pioneers: Early American Explorers of European Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University, 1935. Walker, John T. “John Lothrop Motley: Boston Brahmin and Transatlantic Man.” In Traveling between Two Worlds: GermanAmerican Encounters. Eds. Thomas Adam and Ruth Gross. College Station: Texas A & M, 2005.

MUCK, KARL b. November 22, 1859; Darmstadt, Hesse-Darmstadt d. March 3, 1940; Stuttgart, Württemberg One of history’s greatest Wagnerians, Muck dominated the conducting podium in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Germany and the United States. Born into a musical family, Muck demonstrated his musical talent at an early age, training as a pianist. By 1880 he had earned a PhD in classical philology from

782

MUCK, KARL

the University of Heidelberg, but the musical world called him. After holding conducting posts in Salzburg, Brünn, Graz, and Prague, he was appointed Kapellmeister to the Royal Opera House in Berlin in 1892, becoming the music director in 1908. This post, which brought him great fame, was by appointment from Wilhelm II, with whom Muck was on friendly terms. Engaged as the conductor of the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1912, Muck became an international celebrity, supremely admired and respected as one of the great interpreters of German opera. Although a strict disciplinarian and taskmaster, Muck’s popularity reached great heights in Boston and throughout the United States. He was applauded for his ability to maintain a rigid interpretation of the score while engendering passionate performances from his musicians. When World War I began, Muck did not hesitate to support Germany, but was determined not to allow his political views to interfere with the performance of his duties. Because he appeared to be a German citizen, America’s entry into the war jeopardized his position with the Boston Symphony and in the United States. As a witch hunt against Germans and German music began, Muck became the foremost target. Fortunately for the conductor, Henry Higginson, the famous Civil War veteran and owner of the Boston Symphony, stood by his maestro, defending him at every turn. In a concert on October 30, 1917, held in Providence, Rhode Island, Muck was accused of refusing to perform “The Star-Spangled Banner” prior to the concert. The conductor was unaware that such a request had been made by a small number of Providence’s citizens. The information had been kept from him by

the Boston Symphony’s management, who had determined that playing the national anthem conflicted with the musical tone of the performance. Outrage followed with a series of vicious attacks from the Providence Journal and other outlets denouncing Muck as a German nationalist, and as being insulting to the United States. These attacks condemned all things German, especially the performance of German music during wartime. Even when Muck played the national anthem at later concerts, he was unable to steer the criticism away from himself. Some critics even condemned the style in which he conducted the tune. Federal authorities became very interested in the conductor and began a lengthy investigation of him. Filtering through letters, diaries, and the like, they discovered numerous comments from Muck that praised the German war effort and insulted American audiences. Muck’s famous sarcasm and bluntness were working against him. Fueling suspicion against Muck was the discovery by federal agents of his affair with a young Boston socialite. All of this information combined sufficed to convince authorities that he was a threat to national security. With suspicion of Muck at its peak, a controversy over his citizenship quickly emerged in late 1917. The conductor held a Swiss passport granted to him in 1881 when his father had temporarily relocated to Switzerland. A second Swiss passport was issued to him in 1914, although he possessed a German passport from 1906 when he entered the United States. The United States Department of Justice maintained that Muck was an enemy alien as defined by federal statute and executive decrees. These stated that any person born in

MUCKER

Germany who was not yet a naturalized American was potentially an enemy alien. The crisis over Muck reached a fever pitch in late 1917 and early 1918. The Boston Symphony’s travel schedule was limited and Muck was viciously attacked in the press. Calls for his dismissal based on national security concerns escalated. Accusations against Muck reached the absurd. Some argued that he was a German agent and could often be found signaling German submarines from his houses in Boston and in Maine. Others claimed that he was the illegitimate son of Richard Wagner! Karl Muck was arrested on March 25, 1918, in Boston. Soon afterward, he was interned as an enemy alien at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia. To a man unaccustomed to the heat of Georgia, the internment was nothing short of cruelty. Muck and his wife sailed for Europe on August 21, 1919, the day of his release from American custody, never to return to the United States. Like many German and Austrian musicians who spent the war in the United States, Muck was not quickly embraced by his native land. It took time for him to reclaim his post among his musical peers and fans, but he did. He enjoyed a successful tenure with the Hamburg Symphony from 1922 to 1933, when he retired from professional work. In his later years, Muck lived a secluded life, away from the limelight and his admirers, to his last days deeply hurt by the way the American press had treated him. Robert B. McCormick See also Hammerstein, Oscar, I; Kunwald, Ernst; Music (American), German Influence on; World War I and German Americans; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in

783

References and Further Reading Badal, J. J. “The Strange Case of Dr. Karl Muck, Who Was Torpedoed by the StarSpangled Banner during World War I.” High Fidelity 20, no. 10 (1970): 55–60. Ewen, David. The Man with the Baton. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1936. Schonberg, Harold C. The Great Conductors. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967.

MUCKER The term Mucker has been used since the eighteenth century to characterize pious and pietistic people. In Brazil it was used to characterize a messianic movement in the German colony of São Leopoldo, Province of Rio Grande do Sul, more precisely in the locality of Leonerhof (in the present municipality of Sapiranga). The word Mucker has meanings that range from “pious” to “false.” As far as we know, the term was used for the first time in Königsberg to characterize the followers of Pastor Johann Wilhelm Ebel (1784–1861), who was influenced by the theosophy of Johann Heinrich Schönherr (1770–1826). In the Königsberger Prozess that was also called the Mucker Prozess (1835–1841), Ebel’s pastoral rights were abrogated and he was accused of being a heretic. In the nineteenth century, the term was also applied to inhabitants of Niederlinxweiler (today a suburb of St. Wendel) in the Saarland. The Fuchs and Noé families, who would later be involved in the Mucker movement in Brazil, came from that town. From 1789 onward, several people of the congregation of Tambach in Thuringia refused to participate in worship services to partake in the Holy Supper, removed their children from school, and held separate religious meetings. They went to confession in a congregation outside Thuringia, where

784

MUCKER

they also had their children baptized. According to the Chronicle of the Tambach Community, these people were “peaceful, hard-working and otherwise loyal subjects” (Schröder 2003, 165). Their attitudes resulted from their resistance to orders issued by the general superintendent (Generalsuperintendent) Josias Friedrich Christian Löffler, who introduced a new catechism in 1788 and a new Lesebuch für Stadt und Land (Reading Book for Town and Village) as well as a new hymnal in 1796. The inhabitants of Tambach submitted a petition to Duke Ernst II asking for the reintroduction of the old books. Their petition was rejected, and they were “sentenced to abjure the old doctrine and to give up presenting themselves as separatists or to give up their citizenship and emigrate” (Chronicle of the Tambach Community, Schröder 2003, 165). Among those who emigrated were, according to the Chronicle of the Tambach Community, “the carpenter, Johann Liborius Maenz, his wife, three boys and two girls” (Schröder 2003, 165) who went to Sternberg in the territory of Würzburg on April 16, 1799. The oldest son of Johann Liborius Mentz [sic] Andreas, born on May 12, 1789, emigrated to Brazil in 1825. He was married to Maria Elisabeth Müller, and their daughter Jacobina (1842–1874) later became the leader of the Mucker movement in São Leopoldo. Jacobina married the carpenter Johann Georg Maurer (1841–1874) in 1866. Between 1869 and 1874 the German colony in São Leopoldo was the stage of a messianic movement that involved only German immigrants and their descendants and had a violent epilogue, similar to what happened later in Canudos, state of Bahia, and in the so-called Contestado, a region

in the states of Santa Catarina and Paraná. Colonists were killed in a clash with the army and the National Guard, and later descendants of the Mucker were slaughtered in Nova Petrópolis and Marques de Souza, state of Rio Grande do Sul. The Muckers of Ferrabraz Hill in Sapiranga were a group of around 150 people (adults and children) belonging to 10 families who gathered around Jacobina Mentz and her husband, João Jorge Maurer. Both were farmers, and João Jorge also worked as a carpenter and acted as a healer. Jacobina gathered her husband’s patients for home worship services in which the Bible was read and interpreted, hymns were sung, and prayers were made. At that time Ferrabraz Hill was a peripheral area in the colony of São Leopoldo that was based on the system of small farms. The practices of the Maurer couple were legitimized by quite a number of sympathizers, between 700 and 1,000, which is significant as the total population of the German colony was 14,000. They were discriminated against by the population because of their piety and were persecuted by religious and civil authorities, as well as by economic leaders. From 1873 onward, they were blamed for a series of cases of arson and murder, which led to a clash with the army in June 1874 and to the rebels’ resistance against three attacks. This was followed by the killing of the leaders and many adherents, as well as the imprisonment and murder of others, extending until 1898. In the ensuing trial, no Mucker and none of their detractors was convicted. The labels of heretics, murderers, and madmen were also put on the descendants of the Muckers, thereby creating myths and silence, as well as humiliation and offense. Martin Norberto Dreher

MUENCH, ALOISIUS See also Brazil; Brazil, Religion in; Pietism References and Further Reading Amado, Janaína. A Revolta dos Mucker. 2d ed. São Leopoldo: Editora Unisinos, 2002. Domingues, Moacyr. A Nova Face dos Muckers. São Leopoldo: Rotermund, 1977. Schröder, Ferdinand. A imigração alemã para o sul do Brasil até 1859. Trad. E apresentação de Martin N. Dreher. São Leopoldo: Editora Unisinos, 2003. Schupp, Ambros. Die “Mucker.” Eine Episode aus der Geschichte der deutschen Kolonien von Rio Grande do Sul, Brasilien. Paderborn: Bonifacius-Druckerei, 1906.

MUENCH, ALOISIUS b. February 18, 1889; Milwaukee, Wisconsin d. February 15, 1962; Rome, Italy Catholic bishop of the diocese of Fargo (1935–1959) who after World War II occupied key positions in the American Occupation Zone and played a significant role in the discussions about guilt and responsibility with respect to the Nazi past. Muench was born into a deeply religious family. His father, Joseph Muench, descended from generations of Catholic farmers in Sankt Katharina, a village in the Bohemian Forest on the Austrian side of the Bavarian-Austrian border. He immigrated to Milwaukee in 1882 at the age of eighteen and worked as a master carpenter at the Northwestern Furniture Company. Aloisius Muench’s mother, Theresa Barbara Kraus, was born in Kemnath, a town in the Upper Palatinate region of Bavaria and also close to the Bavarian Austrian border. Her family left Kemnath for Milwaukee in 1882. Theresa Muench worked in the home and reared the seven surviving Muench children. The Muench family lived among other German Catholic immigrants on the north side of

785

Milwaukee. Muench’s parents spoke only German at home, though he and his siblings answered in English. Muench began to train for the priesthood at the age of fourteen. In 1904 he entered Saint Francis Seminary, an institution with predominantly German traditions and cultural emphases. In June 1913 he was ordained Father Aloisius Muench and appointed to Saint Michael’s parish in Milwaukee, composed largely of German immigrants. In 1917 he became assistant chaplain of Saint Paul’s University Chapel at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. While in Madison, Muench obtained a master’s degree in economics from the University of Wisconsin (1918). From 1919 to 1921 Muench attended the University of Fribourg in Switzerland, where he pursued a doctorate in social sciences, specializing in the theological disciplines of economics, social morality, and social ethics. Due to Muench’s academic aptitude, the archbishop of Milwaukee, Sebastian Messmer (1903–1929), granted Father Muench permission to remain in Europe for additional study at the Universities of Louvain (Belgium), Cambridge, Oxford, the London School of Economics, the College de France, and the Sorbonne. At these universities, he studied the economic and social rehabilitation of post–World War I Europe. Muench returned to St. Francis Seminary in 1922 to begin his career as a seminary professor. He taught courses in social science and Catholic catechetics, apologetics, and dogma. In 1929 Muench left teaching to become rector of Saint Francis Seminary. Five years later, he reached the rank of monsignor (September 1934). On August 10, 1935, at the recommendation of Cardinal Samuel Stritch (Chicago), Pope Pius XI named Muench bishop of the diocese of

786

MUENCH, ALOISIUS

Fargo, North Dakota, where he remained until Pope Pius XII appointed him apostolic visitor to Germany in July 1946. Muench held five key positions in Germany between 1946 and 1959. He was the Catholic liaison representative to the U.S. Army in occupied Germany (1946–1949); Pope Pius XII’s apostolic visitor to Germany (1946–1947); Vatican relief officer in Kronberg, near Frankfurt am Main (1947– 1949); Vatican regent in Kronberg (1949– 1951); and Vatican nuncio to Germany from its new seat in Bad Godesberg, outside Bonn (1951–1959). In addition to his Vatican duties in Germany and his three-year stint as liaison representative for the American occupation, Muench also remained bishop of the diocese of Fargo. In December 1959 Pope John XXIII named him to the College of Cardinals in Rome. This marked the end of his career as nuncio to Germany and also as archbishop of the diocese of Fargo. In Rome, Muench was given curial assignments as a regular member of the Congregations of Religious, Rites, and Extraordinary Affairs, three of the permanent commissions of cardinals functioning in the central Vatican administration. As liaison representative to the U.S. occupation forces and as Vatican emissary to Germany (1946–1959), Muench played a significant role in ongoing and active discussions about the Nazi past in postwar Germany. Muench’s pastoral letter One World in Charity (Fargo, 1946) established the cardinal as a trustworthy figure of German descent who seemingly understood German “victimization.” Muench held the philo-German notions that animated One World before he knew of his assignment to Germany as Vatican apostolic visitor. He expressed no regret over its defensively proGerman message or its widespread illegal

dissemination; he merely expressed concern at defamation of his character or possible damage to his standing with the U.S. Army. One World validated the already popular notion that Germans were by and large victims. It rejected the notions of “collective” guilt and responsibility. The wild popularity of One World earned Muench a platform from which he might have encouraged a real reckoning with the years 1933 to 1945. Instead, Muench concerned himself with those whose labeling of themselves as “victims” or “resistors” was often questionable. Muench bemoaned the fate of ethnic German expellees and other (largely Roman Catholic) refugee groups across Europe, sometimes at great length. He excluded Jewish Holocaust survivors, Jewish refugees, and Soviet prisoners of war in his litany of victims. These exceptions were unsurprising given Muench’s anti-Jewish and equally strong anti-Communist tendencies. He viewed German Jews then in America as “alien” or “recent” Americans, unfamiliar with “American” standards of fairness and incapable of true loyalty to the United States. He believed them to be “in control” of American policymaking in Germany. He feared them as “avengers” who wished to harm “victimized” Germans. He believed Jews to be excessively involved in leftist activities, and Muench feared communism deeply. Muench entertained without protest letters from German Catholics (including clergy) calling Jews sexual predators, thieves, and anarchists. He supported Germans (again including clerics) in their efforts to retain Jewish property gained by way of socalled aryanization during the Nazi period. In none of these sentiments and activities was he alone. He had support for these notions in his American (clerical, hierarchical, and military) as well as German circles.

MUENCH, FRIEDRICH

If One World introduced Muench as a champion for German Catholics, surely his active participation in the Catholic clemency campaign confirmed it. He received hundreds of unsolicited letters from German Catholics trying to commute the sentences of war criminals who were proven participants in the Einsatzgruppen campaigns, the concentration and extermination camp systems, the confiscation of Jewish assets, medical experiments, and more. In some cases, he offered his help, petitioning army and military government clemency boards on behalf of these criminals. Only when he feared damage to his or the Vatican’s reputation did he refuse to intervene. Suzanne Brown-Fleming See also American Occupation Zone; Denazification; Milwaukee References and Further Reading Barry, Colman, O.S.B. American Nuncio: Cardinal Aloisius Muench. Collegeville, MN: Saint Johns University, 1969. Brown-Fleming, Suzanne. The Holocaust and Catholic Conscience: Cardinal Aloisius Muench and the Guilt Question in Germany. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2005. Volk, Ludwig. “Der Heilige Stuhl und Deutschland 1945–1949.” Stimmen der Zeit 194 (1976): 795–823. ———. “Bilanz einer Nuntiatur 1946–1959: Schlussbericht des ersten Nuncios in der Nachkriegszeit.” Stimmen der Zeit 195 (1977): 147–158.

MUENCH, FRIEDRICH b. June 25, 1799; Niedergemuenden, Hesse-Darmstadt d. December13, 1881; Dutzow, Missouri German American frontier statesman, educator, preacher, successful farmer, and prolific author and essayist. Educated by his

787

father, a Lutheran minister, Muench studied theology and philosophy at the University of Giessen, where he met Paul Follenius (Paul Follen) with whom his future would be closely tied. While a student in Giessen, Muench was active in the student organizations that agitated for the creation of a German republic and democratic representation. When the organizations were suppressed and the Karlsbad Decrees passed in 1819, the political and social climate in which Muench grew up worsened. With censorship now legal, Muench returned to his village where he became an assistant minister in his father’s parish and then took it over upon his father’s retirement in 1825. Educated as an orthodox Lutheran, Muench’s commitment to liberty and personal freedoms led him to question his conservative religious leanings and he found himself drawn to a rationalist view of Christianity. With the everworsening conditions in Germany, Muench retired from his position in 1833 and decided to emigrate the following year. In the wake of Gottfried Duden’s influential work on life and conditions in the United States, Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten Nordamerikas (Report on a Journey to the Western States of America and a Stay of Several Years along the Missouri [During the Years 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1827], 1829), large numbers of Germans began to immigrate to the United States, and because of the abysmal conditions in Germany, many intellectuals developed the idea of creating a democratic German state in the New World—especially in Missouri, Texas, and Wisconsin. Among these intellectuals were Muench and Follenius, who founded the Giessen Emigration Society, among the first societies dedicated to organized immigration to the United

788

MUENCH, FRIEDRICH

States. Muench and Follenius set sail on two vessels with approximately 500 others and arrived in Baltimore and New Orleans, respectively, in mid-1834, intent on settling in Arkansas. The groups soon disbanded upon arriving in the United States. Muench and Follenius changed their plans and decided to settle near St. Louis, Missouri, though they had little information about the state and were ill-equipped to lead the life of frontier farmers. Few settlers followed them, and they abandoned their aspirations of establishing a German democratic state. Despite these initial failures, Muench achieved great success in his small village, Lake Creek Valley, near Marthasville, in Warren County, sixty miles northwest of St. Louis. Pragmatic, Muench shifted his ideas from founding a “new” Germany to providing America a German flavor and influence. His village began to attract likeminded, primarily German intellectuals, who advocated democracy and rejected religious dogma and all forms of bigotry. Along with the German settlement in Belleville, Illinois, where the statesman Gustav Philipp Koerner made his home, they were known as “Latin Farmers,” because of their educated background. Muench became a successful farmer, viticulturalist, teacher, and advocate of the German language. He wrote extensively on matters ranging from theological rationalism, education, and education reform to materialism, and achieved national recognition beginning in the 1850s for his political essays and broadsides. Under the pen name “Far-West,” Muench was a soughtafter contributor to German-language newspapers across the nation. He became active in the founding of the Republican Party in the mid-1850s and published numerous articles advocating the abolishment

of slavery and criticizing the anti-immigration stance of the American Party, commonly referred to as the “Know Nothings.” In 1856 he campaigned vigorously on behalf of the Republican candidate for president, John C. Frémont, giving speeches throughout the Midwest and East. During the years of the Civil War, he served as a state senator in the Missouri state legislature and endured multiple death threats due to his antislavery stance and insistence on keeping the state in the Union. Throughout his life he remained closely identified with German immigrants and wrote numerous tracts and pamphlets encouraging and warning potential immigrants about life in his adopted country. In 1859 he published Der Staat Missouri geschildert mit besonderer Rücksicht auf teutsche Einwanderung (The State of Missouri: An Account with Special References to German Immigration), in which he described the state’s history, geography, climate, and aspects of daily life, such as agriculture, education, politics, and religion. The work reveals his empathy for the immigrant’s experience leaving his homeland and arriving in a country that may be barely understandable to him and an impressive understanding of American life and politics. Having dedicated his life to fighting political and religious oppression, Muench wrote extensively on religion and remained active in religious matters and debates his entire life. The Missouri River valley was a locus of German American religious rationalism that opposed all forms of religious hierarchy, such as the Evangelical Lutherans, whose settlement was centered in Missouri, and the Catholic Church. As with social freedoms, Muench argued that there are indispensable, irrefutable rights

MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS CONRAD

with religion. Religion, he claimed, is based on the individual’s personal interpretation of his relationship with the Supreme Being. Though he often preached, he never presided over his own parish. In the prominent religious periodical, Licht-Freund (Light-Friend), Muench published influential essays on religious liberalism between 1843 and 1851, and served as its coeditor from 1846 to 1851, when it achieved the height of its influence. Up to his death, Muench continued to publish on and engage publicly in the religious and political controversies of the times. Gregory H. Wolf See also Duden, Gottfried; Koerner, Gustave Philipp; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Muehl, Siegmar. “Shock of the New: Advising Mid-Nineteenth-Century German Immigrants to Missouri.” Yearbook of German-American Studies 33 (1998): 85–102. Muench, Friedrich. Der Staat Missouri. New York and St. Louis: Farmers’ and Wine Growers’ Society, 1859. Petermann, Gerd Alfred. “Friend of Light (Lichtfreunde): Friedrich Münch, Paul Follenius, and the Rise of GermanAmerican Rationalism on the Missouri Frontier.” Yearbook of German-American Studies 23 (1988): 118–139. Schroeder, Adolf E. “The Survival of German Traditions in Missouri.” In The German Contribution to the Building of America. Ed. Karl J. R. Arndt. Hanover, NH: Clark University, 1977, pp. 289–313.

MUHLENBERG, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS CONRAD b. January1, 1750;Trappe, Pennsylvania d. June 4, 1801; Lancaster, Pennsylvania Son of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, he was a Pennsylvania-German politician, Lutheran

789

clergyman, and the first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Together with his two brothers, he was sent to Halle, Prussia, in April 1763, to be educated. At the Franckesche Stiftungen he studied classical languages, history, and theology. He returned to Pennsylvania in 1770. On October 25, 1770, Muhlenberg was ordained a minister in the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Reading, Pennsylvania. From 1770 until 1773, Muhlenberg served as a circuit pastor in the Pennsylvania towns of Tulpehocken, Schaefferstown, Manheim, Warwick, White Oaks, and Lebanon. In 1773 he moved to the Swamp Church in New York City. While sympathetic to the Revolution, he refused to mix politics with religion. Muhlenberg moved his family to Philadelphia and then to New Hanover, Pennsylvania, after the British occupied New York City and Philadelphia in 1777. By the late 1770s Muhlenberg felt drawn to politics and away from the ministry. He was appointed to the Continental Congress by the Pennsylvania Assembly in February 1779. In October 1779, he was elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly as a constitutionalist. The assembly then reappointed him to the Congress. While he was ineligible to be reappointed to the Congress in 1780, he continued to be reelected to the Pennsylvania Assembly. From 1780 to 1783, Muhlenberg served as the Speaker of the assembly. Although a radical constitutionalist, he began to realize that the United States needed a new government framework to replace the Articles of Confederation. Representing Philadelphia County, he presided over the Council of Censors, the body responsible for changing the state constitution, in 1783–1784. In November

790

MUHLENBERG, HENRY MELCHIOR

and December 1787 Muhlenberg presided over the Pennsylvania convention called to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. He urged quick ratification of the new framework, contributing Federalist articles to Germanlanguage newspapers until the ninth state ratified the Constitution in 1788. Muhlenberg was elected as a Federalist to the new U. S. House of Representatives in 1788, receiving the highest number of votes of any candidate in Pennsylvania. Accompanied by his brother John, he arrived at the seat of the federal government, New York City, in March 1789. On April 1, 1789, Frederick Muhlenberg was chosen to be Speaker of the House of Representatives by his colleagues in that body. He was elected because other House members believed that he had the political skills to keep the various regional interests in the House working together. As Speaker, Muhlenberg was unsuccessful in his attempt to have the permanent national capital located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He was reelected to the House three times and elected to serve as Speaker again in the Third Congress in 1793–1795. Muhlenberg failed in two bids to be elected Pennsylvania governor in 1793 and 1796. In 1796 he cast the tie-breaking vote in the House on legislation appropriating money to implement the Jay Treaty. The treaty, negotiated by John Jay, was designed to settle differences with Great Britain that had lingered since the Revolution. One of the provisions authorized payment of a ransom for American sailors held by the British. Muhlenberg cast the deciding vote to approve appropriations to carry out the treaty. This vote cost him electoral support in Pennsylvania and he was defeated in the fall elections in 1796. John David Rausch Jr.

See also Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior; Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel References and Further Reading Seidensticker, Oswald. “Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives in the First Congress, 1789.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 12 (1889): 184–206. Wallace, Paul A. W. The Muhlenbergs of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1950.

MUHLENBERG, HENRY MELCHIOR b. September 6, 1711; Einbeck, Electorate of Hanover d. October 7, 1787;Trappe, Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania-German Lutheran clergyman and founder of the Lutheran Church in the American colonies. Although his primary education was interrupted by the death of his father when Muhlenberg was twelve, he was able to finish school and went on to study theology at the University of Göttingen. He graduated in 1737 and became the preceptor of the boarding school in Halle. Muhlenberg was originally selected to be a missionary in the East Indies, but instead was appointed pastor and teacher in a parish in Grosshennersdorf in Upper Lusatia. In 1741 church authorities at Halle offered to send Muhlenberg to Pennsylvania for three years to pastor to congregations in Philadelphia, New Hanover, and Providence (later renamed Trappe). After many days of internal debate, he accepted the call and sailed to North America on June 13, 1742. Muhlenberg married Anna Maria Weiser, the daughter of Conrad Weiser in 1745. They had eleven children, seven of whom reached adulthood. Two of their sons were John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg

MUHLENBERG, HENRY MELCHIOR

(1748–1807), a brigadier general in the Continental Army during the Revolution, and Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg (1750–1801), the first Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. When Muhlenberg arrived in Philadelphia on November 25, 1742, his call was challenged by the self-appointed pastors who had served the churches for years. He also was challenged by the fact that many of the German Lutherans in Philadelphia were being served by the Moravian Church. Through force of personality, Muhlenberg was able to exert his control over the three congregations, as well as guide the Lutherans back to their church. In 1748 he organized the churches into the first Lutheran church synod in the colonies, officially the Ministerium of Pennsylvania. He oversaw the development of additional congregations, including the ordaining and calling of pastors. Many of these new pastors were recent émigrés from Europe. Waves of German immigrants arrived in North America during the 1750s, and Muhlenberg’s congregation (St. Michael’s Church) in Philadelphia began to grow and experience some challenges. In 1762 he applied democratic ideals to solve a dispute over whether he should remain senior pastor at the congregation in Philadelphia. Despite his earlier opposition to deciding church matters by majority vote, he called for an election in which all parishioners were asked to vote. Muhlenberg was retained as senior pastor. The growth in the number of parishioners encouraged the Philadelphia congregation to build a larger church in 1766. Zion Church could accommodate 3,000 parishioners, making it the largest church in Philadelphia and perhaps in all of the

791

colonies. A church this large was bound to have differences of opinion within the congregation. Muhlenberg was recalled from his rural churches in New Hanover and Trappe to settle a conflict at Zion in 1767. To solve this conflict and to ease future tensions, he drafted a constitution and had it accepted by Zion’s church council and congregation. This action was contrary to the practices Muhlenberg had learned in Germany, but was customary in Pennsylvania. Muhlenberg tried to avoid becoming involved in political debates. In part, his avoidance of politics stemmed from the fact that King George III of England was the ruler of his adopted country and also the elector of the state of Hanover where Muhlenberg was born. When the Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, he preached a sermon of prayer and thanksgiving, one instance in which he mixed politics with religion. He published the sermon under the title Testimony to the Goodness and Solemnity of God toward His Covenant People for the Repeal of the Stamp Act, Delivered 1 August 1766. Working largely in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Muhlenberg was the leading figure in the organization of the Lutheran Church in North America. His influence extended into New York, New England, Nova Scotia, and Georgia. In 1748 he wrote the liturgy used in North American Lutheran churches, drawing from the liturgies used in Lutheran churches in Germany, as well as practices already established in America. Muhlenberg also played a role in the collection and publication of the hymnbook of 1786. The hymnbook was based on hymnals from Halle and Marburg in Germany and supplemented by material collected from other Lutheran pastors in North America. Muhlenberg

792

MUHLENBERG, JOHN PETER GABRIEL

contributed the preface to the new American hymnal. As an indicator of his role in developing the Lutheran Church in America, there were more than 200 German Lutheran congregations in North America by the time of Muhlenberg’s death. He also ordained twenty-five pastors. John David Rausch Jr. See also Muhlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad; Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel; Pennsylvania; Pietism; Weiser, Conrad References and Further Reading Kleiner, John W., ed. Henry Melchior Muhlenberg—The Roots of 250 Years of Organized Lutheranism in North America: Essays in Memory of Helmut T. Lehmann. Lewiston, NY: E. Mellen, 1998. Riforgiato, Leonard R. Missionary of Moderation: Henry Melchior Muhlenberg and the Lutheran Church in English America. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University, 1980. Wallace, Paul A. W. The Muhlenbergs of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1950.

MUHLENBERG, JOHN PETER GABRIEL b. October 1, 1746;Trappe, Pennsylvania d. October 1, 1807;Trappe, Pennsylvania Son of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, he was a Pennsylvania-German minister who left the pulpit to lead a regiment of Virginians in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Accompanied by his two brothers, he was sent to Halle, Prussia, in April 1763 to be educated. Later that year, Muhlenberg contracted himself to work as an apprentice to a merchant in Lübeck. After three years laboring in virtual slavery, Muhlenberg broke the contract and ran away to enlist in a German unit in the British Army. He returned to

Pennsylvania as a secretary to one of the unit’s officers in Philadelphia. He was honorably discharged in 1767. After his brief service in the British army, Muhlenberg studied to be a pastor in the American Lutheran Church. Ordained a minister in February 1769, he assisted his father serving churches in the Philadelphia area. He married in 1770 and shortly thereafter accepted a call from the German Lutheran congregation at Woodstock, Dunmore County, Virginia. In Virginia he became involved in politics as a follower of Patrick Henry. Muhlenberg was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses that met in Williamsburg in early August 1774. Following his father’s advice, he resigned from politics to concentrate more on the spiritual lives of his congregation. On January 12, 1776, he was appointed a colonel by the Virginia convention meeting in Williamsburg, even though he only had very limited military experience. He returned home to raise his regiment. In his farewell sermon to his parish, delivered on January 21, 1776, Muhlenberg is reported to have concluded with the phrase: “There is a time to pray and a time to fight, and that time has now come!” (Wallace 1950, 116–119). With that statement, he allegedly threw off his gown at the pulpit, revealing the uniform of a Continental Army colonel. With this exhibition he was able to recruit about 300 members of his parish into the 8th Virginia Regiment, better known as the German Regiment. The regiment saw action in the defense of Charleston, South Carolina, in June 1776. In Georgia during the summer of 1776, Colonel Muhlenberg contracted a disease of the liver that would trouble him for the rest of his life and would eventually

MUMFORD, LEWIS

cause his death. He was commissioned a brigadier general on February 21, 1777, and ordered to report to General George Washington’s camp at Morristown, New Jersey. Muhlenberg’s brigade fought at the battles of Brandywine in September 1777 and Germantown in October 1777. He spent the winter of 1777–1778 camped at Valley Forge and the winter of 1778–1779 at the army’s headquarters in Middlebrook, New Jersey. In December 1779 Washington ordered Muhlenberg back to Virginia. The British were threatening the South and Washington wanted an experienced commander to raise fresh troops to meet the enemy. Under the command of the Marquis de Lafayette, Muhlenberg played a significant role in the siege of the British at Yorktown. Muhlenberg’s brigade attacked and captured British Redoubt 10, one of the final two British redoubts, on October 14, 1781. The British surrendered shortly thereafter. On September 30, 1783, Muhlenberg was promoted to the rank of brevet major general. He retired from the army on November 3, 1783. After the war, he moved his family to Pennsylvania where he entered politics. He was elected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council in 1784. From 1785–1788 Muhlenberg served as vice president of the state under Benjamin Franklin. In 1789 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as an anti-Federalist. He joined his brother Frederick in the First Congress. A Democratic-Republican, Muhlenberg was elected to the U. S. Senate on February 18, 1801. He was a senator for two days during the session in March 1801 before resigning to become the collector of customs for the port of Philadelphia. John David Rausch Jr.

793

See also Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior; Steuben, Frederick von References and Further Reading Hocker, Edward W. The Fighting Parson of the American Revolution: A Biography of General Peter Muhlenberg, Lutheran Clergyman, Military Chieftain, and Political Leader. Philadelphia: Edward W. Hocker, 1939. Muhlenberg, Henry Augustus. Life of Major General Peter Muhlenberg. Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1849. Wallace, Paul A. W. The Muhlenbergs of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1950.

MUMFORD, LEWIS b. October 19, 1895; Flushing, New York d. January 26, 1990; Amenia, New York Writer, reformer, social philosopher, cultural critic, historian, biographer, and urban planner who during his long career published some 30 books and 1,000 articles. His interests were wide-ranging, including—prominently and continually— Germany and the German-speaking world. Although Mumford never spent a single protracted period in Germany, he must be considered a key player in the transatlantic dynamic involving Germany, German culture, and Germans. His links stem from family relations, personal friendships, and intellectual and political interests. Mumford’s engagements ranged from architecture and urban planning to technology and aesthetics, as well as to social reform movements. His attitude shifted profoundly, from admiration of German cities and ways of life to despising the Germans for succumbing to the lures of National Socialism. Following World War II, a demonized Germany figured prominently in his criticism of American society, culture, and politics.

794

MUMFORD, LEWIS

Exposed to German language and culture through the family of his mother, Mumford developed an interest in Germany during his childhood. In the 1920s Mumford’s efforts in city planning led to links and, later, friendships, with German architects and city planners such as Walter Curt Behrendt, Fritz Schumacher, Walter Gropius, and Ernst May. Mumford was particularly attracted to the social reform movements within the Weimar Republic. Thus, his association with the Deutsche Werkbund (an arts and crafts movement, founded in Munich in 1898) and the influence of Erich Mendelsohn and, later, of Siegfried Giedion were important in shaping his views on architecture, technology, and aesthetics. In 1931 Mumford wrote a first draft of a book in which he intended to bring together his ideas on technology, cities, buildings, urban life, and humankind in general. But a 1932 trip to Germany on a Guggenheim fellowship transformed the project into a monumental scheme in several volumes of a series titled The Renewal of Life. Mumford did much of the research for Technics and Civilization (1934) at the Deutsches Museum (German Museum) in Munich. In The Culture of Cities (1938) he depicts Lübeck as the consummate example of “medieval order,” at the same time as he extols the “biotechnic order” of the modern workers’ houses at Frankfurt-Römerstadt. The bibliographies in many of his books list numerous works of German scholarship, many of which he read in the original language. In particular, Mumford was influenced by the regionalist emphasis of the historian Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl and by Karl Bücher’s study of work and aesthetics. Karl Vossler’s study of Dante inspired him as he began work on the Renewal of Life series. Mum-

ford visited Thomas Mann in Munich in 1932. There are numerous references in Mumford’s writings to Mann’s works, and an essay on The Magic Mountain is part of The Condition of Man (1944). The high opinion Mumford had of Mann even survived the shift in his general attitude toward Germany from admiration to contempt. In response to what he conceived of as the “Nazi disease,” Mumford publicly urged, as early as 1935, that the United States declare its intention of fighting, if necessary, on the side of Western democracies. This attitude crystallized in an article, “Call to Arms,” published in The New Republic in May 1938, and was further developed in a series of speeches, articles, pamphlets, and books, notably Men Must Act (1939) and Faith for Living (1940). It also led him to assist refugees from Germany, among them writers Thomas Mann and Carl Zuckmayer, philosopher Aurel Kolnai, and architect Josef Frank. In Green Memories (1947), Mumford mourned the death, in combat, of his only son, Geddes. After World War II, Mumford’s main concern was to make people understand the moral dilemmas and political embarrassments that resulted from the invention and deployment of the atomic bomb. His 1946 book Values for Survival includes a series of letters on politics and education written to German friends. Yet the “Letters to Germans” not only reveal Mumford’s disappointment with Germany’s becoming the country of National Socialism. They also show that in Mumford’s mind, Adolf Hitler’s Germany merged with a view of the United States as an industrial, urban, and cultural wasteland, the home of empty liberties and stifling values, and thus the unacknowledged alter ego of the totalitar-

MÜNSTERBERG, HUGO

ian enemy it had opposed in Nazi Germany and was now opposing in the Soviet Union and its Communist allies. Unsurprisingly, therefore, Mumford opposed the war in Vietnam. Deploying a demonized Germany for his criticism of American culture and politics, he called President Lyndon B. Johnson, together with Senator Barry Goldwater, “fit allies for the Nazis.” This all-out attack on official America greatly contributed toward Mumford’s popularity in Germany when The Myth of the Machine was first published in translation in 1974. Paradoxically, however, the venture also propelled the decline of his reputation there. Mumford was suspected of harboring the kind of reactionary antimodernism that had for so long plagued German intellectual life. In German-language criticism, therefore, the prevailing picture of Mumford is that of a conservative critic, if not of a Spenglerian prophet of doom. This is not to deny Mumford’s debt to Germany and to German thought, although few Americans have acknowledged such a debt. Generally, however, American critics have placed Mumford toward the left of the political spectrum, focusing on his adversarial posture in matters of culture and politics. Heinz Tschachler See also Gropius, Walter Adolf; Mann, Thomas; Zuckmayer, Carl References and Further Reading Miller, Donald L. Lewis Mumford: A Life. New York: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989. Mumford, Lewis. Sketches from Life: The Autobiography of Lewis Mumford. The Early Years. New York: Dial, 1982. Tschachler, Heinz. Lewis Mumford’s Reception in German Translation and Criticism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1994. Wojtowicz, Robert. Lewis Mumford and American Modernism: Eutopian Themes for Architecture and Urban Planning. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1996.

795

MÜNSTERBERG, HUGO b. June 1, 1863; Danzig (West Prussia), Prussia d. December 16, 1916; Cambridge, Massachusetts Leading academic during the early twentieth century. He considered himself a cultural ambassador between Germany and the United States. During World War I, he came under intense attack in the United States due to his public support of Germany. Münsterberg secured his PhD in psychology in 1885 under Wilhelm Wundt in Leipzig and his MD in 1887 in Heidelberg. After taking up a position at the University of Freiburg, he was lured by William James to Harvard University for a three-year appointment in 1892. After the completion of his term, he returned briefly to Freiburg. In 1897 he returned to Harvard, where he would remain on the philosophy faculty until his death in 1916. At Harvard, Münsterberg acted as professor of experimental psychology, chaired the Philosophy Department, and directed the Psychological Laboratory. He held a variety of prestigious offices within his field, including the presidency of the American Psychological Association. Münsterberg wrote prolifically on industrial, forensic, and applied psychology and became a noted popularizer of psychology. Prominent among his publications were On the Witness Stand (1909), in which he questioned the reliability of eyewitness testimony, and Psychology and Industrial Efficiency (1913), in which he distanced himself from Frederick W. Taylor’s ideas and pioneered new occupational selection and management techniques within commercial and industrial settings. Two years before his death, he became fascinated by motion pictures. This fascination

796

MURNAU, FRIEDRICH WILHELM

led to one of his most lasting works in psychology: The Photoplay (1916). Throughout his career at Harvard, Münsterberg styled himself a cultural ambassador between his two homelands, Germany and America. Through frequent transatlantic travels he wished to strengthen the intellectual and political bonds between the two countries. When Wilhelm II’s brother Henry visited the United States in 1902, Münsterberg welcomed the prince to Harvard. He also organized the Amerika Institut in Berlin and an exchange professorship program between Harvard and the University of Berlin (1910). Münsterberg published many books and articles on America for German audiences and on Germany for American audiences; for example, American Traits from the German Point of View (1901), The Americans (1904), American Problems from the Point of View of a Psychologist (1910), and American Patriotism and other Social Studies (1913). In these works Münsterberg stressed both the positive and negative traits of the respective nations, hoping to instruct Americans and Germans on what they could learn from one another. Münsterberg remained a German citizen his whole life and supported a strong, militaristic view of the German nation. He lost favor at Harvard due to his public support of Germany during World War I. He offered unsolicited advice to the German government, former President Theodore Roosevelt, and President Woodrow Wilson. His writings provoked continuous controversy and calls for his ouster. William H. Skaggs even called him a German spy in his anti-German polemic, German Conspiracies in America: From an American Point of View, by an American (1915). Münsterberg’s relationships with

Harvard presidents Charles W. Eliot and A. Lawrence Lowell were historically strained. Both presidents on occasion admonished Münsterberg on his treatment of graduate students, his direction of the Psychological Laboratory, and his slackening scholarly publications. He found himself in an increasingly stressful role of keeping Germans, Americans, and German Americans in harmony with one another. However, his efforts ultimately did not have his desired effect and served only to isolate him from all three communities. Kevin Ostoyich See also Amerika Institut; Francke, Kuno; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Goldman, Guido. A History of the Germanic Museum at Harvard University. Cambridge, MA: Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies, Harvard University, 1989. Keller, Phyllis. States of Belonging: GermanAmerican Intellectuals and the First World War. Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University, 1979. Langdale, Allan, ed. Hugo Munsterberg on Film: The Photoplay—A Psychological Study and Other Writings. New York: Routledge, 2002. Münsterberg, Margaret. Hugo Münsterberg: His Life and Work. New York: Appleton, 1922.

MURNAU, FRIEDRICH WILHELM b. September 28, 1888; Bielefield, Westphalia (Prussia) d. March 11, 1931; Santa Barbara, California German director who became famous for his vampire movie Nosferatu and who left Germany for the United States in 1926 to produce several art movies. A film director

MURNAU, FRIEDRICH WILHELM

who had the soul of a poet and the eyes of a painter, Murnau remains a legend in German cinema. Murnau was born Friedrich Wilhelm Plumpe. After studying philology at Berlin University, Murnau worked as an actor with stage director Max Reinhardt from 1912 to 1919. At thirty Murnau directed his first film, Satanas (1919). His career in Germany was quite productive and successful, with some seventeen films released in just seven years, including Nosferatu. Eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu the Vampire, 1922), Der Letzte Mann (The Last Laugh, 1924), Tartuffe (1925), and Faust (1926). More than a naturalistic masterpiece, Murnau’s Nosferatu had set the standard of the horror film for the whole century. It is the famous story (freely adapted from Bram Stoker’s Dracula) of a mysterious nobleman from Transylvania who wants to buy a house in northern Germany; but the buyer appears to be a vampire and he brings the plague wherever he goes. One day, the vampire falls in love with a married woman, the spouse of his agent. Filmed on location, that strange film created an uncomfortable atmosphere with just natural settings and a minimum of light. Half a century later, director Werner Herzog did a fantastic remake titled Nosferatu, Phantom der Nacht (1978), in which he meticulously copied every scene from the original version, almost shot by shot (except for the ending). Working with actor Emil Jannings, Murnau released The Last Laugh, the story of an old doorman who, having worked for years in a deluxe hotel, loses his position and has to work in the men’s room in the basement of the same hotel. Because the film was so sad, its producers asked Murnau to add a “happy ending,” although he

797

was reluctant to do so. During the 1920s, German films often had tragic endings and Murnau did not make many exceptions. Against his will, Murnau nevertheless added an incredible epilogue in which the dishonored character suddenly becomes a millionaire. The light, funny, improbable final scene strangely contrasts with the dramatic progression that was made during the first hour. The film was Murnau’s biggest success, mainly because of its technical innovations, such as the use of revolutionary camera traveling made in many scenes by Karl Freund. Incidentally, The Last Laugh is still considered the perfect example of the Kammerspielfilm, a realistic trend in German cinema from the 1920s that contrasted with expressionist esthetics. In 1926 Hollywood producer William Fox invited Murnau to work in the United States and offered him an unlimited budget with total artistic freedom for his next movie. Murnau’s previous films were already famous in America. Many U.S. critics admired his work and unanimously appreciated The Last Laugh, especially its ending. Murnau’s first U.S. film, Sunrise. A Song of Two Humans (1927) remains an authentic German work. He worked closely with his Austrian friend and scriptwriter Carl Mayer (who lived in Germany), with whom he had teamed up before on many projects. It tells the story of a farmer who, after being seduced by a vamp from the city, tries to regain his wife’s confidence and love. They spend a whole day together in a little American town, visiting a church, a barbershop, a big store, and a chic restaurant, before going back home, when a tragic event surprises them. The script of Sunrise was written in German in a very poetic style by Mayer and later translated

798

MURNAU, FRIEDRICH WILHELM

into English; it was adapted from a novel, Trip to Tilsit, by the East Prussian author Hermann Sudermann (1857–1928). The crew and actors were American, but the romantic style and the symbols were typically German (for instance, the character of the pure blond wife who rivals the evil darkhaired vamp). A perfectionist creator, Murnau worked for months on that project; a whole city had to be built in the studio. Many extras were hired. The result was remarkable: hence, when film critics from all over the world gathered at the 1958 World Exhibition of Brussels, they voted Sunrise the best film of all time. The famous romantic scene when the husband and his wife walk together toward the road to take the train that will lead them to the city has been copied many times. Back in 1927 most critics acclaimed Sunrise, and the film received three Academy Awards. It was nevertheless a commercial failure, because it did not raise more profits than its astonishing costs. Because of that, Murnau had to be more modest for his next projects and had less artistic control. However, his following film, Four Devils (1928), also written by Mayer and adopted from Hermann Bang’s novel De Fire Djaevle did not have much success either. Murnau’s third American film, Our Daily Bread, was totally written by an allU.S. team from a short story by Elliot Lester titled “The Mud Turtle.” It was first made as a silent movie, but once finished, the producers (Fox) decided to reedit it without Murnau’s consent (with the help of Ernest Palmer, who shot new scenes with new dialogue), adding an unplanned soundtrack to release a new version under the title City Girl (1930). In 1930 Murnau felt unhappy in Hollywood and could not stand the compro-

mises and the producers’ pressure, comments, and changes made on his films. This explains why he spent so many months in Tahiti to shoot Tabu (1931) as an independent. This was a cross-cultural adventure: Murnau teamed with Robert Flaherty (1884–1951), a U.S. director who became famous with documentaries such as Nanook of the North (1922), shot in northern Canada, and Moana (1925), filmed in Polynesia. Murnau and Flaherty both wrote the script and directed the scenes of Tabu, about a young man who wants to marry a Maori virgin who was chosen as a “tabu,” which means that she was dedicated to be given to the gods. The forbidden lovers try to leave their island in order to begin a new life elsewhere. But they know that their masters are looking for them. In the middle of the shooting, the codirectors disagreed on the stylistic trend: Flaherty wanted a more “documentary” approach about the way the Maori people of the Bora-Bora Island lived; Murnau preferred a dramatic story and brought in his favorite themes: impossible and naïve love, unavoidable fate, premonition, individual freedom thwarted by social rules—in a perfect aesthetic style with beautiful images and almost no dialogue. Although they respected each other’s work, Flaherty left the project before the end and acknowledged Murnau as the sole author of the film. Nevertheless, Murnau was enthusiastic and even had plans to return to Tahiti to make more films. He also wanted to return to Berlin to study the new sound film technology. Tragically, Murnau died after a car crash near Santa Barbara just one week before Tabu was released. It premiered in New York City and was acclaimed worldwide. Yves Laberge

MUSIC (AMERICAN), GERMAN INFLUENCE See also Film (German), American Influence on; Herzog, Werner; Hollywood; Jannings, Emil; Reinhardt, Max References and Further Reading Allen, Robert, and Douglas Gomery. Film History. Theory and Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. Eisner, Lotte. Murnau. Paris: Le Terrain Vague, 1965. The F.-W.-Murnau-Stiftung. Wiesbaden, Germany. At http://www.murnaustiftung.de/en/01-05-00-murnau.html (accessed May 11, 2005).

MUSIC (AMERICAN), GERMAN INFLUENCE

ON From the 1840s to 1914, German music dominated American performance halls. Its influence was profound, laying the seeds of German musical prominence that has continued to this day. Although German musicians and music had been part of American culture since the colonial era, the turmoil in Germany caused by the Revolution of 1848 irreparably altered the musical landscape of the United States. The Revolution of 1848 brought large numbers of German musicians to American shores, fleeing the political instability in Germany and Austria. The Germania Musical Society, referred to by contemporaries as the Germania Orchestra, was one of the products of the revolution. Organized in 1848 by German immigrants recently arrived in America, the orchestra toured for six years, spreading German music throughout America, especially the works of Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and other German composers. The orchestra was exceedingly disciplined, holding daily rehearsals—a practice almost unknown in America—and enforcing a

ON

799

high level of professionalism. In 1854 the orchestra disbanded, but many of its players settled in American cities, spreading their musical tastes to even remote parts of the country. More than anyone else, however, Theodore Thomas was responsible for developing and spreading orchestral music to all corners of the United States. A native of Essen, Thomas came to the United States at age ten with his family in 1845. In New York, young Thomas played violin with local orchestras and in theatres, but no permanent orchestra existed in the city. As a serious musician, he gradually became an influential figure in the New York music scene, especially when he combined his talents with pianist William Mason to perform chamber music concerts. Although the Mason-Thomas combination was successful, Thomas was determined to become a conductor. In particular, he wished to establish a full-time, permanent orchestra that played to his exacting standards. Beginning in 1867, Thomas had his orchestra. Under his direction, it toured the country for several years, performing in cities both large and small. The thousands who flocked to his concerts got a healthy dose of German music, especially Beethoven, whom Thomas held in the highest regard. For many Americans, because this was their first exposure to orchestral music, German compositions became their most important—and often, only—connection to classical music. Eventually, Thomas conducted the New York Philharmonic to great success, until his status in the city’s musical circles was challenged by another German American, Leopold Damrosch. Damrosch, a native of Posen, trumped Thomas by premiering Johannes Brahms’s First Symphony in New

800

MUSIC (AMERICAN), GERMAN INFLUENCE

York City. Thomas left New York and founded the Chicago Symphony in 1891. While in Chicago, Thomas’s orchestra performed a wide range of composers, but placed most emphasis upon Richard Wagner and Beethoven. Like orchestral music, most Americans were introduced to opera through German composers and performers. New York obtained its first taste of a permanent professional opera with the formation of the Metropolitan Opera in 1880. Battling poor box office receipts initially, Director Leopold Damrosch decided to offer a season of German opera performances, a decision designed to appeal to new immigrants as much as the social elite. All operas were German works, or compositions performed in German, and Damrosch went as far as to recruit German performers from Europe. The season, which featured Wagner, was an unparalleled success and brought opera to the ears of thousands who previously had little to no knowledge of it. For several years, the Metropolitan could perform little but German compositions for fear of creating unrest. Eventually, the repertoire was expanded significantly, but not before German opera, especially Wagner, was firmly established as the standard. One of the Met’s greatest moments occurred under the direction of Heinrich Conried, a German who had immigrated to the United States in the 1870s. Conreid’s Metropolitan delivered the American premier of Wagner’s Parsifal in 1904, violating the Wagner family’s wishes that it not be performed outside of Germany. This coup was exceedingly successful, demonstrating America’s love affair with Wagnerian opera.

ON

Outside of art music circles, Männerchor societies were widespread, especially in midwestern cities that did not have wellestablished musical cultures. Männerchöre were male choirs that gained large followings after 1848 and often served as social organizations for German immigrants. They became famous for organizing large choral concerts that appealed to mass audiences as well as social elites. Their repertoire was filled with choral standards and peppered with German composers who specialized in Männerchor and choral compositions. Some Männerchöre were very professional and far more than simply local choirs. The best performed with major professional ensembles and performers such as Theodore Thomas’s orchestra and violinist Fritz Kreisler. Männerchöre, some of which still exist in the early twenty-first century, planted and reinforced German musical culture throughout large sections of the United States. By the 1890s and 1900s, German music and performers were without question the dominant musical forces in America. German influence was of such high standing that well-known American composers such as George Chadwick, John Knowles Paine, Edward MacDowell, and many others went to Germany to study and train. Many of America’s principal orchestras were conducted by Germans. Upon Theodore Thomas’s death in 1905, Frederick Stock, a native of Julich, took the reins of the Chicago Symphony. Stock, a Cologne Conservatory–trained violinist, led the Chicago Symphony from 1905 to 1942. The Philadelphia Orchestra was founded and directed for several years by the German conductor Fritz Scheel, who had earlier conducted in San Francisco.

MUSIC (AMERICAN), GERMAN INFLUENCE

Ernst Kunwald, a native of Vienna and a well-traveled conductor, led Cincinnati’s symphony, one of the best in America, from 1912 to 1917. In New York, the Philharmonic Society Orchestra from its inception was directed by Germans, including Carl Bergmann and Gustav Mahler. Boston, the American capital of orchestral music, was more heavily influenced by German music and musicians than any other city. Even prior to the establishment of the Boston Symphony, German musicians dominated Boston’s music scene. When Henry Higginson founded the Boston Symphony in 1881, it was led by George Henshel, a German, and was heavily staffed by German and Austrian players. Its musicians quickly demonstrated professional skill that rivaled European symphonies. American performers of this quality were not to be found during this era. In Henshel’s first year as conductor, the symphony performed all of Beethoven’s symphonies. Henshel handed the baton to another German, Wilhelm Gericke, who served from 1884 to 1889 and from 1898 to 1906. He was followed by the greatest conductor of the era, another German, Karl Muck. Although each of these conductors played music from non-German composers, the so-called German musical canon became fully recognized in this era. Even the tone for German dominance was set in orchestra rehearsals where the German language was spoken instead of English. German performers, often performing German compositions, captivated the country. Among the most famous was Fritz Kreisler, an Austrian-born violinist beloved for his stylistic technique and supreme mu-

ON

801

sicianship. As one of the greatest violinists in history, Kreisler played to thousands, giving hundreds of concerts each year. He was the most popular musician of his day. The voices of Ernestine Schumann-Heink and Geraldine Farrar lingered in the ears of countless Americans. Both performers had cult followings, with Schumann-Heink, a native of Prague, famous for playing Wagnerian roles. The soprano Farrar, American by birth, had studied extensively in Germany and performed to great acclaim in Berlin before returning to the United States. Her greatest achievements in Germany had been under the direction of the famed Karl Muck. Countless other German performers were featured in operas and symphonies prior to America’s entry into World War I. Before America’s declaration of war in 1917, German music not only served as the musical canon in the United States but it was the entrepôt for musical training and study. Only with the war, and the concomitant rejection of all things German, were American orchestral music and American musicians permitted to challenge German dominance and then only for a brief period. Robert B. McCormick See also Hammerstein, Oscar, I; Kunwald, Ernst; Muck, Karl References and Further Reading Hart, Philip. Orpheus in the New World: The Symphony Orchestra as an American Institution. New York: Norton, 1973. Howard, George Kent, and John Tasker Howard. A Short History of Music in America. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1957. Nicholls, David, ed. The Cambridge History of American Music. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1998.

N NAST,THOMAS b. September 26, 1840; Landau, Bavaria d. December 7, 1902; Guayaquil, Ecuador Leading German American illustrator and cartoonist of the nineteenth century, creator of the modern image of Santa Claus and popularizer of the donkey and the elephant as symbols of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. In 1846 Nast immigrated to New York with his mother and sister, his father joined the family in 1849. As a teenager he joined Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper in 1855, where he devised his technique of using art as a social and political comment. In 1858 he started to freelance as an illustrator for the New York Illustrated News. In 1860 Nast went to Europe to cover the war for Italian independence. The American Civil War made Nast famous almost overnight. In 1862 he joined Harper’s Weekly as an illustrator and cartoonist, thus reaching a national readership every week. Nast supported the Union cause and strongly identified with the Republican Party. His political influence was so great that Abraham Lincoln acknowledged Nast’s impact on American public opinion in his 1864 reelection. His

cartoon “Compromise with the South” (Harper’s Weekly, September 3, 1864) was widely used in Lincoln’s reelection campaign. It depicts a crippled Union soldier shaking hands with a healthy looking Confederate soldier, at their feet Columbia is weeping at a tombstone with the inscription “Union Heroes in a Useless War.” In the background fires are raging and a chained African American couple with a child face the gallows. In 1862 Nast

An illustration of Santa Claus by Thomas Nast, ca. 1892. (Library of Congress)

803

804

NAST,THOMAS

An 1879 Thomas Nast political cartoon in Harper's Weekly. Thomas Nast popularized the donkey and the elephant as symbols of the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. (Library of Congress)

sketched the first Santa Claus for the cover of the Christmas issue of Harper’s Weekly (January 3, 1863), drawing on the German folk tradition of celebrating Saint Nicolas day on December 6. In the following years he popularized the image. After the Civil War, Nast also worked successfully as a book illustrator. Between 1868 and 1871 Nast sketched some of his most famous cartoons, when he relentlessly attacked Tammany Hall, the corrupt Democratic government of New York City, led by the notorious William “Boss” Tweed. One of his famous cartoons from this period, “Who stole the people’s money?” (New York Times, August 19, 1871), shows the

“Tweed Ring,” a circle of Tweed and his cronies, each pointing to the other. His cartoons played a major role in driving Tweed from office and to jail in 1871. From the same year dates his cartoon “The American River Ganges” (Harper’s Weekly, September 30, 1871), depicting Tammany Hall politicians forcing little children into a river filled with crocodiles dressed as Catholic priests. In the rear looms a huge Catholic church identified as “Tammany Hall” and the ruins of a public school. The cartoon illustrates that Nast did not hesitate to employ crude nativist and fiercely anti-Catholic sentiments for the Republican cause. By the late 1870s, however, Nast’s influence was already on the decline. He could not relate to the social and political changes in the Gilded Age. The change of management at Harper’s Weekly in 1877 brought restrictions for Nast, who hitherto had enjoyed much freedom over the choice of his subjects. The new management steered the magazine away from political issues, favored by Nast, to topics of a broader interest. In late 1886 Nast departed from Harper’s Weekly. Some of his last cartoons for Harper’s Weekly dealt with the Haymarket riots in Chicago on May 4, 1886, and anarchism as a threat to the United States. Nast took a clear stand against the Haymarket anarchists, many of whom were German immigrants. His cartoon “Liberty or Death” depicts a crazed anarchist with a gun and a bomb, trampling on the American flag, but surrounded by policemen. The anarchist faces two choices: on his right Uncle Sam is ready to punish him with a gallows, on his left a ship to “Europe” is waiting. After 1886 Nast worked as a freelancer for a number of magazines. His magazine, Nast’s

NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE

Weekly, launched in 1892, failed after six months. In 1902 President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Nast a U.S. consul general to Guayaquil, Ecuador. Tobias Brinkmann See also Anarchism; Haymarket; New York City References and Further Reading Keller, Morton. The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast. New York: Oxford University, 1968.

NATIONAL GERMANAMERICAN ALLIANCE Single-largest German American ethnic organization in American history, claiming 2.5 million members at its height in the years immediately preceding the outbreak of World War I. From its founding in 1901 until its disbanding in 1918, the National German-American Alliance (NGAA) sought to promote the fight against Prohibition, the preservation of the memory of German American contributions to the growth of the United States and its institutions, and the ending of immigration restrictions. During the First World War, it focused its attention on maintenance of American neutrality and fair play for Germany. With American entry into the conflict, the organization came to be viewed as a potential threat to the nation. By 1901 German Americans constituted the single-largest ethnic group in the United States. Early in the twentieth century, large German communities existed in cities such as Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago, New York, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and San Francisco. German Americans in these cities, and in other

805

cities and states, maintained traditional ethnic ties through religious, social, and political organizations. They also supported the German-language press, which, at its height in the late nineteenth century, comprised over 800 weeklies and dailies across the country. By the time of the founding of the alliance this number had dropped to just slightly above 600 (Bergquist 1987, 143). Before the twentieth century, no national association claiming to represent the interests of all German Americans existed. A series of events from April 1899 through October 1901 would change this. On April 16, 1899, the German-American Central Alliance of Pennsylvania was founded, with the express purpose of fostering a movement to unite the German American element within that state, as well as the long-term goal of becoming the driving force behind a national organization for that ethnic group. This latter goal began to materialize on June 19, 1900, as delegates representing German American organizations in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, and Minnesota met in Philadelphia. The success of this meeting prompted the prominent German American Charles J. Hexamer, president of the Central Alliance, to call for a second gathering in Philadelphia to create a national organization that would promote the interests of German Americans. In October 1901 representatives from twelve states and the District of Columbia convened in the hall of the German Society of Pennsylvania at Philadelphia. This convention resulted in the formation of the Deutsche Amerikanische National Bund or the National German-American Alliance (NGAA) under the leadership of Charles J. Hexamer.

806

NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE

Despite its claim of representing all Americans of German descent, the socioeconomic and gender makeup of the membership suggested the potential for a partisan organization representing the interests of only a certain segment of the German American community. The group was dominated by men, although later on a women’s auxiliary would be formed and incorporated into the national group. The majority of its members were Protestant. For the most part, they were second- or third- generation German Americans. The majority were businessmen, doctors, lawyers, or academics, as well as being from other professional occupations and skilled trades. It was not an organization that necessarily attracted the working or agrarian classes, who found themselves drawn more to local organizations and labor unions. From its inception in 1901 until its demise in April 1918, the NGAA often found itself at cross-purposes with other special interest groups, the federal government, and national opinion. Hampering the work of the NGAA throughout its existence was the struggle to maintain a balance between achieving the primary goal of the organization (the maintenance of German culture in America), and the group’s secondary goal of remaining an “educational and patriotic society” with the interests of all Americans in mind. The period from 1901 to 1907 represented the formative years for the NGAA as it grew from chapters in only 14 states to chapters in 40 states with a total membership of 1.5 million (Congress, House, Committee on the District of Columbia 1907). During this period—and up until the outbreak of World War I—one of the main issues confronting the NGAA was the prohibition of alcohol. The group

launched its campaign to fight the passage of a Prohibition amendment at its 1903 Baltimore convention. At this meeting the NGAA ratified a series of resolutions against the passage of “blue laws.” The membership viewed any restrictions regarding the consumption of alcohol not only as a threat to German culture in America, but also as a violation of personal liberties granted by the Constitution of the United States. The NGAA attitude regarding Prohibition remained consistent throughout the prewar period. Prohibition of alcohol would take away the tradition of the “Sunday beer garden,” a weekly social gathering in an outdoor or indoor setting emphasizing family and friendship that served as one of the main social outlets within German-American communities. More importantly, however, the NGAA viewed passage of such an amendment as a potential threat to other personal liberties enjoyed by Americans. Once passed, the Prohibition amendment would set a precedent for future curtailments of individual liberties. By bowing to the interests of this one special interest group, the government would eventually bow to the wishes of others that did not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the majority of the entire nation. This “patriotic” motivation to prevent Prohibition was unfortunately lost in a cloud of suspicion. Because the brewing industry was controlled by German Americans, opposition forces painted the NGAA as merely nothing more than a tool of that special interest group. During the congressional investigation of the group in 1918, it would be revealed that the alliance received regular subsidies from the brewing and liquor industry. For many in the government, knowledge of these subsidies removed the blanket of patriotism under

NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE

which the NGAA attempted to cover itself and exposed an organization whose motives were guided by special interest groups and monetary gain. During the organization’s formative years, the NGAA benefited from a feeling of goodwill held by most Americans regarding the nation’s German population. One sign of this occurred on February 27, 1907, when the organization received a charter from the U.S. Congress incorporating it as an “educational and patriotic” society. Less than two years later, on October 6, 1908, the nation, including President Theodore Roosevelt, joined with the German American community and the NGAA in celebrating the 225th anniversary of the establishment of the first German community in North America at Germantown, Pennsylvania. During this festive occasion, the German element was praised for its contributions to the growth of the nation and the survival of its institutions. The era of good feelings reached a peak in December 1910. On December 7, due in large part to efforts by the NGAA, a statue of Baron Friederich Wilhelm von Steuben was unveiled in Washington, D.C. The significance of the event for relations between Germany and the United States, and for German Americans in general, was highlighted by the fact that a number of important officials, including President William H. Taft and the German ambassador Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, attended the ceremony. From 1910 to 1914 the NGAA, besides engaging itself in the Prohibition debate, focused its attention on the preservation of German culture through the teaching of the German language, the fostering of better relations between the United States and Germany, and to a lesser

807

extent the question of immigration restriction and the fight against women’s suffrage. The rationale in opposing the latter was based on the nineteenth-century notion that involvement in politics would detract women from their traditional role of bearing and raising children and instilling in them the morality and virtues needed to become future leaders. The teaching of the German language in the nation’s public school system formed the cornerstone of the organization’s efforts to preserve German culture in America. While the success of the group’s efforts in this direction varied from state to state, a high point was reached in Nebraska with the passage of the Mockett Law by the state legislature in 1913. This law called for instruction in modern European languages for students in the fifth grade and higher if requested by the parents of fifty or more pupils. Given the large percentage of German Americans in Nebraska, the legislation resulted in German becoming an “official” second language. With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the NGAA shifted its attention to the war and, more specifically, to the preservation of complete American neutrality in the conflict. The group initiated a two-pronged campaign concerning this issue. The first prong focused on the propaganda battle between Great Britain and Germany as each side utilized all means at their disposals to portray the other as being the greatest threat to American interests. The NGAA called for absolute American neutrality through its lobbying efforts in Congress, as well as various articles published in both the German- and English-language press. Despite its best efforts, the NGAA never did mount an effective campaign, primarily because most

808

NATIONAL GERMAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE

papers in the United States tended to be biased against German actions in the war— in part influenced by the fact that the information received in America about the war came primarily through British or proBritish channels. The second prong of NGAA wartime strategy was the campaign to prevent arms shipments to belligerent nations. The NGAA lobbied heavily for the passage of the Bartholdt and Volmer bills. These two pieces of legislation called for an embargo of all war material to belligerent nations. From 1914 to 1916 the group was hampered in its efforts by the growing belief that the NGAA was attempting to influence U.S. policy in a pro-German direction. The organization further served to alienate itself in the eyes of the government by backing the Republican candidate Charles Evans Hughes in the 1916 presidential contest. Woodrow Wilson’s reelection, in part, now set the stage for the downfall of the organization. In April 1917 the United States entered the war against Germany. Overnight all things German in the United States became anathema. The NGAA quickly declared its patriotism, but in a nation gripped with anti-German paranoia that led to such extreme actions as the renaming of sauerkraut to “liberty cabbage,” the NGAA had little chance for long-term survival. By the end of the year, the organization was branded as unpatriotic and a potential threat to national security. In response to the national mood, the Senate in early 1918 launched an investigation into the activities of the NGAA. While the investigation would turn up nothing, with the exception that the group accepted money from the brewing and liquor interests to fight Prohibition, the national leaders knew that the fate of the

group was preordained. In April 1918, even before the Senate hearings were concluded, the executive committee of the NGAA voted to disband the organization. Rather than an admission of guilt, the decision was made to prevent further public humiliation and scrutiny, not necessarily of the organization but of the German American community in general. Despite its decision, the group viewed itself as “100 percent” American and innocent of the charges leveled against it. The demise of the NGAA marked not only the downfall of one of the largest ethnic organizations in U. S. history, but sadly reflected the beginning of the end of the once vital position occupied by German cultural institutions in everyday American life. Charles T. Johnson See also Bernstorff, Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht Count von; German Society of Pennsylvania; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Hexamer, Charles J.; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Steuben, Frederick Wilhelm von; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Bergquist, James M. “The German-American Press.” In The Ethnic Press in the United States. Ed. Sally M. Miller. New York: Greenwood, 1987, p. 143. Bosse, Georg von. Dr. C. J. Hexamer: Sein Leben und Wirken. Philadelphia: Druck und Verlag, 1922. Childs, Clifton. The German-Americans in Politics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1939. Congress, House, Committee on the District of Columbia. To Prohibit the Manufacture and Sale of Intoxicating Liquors in D.C., 59th Cong., 2nd sess., February 14, 1907, 30–31. Detjens, David. The Germans in Missouri, 1900–1918: Prohibition, Neutrality, and Assimilation. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1985. Faust, Albert. The German Element in the United States. New York: Steuben Society of America, 1927.

NATTERER, JOHANN BAPTIST Godsho, Albert. Chronological History of the National German-American Alliance of the United States. Philadelphia: National German-American Alliance, 1911. Johnson, Charles T. Culture at Twilight: The National German-American Alliance, 1901–1918. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Rippley, LaVern J. The German-Americans. Boston: Twayne, 1976.

NATTERER, JOHANN BAPTIST b. November 9, 1787; Laxenburg, Austria d. June 17, 1843; Laxenburg, Austria Austrian natural scientist and member of the Austrian expedition to Brazil in 1817. Natterer’s father was a falconer and taxidermist at the summer residence of the Austrian emperor in Laxenburg. He taught his son the art of taxidermy, and in 1806 Johann Natterer was appointed administrator of the imperial bird and mammal collection. In this role he traveled through the Austro-Hungarian territories to catch native birds and bring them back to Vienna. In 1816 he acquired a position as assistant at the Imperial Natural History Museum in Vienna. A year later he was chosen as a member of the Austrian expedition that was to accompany the future empress of Brazil, Leopoldine. Although Baron Metternich suggested Natterer as the scientific leader of the expedition, precedence was given to Johann Christian Mikan, professor of natural history at the University of Prague, which caused conflict from the very beginning. Natterer and Mikan were accompanied by Johann B. Emanuel Pohl (1782–1834), a mineralogist and botanist; Johann Buchberger (? –1821) and Thomas Ender (1793–1875), both artists; and the Italian natural scientist Joseph Raddi (1770–1829); as well as the Bavarian

809

botanist Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius (1794–1868) and his countryman, the zoologist Johann Baptist von Spix (1781–1826). In Brazil the scientists split into three groups. While the expedition leader, Mikan, and some others returned to Europe in 1818, Natterer remained in Brazil with his companion, the hunter Dominik Sochor (? –1826). In ten long journeys he explored the country for eighteen years, longer than any other member of the expedition, repeatedly refusing to obey commands from Vienna to return. At first he stayed in the coastal region near Rio de Janeiro, then in São Paulo. In 1824 he traveled through Goiás to Mato Grosso, where he spent four and a half years. In mid-1829 Natterer traveled north to the Amazon basin. He reached the river Amazon via the Rio Guaporé and the Rio Madeira, traveled along the Rio Negro as far as the Venezuelan border, and reached the Rio Casiquiare. From 1831 to 1834 he traveled along the Rio Branco, and in 1835 he visited the province of Pará, before sailing for Europe from Pará (Belém). The enormous natural history and ethnological collections that he brought to Europe included 1,146 mammals, 12,293 birds, 1,678 amphibians and reptiles, 32,825 insects, 1,024 mollusks, 242 packets of seed samples, 430 minerals, and 1,492 ethnographical objects (Riedl-Dorn 2000, 54). Natterer’s collections and watercolors housed in Vienna are one of the most important sources for Brazilian natural history. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Martius, Carl Friedrich Philipp von References and Further Reading Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol. III. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1986, p. 591.

810

NEUE HEIMAT Hoppe, Brigitte. “Natterer, Johann.” In Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 18. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1997, pp. 754–755. Riedl-Dorn, Christa. Johann Natterer und die Österreichische Brasilienexpedition. Petrópolis: Editora Index, 2000.

NEUE HEIMAT A society that was concerned with fostering good relations between East Germans and citizens of German descent in non-Socialist countries. The Neue Heimat (NH, New Home) was founded on December 4, 1964, in East Berlin and existed through 1989. It was part of the German Democratic Republic’s (GDR’s) network of the League of Friendship, which originated from the Society for Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries that was founded on June 6, 1952, and primarily concerned relations with Socialist countries. However, it also maintained relations with citizens in some capitalist countries. With increasing activity in foreign policy, the GDR’s information policy was organized territorially into regional societies of friendship, with the League of Friendship serving as an umbrella organization. Its goal was to promote information on the GDR according to East German foreign policy objectives; that is, to be recognized as a sovereign state. Furthermore, the NH was an important mediator of German Socialist culture, providing programs in English that were broadcast on Radio Berlin International (RBI) that could be received in the United States. Its publications in the English language ranged from newsletters on the GDR’s sports achievements to the “German Democratic Republic in Construction,” the “German Review,” and the “GDR Report.” They could be ordered free of charge

from the Deutsche Buch Export- und Import GmbH in Leipzig. In the 1950s West German ambassadorial staff in Englishspeaking countries considered these publications more colorful, easier to read, and better targeted at their intended audience. This impression changed when the GDR publications began to carry less information and more ideology. The League of Friendship approached German Americans in the 1960s. According to the Chicago Abendblatt, many German Americans had received a letter and a GDR Review from the Society for Cultural Relations to Foreign Countries. After the establishment of the NH in 1964, this society took full control of GDR activities in the United States and provided assistance for Americans in the GDR. In 1976 it was among the organizers of the East Berlin reception on the 200th anniversary of U.S. independence in the House of Ministries on July 4. Franz Löser, president of the GDR Paul Robeson Committee, praised the ideals and successes of the U.S. War of Independence and the traditions of progress. Continuing to target the German American lobby, the NH published an ad in the New York newspaper Aufbau aimed at homesick German Americans who were invited to write to the Society Neue Heimat in East Berlin to stay in touch with home. In spite of the enormous financial efforts of the GDR to make a positive impression on U.S. visitors such as Angela Davis, U.S. émigrés such as Dean Reed, and those Americans interested in the GDR, the impact of the NH remained marginal. It was dissolved in 1990. Christiane Rösch See also Aufbau; Davis, Angela Yvonne; Reed, Dean

NEUMANN, FRANZ L. References and Further Reading Gaida, Burton C. USA-DDR, Politische, Kulturelle und Wirtschaftliche Beziehungen seit 1974. Bochum: Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1989. “Liga für Völkerfreundschaft der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik.” In Kulturpolitisches Wörterbuch. Ed. Harold Bühl. Berlin: Dietz, 1970–1976, pp. 345–347. Mallinckrodt, Anita M. Die Selbstdarstellung bei der deutschen Staaten im Ausland. ImageBildung als Instrument der Außenpolitik, Wissenschaft und Politik. Cologne: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1980.

NEUMANN, FRANZ L. b. May 23, 1900; Kattowitz (Silesia), Prussia d. September 2, 1954;Visp/Wallis, Switzerland Refugee from Nazi Germany, he played a significant—if difficult to define—role in U.S. policy toward Germany during and immediately after World War II. Through his Behemoth: The Spirit and Structure of National Socialism (1942) he became widely known both within and outside academic circles as an expert on contemporary Germany. Neumann was born into a Jewish family in Prussian Silesia. Serving in the army toward the end of World War I, he, like many others, was radicalized by the revolutionary forces unleashed by the war. After the war he earned a doctorate in law and public administration and became what is known in America as a “labor lawyer.” From 1927 to 1933 he served as legal adviser to the major German labor unions, the Social Democratic unions, as well as the party executive. Shortly after the Nazis came to power, Neumann fled abroad. He acquired a sec-

811

ond doctorate—in political science—from the London School of Economics. In 1936 he settled in New York, where he was employed by the Institute for Social Research. Neumann began work on Behemoth within the context of the institute’s research programs on authoritarianism and Nazi Germany. Relying principally on German source material, Neumann’s scholarly study in political science and contemporary history was widely cited during and immediately after World War II. In 1942, soon after the book’s appearance, he was called to Washington to serve on the Board of Economic Warfare. Less than a year later he was working for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the precursor to the CIA. He was one of the first refugees from Hitler employed in such a capacity. Numerous other scholars who dealt with German affairs joined Neumann in Washington. He and the Yale historian Hajo Holborn, both in their early forties in 1943, were among the highest-ranking foreign-born OSS officials. Beneath them in the Research and Analysis (R&A) branch of the OSS toiled scores of young people, many of whom became prominent in the postwar generation of scholars. Although the R&A harbored few Marxists other than Neumann, he and his book were so highly regarded that Behemoth became unofficially a basic text for the Central European Section of the R&A. His conclusion that the Third Reich remained a capitalist society was shared, not simply by Communists, but also by many others. Behemoth provided anti-Fascist, nonCommunist intellectuals with an alternative to Soviet-oriented analyses of German fascism. Aside from many differences in style, tone, and approach, there were major differences in interpretation. For example,

812

NEW BRAUNFELS,TEXAS

whereas Communists depicted the Third Reich as ruled directly by finance or monopoly capital, Neumann saw it as ruled by a coalition of four forces: the Nazi Party hierarchy, industrial capitalists, high state bureaucrats, and a military elite—to which he sometimes added a fifth group—large agrarians. These four or five groups agreed, according to Neumann, on basic policy despite many differences. Moreover, a certain fusion of groups was occurring. Thus, Hermann Goering, who began his political career as a party man, had gained control of an industrial empire, while industrialists established footholds in the SS and NSDAP. Without interpretation, much of this analysis provided no direct guidance for the formation of U.S. policy. Although Neumann argued that the mass of the population in Nazi Germany had been so atomized that it was incapable of acting against the regime, he retained hope in the basic decency of the populace. He believed that once Germany was defeated, popular, left-of-center forces would reconstruct Germany—if the occupying armies permitted them to assert themselves and move against the old German elites and the Nazis. Neumann, and, in general, the R&A, took the position that Germany should be reformed, not destroyed—that it should be reconstructed as an essential part of European civilization. Although influenced by this approach, U.S. policy took a different course. After the war Neumann continued in government service, but soon was appointed professor of political science at Columbia University. He attracted many fine graduate students, most of whom became historians. Although he retained his base at Columbia, he played an active role in German affairs, such as the founding of the

Free University in West Berlin. His postwar scholarly writings, while thoroughly professional, lacked the inspiration that powered Behemoth, which remains a monument to a period of a few years in Neumann’s life when he produced a work that is still without a worthy successor. Walter Struve See also Holborn, Hajo; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany (1941–1945) References and Further Reading Coser, Lewis A. Refugee Scholars in America: Their Impact and Their Experiences. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1984. Hughes, H. Stuart. The Sea Change: The Migration of Social Thought, 1930–1965. New York: Harper and Row, 1975. Katz, Barry M. Foreign Intelligence: Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services, 1942–1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1989. Stoffregen, Matthias. Kämpfen für ein demokratisches Deutschland: Emigranten zwischen Politik und Politikwissenschaft. Opladen: Leske + Budrich, 2002.

NEW BRAUNFELS,TEXAS New Braunfels is the county seat of Comal County, Texas. The town is located on the clear waters of the Comal River, an engine of much of the community’s economic prosperity. New Braunfels was established in March 1845 as a way station for German immigrants on route to the colonial lands granted by the Republic of Texas to the Society for the Protection of German Immigrants (Adelsverein). The first commissioner-general of the Adelsverein, Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels, purchased the two leagues of land on which he built New Braunfels from Rafael C. Garza and his wife Maria Antonio Veramendi Garza of San Antonio on March 15, 1845. The

NEW BRAUNFELS,TEXAS

first settlers began arriving at the future town site, known to local Tejanos as Las Fontanas (the Fountains) for the abundant natural springs in the area, on March 21, 1845, under the command of the Adelsverein’s engineer, Nicolaus Zink. Engineer Zink went to work quickly laying out the town. He established it in a regular pattern, with all streets crossing at right angles. The main thoroughfares converged at a central square (marketplace). He laid out tracts to be used as town and farm lots as well. The new community was to be named New Braunfels, after Prince Carl’s estate on the Lahn River, Braunfels. Due to the presence of several central Texas Indian tribes in the immediate vicinity, the German settlers quickly erected a stockade on the east bank of the Comal River, which they called the Zinkenberg in honor of Nicolaus Zink. Soon after his arrival at the burgeoning community, Prince Carl laid the cornerstone for a more substantial fortification, dubbed the Sophienberg after his lover, Princess Sophia of Salm-Salm. This structure was to serve as both a defensive outpost and headquarters for the Adelsverein. In 2005 the Sophienberg houses the Sophienberg Museum, dedicated to preserving Texas’s German heritage. The industrious German immigrants who chose to settle in New Braunfels, although faced with hardship, built a successful community almost from the beginning. The location of the town along the Comal River provided fertile land for agriculture and the hamlet’s proximity to Austin and San Antonio offered markets for the sale of surplus foodstuffs and manufactured products. Educated German farmers in the area of New Braunfels made the most of their situation, pioneering dry

813

agriculture well ahead of other North American planters. When the German naturalist and traveler Ferdinand Roemer visited New Braunfels shortly after its establishment, he found a community of well-built houses, farms, businesses, and industries. Churches were established quickly, at the expense of the Adelsverein, and Roemer observed a diversity of commercial establishments, including an apothecary, a bakery, and even a restaurant. His only regret regarding the community was that so many educated Germans of noble birth had been reduced below their social station. On March 24, 1846, the Texas legislature organized Comal County out of Bexar County. The election of county officials on July 13 saw a number of German immigrants propelled into public office. The legislature, further, incorporated New Braunfels on May 11, 1846. The first election of municipal officials was held on June 7, 1847, after the city charter had been formally ratified. By the year 1850, it was difficult to deny New Braunfels’s success. Its location on the Comal River and the industriousness of its German settlers fueled this rapid advancement. In 1850 New Braunfels was the fourth-largest city in Texas. In 1846 William H. Merriweather built the first mill on the Comal River, and by 1850 it was producing 10,000 bushels of meal and 50,000 feet of lumber per year (Biesele 1930, 135–138). By 1860 New Braunfels had developed into a major center for industrial production, boasting a sash and door factory, a soap and candle factory, brick kilns, breweries, and grist and saw mills. In the same year, the value of farms in the vicinity of town had reached $561,527 (Biesele 1930, 135–138). The

814

NEW BRAUNFELS,TEXAS

Germans who founded and developed New Braunfels placed a great deal of value on the community’s academic, spiritual, and cultural life. On March 22, 1846, the Adelsverein opened the doors of the first church in New Braunfels, to be used by the Evangelical Lutherans and to function as a community school. Reverend L. C. Ervendberg served as both pastor and schoolteacher. This school, dubbed the Church School, served up to as many as 100 students at a time, until it was replaced by a public school on October 3, 1853. Ervendberg went on, with his wife, to establish an orphanage and school at his farm of Neu Wied near New Braunfels. On May 16, 1848, Ervendberg’s orphanage was incorporated as the Western Texas Orphan Asylum by the Texas legislature. The German interest in public education ran counter to that of most AngloTexans, who preferred to educate their children at home. When funding for public education was not forthcoming from the state, the New Braunfels electorate established its own publicly funded school. Established in 1858, the New Braunfels Academy raised operating revenue through direct taxation. The state of Texas would not follow suit with a similar plan for all Texas schools until the ratification of the constitution of 1876. The Germans of New Braunfels enjoyed a robust social life. Numerous trade groups, shooting societies, and singing and dancing clubs were established. The first singing society in Texas, Germania, was established in New Braunfels on March 2, 1850. On October 16, 1854, New Braunfels played host to the first statewide Saengerfest. In 1855 Herman Seele built a brick Saengerhalle in New Braunfels to accommodate such festivals.

In 1852 Ferdinand Lindheimer established New Braunfels’s first newspaper, the Neu-Braunfels Zeitung (New Braunfels Newspaper). Lindheimer was moderate politically, encouraging the German immigrants to live in harmony with their Anglo neighbors but to keep their own cultural heritage intact. He spoke out against Unionism during the Civil War, counter to the sympathies of most German Texans. The Neu-Braunfels Zeitung continued publication in German until 1957. By 1900 New Braunfels was serviced by the International-Great Northern and the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas railroads, linking the city to Austin and San Antonio. The economy and industrial base continued to grow steadily until the Great Depression. The boll weevil epidemic dealt a serious injury to the textile industry, which recovered slowly. The post–World War II era represented a transition toward an economy based on tourism. With the opening of Landa Park in 1936, the Comal River began to emerge as a major tourist attraction. In 2005 the Schlitterbahn Waterpark and Resort is one of the top attractions of its kind in the world. New Braunfels has become famous for its annual tribute to the German spirit of Gemuetlichkeit during the October celebration of Wurstfest, which seeks to preserve and promote the community’s German heritage. The population of New Braunfels was 36,884 in 2000 (United States Census Bureau, New Braunfels, Texas, U.S. Census Bureau United States Fact Finder http://factfinder.census.gov/). Jerry C. Drake See also Adelsverein; Fredericksburg, Texas; Meusebach, John O.; Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of; Texas

NEW ORLEANS References and Further Reading Biesele, Rudolph Leopold. The History of the German Settlements in Texas, 1831–1861. Austin, TX: Von Boeckman Jones, 1930. ———. “Early Times in New Braunfels and Comal County.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 50 (July 1946): 75–78. Haas, Oscar. History of New Braunfels and Comal County, Texas, 1844–1946. Austin, TX: Hart Graphics, 1975. Jordan, Terry G. German Seed in Texas Soil: Immigrant Farmers in Nineteenth-Century Texas. Austin: University of Texas, 1975. Zelade, Richard. Hill Country: Discovering the Secrets of the Texas Hill Country. Austin: Texas Monthly, 1983.

NEW ORLEANS In the nineteenth century New Orleans, one of the most important U.S. harbors, was the entryway to the New World for many Germans. Approximately 50,000 Germans entered New Orleans between 1820 and 1850 (Archive of the German American Cultural Center). After the failed revolution of 1848, many more Germans left their homes for the United States. The Deutsche Gesellschaft (German Society), organized in 1847, provided support for the numerous German immigrants in the New Orleans area by arranging for their housing, helping them to find employment, and assisting them in reaching their ultimate destinations. By 1850 there were more Germans than French people in New Orleans (Archive of the German American Cultural Center). They were bakers, blacksmiths, brew masters, carpenters, dairymen, doctors, engineers, farmers, florists, shoemakers, and shopkeepers. A shipping list of 1851 notes 5 German ships docking in New Orleans between January and June. Each of them brought about 200 immigrants from Bremen to America (Louisiana State Archives, Genealogy Re-

815

sources, New Orleans Ship Passengers List, Online Index). In the mid-1850s German immigration to Louisiana peaked again. Those coming to New Orleans were predominately professionals, tradesmen, and businessmen. Many stayed in the city and shaped its social and cultural fabric. In total, from 1847 to 1880, about 273,000 Germans landed in the port of New Orleans (Archive of the German American Cultural Center). During the 1860s, of the 168,675 residents in New Orleans, 19,553 were German-born (Archive of the German American Cultural Center). Like other ethnic groups, they clustered in certain areas where their language was spoken at home and in school. German-language newspapers, German churches, and German cemeteries were visible signs of German culture. New Orleans even had a German National Theater that opened in the City of Lafayette in 1849. In March 1850 a fire destroyed it, and the theater moved to the American Theater on Poydras Street. In 1853 the German Theater opened in Gymnasts Hall on Canal Street. This theater staged operas; Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s Magic Flute, for example, had five performances in German during the season 1868–1869. In 1873 the theater closed because of waning interest. Following the end of the Civil War, the Deutsche Gesellschaft helped to prevent newly arrived immigrants from signing contracts to provide cheap labor to replace the emancipated slaves on the plantations in Louisiana. In 1890, 11,338 inhabitants (or 15 percent) of the population of New Orleans had been born in Germany (Meyers Konversationslexikon 1896, vol.12). A quarter of the exports leaving the Port of New Orleans—goods with a value of 102.3

816

NEW ORLEANS

million reichsmarks, especially cotton, corn, wheat, and wood—went to Germany (Meyers Konversationslexikon 1896, vol.12). The German heritage of New Orleans was highlighted when in February 1890 German American choral societies (Sängerbunde) met in that city for their twenty-sixth annual convention. Professor J. Hanno Deiler of Tulane University, who was active in the Deutsche Sängerbund, had been responsible for the organization of this event. It brought 3,000 singers to New Orleans (Archive of the German American Cultural Center). With World War I, the German migration to New Orleans diminished significantly. As a result, New Orleans’s German culture lost its attraction. During World War I, the Louisiana legislature outlawed the speaking and teaching of German on the street, in church, and in schools. By the outbreak of World War II, German culture had virtually disappeared from the city. Only in the 1980s did a revival of German culture begin. Several German associations are active in New Orleans in the early twenty-first century. The Deutsches Haus (German House) was incorporated in 1928. It was formed as a benevolent and social organization that evolved from the Deutsche Gesellschaft and several other groups. Expanding on its foundation, the Deutsches Haus grew into an organization that claims as its mission “to celebrate and foster the rich culture, musical heritage, language and history of the German people.” The German American Cultural Center is a museum promoting the German heritage of the Mississippi Delta region. The center’s exhibit showcases the contributions German Americans have made to the development and growth of the lower Mississippi River Delta region. It is located in Gretna (just across the

Mississippi River from New Orleans), a city settled by German immigrants in 1836. The Germania Lodge No. 46 is a Masonic Lodge that was chartered by the Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana on April 18, 1844. Although in 2005 the German Lodge comprises approximately eighty-five men from a broad range of heritages and backgrounds, it was founded by German-speaking gentlemen to provide an opportunity for conducting Masonic work in their native German tongue. The lodge worked in the German language for one hundred years. In April 1944 the meeting was opened in German and closed in English and the lodge has worked in English ever since. There are numerous social clubs promoting German history, genealogy, and culture in the New Orleans area in 2005. Several meet at the Deutsches Haus, including a secret men’s society, the Schlaraffia, and the German Heritage Festival Association that hosts the annual Oktoberfest Parade. There are a Männerchor (men’s choir), a Damenchor (women’s choir), and Volkstänzer (folk dancing club) in New Orleans. Gilda Pasetzky See also Bremerhaven; German Society of the City of New York; Louisiana References and Further Reading Deutsches Haus, The German Presence in New Orleans. At www.deutscheshaus.org (accessed May 27, 2004). German American Cultural Center. www. gnacc-nola.com, June 30, 2004, Sevilla Finley, President, Friends of the German American Cultural Center. Germania Lodge No. 46. Link available at www. deutscheshaus.org. (accessed May 28, 2004). Nau, John Fredrick. The German People of New Orleans, 1850–1900. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1954. Robinson, Konrad. Diminishing Influences of German Culture in New Orleans Life since 1865. Master’s thesis. Tulane University, 1940.

NEW YORK CITY

NEW YORK CITY Although German traders and merchants migrated to New York in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the larger waves of German immigration started in the nineteenth century. This period marks the heyday for German Americans in New York City. During the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, the type of immigrants changed dramatically: merchants and craftsmen who had brought their families with them were replaced by single laborers and poor workers. Finally, from the mid-1890s onward, the immigration waves from Germany ebbed away. After 1933 Nazi racial policies forced many German Jews and left-wing intellectuals to leave Germany for New York City.

The Beginnings From its founding as a small trading post called New Amsterdam on Manhattan Island in 1626 into the twenty-first century, a part of New York City’s population has always been of German descent. This did not change when the city went from Dutch to English ownership. Most of these Germans were merchants. The first-known significant immigration to New York by Germans was the arrival of Palatine families in 1710. Nearly 15,000 Palatines left their home in 1709 and emigrated to London. An estimated quarter continued their journey to New York (Otterness 2004, 2). These German immigrants settled on Manhattan Island and in the Hudson Valley, where they founded small villages. The founding of a German Lutheran Church in the city in 1748 indicates the presence of a growing group of German residents. However, Germans did not attract much attention in the daily life of New York City because they were well integrated into the

817

community. These Germans were mainly traders and merchants, belonging to the upper classes of New York. Throughout the eighteenth century, Philadelphia had been the traditional entrance port for German migrants. At the end of the century, New York began to replace Philadelphia as the port of entry. In 1792 the records of the German Society of the City of New York reported for the first time a larger and increasing number of German immigrants to New York.

The Nineteenth Century By the beginning of the nineteenth century, New York’s German community still consisted mainly of German merchants and traders. Among them was John Jacob Astor (1763–1848), who became America’s first multimillionaire. Famines and economic crises in Germany in the first half of the century forced many Germans to leave their homes. Most Germans decided to go to the United States. During that immigration wave, starting in 1830, New York became the most important entrance port for German migrants. “Little Germanies” (Kleindeutschlands) arose on Manhattan Island, and in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. From the 1840s onward, the Little Germany on Manhattan Island became the largest residential area and most important settlement of German immigrants in New York City. It was located on the Lower East Side, including the Tenth, Eleventh, Thirteenth, and Seventeenth wards. This region was the cultural, social, and economic center for Germans living in Manhattan. Here one could find all the traditional German stores, bars, clubhouses, and theaters. This residential area not only differed from the American settlements in that it featured German architectural styles and street signs

818

NEW YORK CITY

in German, but also in regard to its cultural life. Many typical German Biergärten (beer gardens) and breweries were established along the Bowery lane and multiple German balls and celebrations of German clubs took place. English Americans viewed the emergence of this German culture in their midst with suspicion. However, New York’s German population was not confined to Little Germany. The most important German publication in New York was the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung (New York Public News), founded in 1834 by the city’s German Jacksonian Democrats. This newspaper was the most popular among several German magazines and newspapers in the nineteenth century and it still exists in 2005 as a weekly German-language newspaper. After languishing under a series of owners, it was sold in 1845 to Jakob Uhl, a native of Würzburg in Franconia. The German community of New York was also reinforced by political fugitives of the failed German revolutions of 1848–1849. These Forty-Eighters were mostly intellectuals and political activists. They were just a small group compared to the large number of German immigrants that had arrived before, but they attracted much attention in American public life because of their interest in politics, their influence on American policy, and their contributions to and use of German American newspapers. These political refugees were energetic and very talented. Within a short time, their engagement resulted in the doubling of German newspapers during the years from 1848 to 1852. Among the Forty-Eighters was Carl Schurz, later the secretary of the interior from 1877 to 1881, who arrived in New York in 1852 along with his wife.

The census of 1870 showed that in Manhattan alone the number of Germanborn inhabitants had increased to 151,216, being the second-largest group of immigrants following the 201,999 inhabitants of Irish descent (U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of 1870 for New York City). Among the German inhabitants of New York who arrived in the second half of the century was Thomas Nast, the famous German-born political caricaturist of New York City, who came to the United States as a child in 1846. At the end of the Civil War, Nast had become a nationally known figure who created several political symbols, such as the Democratic donkey, the Republican elephant, and the Tammany tiger. He also created the iconic representations of Uncle Sam, John Bull, Santa Claus, and Columbia, which are still popular to this day. Already during the nineteenth century, a small group of German Jews lived in New York. Among them was August Belmont from Alzey in Germany. He worked for the Rothschilds in Frankfurt and in Italy and Cuba. In 1837 he emigrated to the United States, where he became a successful banker. The Jewish migration increased during the years from 1880 to 1920. However, most of these Jewish migrants came not from Germany but from eastern Europe. While the majority remained in the city, a few moved on to the countryside. These penniless Jewish immigrants settled also on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Most of them worked in the sweatshops under poor conditions.

The Twentieth Century By the beginning of the twentieth century, German immigration to the United States and to New York had ebbed away. World

NEW YORK CITY

819

An immigrant family looks out over the New York skyline as they arrive in the USA from Germany aboard the SS Nieuw Amsterdam, ca. 1930s. (Bettmann/Corbis)

War I and the entry of the United States into the war on the side of France and Great Britain, forced German Americans to prove their loyalty to their new homeland. Before the American entry into the war, German Americans favored American neutrality. However, after this was no longer feasible, German Americans retired from public life and many americanized their names. In contrast to the older generation, young German Americans supported the American government, which banned everything German in public life. This period marks the end of New York’s Little Germany. Germans moved out of the Lower East Side and were quickly replaced by Italian and Chinese immigrants, who transformed the area into Chinatown and Little Italy.

Further new immigration waves from Germany arose during the Nazi dictatorship. Many German Jewish and political refugees crossed the Atlantic to find a new home in American cities like New York. The Nazi persecution led to an increase in the number of German immigrants. Jewish and other intellectuals, artists, architects, actors, academics, and authors escaped from Germany to New York exile. Among the fugitives were Albert Einstein; the psychologist Erich Fromm; and Kurt Weill, the famous songwriter for Brecht’s dramas. In 1936, under the leadership of Hubertus Prinz zu Löwenstein and Volkmar Zühlsdorff, the German Jewish intellectuals in New York founded the Deutsche Akademie im Exil, as well as the German

820

NEW YORKER STAATS-ZEITUNG

Jewish Newspaper Aufbau. The participants in this “intellectual immigration” settled on the Upper West Side and in Washington Heights. In 1950 the U.S. census showed that 64,976 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1950 census for New York City) inhabitants of New York City were born in Germany. Compared to the total number of inhabitants of New York, this group seems to be a minuscule and invisible faction of daily life. However, German immigrants left their mark on the history and culture of New York City. Alexander Emmerich See also Astor, John Jacob; Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt; Einstein, Albert; Forty-Eighters; Frankfurt am Main Citizens in the United States; Fromm, Erich; German Jewish Migration to the United States; German Society of the City of New York; Intellectual Exile; Nast, Thomas; New Yorker Staats-Zeitung; Schurz, Carl; Steuben, Friederich Wilhelm von References and Further Reading Binder, Frederick M. All the Nations under Heaven: An Ethnic and Racial History of New York City. New York: Columbia University, 1995. Bretting, Agnes. Soziale Probleme deutscher Einwanderer in New York City 1800–1860. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1981. ———. “‘Little Germanies’ in New York.” In Auswanderung und Schiffahrtsinteressen. Ed. Michael Just. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1992, pp. 57–104. Jones, Henry Z. The Palatine Families of New York: A Study of the German Immigrants Who Arrived in Colonial New York in 1710. 2 vols. Universal City, CA: H. Z. Jones, 1985. Kapp, Friedrich. Die Deutschen im Staate New York während des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts. New York: E. Steiger, 1884. Otterness, Philip. Becoming German. The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. Zühlsdorff, Volkmar. Deutsche Akademie im Exil: Der vergessene Widerstand. Berlin: EMV, 1999.

NEW YORKER STAATS-ZEITUNG The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung (New York Public News) is the oldest German-language newspaper still operating in the United States as of 2005. Founded it 1834, it became during the late nineteenth century the largest-circulating German newspaper in the country and the third-largest newspaper of any kind in New York City. It was also a powerful force in the politics of New York City. It survived the anti-German attacks in both world wars, and in 2005 circulates across the country as the foremost source of U.S. news in the German language. The newspaper was founded in the era of Jacksonian Democracy, when a group of German Democrats sought to add a German voice to a heated New York City municipal election. The first issue was published on December 24, 1834. The newspaper struggled under various editors and publishers in its early years. In 1844 Jakob Uhl, the owner of the printing shop that printed the paper, acquired ownership of the Staats-Zeitung. Over the next decade, Uhl and his wife, Anna Behr Uhl, developed the paper, aided by the rising German migration to New York. The paper maintained its status as the principal German supporter of the Democratic Party. Its location in the port of New York gave it quick access to news arriving from abroad, and it circulated to other German areas and was frequently quoted by other German-language newspapers. Uhl died in 1852, leaving the business management of the paper to his wife. For editorial assistance, she turned to a refugee of the 1848 revolutions, Oswald Ottendorfer, who had signed on as a reporter with the StaatsZeitung in 1851. Ottendorfer became the

NEW YORKER STAATS-ZEITUNG

chief editor in 1858 and married Anna Uhl in 1859. The Staats-Zeitung, unlike many German papers of the time, remained a strong adherent of the Democratic Party during the turbulent politics of the 1850s. In the critical 1860 election, it supported Stephen Douglas. During the Civil War, it adhered to the Union Democratic faction, in opposition to the “Peace Democrats” led by New York City’s mayor Fernando Wood. In the postwar years the newspaper was aligned with various reform Democratic groups against the city’s Democratic Tammany Hall machine. It supported other reformers in bringing about the downfall of the notorious “Ring” of William Marcy Tweed. The paper broke with the Democratic Party in 1896 when it refused to support the “free silver” candidate, William Jennings Bryan. Under the Ottendorfers, the newspaper rose to its greatest eminence and played a major role in New York society and politics. Oswald Ottendorfer served as editor and publisher from 1859 to 1900; Anna Behr Uhl Ottendorfer continued to manage the business affairs of the paper until her death in 1884. During the 1870s, the newspaper claimed to be the largest German-language newspaper in the world and the sixth-largest daily newspaper in the United States. The paper was published from its impressive building on Park Row, near the other major New York newspapers. Its circulation was around 50,000 in the 1870s, around 60,000 in the 1880s, and reached 90,000 in the 1890s, including the circulation of its evening edition, which was established in 1892 (Arndt and Olson 1961, 399–434). The Ottendorfers directly competed with the other large city

821

newspapers—introducing the new techniques of mass-circulation journalism to the paper, including such technological innovations as the linotype and the rotary press, and journalistic features such as illustrations, Sunday editions, society news, and literary supplements. The Ottendorfers acquired considerable wealth from the success of the newspaper and became important benefactors to German social and cultural institutions in New York City and elsewhere. After the death of Oswald Ottendorfer in 1900, the Staats-Zeitung was sold to Hermann Ridder, previously the publisher of the Katholisches Wochenblatt (Catholic Weekly). He had served as business manager of the Staats-Zeitung since 1890. He maintained the newspaper’s position as a strong supporter of the Democratic Party and actively served in local party positions in New York City. The paper generally avoided the Progressive movement in politics, identifying that movement with Prohibition, nativism, and pro-British opinions. The paper continued to reflect middle-class German interests and opposed the more radical working-class views expressed in papers like the Socialist New York Volkszeitung (People’s Newspaper). At the outbreak of war in Europe in 1914, the paper supported the German side, often stating its position as against aggressive British imperialism. Hermann Ridder died in 1915, and the paper was taken over by his three sons, Victor, Bernard, and Joseph. When the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, the paper pledged its loyalty to the United States. But the newspaper received its share of anti-German agitation and suffered particularly because many important

822

NEWSPAPER PRESS, GERMAN LANGUAGE

advertisers withdrew their support. The paper survived the war, actually increasing its circulation figures, but in 1919 merged with its principal rival, the New York Herold, which then became the evening edition of the merged papers. The Ridders’ interests turned to the more promising field of English-language journalism, and they acquired the New York Journal of Commerce in 1926. This was the start of what later became the Knight-Ridder journalistic empire, and the Staats-Anzeiger (Public Advertiser) increasingly played a minor role as the Ridders went on to acquire other English-language newspapers. In 1934 the two editions of the paper were merged under the masthead New Yorker Staats-Zeitung und Herold, a name that persisted until 1991, when the name StaatsZeitung was restored. On the eve of World War II, the Staats-Zeitung still maintained a staff of 200 and had a circulation around 80,000 (“History of a New York City Institution,” http://www.germancorner.com/NYStaatsZ/history.html). The war brought decreased support from advertisers and, of course, the complete shutoff of new immigration from Germany. The paper continued to try to adjust to a dwindling readership of first-generation immigrants by changing its character to a national newspaper; at times it published separate editions for Philadelphia and Florida. In 1953 the Ridders sold the paper to the Steuer family, and the paper became a triweekly, then a weekly. In 1989 it was taken over by the German journalist Jes Rau. The paper increasingly focused on German American social and institutional affairs, and the era of its rivalry with the principal English-language papers was far in the past. James M. Bergquist

IN THE

UNITED STATES

See also New York City; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl J. R., and May E. Olson. GermanAmerican Newspapers and Periodicals, 1732–1955: History and Bibliography. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1961. Bergquist, James M. “The German-American Press.” In The Ethnic Press in the United States: A Historical Analysis and Handbook. Ed. Sally M. Miller. New York: Greenwood, 1987. Conolly-Smith, Peter. Translating America: An American Immigrant Press Visualizes American Popular Culture, 1895–1918. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 2004. Wittke, Carl. The German Language Press in America. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1957.

NEWSPAPER PRESS, GERMAN LANGUAGE IN THE UNITED STATES The German-language newspaper press is the most prolific of all ethnic presses in American history. The history of the German newspapers closely parallels that of their English-language counterparts. As political instruments, they sought to marshal the political force of German Americans. They often served as instruments of assimilation. Over the course of the twentieth century, the German newspapers began a slow decline, affected by declining immigration from Germany, dwindling readership, and the weakening of German ethnicity. The origins of German American journalism lie in the mid-eighteenth century, when struggling German printers in Pennsylvania began to publish monthly or weekly newspapers. Although Benjamin Franklin may be considered to have been the first to publish (in 1732) a German newspaper, the Philadelphische Zeitung

NEWSPAPER PRESS, GERMAN LANGUAGE

(Philadelphia Newspaper), his poorly edited effort soon failed. In 1738 Christoph Sauer of Germantown outside Philadelphia began publishing the Hoch-Deutsch Pennsylvanische Geschichts-Schreiber (High German Pennsylvania Chronicle), later known as Pennsylvanische Berichte (Pennsylvania Reports). At Sauer’s death in 1758, his son Christoph Sauer II took over the paper. The paper’s influence among Germans was demonstrated in the 1760s when the younger Sauer successfully opposed Franklin’s plan to change Pennsylvania from a proprietary to a royal colony. In the years before the American Revolution, a rival paper, John Heinrich Miller’s Wochentliche Philadelphische Staatsbote (Weekly Philadelphia Public Messenger), established in 1762, gained the support of many Germans in opposition to British rule. German printers generally were outraged by Parliament’s Stamp Act (1765), which levied a special tax on foreign-language newspapers. Miller mounted a protest, and continued his opposition to the British down to the time of the Revolution. Sauer, of more pietistic and pacifistic inclination, continued his paper in the Loyalist cause during the British occupation of Philadelphia, but had to leave town with the British in 1777. Miller resumed publishing his paper after the British left. The post-Revolutionary era saw the expansion of German newspapers throughout Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the valley of Virginia. Thirty-eight papers were started in Pennsylvania by 1800 (Arndt and Olson 1961, 501–605). German papers emerged in Reading in Pennsylvania, in Frederick in Maryland, and in Winchester in Virginia. As German immigration fell off during the Napoleonic Wars, Ger-

IN THE

UNITED STATES

823

man newspapers remained confined mostly to that earlier-settled region and to nearby areas of Ohio. German newspapers always relied for their primary audience on the first generation of immigrants. Thus, whenever the flow of new arrivals fell off, the Germanlanguage papers would begin to languish. When the tide of new immigrants rose, as it did in the 1830s, new papers were started in the regions where they settled, especially the industrial cities of the East and in the expanding West. Among the more significant papers begun in this period were the Philadelphia Alte und Neue Welt (Old and New World), 1834; the Pittsburgh Freiheitsfreund (Friend of Freedom), 1834; the St. Louis Anzeiger des Westens (Western Informer), 1835; the Cincinnati Volksblatt (People’s Page), 1836; the Buffalo Weltbürger (World Citizen), 1837; the Cleveland Germania, 1837; and the Milwaukee Banner, founded in remote Wisconsin Territory in 1844. Papers of all sorts needed support from political parties; most German papers attached themselves to the Jacksonian Democrats. This, for example, was the case of the New Yorker StaatsZeitung (New York Public News), which was begun by German Democrats in 1834 to do battle in the municipal elections. It would become the longest-lasting German newspaper in America and, by the end of the nineteenth century, the largest and most powerful. During the period between 1848 and the beginning of the Civil War, the German press underwent a remarkable expansion. Between 1849 and 1854, one of the major new waves of German migration brought new readers. These newcomers included a small but significant element who were fleeing the failed revolutions of 1848.

824

NEWSPAPER PRESS, GERMAN LANGUAGE

These educated and professional men provided new leadership for German newspapers and found jobs in the new papers being established. Important technological advances stimulated newspaper development: the telegraph enabled newspapers to receive instant news reports and to begin daily publication. The expansion of the railroad network allowed faster and wider distribution. New steam-powered rotary presses provided speedier output of the bigcity newspapers. Adding to these stimuli was the political realignment in the decade before the Civil War. As old political parties split up or withered away and new ones like the Republican Party arose, they vied for political control of newspapers. The traditional Democratic loyalties of the Germans were no longer assured, and party rivalries multiplied the German newspapers in many towns and cities. In 1848 there were an estimated 70 German newspapers in the United States; by 1860 there were 144, much more divided in their political affiliation (Berquist 1987, 136–137). Most major northern cities had several outstanding German newspapers by the time of the Civil War. The New Yorker Staats-Zeitung faced the Abendzeitung (Evening News); the Philadelphia Demokrat confronted the Freie Presse (Free Press). The Chicago Illinois Staats-Zeitung, staunchly Republican, faced two Democratic papers, the National Demokrat and the Abendzeitung. Around the time of the Civil War, something like a two-tier system of German newspapers had begun to emerge—a system that would persist until about the end of the century. There were major national and regional newspapers that developed large circulations and followed the example of the English-language newspaper empires founded by William Randolph

IN THE

UNITED STATES

Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer (an immigrant who started his career as a reporter with the St. Louis Westliche Post [Western Post]). The second tier of German newspapers developed in smaller cities and towns. They had begun to proliferate in the 1850s, but their number expanded rapidly as the railroads began to settle Germans in new areas of the West. Such newspapers were risky ventures, and many had short lives. For example, rough estimates show that there were about 52 German newspapers started in Nebraska between 1875 and 1900, most of them with circulations below 1,000. Only about 18 of these were still being published in 1900 (Arndt and Olson, 1961). By far the most successful German newspaper of that era was the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung. Its circulation was above 50,000 in the 1880s, making it the sixthlargest newspaper in the United States. Among other leading newspapers of the era were the Illinois Staatszeitung, the Chicago Abendpost, the Baltimore Correspondent, the Philadelphia Gazette, the Philadelphia Tageblatt (Daily Page), the St. Louis Anzeiger des Westens and Westliche Post, the Milwaukee Herold, the Cincinnati Freie Presse and Volksblatt (People’s Page), and the Cleveland Wächter am Erie (Watchman on the Erie). The historian Carl Wittke judged the German press to have reached its peak about 1893, at which time he counted about 800 German newspapers and magazines, including 97 daily papers (Wittke 1957, 206–209). Soon after this, signs of the decline of the German press began to appear. Factors in that decline included the lack of new German immigrants, after a major influx in the 1880s; the turning of the second generation to other interests

NEWSPAPER PRESS, GERMAN LANGUAGE

outside German America; and a major depression in the 1890s. Intense competition among major German newspapers gave way to mergers of major rivals, like that of the Westliche Post and the Anzeiger des Westens in St. Louis, in 1898. Another trend beginning to appear was the failure of many small-town newspapers, whose readership could be picked up by the regional big-city papers. In cities like Cincinnati and Milwaukee, the number of readers of German dailies began to decline, while the readers of English-language newspapers increased. Clearly the second generation of Germans was deserting the ethnic papers. Also, around the turn of the twentieth century a new generation of German editors emerged. As the generation of 1848 receded from the scene, they were replaced by publishers less concerned with ideology and politics and more with preserving German culture and language, thereby maintaining the readership of the German papers. The increasingly bland and noncontroversial position of the major newspapers were derided by the German Socialist newspapers that flourished in some of the major cities at the time. But the mainstream newspapers focused on German cultural pride and nationalism as a useful unifying force to maintain German ethnicity. The German press dwelt frequently on issues such as opposition to the temperance crusade, the maintenance of German-language schools, and—unfortunately for the future—the superiority of the German Empire in its rivalry with the British Empire. Such chauvinism set the German newspapers up for serious trials after 1914. Many newspapers continued their role as apologists for German foreign policy after the outbreak of World War I. They natu-

IN THE

UNITED STATES

825

rally endorsed the policies of neutrality that President Woodrow Wilson declared in 1914, but became critical when Wilson appeared to favor the British. When the United States was drawn into the war in 1917, these German papers had to quickly reverse their course. Unfortunately, their previous praise of the German cause became grounds for suspicions of disloyalty and subversion. Amid rising anti-German wartime hysteria, the German newspaper press became a prime target. In many towns and cities, local anti-German pressures led to abandonment of the local German press by both subscribers and advertisers. In October 1917 Congress imposed additional pressures in the Trading-with-the-Enemy Act, which required newspapers in foreign languages to file with the post office translations of any articles on politics or international affairs. Some papers that could prove their “loyalty” gained exemptions from the requirement, but others were presented with a heavy burden. Many small newspapers went out of business at once. Overall, many readers simply chose the easiest way to avoid harassment and accusation and stopped their subscriptions. The war had delivered a major blow to much of the German press. The number of German daily papers, 70 in 1910, was reduced to 29 in 1920. Total circulation of dailies, 900,000 in 1910, was 250,000 in 1920. Strenuous efforts to regain old readers brought the figure to about 350,000 in 1930 (estimates derived from N.W. Ayer & Sons Newspaper Annual 1911, 1204–1209; 1920, 1290–1292; 1929, 1359–1360). The newspapers had little desire to muster political influence after the war experience, and many newspapers retreated to primarily covering the German ethnic community. The Great Depression and the fall

826

NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD

of new immigration took their toll further. Some of the most famous and long-standing newspapers failed, like the St. Louis Westliche Post did in 1938. Beginning in the 1930s, one enterprising publisher, Val Peter, began to gather failing newspapers and forge a chain centered in the plant of the Omaha Tribüne, but distributed nationwide. At various times he published papers in Omaha, St. Paul, Buffalo, Baltimore, San Francisco, Kansas City, Denver, and other cities. But the papers were read increasingly by elderly Germans, because new German immigration had fallen off sharply. The effect of World War II on the German press was not as harsh as that of World War I, but there were simply not enough new readers to offset those who died or stopped their subscriptions. All the German papers were in sharp decline by the 1970s; the Peter chain folded in 1983. By the early twenty-first century, only two papers remained, both weeklies: the venerable New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, published in Florida, and America-Woche, the result of the merger of many other newspapers, now published in Long Island, New York. James M. Bergquist See also Anzeiger des Westens; Freiheit; Illinois Staatszeitung; Most, Johann; New Yorker Staats-Zeitung; Peter, Val J.; Printing and Publishing; Sauer, Christoph; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl J. R., and May E. Olson. GermanAmerican Newspapers and Periodicals, 1732–1955: History and Bibliography. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1961. Bergquist, James M. “The German-American Press.” In The Ethnic Press in the United States: A Historical Analysis and Handbook. Ed. Sally M. Miller. New York: Greenwood, 1987. Geitz, Henry, ed. The German-American Press. Madison, WI: Max Kade Institute, 1992.

Luebke, Frederick C. Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and World War I. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University, 1974. Wittke, Carl. The German Language Press in America. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1957.

NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD The Norddeutscher Lloyd (NDL, North German Lloyd) became one of the world’s largest shipping firms before World War I. The interruptions of trade during wars and depressions undercut its viability, but it recovered after each major crisis until the 1960s. Its main route covered the Atlantic and it served as a major tie between the United States and Europe as it took out emigrants and brought back staple goods. Luxury liners ferried elite passengers between Germany and America. Located in the port city of Bremen, the NDL challenged the Hapag (Hamburg-Amerikanische Packetfahrt Company) of Hamburg for shipping preeminence in imperial and Weimar Germany. During its existence, the firm overcame many crises until it had to merge as junior partner with the Hapag in 1970. Two Bremen shippers, Carl Eduard Crüsemann and Hermann Henrich Meier, started the firm in 1857. Both men came from wealthy trading and shipping families in whose firms they gained experience. Crüsemann served his business apprenticeship in a Bremen firm and then decided to open his own Bremen import and shipping firm. A trip to the United States and Caribbean in 1853 made him think that a regular steamer service between Europe and the United States was both necessary and feasible. Meier had participated in the American Ocean Steam Navigation Com-

NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD

pany that offered an irregular service between Bremen and New York starting in 1847, but it failed. Crüsemann convinced Meier to join him, and the two founded the North German Lloyd, a stock company, that each headed until their deaths in 1867 and 1888, respectively. They were followed by Heinrich Wiegand, who continued Meier’s policy of links to the banks and extensive involvement in other industrial enterprises in Bremen until his death in 1909. Wiegand placed more emphasis on freight, initiating the subsidiary Roland line to New York in 1892. From the beginning, the main large Bremen shippers held the majority of stock in the firm, which tied the firm to the city. It proved highly profitable after overcoming the early difficult years. To remain viable and to expand, the company negotiated many agreements to allot the division of passenger and freight traffic with the Hapag. Those terms were continuously revised in the competition between the two firms. Another complicating factor was the international competition. For example, in 1902 the American banker and creator of the steel cartel, John Pierpont Morgan, tried to create a global marine monopoly, which resulted in intervention from Berlin that hindered German participation. Similarly, in 1913 the Hapag attempted to force a realignment of the shipping agreement so that the North Atlantic trade, which the NDL had dominated, would be changed in favor of the Hapag. The war brought a stop to the intense rivalry, which might have resulted in the NDL meeting the Hapag challenge or in one of the firms going under due to overcapacity. The company did not always order its ships from Bremen shipyards, though most

827

of its famous ones came from there. At first, English steamers were ordered because they had the best technology. By 1858 the NDL had established a schedule of regular bimonthly departures of its four ships moving between New York and Bremerhaven, but accidents, slow repairs, and then the American Civil War and the Danish-German war nearly led to bankruptcy. Yet the NDL survived and expanded, especially after the 1870s. By 1914 the company had 135 oceangoing ships with nearly a million registered tons (Drechsel 1994, 138). By the turn of the twentieth century, the firm commissioned huge luxury liners that competed with the British Cunard and American White Star lines, as well as the Hapag, for being the fastest across the Atlantic. The Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse (Emperor William the Great) came on line in 1897 as the largest speed steamer in the world. Nearly 2,000 passengers (332 in first, 343 in second, and 1,074 in third class) crossed the Atlantic at the record speed of 23 knots. At the time nearly 30 percent of all passengers crossed the Atlantic on Lloyd ships (Bessel 1957, 57; Engelsing 1961, 49ff.). Luxury, high-speed steamers attained publicity, but the company’s profits came from the emigrant traffic. By 1880s the NDL had become such a large and influential firm that the city of Bremen had to do its bidding—namely to extend the wharves and harbor at Bremerhaven due to the size of its liners and steamers. The city dredged and straightened the Weser River to Bremen and enlarged wharves at great cost and high debt to the state. Between the 1890s and 1940s, public attention focused on races across the Atlantic to see which firm and which ship

828

NORDDEUTSCHER LLOYD

could win the Blue Ribbon for the quickest crossing. The NDL would win many times with its huge ships. But the largest profits continued to come from subsidized mail runs and shipping emigrants and troops— for example, to China during the Boxer Rebellion. Despite the slowdowns and shift from German to European emigrants going to America during the 1890s, with another shift to non-American destinations during the 1920s, and a short revival of North American destinations in the late 1940s, the NDL’s emigrant business remained a mainstay for nearly its whole existence. Simultaneously, the pleasure travels of the rich became an important economic element for these floating elegant hotels, until airplanes undercut passenger numbers in the 1960s. At the opposite end of the social scale were the stokers, firemen, and crew. The company experienced many strikes about wages and working conditions on NDL ships before World War I. The high rate of suicide among the stokers on the coal steamers caused a major scandal in the 1890s. Because the firm received subsidies for its postal runs and because the patriotic duties of all Germans were called upon during the Boxer Uprising, the publicity had important effects. Social conditions improved, especially under Hermann Heineken who followed Wiegand as director. He, too, continued the NDL practice of fostering the economic development of industry in Bremen; for instance, FockeWolff airplanes and armaments. With the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles in 1918 and 1919, Germany had to hand over nearly all of its merchant fleet to the Allies (in compensation for U-Boat losses). The NDL claimed to have only

57,000 tons in shipping capacity in 1919 compared to 982,951 tons in 1914. It did have 125 million marks in capital and received compensation from the government for its marine losses (Lambert 1929, 147). Hence, by the end of the 1920s, it could rebuild its fleet to its prewar size. To demonstrate its return to maritime greatness, the NDL commissioned two of the largest, most-powerful liners ever built: the Europa and the Bremen. Both would win the Blue Ribbon race for being the fastest ship across the Atlantic in 1929 and the early 1930s. Building the Bremen reinforced the boom of the late 1920s in the Bremen shipyards, but also underlay the bust for the local economy when it was finished. Though the NDL did well with the Bremen in luxury passenger traffic, the shipyard workers ended up unemployed because no other ships were ordered due to the Great Depression. World War II, just as World War I, destroyed Bremen shipping and cut the ties between North America and Germany. After the war the NDL’s resurrection proved possible due to good business relations with the United States, which controlled Bremen as an enclave during the occupation. Emigrant passenger traffic combined with cargo transport, as well as the business traveler segment, aided the NDL’s reestablishment as a major shipping line. However, the firm could not compete against low-cost and unregulated lines, and in 1970 accepted the merger offer of the Hapag. The physical tie to North America continued via the Hapag-Lloyd, but containers and cars shipped from Bremerhaven and Hamburg in the late twentieth century did not have the same impact on both sides of the At-

NOVA SCOTIA

lantic as the people and goods shipped by the NDL in the nineteenth century. Dieter K. Buse See also American Occupation Zone; Bremerhaven; Hamburg; Hapag; Treaty of Versailles References and Further Reading Bessel, Georg. 1857–1957, Norddeutscher Lloyd. Bremen: Schünemann, 1957. Drechsel, Edwin. Norddeutscher Lloyd Bremen, 1857–1970: History, Fleet, Ship Mails. New York: Cordillera, 1994. Engelsing, Rolf. Bremen als Auswanderhafen. Bremen: Schünemann, 1961. Kludas, Arnold. Die Geschichte der deutschen Passagierschiffahrt. 5 vols. Hamburg: Kabel, 1986–1990. ———. Record Breakers of the North Atlantic: Blue Ribbon and Liners 1838–1952. London: Chatham, 2000. Lambert, John T. “What Business Germany Thinks: Carl J. Stimming.” Nation’s Business 17 (October 1929): 145–147. Thiel, Reinhold. Die Geschichte der Norddeutschen Lloyd. Bremen: Hauschild, 1999ff.

NOVA SCOTIA Germans established their long-standing presence in Nova Scotia in the mid-eighteenth century. Although the first group settlement, Waldoburg on Cape Breton Island, was abandoned after only three years, the town and county of Lunenburg developed and maintained a strong German identity well into the nineteenth century. According to the Canadian census of 2001, 16,295 out of a total of 47,004 residents of Lunenburg County, which is close to 35 percent, considered themselves as belonging to the German ethnic group (Statistics Canada, Census of Canada 2001). The German heritage also remains visible in Halifax and the Annapolis Valley. In Nova

829

Scotia at large, 89,460 out of a total population of 897,570, which is close to 10 percent, identified themselves as ethnic German in the 2001 census (Statistics Canada, Census of Canada 2001).

Early Presence Nova Scotia’s first German settlement was established in 1745 when British forces conquered the French fortress of Louisbourg on Cape Breton Island. Several Germans, who had previously lived in Maine, participated in the conquest and shortly after founded Waldoburg, in close proximity to Louisbourg, as Canada’s first German settlement. After only three years, Waldoburg was drawn into the renewed colonial struggle between France and Great Britain. The community was finally evacuated in 1748, when the British government returned Louisbourg to France on the basis of the Treaty of Aachen. Several residents moved to Halifax and later participated in the founding of Lunenburg. Among them was Sebastian Zauberbuehler who took a leading role in the Lunenburg settlement and became a member of Nova Scotia’s first House of Assembly. In 1758 several German soldiers participated in the final conquering of Louisbourg from the French as members of the Royal American Regiment. Many of them later settled in Halifax, where Germans had been present since 1749.

Germans in Halifax and Arrival of the “Foreign Protestants” In Halifax, which was founded in 1749 as a British fortress to counterbalance the French fortress in Louisbourg, Germanspeaking immigrants played an important role from the early days on. Several Swiss and Germans were among the settlement’s

830

NOVA SCOTIA

original population. Disappointed with the lack of discipline among Halifax’s first settlers, mostly released soldiers and impoverished immigrants from London, Governor Edward Cornwallis requested the British government to recruit more German Protestants for the settlement of Nova Scotia. The governor’s demand for Protestant settlers reflected his political objective to outbalance the predominant Catholic, French-speaking Acadians, descendants of the early French settlers who had established settlements before Nova Scotia came under British rule by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Immigrants had to be nonBritish, as emigration of British people to the colonies was considered to be counterproductive to the mother country’s economic goals. Mercantilism, the predominant economic theory at the time, pursued the goal of exploiting the colonies without investing financial or human capital into Great Britain’s overseas territories. Immigration agents in Europe promised potential emigrants from the Germanspeaking territories free land and exemption from taxation for ten years, as well as free provisioning with tools, farming utensils, and arms in the British colony. Pamphlets that were distributed described Nova Scotia in the brightest colors. Faced with anti-Protestant measures in their homelands, the “Foreign Protestants” welcomed the British invitation to immigrate to North America. Next to increasing overpopulation and oppressive taxation, which affected Germany’s population at large, the situation for Protestants in Europe had become increasingly difficult due to religious persecution. The withdrawal of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, mass emigration of Protestants from the Palatinate in 1709, and the expulsion of the Protestants of

Salzburg in 1731 and 1732 resulted in a large pool of potential emigrants to North America. As most settlers were unable to pay for their transatlantic passage, they signed contracts that committed them to work off the passage fare as indebted laborers in Halifax immediately after arrival. Between the summer of 1750 and 1752, a total of 2,724 settlers arrived in Halifax in three large groups. They came from the German Palatinate, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and other German-speaking areas. At least 433 of the newcomers were French-speaking residents of Montbeliard, a small principality that at the time was part of Württemberg. The British authorities’ intention was to establish a “Foreign Protestant” group settlement in Merligash Bay on Nova Scotia’s South Shore, but continuing hostilities with the Native Americans made the settlement impossible prior to 1753. Accordingly, all settlers had to be accommodated in the small fortress of Halifax. Widespread discontent developed, as newcomers, instead of cultivating free land and building homes for their families, worked on the construction of fortifications and roads in Halifax.

The Lunenburg Settlement After the Natives ceased hostilities, British authorities put the Lunenburg settlement plan into effect, and on June 8, 1753, a total of 1,453 of the approximately 2,000 remaining German-speaking settlers in Halifax set sail for Merligash Bay. The settlement site was located some 50 miles southwest of Halifax and was chosen for its natural harbor and its isolation from the French Acadian settlements. The community’s name was chosen by Governor Peregrine Thomas Hobson to honor the British

NOVA SCOTIA

king, George II, who was also duke of Braunschweig-Lueneburg. Despite the group’s regional diversity, their common religious faith and language, combined with the demands and challenges of a pioneer society, proved sufficient for the formation of a common identity. Lunenburgers fortified their settlement against the French and the Natives, and within only a few years Lunenburg was developing into a thriving community. The German presence in Nova Scotia was of particular significance to the British authorities during this early period. German immigrants arrived at a time when the race between France and Great Britain for predominance in North America was still undecided. During the early 1750s, German-speaking immigrants constituted the majority of Nova Scotia’s population. When the British authorities expelled Nova Scotia’s French population, the Acadians, in 1755, Lunenburg and Halifax remained the only European settlements in Nova Scotia. Only with the final fall of Quebec in 1759 and Montreal in 1760 was the British position fully established. From the early nineteenth century on, almost the entire area of Lunenburg County—with communities such as New Dublin, Chester, Mahoone Bay, Bridgewater, New Germany, etc.—became settled by Canadians of German descent, whose parents had been among the Lunenburg pioneers. The town of Lunenburg, however, remained the economic, cultural, and denominational center for Lunenburg County’s various smaller German settlements. Lunenburg is an outstanding example of immigrants’ successful adaptation to the economic needs of their new geographic environment. Most of the immigrants had been farmers in Germany, but faced with

831

the challenges and opportunities related to Lunenburg’s geographic location on the Atlantic Ocean with a large natural harbor, most immigrants abandoned farming entirely and turned to shipbuilding and fishing. Various Lunenburg firms became active in the West Indies trade. They exported salted fish and imported rum, coffee, molasses, and tobacco, which they sold in Halifax, Quebec, and Newfoundland. By the 1830s Lunenburg had more than 20 stores in which British manufactures and goods from the West Indies were being sold. The shipping of lumber was also important to the local economy. During the 1870s Lunenburgers introduced trawling with ground nets, which made fishing along the shore more efficient. By 1900 some 180 vessels, employing some 2,000 men from Lunenburg, fished off the banks between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador each year (Cuthbertson 1996, 13). In 1921 the Lunenburg shipbuilding company Smith and Rhuland built the famous schooner Bluenose I, which dominated sailing competitions in the North Atlantic for many years. Lunenburgers developed a strong community spirit centered on their common Protestant faith. Shortly after the founding of the community, they established a Lutheran congregation, but did not have a church or a German pastor prior to the early 1770s. From 1760 on, a teacher from Germany taught children in a German-language school. Pressure from the Anglican Church for English-language education resulted in the closure of the school but did not interfere with German-language services. Zion’s Lutheran Church was completed in 1772, and its first German pastor, Friedrich Schultz, assumed his duties the very same year. Although many members

832

NOVA SCOTIA

of the local elite converted to Anglicism and joined the local Anglican congregation, Zion Church remained the most important single factor for the partial maintenance of the German language, customs, and a common German identity among the pioneers and their descendants. Following a general pattern, language maintenance declined gradually over the course of three generations. By the midnineteenth century, German was almost entirely replaced by English as the language of everyday and business life. There were two main reasons for this decline that were unique to Lunenburg. First, because of its isolated location, Lunenburg received very few new German-speaking settlers after the original settlement phase. While an estimated 1,000 Hessians and about 5,000 Loyalists, many of the latter of German origin as well, came to Nova Scotia after the American War of Independence (Bassler 1991, 128, 136) only a few were attracted by the existing settlements. They were provided with free land by the British authorities and most of them settled in the Annapolis Valley in inland Nova Scotia. Second, language loss corresponded with the pioneers’ transformation from farmers to fishermen, shipbuilders, and traders. Lacking German vocabulary used in fishing, seafaring, and shipbuilding, Lunenburgers adopted English for work. This shift was followed by the decline of German in everyday life as well. The community’s new economic orientation sped up the process of acculturation. Within the local Lutheran congregation, German was maintained as the primary language of worship until close to the end of the nineteenth century. However, from 1877 on, the German pastor was joined by anglo-

phone assistant pastors, indicating the growing need for English-language services among the younger generation. Lunenburg chronicler Mather Byles DesBrisay reports that the 350th anniversary of the Augsburg Confession in 1880 was celebrated with an English service. When the text of the Confession was read in German, only a few members of the older generation were able to follow. Despite the loss of the German language and traditions, ethnic conscience has remained strong. Linguists have found that some German-based expressions and anomalies in sentence structure are still existent in Lunenburg’s local dialect in 2005.

Germans in Halifax Closely linked to the founding of Lunenburg, the German ethnic neighborhood in Halifax constituted the second most important German settlement in Nova Scotia. A number of Germans stayed behind when their fellow immigrants left for Lunenburg in 1753. Halifax’s Germans settled in the city’s north end, which for many years was commonly referred to as “Dutch Town.” Shortly after their arrival, German immigrants erected a schoolhouse at the corner of Gerrish and Brunswick streets, where they also held their first Lutheran services. The schoolhouse was later transformed into “the little Dutch church,” dedicated in 1761 as St. George’s Church, Canada’s first Lutheran church. Halifax’s German population fluctuated, with many leaving for Lunenburg County and other areas. A local census of 1766 lists only 264 remaining Germans in Halifax (Bassler 1991, 151). However, during the 1770s and 1780s, the German community was revitalized with the arrival of Loyalists and former Hessian auxiliary troops, who had fought on the British side in

NOVEL, GERMAN AMERICAN

the American War of Independence, bringing the German group to more than 1,000 people. A new German school was opened, and ethnic denominational and cultural life flourished. Between 1788 and 1801, German immigrant Anton Heinrich, who had participated in the final conquering of Louisbourg in 1758, published Canada’s first German newspaper, the Neu-Schottlaendischer Kalender (Nova-Scotian Calendar). In 1786 Canada’s first secular German organization, the Hochdeutsche Gesellschaft (High German Society), was established by a former officer of the Hessian auxiliary troops. The organization remained active until 1801. By the turn of the nineteenth century, however, Halifax’s German congregation succumbed to the town’s mostly anglophone character. Following numerous conversions to Anglicanism, Halifax’s small Lutheran congregation officially became Anglican in 1799 and adopted the English language. Typically, the ethnic church was the last stronghold of language maintenance and the change of languages so early on significantly sped up the process of assimilation of Halifax’s German population. Located in the center of British colonial administration of Nova Scotia, lacking new immigrants, and left without a German-language church, Halifax’s German community became fully anglicized and assimilated by the 1830s. Ulrich Frisse See also Hessians; Seume, Johann Gottfried References and Further Reading Bassler, Gerhard. The German Canadian Mosaic Today and Yesterday. Ottawa: German-Canadian Congress, 1991. Bell, Winthrop P. The “Foreign Protestants” and the Settlement of Nova Scotia. The History of a Piece of Arrested British Colonial Policy in the Eighteenth Century. Sackville, NB: Centre for Canadian Studies: Mount Allison University, 1990.

833

Cuthbertson, Brian. Lunenburg: An Illustrated History. Halifax: Formac, 1996. DesBrisay, Mather Byles. History of the County of Lunenburg. Toronto: William Briggs, 1895. Richter, L. “Germans in Nova Scotia.” XV Dalhousie Review (1935–1936): 425–434. Statistics Canada, Census 2001, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/ home/index.cfm (accessed May 15, 2005).

NOVEL, GERMAN AMERICAN In the nineteenth century, the German American novel was an important site for the negotiation of German American identity, both in the United States and abroad. Written by German immigrants and longtime residents, these novels covered all areas of the growing United States from New York to California. The novels, written in English or German, addressed the experience of the city as well as the frontier. Their characters, German immigrant farmers as well as intellectuals, strove for survival and integration into American society and, after overcoming various obstacles, eventually succeeded. During the nineteenth century, German American novels shifted their focus from a discussion of German American ethnicity to American social and political questions. Around 1850 the German American novel developed with the arrival of German Forty-Eighters, who were busy editing newspapers and writing fiction and nonfiction. They could already look back on some German American fiction of the nineteenth century by Hermann Bokum, who focused on immigrant life, and by Charles Sealsfield and Friedrich Gerstäcker. Their adventure novels, as well as the later ones by Friedrich August

834

NOVEL, GERMAN AMERICAN

Strubberg influenced by James Fenimore Cooper’s novels, dealt with American plantation and frontier life. While in Strubberg’s novels the superiority of the heroic German protagonist was acknowledged by his American or German American community, most of the German American novels depicted the arduous struggle immigrants underwent when carving out a new life in a foreign environment. Capitalizing on the popular genre of the “Mysteries of . . .” novel, authors like Emil Klauprecht, Theodor Griesinger, and Heinrich Börnstein in their “Mysteries of ” Cincinnati, New York, and St. Louis, showed the alliance of German immigrants and upright Americans in an eventually successful battle against underworld intrigues by Jesuits and land speculators. The episodic structure of these novels, which also drew on stock scenes of the sentimental novel, allowed for the deployment of disparate locations as well as various characters and plot lines. Börnstein’s Die Geheimnisse von St. Louis (1851, The Mysteries of St. Louis, 1990), for instance, also includes New Orleans and San Francisco, together with a depiction of farming in the American West, the great fire in St. Louis, and the gold rush. The privations faced by the individual hero as he struggles to become assimilated were developed in the novel of education. Its protagonists often were refugees from the revolution of 1848 (the “Greens”) or of the 1830s (the “Greys”), some of them sharing the fate of their exiled authors. Many of Otto Ruppius’s novels, Reinhold Solger’s Anton in Amerika (Anton in America, 1862), and Kathinka Sutro-Schücking’s In beiden Hemisphären (In Both Hemispheres, 1881) were centered around

a male immigrant whose American odyssey in search of social recognition and an adequate profession concludes with a happy intercultural couple that guarantees the immigrant further success. Instances of legal conflict as in Solger, Talvj’s (i.e., Therese Robinson’s) The Exiles (1853), or Ruppius’s Der Pedlar (1857) served to highlight the inimical situation the immigrant faced when overstepping the boundaries drawn by American society. Slavery repeatedly turned out to be one such site of conflict in the predominantly antislavery novels. It also triggered the counter image of a harmonious coexistence of German immigrants and freed slaves in Georg Willrich’s Erinnerungen aus Texas (Memories of Texas, 1854), Adolf Douai’s Fata Morgana (1858), and Mathilde Franziska Anneke’s Uhland in Texas (1866). In its staging of the successful battle of Germans, Americans, and Native Americans against Confederate militia, and in its reference to German immigrant participation in the Civil War, the latter, like novels by Rudolf Leonhart and Eduard Leyh, displayed German American participation in the war as a vital manifestation of German American citizenship. In the 1880s some novelists, drawing on social realism, presented vignettes of German American city life, such as Caspar Stürenburg’s Bilder aus der Miethkaserne (Impressions from a Tenement House, 1886). Others put social and economic issues at the center of their concerns. Richard Michaelis, in his dystopic, antiCommunist Looking Further Forward: An Answer to Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy (1890), addressed American political questions and hardly considered German American ethnicity.

NOVEL, GERMAN AMERICAN

Woven into the plot of establishment and assimilation was a discussion of religion, gender, politics, and American character. Novels depicted the conflict between nativists and immigrants and advocated their support of the Republican Party and its antislavery stance. Their representation of German American colonies and communities changed from political utopias (Willrich, Douai), to a discussion of contested ethnic identity in German settlements. Stress was laid on the difference between German Protestantism and Puritan religion, as well as on an overall critique of Catholicism and a skepticism toward camp meetings in most novels (e.g., in Börnstein, Talvj). Widespread freethinking impulses among the German revolutionaries infiltrated the voices of both characters and narrators. Yet religious-didactic novels like Jacob J. Messmer’s Im Strom der Zeit oder Kapital und Arbeit (In the Tide of Time or Capital and Labor, 1883; Red Carl, 1888), can also be found. While expository writings capitalized on the different attitude and treatment of American women, this issue was addressed to a lesser degree in novels, when, for example, German immigrants wondered about American coquettes. To them, German women with their emotional depth and impeccable manners were favorably compared. Male German immigrants were characterized by courage, pride, and uprightness. German culture and education distinguished immigrants from their American neighbors, yet, increasingly, American culture was acknowledged and praised. German American heritage was emphasized in historical novels like Fried-

835

rich Arming’s Ein deutscher Baron (A German Baron, 1860) and Ludwig Wollenweber’s General Peter Mühlenberg (1869– 1871); they also recalled important events like the 1862 Battle of New Ulm, Minnesota, when the German Turner settlement was attacked and destroyed by the Dakota. In addition, some novels included characters or stories, usually by way of testimonial letters, that reached beyond the time of the narration to earlier German sojourns in the United States, as, for example, in Börnstein or Talvj. Many of the novels in German were serialized in German American papers. Some of them were reprinted in Germany or translated into English. Annette Bühler-Dietrich See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; Forty-Eighters; Griesinger, Karl Theodor; Literature (German American) in the Nineteenth Century; Ruppius, Otto; Sealsfield, Charles; Strubberg, Friedrich August References and Further Reading Lang, Barbara. The Process of Immigration in German-American Literature from 1850 to 1900: A Change in Ethnic Self-Definition. Munich: Fink, 1988. Sammons, Jeffrey L. Ideology, Mimesis, Fantasy: Charles Sealsfield, Friedrich Gerstäcker, Karl May, and Other German Novelists of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998. Sollors, Werner. “German-Language Writing in the United States: A Serious Challenge to American Studies?” In The GermanAmerican Encounter. Conflict and Cooperation between Two Cultures, 1800–2000. Eds. Frank Trommler and Elliott Shore. New York: Berghahn, 2001, pp. 103–114. Stuecher, Dorothea Diver. Twice Removed: The Experience of German-American Women Writers in the 19th Century. New York: Peter Lang, 1990.

836

NUECES, BATTLE

NUECES, BATTLE

OF THE

OF THE The state of Texas was deeply divided over the issues that ultimately tipped the United States into the Civil War. Although a firm southern state with an economy based strongly on slavery and cotton, Texas on the eve of the Civil War boasted a formidable population of Europeans, Hispanics, and frontiersmen, whose traditional loyalties were pro-Union. The sitting governor during the secession crisis, perennial Texas hero Sam Houston, although himself a supporter of slavery, was a confirmed Unionist who threw all of his political cache behind attempting to hold Texas in the United States. Despite their ultimate defeat at the hands of Texan secessionists, hotbeds of Union loyalists remained in the state throughout the war. The Texas Hill Country, isolated on the remote frontier and heavily populated by recent German immigrants, formed the most vocal base of pro-Union support. Following the proclivity of Germans to organize themselves into Vereine, or societies, a number of Union clubs began emerging throughout the Hill Country immediately following secession. The best known of these was the Union Loyal League Militia, led by a young Prussian named Fritz Tegener. The stated purpose of the militia was to defend the frontier from marauding Indians in the absence of federal troops. However, the group quickly evolved into a bushwhacker organization aimed at harassing Confederate forces. The militia was formed on March 24, 1862, at a meeting of Union supporters, both German and Anglo, from the counties of Gillespie, Kendall, and Kerr. A company for each county was es-

tablished, officers were elected, and Tegener was named major in command of the battalion. The tenacious Jacob Kuechler, who would serve as commissioner of the Texas General Land Office during Radical Reconstruction, was elected captain of one of the companies. An advisory panel was also formed with Eduard Degener named as chairman. Pro-Union unrest quickly came to the notice of the Texas government in Austin. On July 20, 1862, Tegener was informed that the Hill Country had been declared in rebellion against the Confederacy. A plan was quickly hatched whereby volunteers from the militia would form together as a unit and march to Mexico to join the Union army. Tegener sent word to the militiamen to rendezvous at a point on Turtle Creek near modern Kerrville on August 1, 1862, from whence they would begin the march to Mexico. On the appointed date a group of approximately sixty-eight men, all but two of them German, met Tegener at Turtle Creek with the intention of making the arduous march. The militia broke camp on August 2 and set out for Del Rio at a leisurely pace. The party was entirely unaware that they were being pursued. Under orders from Captain James M. Duff, ninety-four troops under the command of Lieutenant Colin D. McRae set out in pursuit of Major Tegener and his men on August 3. Duff had recently been tasked by the Texas Confederate command with pacifying the Hill Country. McRae caught up to his quarry late in the afternoon on August 9. The militiamen were camped along the Nueces River, near present-day Comfort. Most of the Unionists lacked military experience and

NUREMBERG TRIALS

the group chose their campsite poorly. The following morning, at first light, McRae commenced his attack. At the conclusion of the battle, nineteen Unionists were killed and nine were wounded. McRae ordered the wounded prisoners to be executed. He hotly pursued the remaining survivors, killing another eight men as they attempted to cross into Mexico on October 18, 1862. The few survivors, including Kuechler, either made their way to Mexico to fight as Union regulars, traveled to California, or simply returned home. The Confederates took minor casualties, with two men killed and eighteen men wounded. The brutality with which McRae prosecuted his assault against the Union loyalists has caused many to remember the Battle of the Nueces as the “Nueces Massacre.” McRae suffered little ill effect to his reputation and was ultimately promoted for successfully managing the campaign. The remains of the fallen Unionists were collected after the war and interred beneath a monument at Comfort on August 10, 1866. The monument’s inscription reads “Treue der Union” (Faithful to the Union). Jerry C. Drake See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Texas; Verein References and Further Reading Buenger, Walter L. “Texas and the Riddle of Secession.” In Lone Star Blue and Gray: Essays on Texas in the Civil War. Ed. Ralph A. Wooster. Austin: Texas State Historical Association, 1995. McGowen, Stanley S. “Battle or Massacre? The Incident on the Nueces, August 10, 1862.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly CIV (July 2000): 64–86. Underwood, Rodman L. Death on the Nueces. Austin, TX: Eakin, 2000.

837

NUREMBERG TRIALS Part of a series of thirteen trials that began on November 20, 1945, and lasted until April 1949. In these trials 207 Nazis were charged with conspiracy to wage war, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes. The trials were held at the Palace of Justice in Nuremberg, since this was one of the few courthouses that had not been damaged during the air raids and because the city of Nuremberg had been the site for all the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) rallies. The International Military Tribunal (IMT), directed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States of America against major Nazi war criminals, led the first trial. The IMT not only sentenced individuals but also banned organizations such as the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei, political police), the SS (Schutzstaffel, Protective Squadron), and the SS Totenkopfverbände (SS Death Head Special Units). The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials reflected the widespread sense among the anti-Nazi allies that this war was not supposed to end like other wars. World War II was not a normal war, one which had been fought according to the traditional rules of war. The German army engaged in systematic atrocities against civilians on an unprecedented scale. More than 50 million people had died in the war—more than half of the victims were civilians. The Soviet Union alone lost more than 25 million people—soldiers and civilians. When the German army invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, special task forces followed the army, killing off between 2 and 3 million civilians in mass shootings (Marrus 1997, 21). Adolf Hitler declared the war in the East a

838

NUREMBERG TRIALS

Looking down on defendants' dock at the Nuremberg trials. (Corbis)

racial war with the goal to completely destroy the Jewish population as well as Bolshevist ideology. Of nearly 6 million Russian prisoners of war, 60 percent were severely mistreated to the point of death. In Germany, those who opposed the Nazi system, from Communists to Social Democrats as well as Jews, Sinti, Roma, Slavs, Catholics, and homosexuals from not only Germany but also from countries under German occupation were put into concentration and extermination camps. The Nazis murdered more than 11 million people in concentration and death camps. Never before in history did a government plan the systematic murder of entire eth-

nicities, religious groups, and political enemies and attempt to carry out such a plan. The slaughter of political opponents, prisoners of war, and ordinary people persecuted for reasons of race, religion, and nationality was unimaginable. Therefore, the Allied powers agreed, albeit not, at first, unanimously, that individuals responsible for these horrors had to be brought to trial. It was generally accepted that in some way Germany must be cleansed of Nazis, that those guilty of sustaining Nazi rule must be punished, and that it was essential, if future peace were to be secured, that Germans be convinced of the error of Nazi views and persuaded to assent to more democratic

NUREMBERG TRIALS

and peaceful values. Disagreements arose over both trials and punishment, with Roosevelt insisting all criminals receive a fair trial in the countries where their crimes were committed. The Allies later agreed to punish, after a trial, those Nazis as well as their collaborators who were responsible for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity. In November 1943 Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin agreed that: “At the time of the granting of any armistice to any Government which may be set up in Germany, those German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have been responsible for or have taken a consenting part in the . . . atrocities, massacres and executions will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of these liberated countries” (Moscow Declaration in Marrus 1997, 20–21). In the same month, Stalin suggested in secret talks with Churchill and Roosevelt that the whole German General Staff be liquidated. Churchill shared Stalin’s position— his idea was to shoot all the top Nazis after the war without a trial. Stalin and Churchill agreed it would take too long to establish an international court and that it would appear to be victor’s justice. Only in May 1945 did the United States change its approach toward the questions of how to deal with the Nazi war crimes. Harry S. Truman, the new American president, suggested the creation of a War Crimes Tribunal, which was accepted by his Soviet, British, and French allies. With this, the way had been opened for the establishment of the IMT.

839

The resolution that established legal precedent for the trial was the London Agreement. Emerging between June 26 and August 8, 1945, the agreement, signed by France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States, affirmed the authority of the Moscow Declaration and judicial terms for the Nazi war crimes trials, including necessary pretrial investigative measures. The agreement also created the Charter of the IMT. Following the London Agreement, Allied Control Commission Law 10 was developed in December 1945. Law 10 prosecuted crimes that did not involve commission of war. Out of the mandates established under the London Agreement and Law 10, the Nuremberg Trials emerged. In the first trial, twenty-three Nazis were indicted on October 20, 1945. Four days later, one of the defendants, Robert Ley, committed suicide. Led by the U. S. chief counsel, U.S. Supreme Court justice Robert H. Jackson, the IMT prosecuted the remaining top Nazis on the charges of conspiracy to wage war, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace, and war crimes. The defendants included: Hermann Göring, reich marshall, Luftwaffe chief, and president of the Reichstag, among other titles; Martin Bormann, Hitler’s private secretary and head of the Party Chancellery (tried in absentia); Karl Dönitz, admiral and head of state after Hitler’s suicide; Hans Frank, governor general of occupied Poland; Wilhelm Frick, interior minister; Hans Fritzsche, head of radio; Walther Funk, economics minister; Rudolf Hess, deputy to Hitler; Alfred Jodl, chief of operations for the German High Command; Ernst Kaltenbrunner, reich security main office chief; Wilhelm Keitel,

840

NUREMBERG TRIALS

chief of staff of the German High Command; Konstantin von Neurath, reich minister of foreign affairs and reich protector; Franz von Papen, vice reich chancellor; Erich Raeder, commander in chief of the German naval forces; Joachim von Ribbentrop, foreign minister; Alfred Rosenberg, reich minister for eastern occupied territories; Fritz Sauckel, chief of forced labor; Hjalmar Schacht, reichsbank president; Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler Youth; Arthur Seyss-Inquart, reich commissioner for the Netherlands; Albert Speer, reich minister of armaments and munitions; and Julius Streicher, editor of Der Stürmer. When the IMT-led trial ended, the sentences were delivered on September 30 and October 1, 1946. Seven were sent to prison, and three were acquitted. Twelve were sentenced to death, but only ten were executed. The most notorious of the defendants sentenced to die was Göring, who committed suicide hours before his scheduled execution. On October 15, 1946, he swallowed a cyanide capsule allegedly smuggled into his cell, perhaps by an American guard sympathetic to Göring. This trial was the only one led by the IMT, owing to increased disparagement over the legality of American prosecution and the lack of full Allied involvement. The United States Office of the Military Government for Germany carried out the remaining trials between December 1946 and April 1949. American judges and prosecutors, in the name of the United States, carried out charges in the trials. For many reasons, it was important for the Americans to show the world the evidence that exposed the criminality of

the cases, including establishment of links between Nazi ideology, formation of criminal intent, conspiracy to commit torture and murder, and global war. These trials included: the Doctors’ (Medical) Trials, the Milch Case, the Justice Case, the Pohl/ WVHA Case, the Flick Case, the I.G. Farben Case, the Hostage Case, the RUSHA Case, the Einsatzgruppen Case (mobile death units), the Krupp Case, the Ministries Trials, and the High Command Trial. The Americans who presided over these trials included Walter Beals, presiding judge, who was chief justice of the Washington Supreme Court; Johnson Crawford, a former judge from Oklahoma; Harold Sebring, a Florida State Supreme Court justice; and Victor Swearingen, an assistant U.S. attorney general. The American-led prosecution of the Nazi criminals was not without controversy, however. America faced worldwide criticism for conducting these trials. Germans and Americans alike challenged the legal authority of the trials and were concerned about their effect on the German population. In October 1946 a Republican senator from Ohio, Robert A. Taft, called the Nuremberg Trials an act of vengeance and retrospective judgment that would discredit the idea of justice in Europe for years to come. Nevertheless, the trials provided an insight into the criminality of the individuals who worked and supported the regime, clearly outlining overwhelming evidence of conspiracy to commit crimes. It is important to note that throughout Europe, war crimes trials were conducted against Nazis and their collaborators. While the Nuremberg Trials were not the only court proceedings that

NUREMBERG TRIALS

tried Nazi criminals, associates, and collaborators, they had an important effect on the conduct of similar international trials. Wendy Adelé-Marie Maier See also American Occupation Zone; Denazification; Jackson, Robert H.; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany (1941–1945); World War II References and Further Reading Cesarinri, David. “War Crimes.” In The Holocaust Encyclopedia. Ed. Walter Laqueur. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001, 673–683.

841

Davidson, Eugene. The Trial of the Germans: An Account of the Twenty-Two Defendants before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. New York: Macmillan, 1966. Gilbert, G. M. Nuremberg Diary. New York: Signet, 1947. Marrus, Michael R. The Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, 1945–1946. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 1997. National Archives and Records Service. Records of the International Military Tribunal (IMT) at Nuremberg (RG 238), College Park, Maryland.

O OBWEXER The brothers Johann Anton and Peter Paul (von) Obwexer of Augsburg, bankers in the imperial city of Augsburg, were among the few south German entrepreneurs of the eighteenth century to engage in large-scale commerce with America. In 1778 they established a trading house on the Caribbean island of Curaçao, where their representative Pierre Brion marketed central European textiles imported via Amsterdam and purchased tropical goods. Despite heavy losses during the American War for Independence, the Obwexers continued their transatlantic trade until the French Revolutionary Wars forced them out of business. The Augsburg banking house was founded by Johann Obwexer (d. 1766), an immigrant from Klausen in south Tyrol who established himself in the imperial city in 1726. Obwexer financed Johann Heinrich Schüle’s cotton-printing factory, the largest south German textile firm of its time, and invested in the trade with coins from the Austrian mints. A devout Catholic, he made large bequests to the church in his will. Of his nine children, four sons became clerics, while the others married into Augsburg’s leading Italian and Savoyan merchant families. As a business-

man and benefactor of the church, Johann Obwexer was succeeded by his sons Joseph Anton (1730–1795) and Peter Paul (1739–1817). During the 1770s the brothers operated a cotton-printing factory in Bregenz on Lake Constance, and in the 1780s they joined a partnership exporting oxen and tallow to Venice. They also advanced large sums to the electors of Bavaria and various ecclesiastical princes, and acquired rural property in eastern Swabia. In 1778 Emperor Joseph II knighted them. Their financial success and good business contacts with Italian firms in Amsterdam encouraged the Obwexers to venture into the American trade. In 1778 they outfitted five ships that transported textiles— particularly cotton cloth printed in Augsburg and Silesian linen—to Curaçao. Their agent Pierre Brion set up a trading house in the town of Willemstad and purchased colonial products like sugar, coffee, cocoa, hides, indigo, and sarsaparilla (a pharmaceutical plant). The Dutch island was a center of illicit commerce with the French and Spanish colonies in the Caribbean basin, and Brion forged an extensive trading network with merchants and planters on the islands of Saint-Domingue and Puerto Rico and in the coastal towns of

843

844

OLMSTED, FREDERICK LAW

New Granada (Colombia) and Venezuela. His business associates also included traders and ship captains from the Danish Virgin Islands and the United States. The Obwexers initially suffered heavy losses when the English captured several ships with their cargoes during the American War for Independence. They held on, however, and trade flowed steadily during the peaceful period from 1783 to 1793. After the outbreak of hostilities between revolutionary France and a coalition of European powers, transatlantic commerce was once again interrupted. Brion died on Curaçao in 1799, and the English occupation of the island in 1800 effectively finished off the firm’s trade there. After incurring further losses in its banking activities, the Obwexer firm went bankrupt in 1807. On the other side of the Atlantic, meanwhile, Brion’s son Luís became an ardent supporter of the South American independence movement led by Simon Bolívar and rose to the position of admiral in Bolívar’s fleet. He appears to have invested his father’s (and possibly some of the Obwexers’) fortune in the fight for Colombian independence. Michaela Schmölz-Häberlein References and Further Reading Häberlein, Mark, and Michaela SchmölzHäberlein. Die Erben der Welser. Der Karibikhandel der Augsburger Firma Obwexer im Zeitalter der Revolutionen. Augsburg: Wissner, 1995. Schmölz-Häberlein, Michaela. “‘Voll Feuerdrang nach ausgezeichneter Wirksamkeit’—die Gebrüder von Obwexer, Johann Heinrich von Schüle und die Handelsstadt Augsburg im 18. Jahrhundert.” In Augsburger Handelshäuser im Wandel des historischen Urteils. Ed. Johannes Burkhardt. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996, pp. 130–146.

Zorn, Wolfgang. Handels- und Industriegeschichte Bayerisch-Schwabens 1648–1870. Wirtschafts-, Sozial- und Kulturgeschichte des schwäbischen Unternehmertums. Augsburg: Verlag der Schwäbischen Forschungsgemeinschaft, 1961.

OLMSTED, FREDERICK LAW b. April 26, 1822; Hartford, Connecticut d. August 28, 1903; Belmont, Massachusetts Most influential landscape architect of his time, who took a lead in introducing the German concept of “public parks” to the United States. Olmsted’s unconventional career path intersects in various ways with German culture and features collaborations with Germans. He came to his different careers (journalist, scientific farmer, and landscape architect) as an autodidact. Without the benefit of a college education, he worked at a dry goods importing firm, a stint that did not last long. He then sailed to China in 1843 and, upon his return, took some classes at Yale College with physicist Benjamin Silliman. Active in the abolitionist movement, he went to the American South, securing support for antislavery German settlers in Texas and writing articles on slavery for the New York Daily Times. These influential essays were published as A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, with Remarks on Their Economy in 1856. He established a sound reputation as a journalist, served as managing editor of Putnam’s Monthly Magazine, a leading literary and political magazine, for two years (1855–1857) and in 1865 co-

OLMSTED, FREDERICK LAW

founded the Nation, a magazine of political commentary that still exists today. In 1847 Olmsted’s father bought him farmland, first in Connecticut and then on Staten Island, where he experimented with farming. In 1850, around harvesting time, Olmsted left his farm to accompany his brother John and a childhood friend, theologian and social reformer Charles Loring Brace, to Europe. His first encounter with public parks and gardens took place there, and his interest in the democratic values that he saw realized in German public parks was sparked. Fascinated by the mingling of all social classes in these public parks, Olmsted, as well as other American travelers, felt the necessity for such a democratic “green lung” in the United States. Olmsted’s attempt at experimental farming and his success as a journalist prepared him well to become the most influential landscape architect of his time. A prolific author, he often accompanied and defended his designs with articulate essays. His eloquence proved particularly helpful when he became interested in scenic preservation; he helped to save Niagara Falls from commercial pursuits and launched Yosemite Valley to become a national park. Two aspects are characteristic of his career as a landscape architect: First, the range of his commissions was extraordinarily broad, involving designs for parks and parkways, as well as landscape designs for the government, private estates, college campuses, suburban residential communities, and even grounds for mental hospitals. Second, throughout his career, he collaborated with German gardeners and relied heavily on their botanical knowledge, as well as on their artistic sensibilities.

845

Olmsted’s first and certainly most famous project was his design for New York’s Central Park. When approached by Calvert Vaux, a British-born architect, to enter the competition to design America’s first large public park in 1857, Olmsted reluctantly obliged. The resulting design, “Greensward,” won against thirty-two other competitors and made Central Park immediately one of New York City’s hallmarks. Relying on German garden theory for his social vision and on German garden practice for his aesthetics, Olmsted appointed German gardeners such as Wilhelm L. Fischer and Ignaz Anton Pilat, to leading positions. He consulted with them and respected their artistic input and implementation of ideas. Characteristic of the design for Central Park were the succession of three-dimensional landscape paintings, sweeping meadows, curving roads separated by their function (walking, horseback riding, carriageways) and—most remarkable—the sunken transverse roads. They lowered the roads that cut through the park below other features so as not to disrupt the serenity of the landscape. Other commissions quickly followed. To name but a few of the seventeen parks Olmsted created in the United States, in New York alone he designed Riverside Park, Morningside Park, and Prospect Park with Vaux, Fischer, and Pilat. Another major achievement was his park system in Boston, where Wilhelm Fischer was his second in command. The so-called Emerald Necklace consists of several different parks connected by parkways—that is, by tree-lined avenues that give the impression of being in a park already. Olmsted designed more than parks. In keeping with his conviction that the capi-

846

OLYMPIC GAMES

tol and its grounds must help “to form and train the tastes of the Nation” (Beveridge and Rocheleau 1995, 188) he created the U.S. Capitol grounds in Washington, D.C. Olmsted was further responsible for designing campuses at the nation’s most distinguished schools, such as Yale University, Columbia University, Stanford University, and Amherst College. In an increasingly urbanized nation, Olmsted’s concern was to preserve the communal feeling he perceived was easily lost in the hustle and bustle of city life. As an antidote, he and Vaux planned sixteen suburbs, their most important suburban residential community being in Riverside, Illinois. In 1868 they redesigned 1,600 acres along the Des Plaines River, taking the existing scenery into account, preserving and enhancing it, building parks, and providing a healthful, communal, and near-rural life close to the city of Chicago. The most famous commission Olmsted received for a private estate was Biltmore Estate in North Carolina. In 1888 Olmsted convinced George W. Vanderbilt that the vast estate was not entirely suited for a park and suggested building a modest park, small but luscious gardens, and devoting 120,000 acres to a “well organized and systematically conducted attempt in forestry” (Beveridge and Rocheleau 1995, 225). The last private commission in Olmsted’s career, it was also the first that Olmsted devoted to scientific forestry. During the seven years he worked on this major project, he was ably assisted by German forester Karl Shultze. While designing this distinguished private estate, Olmsted simultaneously concluded his career with his most prestigious public commission: he was asked to plan the landscape for the Great White City of the 1893 World’s Columbian

Exposition, which he did in conjunction with German gardener Rudolph Ulrich. Due to a mental illness, Olmsted spent his last five years at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Massachusetts, which he had helped design thirty years earlier. Franziska Kirchner See also Central Park; Landscape Architects, German American References and Further Reading Beveridge, Charles E., and Paul Rocheleau. Frederick Law Olmsted: Designing the American Landscape. New York: Rizzoli, 1995. Beveridge, Charles E., and David Schuyler. The Papers of Frederick Law Olmsted. Vols. 1–6, Suppl. Ser. Vol. 1. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University, 1977–1997. Kirchner, Franziska. Der Central Park in New York. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002. Stevenson, Elizabeth. Park Maker: A Life of Frederick Law Olmsted. New York: Macmillan, 1977. Zaitzevsky, Cynthia. Frederick Law Olmsted and the Boston Park System. Cambridge, MA, and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1992.

OLYMPIC GAMES German and American athletes have participated in the Olympic Games since the beginning of the modern Olympic movement in 1896. Whereas American sportsmen entered the Olympic arena with much athletic clout and have maintained it for over a century, Germans had to earn their Olympic currency, reinvesting it over the century in the development of powerful Olympic teams. Before World War II, in the first serious encounter between American and German Olympic teams in 1936, race defined the Olympic rivalry between the two nations, as black Americans confronted the

OLYMPIC GAMES

professed Aryan superiority of the Third Reich in Berlin. After World War II, the geopolitical division of Germany between east and west shaped the Olympic rivalry between Germany and America. Germans did not compete against Americans in 1980, when West Germany joined the United States in boycotting the Olympic Games in Moscow. Similarly, Americans did not compete against East Germans in 1984, as East Germany supported the Soviet Union in boycotting the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. West Germany, in support of the United States, however, competed in that event. With German reunification in 1990, Germany formed a single Olympic team—one that benefited significantly, but temporarily, from the legacy of the powerful East German Olympic teams—to offer a formidable challenge to American Olympic superiority. From 1896 to 1932, Americans dominated the Germans in the Olympic Games, winning 771 to 135 medals in the Summer Games and 46 to 16 medals in the Winter Games. World War I hampered Germany’s Olympic development, as the International Olympic Committee (IOC) canceled Olympic Games, scheduled to be held in Berlin, in 1916, and did not permit Germany to participate in the eighth and ninth Olympiads in 1920 and 1924, respectively, as punishment for its wartime conduct. Germany won a total of 31 medals in the 1928 Olympic Games, its best performance since 1912, when it garnered 25 medals. Germany’s 1928 performance, in which it finished second in the total medal count to the United States total of 56, reflected the political stability and relative prosperity of the Weimar Republic. In the 1932 Summer Olympic Games, Germany won only 20 medals, finishing ninth in the

847

total medal count, whereas the United States, competing in Los Angeles, led all nations with 103 total medals. Germany’s 1932 performance, in contrast to its 1928 success, reflected the nation’s downward political and economic spiral since the collapse of the global economy in late 1929. The 1936 Olympic Games marked a turning point in relations between America and Germany in the competition. In 1928 the IOC awarded the eleventh Summer Olympic Games to Berlin and the fourth Winter Olympic Games to GarmischPartenkirschen, both scheduled for 1936. With the rise of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) to power after 1933, which avidly promoted its policy of Aryan racial purity and anti-Semitism, the United States began to reconsider participation in the so-called Nazi Olympics. American opposition to participation in the 1936 Olympic Games came not from the United States government, which remained silent on the issue, but from athletic organizations, such as the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU). Although the AAU voted to boycott the 1936 Olympic Games, the American Olympic Committee (AOC), led by Avery Brundage, an unabashed supporter of Nazi Germany, declared that American athletes would participate in Berlin. Germany defeated America, winning a total of 89 to 56 medals, in the 1936 Summer Olympic Games. Germany’s victory, however, was bittersweet, in that the U. S. cadre of black track and field athletes, led by Jesse Owens, spoiled Nazi ambitions to showcase its notion of Aryan racial superiority on the athletic field. American black athletes won 11 of the 23 medals won by the United States in track and field. Owens alone won 4 gold medals in the 100- and 200-meter races, the long

848

OLYMPIC GAMES

jump, and the 4 x 100-meter relay. In the long jump, German Lutz Long befriended Owens, advising the American on how to correct his technique. After congratulating the Finnish medal winners in the 10,000meter race, German leader Adolf Hitler refused to congratulate black American Cornelius Johnson, who had won the high jump. Hitler refrained from congratulating medal winners after the IOC informed him that he must congratulate all or none. The IOC cancelled the 1940 and 1944 Olympic Games during World War II and, once the games resumed in 1948, did not permit Germany or Japan to compete in them that year. When Germany returned to the Olympic fold in 1952, the IOC debated how to treat the newly divided nation, offering East Germany, which had not yet formed a national Olympic Committee, the opportunity to participate as part of the West German team. East Germany refused to compete as part of the West German team that year, but did so in subsequent Summer Olympiads until 1968, when it fielded its own team in Mexico City. Over the next twenty years, East Germany, a small nation of roughly 18 million people, developed powerful Olympic teams, rivaled only by those of the Soviet Union. In the 1976 and 1988 Summer Olympic Games, East Germany finished second to the Soviet Union in the total medal count, with the United States finishing third, and West Germany fourth. East Germany finished first in the total medal count at the 1984 Winter Olympic Games. Much of East Germany’s strength came from its female contingent, which dominated its western counterpart and the United States in track and field, canoeing, gymnastics, handball, and rowing. East Germany’s much-acclaimed female swimmers, however, failed

to dominate the Americans, as the latter claimed 103 medals to East Germany’s 76 in the pool from 1968 to 1988. In 1972 Munich hosted the Summer Olympic Games, marking the return of the Olympics to Germany after 1936. Eager to shake free of its Nazi past, West Germany wanted this Olympiad to showcase world harmony and peace. Terrorism, however, spoiled the peaceful and harmonious tone of the Games, as eight Palestinian gunmen broke into the dormitory housing the Israeli Olympic team, killing two, and taking nine as hostages. Demanding safe passage from Germany and the release of 200 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, the terrorists and their captives arrived by helicopter at a military airport, where West German police opened fire on them. As a result of the ensuing battle, all nine hostages died, as well as five terrorists, and one policeman. For thirty-four hours, the IOC suspended Olympic competition and held a memorial service for the slain Israelis in the main Olympic stadium, before American Avery Brundage, president of the IOC, proclaimed that “the Games must go on.” Before the hostage crisis disrupted the Games, a controversy over the type of pole used in the pole vault directly affected the outcome of that event in favor of East Germany. Before the start of the Games, East Germany complained about the Cata-Pole, a newly designed, very flexible carbon composite pole used widely by U.S. and Swedish vaulters, but unavailable to the East Germans. Initially, the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF), the governing body of track and field, banned the pole, but four days before the start of the Olympic pole vault competition lifted the ban, only to reimpose it before the event. As a result, Wolfgang Nordwig, of

OLYMPIC GAMES

East Germany, won the pole vault, ending American hegemony over the event that had prevailed since 1896. In December 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and in January 1980 President Jimmy Carter announced that his country would not participate in the Summer Olympic Games to be held in Moscow that year. Sixty-five nations, including West Germany, joined the United States in boycotting the Moscow Olympics. East Germany, on the other hand, competed in Moscow, in support of its Communist brethren. The 1980 Summer Olympic Games became, in track and field parlance, a “dual meet” between the Soviet Union and East Germany, as the Soviets won 195 medals and East Germany garnered 126. Hungary, in third place, won only 41 medals. In 1984 the Soviet Union returned the favor, leading a boycott of the Summer Olympic Games held in Los Angeles that year. Thirteen nations, including East Germany, joined the Soviet Union in boycotting the Los Angeles Olympics. Although fewer nations boycotted the 1984 than the 1980 Olympics Games, those that stayed away from Los Angeles accounted for 58 percent of the medals won at Montreal in 1976. The United States dominated the games, winning 174 medals, compared to the 59 won by West Germany in second place. Since the reunification of Germany in 1990, Germany has competed in the Olympics as a single team. With the dissolution of the East German Olympic program, however, the world learned that many of East Germany’s medal-winning performances resulted from an official government policy of including performanceenhancing drugs in the training of athletes. Despite the widespread use of these stimu-

849

lants by the East German Olympic team, none of its athletes ever tested positive for doping during Olympic competition, as team physicians developed successful means to mask the drugs. German inquiries into the use of performance-enhancing drugs as part of the Olympictraining regimen led to the prosecution of many former East German sports officials. Nevertheless, the German Olympic movement benefited from the unification of the former East and West teams, as the single German team inherited many of the athletes of the once powerful East German program. While Germany won the total medal count at the 1992 Winter Olympic Games, it managed to finish third behind the Soviet Union, which finished first, and the United States, which finished second, in the 1992 Summer Olympic Games. In 1996 Germany finished third to Russia in the total medal count, as the United States prevailed above all that year. The United States won the total medal count again at the 2000 Summer Olympic Games, while Germany finished fifth behind Russia, China, and Australia. Adam R. Hornbuckle References and Further Reading Dyerson, Mark. Making the American Team: Sport, Culture, and the Olympic Experience. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois, 1998. Guttmann, Allen. The Olympics: A History of the Modern Games. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois, 1994. Hill, Christopher. Olympic Politics: Athens to Atlanta, 1896–1996. Manchester and New York: Manchester University, 1996. Mandell, Richard D. The Nazi Olympics. New York: Macmillan, 1971. Wallechinsky, David. The Complete Book of the Winter Olympics. New York: Overlook, 1988. ———. The Complete Book of the Summer Olympics: Sydney 2000 Edition. New York: Overlook, 2000.

850

ONTARIO

ONTARIO Germans established their long-standing presence in Ontario during the last quarter of the eighteenth century. They were among the province’s early pioneers, with a particularly high concentration in Waterloo County and on the Niagara peninsula. Germans arrived as members of four clearly distinguishable groups: (1) United Empire Loyalists; (2)Hessians; (3) Pennsylvania Germans (mostly Mennonites); and (4) German immigrants from Europe (including Germans from Germany, often referred to as Reichsdeutsche, and ethnic Germans from eastern Europe). The German-language group has maintained a strong presence, particularly in the Waterloo region, which is largely due to the continuing presence of a strong Mennonite community combined with large-scale immigration of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe following World War II. According to the census of 2001, 965,510 individuals out of a total population of 11,285,550 (approximately 8 percent) consider themselves as belonging to the German ethnic group (Statistics Canada, Census 2001).

The United Empire Loyalists The arrival of the United Empire Loyalists, who came to Canada following the American War of Independence (1775–1783), marked the beginning of Ontario’s modern settlement history. More than 45,000 Loyalists, among them many Germans, who had supported the British cause during the war, accepted the British government’s invitation to leave their homelands in the newly independent United States and to resettle in British North America. Loyalists received free land, provisioning, and finan-

cial compensation for the lands they had lost in the United States from the British government. About 20,000 Loyalists settled on the Niagara peninsula in what is present-day Ontario. While no precise data is available as to the exact number of Germans among the Loyalists, estimates range from between 10 and 30 percent (Bassler 1991, 129). They were mostly descendants of emigrants from the Palatinate and other southwestern regions of present-day Germany who had come to New York in 1709–1710 to escape crop failures, lack of religious freedom, political oppression, and economic exploitation. Loyalists established settlements along the Niagara River, at the Bay of Quinte, and, most of all, east of Kingston. In the latter region German Loyalists were particularly concentrated in the townships of Williamsburg, Matilda, Osnabruck, and Cornwall. They founded ethnic neighborhoods in communities such as Ernestown, Fredericksburgh, Adolphustown, and Marysburgh.

Hessians The second German group to establish permanent residency in Ontario were mercenary troops, mostly from Hesse, who remained in Canada after the War of Independence. They are commonly referred to as the Hessians. Several hundred of those 2,400 soldiers who chose Canada as their new home settled in Ontario. Mostly single soldiers, they did not establish a common settlement pattern. Attracted by various ethnic and nonethnic communities, most of them intermarried with the local, mostly anglophone population. As a result, the Hessians became quickly assimilated.

ONTARIO

Pennsylvania Germans The third defined group to come to Ontario was the so-called Pennsylvania Germans, mostly Mennonites from Pennsylvania, who settled in Upper Canada from 1786 onward. They were descendants of those anabaptists who had responded to William Penn’s call in 1683 to establish a faith-based community in the New World. They left Pennsylvania for Ontario for a number of reasons. First, population pressure in Pennsylvania made it increasingly difficult for members of the younger generations to acquire land for farming. Second, Mennonites felt their lifestyle threatened by American nationalism as expressed during the American War of Independence. Third, they felt more loyalty to the British Crown, which had previously guaranteed them religious freedom, cultural autonomy, and exemption from military service, than to the newly founded United States. Even though many Mennonites had held strong sympathies for the British cause during the American War of Independence, they—as opposed to the United Empire Loyalists—did not receive free land from the British authorities. The main attraction for Mennonite immigration to Upper Canada was the British colonial government’s renewed promise of those freedoms they had previously enjoyed under British rule, in combination with the availability of fertile land at affordable prices. These motivating factors made the Mennonites political and economic migrants at the very same time. Beginning in 1786, the first Mennonite settlements were established just north of the U.S.-Canadian border. In 1800 the first settlers from Franklin County, Penn-

851

sylvania, arrived in what would later become Canada’s largest German-speaking settlement, Waterloo County. By 1802, when some twenty-five families were already living in Waterloo, immigrants learned that they held insecure land titles, because preexisting mortgages had not been fully discharged by United Empire Loyalist Richard Beasley, from whom they had bought their land. Word of insecure land titles in Ontario quickly spread in Pennsylvania causing many Mennonites to avoid the Waterloo settlement and to establish the Markham colony in York County instead. Responding to their Ontario brethren’s call for help, a group of Mennonite investors in Pennsylvania founded the German Land Company and bought an area of 60,000 acres. This purchase cleared all the land of preexisting mortgages and secured the exclusive German character of the Grand River settlement for the future. Corresponding with the continuing demand for land in Upper Canada, the German Land Company in 1807 bought an additional 45,000 acres, later called the German Block, in the adjacent township of Woolwich. By 1841 Ontario’s Mennonite population counted 5,400 people (Bassler 1991, 124), mostly concentrated in Niagara and Waterloo counties, around Markham and on the northern shore of Lake Erie.

European Germans The Mennonite settlements in Waterloo County and Niagara attracted other Pennsylvania Germans and, from the 1830s onward, European Germans who arrived in the New World in ever-growing numbers. European newcomers, most often while on their way to the American Midwest,

852

ONTARIO

learned about the German character of the existing Mennonite communities in Waterloo and Niagara and took up residence there. This way Waterloo and Niagara counties were able to attract almost all German immigrants to Canada during the first half of the nineteenth century, making the earlier presence of the Pennsylvania German Mennonites imperative for the development of a strong ethnic German settlement in Waterloo County in particular. While the county’s rural areas were mostly populated by Pennsylvania German farmers, European German immigrants were primarily attracted by the economic opportunities and the German character of Waterloo County’s growing centers: Preston (now part of Cambridge), Berlin (renamed Kitchener in 1916), and Waterloo. European German immigrants established a rich denominational and cultural life with ethnic churches, Turnvereine (sports clubs), denominational associations, choirs, musical societies, theatre groups, Schuetzenvereine (shooting clubs), veterans’ societies, lodges, etc. Between 1862 and 1912 Berlin and Waterloo hosted thirteen large-scale choir festivals, the so-called Saengerfests, which attracted thousands of participants and visitors from Canada and the northern states of the United States. Throughout the second half of the nineteenth century, the most flourishing period of German culture in Ontario, more than thirty German-language newspapers were published. On the Niagara peninsula, European Germans founded communities such as New Germany in Welland County; and St. Catherines and Niagara had large German minorities. In the census of 1871, 25 percent of the Niagara peninsula’s population was of German descent (Census of Canada

1871). The area’s rich German cultural life as well as use of the German language declined, however, after German migration to that region came to an end during the 1870s. The corresponding arrival of larger numbers of non-German immigrants resulted in assimilation of the German group. During the second half of the nineteenth century, new settlement areas were opened in Ontario. While many newcomers were still attracted by the existing German settlements, others became pioneers themselves. They cleared the land and established new communities in the upper Ottawa valley and the Huron region. Immigrants’ new focus on the lands between the lower Ottawa River and Georgian Bay developed in response to the government’s attempt to establish permanent settlements in the area. Some 12,000 Germans settled in the Ottawa valley between 1857 and 1887 (Bassler 1991, 105), mostly attracted by the government’s promise of free land. The fact that Waterloo County was almost saturated by then further contributed to the immigrants’ willingness to settle in the Ottawa valley. With eleven primarily German townships, Renfrew County became the main German settlement area in the upper Ottawa valley. Community names such as Augsburg, Woermke, Rosenthal, Kramer, and Hoffman indicate the Germanic background of the early settlers. Due to the strength of the German group in the area, a rich German cultural life with German schools, churches, and a Germanlanguage newspaper developed in the Ottawa Valley. Newcomers from Germany and immigrants who had previously settled in Waterloo County worked together in the development of the Huron Tract north and

ONTARIO

west of Waterloo County. Here they founded communities such as Bern, Zurich, Sebastopol, Rostock, Wartburg, and many others in the counties of Perth, Huron, Bruce, and Grey. While German immigrants had a tendency to settle in ethnic enclaves, many individual immigrants and immigrant families were attracted by the growing Canadian cities, such as Hamilton or Toronto, as well. By 1871 Hamilton had a German population of some 1,300 people (Bassler 1991, 102). Several local enterprises were owned by Germans. There were German churches, a German society, a theatre, a choir, and two German-language newspapers. Toronto’s German community grew substantially during the second half of the century as well. In 1851 a German Lutheran congregation was founded. The city had a German choir and band, and German business- and craftspeople contributed to the economic life of Ontario’s most economically active city. A German consulate was established with entrepreneur Samuel Nordheimer acting as consul for many years. By 1871 almost 1,000 Germans were living in Toronto; at the time of the 1911 census the city’s German community had grown close to 9,000 people (Census of Canada 1911). Culturally active Germans all over Ontario formed part of an ethno-cultural network that was primarily perpetuated by choirs and churches paying each other visits on occasions such as the Saengerfests and denominational events. Corresponding with the opening of the Canadian West for settlement, immigration to the traditional German settlement areas in Ontario decreased dramatically. Depending on the size of the local German group, the level of acculturation

853

and assimilation differed in the variou Ontario communities with a German population. The German heritage was maintained the longest in the ethnic group settlements of Waterloo and Renfrew counties, where Germans formed the charter group and determined the parameters of political, economic, cultural, and denominational life in their respective communities. But even there the forces of acculturation had done their work by the turn of the twentieth century. Ethnic newspapers and clubs were dissolved or merged as the immigrant generation passed away and new German immigrants who could have reinforced German ethnic life were attracted by the Canadian West. Even more importantly, members of the Canadian-born generations increasingly perceived themselves as Canadians and turned to English as their primary language. In Canada’s “German capital”—Berlin—however, community leaders publicly expressed their strong feelings for the old fatherland; for example, in celebrations of the German emperor’s birthday as late as in January 1914, creating the false image that Ontario’s Germans identified with imperial Germany rather than with their adopted homeland of Canada. Several Ontario communities were directly affected by the anti-German feelings that developed all over Canada during the years of World War I. The War-Time Election Act of 1917 disenfranchised all Pennsylvania German Mennonites, as well as German immigrants who had arrived in Canada after 1899. German Canadians working in government and education were laid off in Toronto, London, Guelph, and elsewhere in Ontario. German-sounding street names were changed, and in 1916 Torontonians

854

ONTARIO

formed an Anti-German League, aimed at forcing the dismissal of all Canadians of German heritage from public office and the administration. German clubs were ransacked in Berlin and Waterloo, and citizens of Austria-Hungary living in Guelph were interned. Facing growing public pressure, several Ontario communities with German-sounding names were renamed—most outstandingly Berlin, which became Kitchener after the British minister of war, Lord Kitchener, in 1916. Having been the victims of stigmatization as disloyal elements of Canadian society and anti-German measures during World War I, German Canadians at large were reluctant to identify themselves as Germans any longer. Correspondingly, the numbers of Ontarians claiming German ethnic origin decreased dramatically in the census of 1921. While more than 192,000 had identified themselves as German in the 1911 census, the number had dropped by almost 60,000 to 130,545 in 1921 (Census of Canada 1911, 1921). Even though several German clubs were reconstituted and German-language services were resumed in several congregations, Ontario’s German community became silent and almost disappeared after World War I. New organizations that were formed in the interwar years were also of a different character from those active prior to World War I. When German immigrants were allowed into Canada again from the 1920s onward, the character of German immigration had changed entirely from Reichsdeutsche immigrants from Germany to ethnic Germans from eastern Europe. This change was further perpetuated after World War II, when ethnic Germans who had been expelled from their homelands in Yugoslavia, Ro-

mania, Hungary, the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltics constituted the majority of German immigrants to Ontario and Canada at large. Even though, according to the 2001 census, 8 percent of Ontarians are of German origin (Statistics Canada Census, 2001), a strong German presence has survived only in Kitchener-Waterloo. While the area’s countryside is usually referred to as Mennonite County for its strong Pennsylvania German influence, German life in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo is based on clubs, choirs, churches, an annual Pioneer Day celebration, the Christkindl market, and North America’s largest Oktoberfest. Almost exclusively supported by German immigrants who arrived in the fifties and sixties, German clubs and German cultural life are facing an insecure future, with the exception of Oktoberfest, which has developed into a multiethnic large-scale community event. In view of demographic development, lack of recent German immigrants, as well as ethnic organizations’ difficulties in attracting members of the Canadian-born generations, it is safe to conclude that German life in Ontario is entering a difficult stage: many clubs will be forced to merge and consolidate again to secure their own survival. In the end, only the adoption of the English language will guarantee the continuing existence of German cultural life in Ontario beyond the early decades of the twenty-first century. Ulrich Frisse See also Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Hessians; Ontario, German-Language Press in; Verein; Waterloo, Ontario; Waterloo County, Ontario; World War I

ONTARIO, GERMAN-LANGUAGE PRESS References and Further Reading Bassler, Gerhard P. The German Canadian Mosaic Today and Yesterday: Identities, Roots and Heritage. Ottawa: German-Canadian Congress, 1991. English, John, and Kenneth McLaughlin. Kitchener: An Illustrated History. Toronto: Robin Brass, 1996. Frisse, Ulrich. Berlin, Ontario: Ontario (18001916): Historische Identitaeten von “Kanadas Deutscher Hauptstadt.” Ein Beitrag zur Deutsch-Kanadischen Migrations-, Akkulturations- und Perzeptionsgeschichte des 19. und fruehen 20. Jahrhunderts. Kitchener, ON: Transatlantic Publishing, 2003. Government of Canada. Census of Canada 1870–1871. Recensement du Canada. Volume I. Ottawa, 1873. ———. Fifth Census of Canada 1911: Religions, Origins, Birthplace, Citizenship, Literacy and Infirmities, By Provinces, Districts and Sub-Districts. Volume II. Ottawa, 1913. ———, Sixth Census of Canada 1921. Volume II—Population. Ottawa, 1925. Lehmann, Heinz. The German Canadians 1750–1937: Immigration, Settlement & Culture. Translated, edited, and introduced by Gerhard P. Bassler. St. John’s, NF: Jesperson, 1986. Statistics Canada, Census 2001, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/ home/index.cfm (accessed May 2005).

ONTARIO, GERMANLANGUAGE PRESS IN Ethnic newspapers were important contributors to German immigrants’ and their descendants’ rich cultural life in Ontario during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Next to churches, choirs, and other ethnic social organizations, the German-language press played a significant role in language maintenance and the re-

IN

855

tention of a German identity within Ontario’s immigrant society. Between 1835, when the Canada Museum und Allgemeine Zeitung (Canada Museum and General Newspaper) was launched as the province’s first German paper, and 1918, when German-language publications were prohibited, some thirty German-language papers were published in Ontario. Corresponding with the main German settlement area, most papers appeared in Waterloo County and adjacent counties of southwestern Ontario, but there were papers in other areas (e.g., the Niagara peninsula, Hamilton, and Ottawa) as well. There has been a modest revival of Ontario’s German-language press since the end of World War II. Ontario’s German-language press was very diverse, consisting of both religious and secular papers: Canada Museum und Allgemeine Zeitung, Der Deutsche Canadier und Neuigkeitsbote (The German Canadian and News Messenger), Der Canadische Bauernfreund (The Canadian Farmer’s Friend), Canadische Volkszeitung (Canadian People’s Newspaper), Berliner Journal, and Deutsche Zeitung (German Newspaper), to mention only a few. Most papers were secular, but religious periodicals catering to specific church groups found an interested audience as well. Almost all papers appeared weekly, with an average readership of a couple of thousand readers at the most, and they attracted no interest outside of Ontario’s main German settlement areas. In order to survive economically, the papers had to cater to the widest local German Canadian audience possible, encompassing immigrants as well as their Canadian-born children and grandchildren. In Ontario’s main German settlement area, Waterloo County, newspapers

856

ONTARIO, GERMAN-LANGUAGE PRESS

catered to Pennsylvania German farmers in the countryside and European German artisans and businesspeople in the villages and developing towns alike. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, special pages for children, such as the Kinder Journal (Children’s Journal), published for the first time in 1899 as part of the popular Berliner Journal, addressed the specific needs of Canadian-born children of German immigrants. The German press’s role as a mediator between the Old and the New Worlds, as well as the lack of a homogeneous readership, was clearly reflected in the papers’ content. Detailed information about the old fatherland was accompanied by descriptions of the geographical, political, historical, and social setup of the immigrants’ adopted country. Translations of key legislation such as the British North America Act, provincial school acts, etc., as well as reports about the cultural life and economic development of their new hometown community acquainted newcomers with life in Canada and helped them integrate into the society of their adopted homeland. Prior to the installation of the transatlantic underwater cable in 1866, however, news from Germany was not always available. Ontario publishers often had to rely on information from outdated newspapers that reached Canada by ship and that were often published under the ship’s name. News and poetry were also often drawn from the so-called Wechselblaetter; that is, exchanges from the United States, which were distributed for reprinting in local German newspapers all over North America. Competition between Ontario publishers of German-language newspapers

IN

was fierce. They competed not only for a limited readership, mostly consisting of immigrants, but also for printing contracts from the municipal, provincial, and federal governments. A steady decline in the numbers of immigrants during the last quarter of the nineteenth century provided additional challenges to Germanlanguage publishers: as the old immigrants passed away, Ontario had to compete for new immigrants, not only with the United States, but also with the Canadian prairies and western provinces. In this situation, Ontario’s German papers campaigned even more ardently for the retention of the German language among the children and grandchildren of German immigrants. Against the background of their economic constraints, it is not surprising that fabricated reciprocal slander and libel charges among publishers and editors were quite common. Furthermore, most newspaper publishers were politically active, often on opposite sides of the political spectrum, and took on leading roles in local politics and the social life of their respective communities. Their common commitment to the retention of the German language, however, allowed them to cooperate in various forms: in July 1872 several Waterloo County publishers founded the Deutsch-Kanadischer Pressverein (German-Canadian Press Association) to lobby for German-language education in Ontario’s public schools. As many papers stayed in business only for a number of years, there was little continuity in Ontario’s German-language press; the Berliner Journal, which was published from 1859 to 1918, clearly stands out as an exception. Many publishers and

ONTARIO, GERMAN-LANGUAGE PRESS

editors came to Ontario from German ethnic neighborhoods in the United States where they had already worked in the ethnic newspaper business. In several cases, they returned to the United States after only a few years in Canada. In the United States, participants of the German revolutions of 1848–1849 acted as intellectual leaders of the German American community; for example, as newspaper publishers and editors. In Ontario’s German newspaper business, however, Forty-Eighters played a rather insignificant role. Ontario’s German newspapers flourished during the second half of the nineteenth century. By the turn of the century, however, lack of new immigrants combined with a high level of acculturation and English-language adaptation among the Canadian-born generations resulted in a period of amalgamation. Several papers merged, others had to cease publication. By the beginning of World War I, the Berliner Journal was Ontario’s only remaining German paper. It is safe to conclude that even without the war-inflicted abolition of German-language papers by order in council in 1918, Ontario’s Germanlanguage press would not have been continued beyond the 1920s. By the outbreak of World War I, the owner- and editorship of the remaining Berliner Journal had passed into the hands of the Canadian-born generation. Their answer to the challenges presented to Ontario’s German community by World War I was to articulate a specific German Canadian view that was deeply rooted in their upbringing as Canadians and in their undivided loyalty to their home country. At the same time, they dismissed demands by more recent immi-

IN

857

grants from Germany to take a pro-German stand during the war. Despite the editors’ attempts to de-escalate and to ease the anti-German feelings so prevalent during the war, the Berliner Journal did not escape its forced abolition. An order in council of October 1918 that prohibited German-language publications of any kind marked the end of eighty-three consecutive years of German newspaper publishing in Ontario. A modest revival of German newspapers in Ontario has occurred, particularly after World War II, when thousands of expelled ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe and emigrants from Germany provided a new readership. Papers such as the Deutsche Presse (German Press), Echo Germanica, and Neue Welt (New World) continue the long-standing presence of German newspapers in Ontario. Ulrich Frisse See also Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Forty-Eighters; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Ontario; Printing and Publishing References and Further Reading Bausenhart, Werner A. “The Ontario German Language Press and Its Suppression by Order-in-Council in 1918.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 4, 1–2 (1972): 35–48. Frisse, Ulrich. Berlin, Ontario(1800-1916): Historische Identitaeten von “Kanadas Deutscher Hauptstadt.” Ein Beitrag zur Deutsch-Kanadischen Migrations-, Akkulturations- und Perzeptionsgeschichte des 19. und fruehen 20. Jahrhunderts. Kitchener, ON: Transatlantic Publishing, 2003. Kalbfleisch, Herbert Karl. “Among the Editors of Ontario German Newspapers, 1835–1918.” Canadian-German Folklore 1 (1961): 78–85. ———. The History of the Pioneer German Language Press of Ontario, 1835–1918. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1968.

858

OROZCO Y HUERTA

OROZCO Y HUERTA Pascual Orozco and Victoriano Huerta were important Mexican revolutionaries that Germany sought to aid in order to secure a strategic ally in the Western Hemisphere. Victoriano Huerta was born in Colotlán, Jalisco, on May 23, 1845, and after attending military college made a name for himself in various military campaigns against native uprisings. Born in Chihuahua on January 28, 1882, Pascual Orozco Jr. found success as a merchant before taking up the revolutionary cause. Orozco had been a revolutionary from early on and initially supported Francisco Madero’s attempts to consolidate power. In 1912, however, Orozco marched against Madero, but Huerta, a general under Madero, thwarted Orozco’s plan. Within a year, Huerta himself conspired with Félix Díaz, the expelled dictator’s cousin, and U.S. ambassador Henry Lane Wilson to wrest power from Madero, who was later executed. Initially opposed to each other, Orozco agreed to accept Huerta as president if Huerta promised to enact certain reforms. Over the following years, both the United States and Germany repeatedly attempted to influence events in Mexico to their advantages. While the United States supported Venustiano Carranza’s attempts to oust Huerta, the German government sought to turn Mexico into a German protectorate. On April 21, 1914, the U.S. consul in Veracruz informed the White House that the Ypiranga, a German ship, was scheduled to arrive with a shipment of weapons for Huerta. As a result, Woodrow Wilson ordered the occupation of Veracruz. Although citizens in both the United States and Mexico were outraged by Wilson’s maneuver, Huerta was unable to make the in-

vasion work to his advantage. Facing opposition from many sides, he resigned on June 8, 1914. However, Huerta was not finished yet, and several factions approached him with proposals, including a revolutionary movement that was also courting Orozco. Meanwhile, Germany, seeking an ally in the Western Hemisphere against the United States, who they feared would join in World War I, approached Huerta and Orozco. Huerta met with German representatives in New York in 1915. The Germans promised to provide Huerta and Orozco with $895,000, along with rifles and ammunition. In return, Germany hoped that Orozco and Huerta would overthrow the Mexican government and set up a pro-German government, thus giving them an ally geographically close to the United States. Orozco rendezvoused with Huerta in Newman, New Mexico, intent on crossing the boarder into Mexico. The rebels’ plan never unfolded, as they were arrested by the Justice Department and charged with conspiracy to violate neutrality laws. Both were freed and placed under house arrest. Orozco managed to escape, which prompted law enforcement to rescind Huerta’s bond. On August 30, 1915, Texas Rangers caught up with Orozco in the Van Horn Mountains, south of Lobo, Texas, and shot and killed him. Huerta soon fell ill from cirrhosis of the liver due to heavy drinking. He died in El Paso on January 13, 1916. As a result of the revolutionaries’ capture and subsequent deaths, plans to set up a pro-German state in Mexico never materialized. Melvin Duane Davis See also Carranza, Venustiano; Mexico; World War I

OSTERHAUS, PETER J. References and Further Reading Grieb, Kenneth. The United States and Huerta. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1969. Meyer, Michael. Mexican Rebel: Pascual Orozco and the Mexican Revolution, 1910–1915. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1967. ———. Huerta: A Political Portrait. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1972.

OSTERHAUS, PETER J. b. January 4, 1823; Coblenz (Westphalia), Prussia d. January 2, 1917; Coblenz (Westphalia), Prussia One of five German Americans to reach the rank of major general in the American Civil War. Osterhaus served briefly in the Landswehr before joining the 1848 uprisings, serving with the largest revolutionary army in Baden. Following the failed revolution, Osterhaus was forced to flee to the United States in 1849, where he finally settled in St. Louis, Missouri. Working as a merchant and postmaster, Osterhaus engaged in state and national politics, supported the Republican Party, and became acquainted with Abraham Lincoln. Following Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion of the South (April 24, 1861), Osterhaus mustered into the U.S. Army, commanding Company A, 2nd Missouri Volunteer Infantry. He fought with this primarily German American unit at Wilson’s Creek in August 1861 through March 1862 at the Battle of Pea Ridge, where his battlefield abilities led to his promotion to the rank of colonel of the 12th Missouri Infantry. The following month Osterhaus

859

was promoted to the rank of brigadier general. For much of the rest of the year, Osterhaus remained on sick leave due to diarrhea and pleurisy, and returned to active duty after being reassigned to Ulysses S. Grant’s army in Tennessee. Osterhaus commanded the 9th Division of Major General John McClernand’s XIII Corps at the battles of Arkansas Post, Port Gibson, and Jackson, Mississippi. On May 16, 1863, he led his unit in the attack at Champion’s Hill east of Vicksburg, Mississippi, followed by the Battle of Big Black River. Osterhaus received his only wound during the entire war at this last engagement. Following the Vicksburg campaign, Osterhaus was given command of the 1st Division, XV Corps under William T. Sherman as the army transferred its base of operations to Chattanooga, Tennessee, in November 1863. He led his division (under overall temporary command of Joseph Hooker) in what became known as the “Battle above the Clouds” on November 24, 1863, and on the following day participated in driving Confederate forces off Missionary Ridge. Osterhaus and the 1st Division rejoined the XV Corps to take part in the drive toward Atlanta, which culminated in the capture of that city in September 1864 and his promotion to the rank of major general. Following the capture of Atlanta, Osterhaus took part in Sherman’s March to the Sea, leading to the capture of Savannah, Georgia, in December 1864. Though Osterhaus continued with Sherman’s army into North and South Carolina and even briefly commanded the XV Corps, he spent the last few months of the war serving as chief of staff

860

OSTERHAUS, PETER J.

under General Edward S. Canby in New Orleans, Louisiana. Canby appointed Osterhaus commander of the Military District of Mississippi, a position he held until he was mustered out of service in February 1866. After the war, Osterhaus served as U.S. consul to France from 1866 to 1868 and in his later years he again served in the U.S. consular service in Mannheim, Germany. Kevin M. Levin

General Peter J. Osterhaus was one of five German Americans to reach the rank of major general in the American Civil War. (Library of Congress)

See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Forty-Eighters; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Hess, Earl J. “Grant’s Ethnic General.” In Grant’s Lieutenants. Ed. Steven E. Woodworth. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2001. McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University, 1988. Piston, William G., and Richard W. Hatcher, III. Wilson’s Creek. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2000.

P PAEPCKE,WALTER PAUL b. June 29, 1896; Chicago, Illinois d. April 13, 1963; Chicago, Illinois Highly successful and innovative German American businessman, an extraordinary promoter of the arts and sciences, who was instrumental in creating the New Bauhaus in Chicago and the Institute for Humanistic Studies at Aspen, Colorado. Paepcke’s strong ties to German high culture and to ideas of humanism can neither be separated from his upbringing nor from his wealth. Both gave him the absolute independence to pursue his ideas without having to care about public opinion. Instead he was in a position to influence and shape public opinion. His ties to Germany existed on an intellectual level and not, as with most other German Americans, on the basis of personal feelings and an attachment to German forms of socializing. Instead he was one of the leading American businessmen in bringing together commerce and the arts. Paepcke’s father, Hermann Ludwig August Paepcke, had been born in Teterow, grand duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, in 1851 and had immigrated to Texas in 1872. He engaged himself in the lumber

and packing industry and soon became very successful. In 1885 he founded the Chicago Packing Box Company. Ten years later he founded the American Box Company and bought many mills and lumber businesses around the country. By that time he was already a millionaire. In addition to his business and his family, German culture was of great importance to him. For the various executive offices of his many companies he chose only men of German descent. He always lived in Chicago’s North Side amid a strong and predominantly German neighborhood. Thus, Walter Paepcke grew up in a household where Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Friedrich Schiller were recited regularly and where he learned the German language from birth. He received a classical education at the Chicago Latin School and later went to Yale, where he studied economics and German literature, thus reflecting his father’s passions. When Hermann Paepcke died in July 1922, Walter Paul Paepcke, twenty-six years old, had already been in charge of the company for one year. As the lumber business was declining, he first had to nurture the company back to health before he could make his decisive move: In June

861

862

PAEPCKE,WALTER PAUL

1926 he formed the Container Corporation of America (CCA), after having bought the Mid-West Box Company and the Philadelphia Paper Manufacturing Company. After early profits of over $1,000,000 in 1927, CCA got into some trouble during the Great Depression but recovered and again grossed a profit of $1,287,000 in 1936 (Allen 1983, 23). It was not business alone though that constituted the personality of Walter Paepcke. Having been introduced to the world of art by his father, Paepcke found a congenial partner and inspirator in his wife Elizabeth, the daughter of his father’s friend William A. Nitze, chairman of the Romance Language Department of the University of Chicago. She was not only a legendary beauty of her time but also the guiding spirit in one of the boldest and most successful experiments in the history of American business: the introduction of modern art into company design. On the suggestion of his wife, Paepcke established an art department for his company and made the president of the Art Directors’ Club of Chicago, Egbert Jacobson, its head on April 1, 1935. The first artist to work for CCA was the famous French poster artist A. M. Cassandre. Others like Toni Zepf, Man Ray, Henry Moore, Jean Carlu, Richard Lindner, Willem de Kooning, Herbert Bayer, Fernand Léger, and Miguel Covarrubias soon joined him. The unique advertising campaign these artists helped to create not only put CCA in the limelight but set standards for others, too. Paepcke did not stop there. When the famous painter and teacher at the Bauhaus, the Hungarian László Moholy-Nagy (1895–1946) came to Chicago in 1937, Paepcke was the essential force in creating the New Bauhaus in Chicago and making

Moholy-Nagy its head. The rise of Nazism had driven the Bauhaus and its members out of Germany. With Paepcke’s financial help they found a new home in Chicago. The Paepckes and the Moholy-Nagys became close friends, and in March 1944 Walter Paepcke was one of the founding fathers of another cultural landmark of design: the Institute of Design at Chicago. Paepcke’s ideas and visions were not confined to Chicago, though. The remote village of Aspen in Colorado lay dormant since the silver mining bust had ended its glorious days of exuberance in 1893. Again, it was Elizabeth Paepcke who set the eyes of her enterprising husband on an object that became the jewel in the crown for Walter Paepcke. She had seen only an ideal area for America’s newest popular sport: skiing. Riding the crest of his business triumphs, Paepcke himself saw more: a new cultural center for music, literature, and philosophy. Buying most of the land in and around Aspen in 1945, he first began developing Aspen into a modern ski resort with the longest ski lift in the world to create a successful economic basis for his wider schemes: to establish a modern Weimar (the city the famous Goethe lived in from 1775 until his death in 1832) in America together with his friend Walter Gropius. First came the annual Aspen Music Festival in the old remodeled opera house, then a health center, and finally his Institute for Humanistic Studies at Aspen in 1951. The climax of Walter Paepcke’s cultural life, the fulfillment of his dreams, came true in June 1949, when his vision of the Goethe festival, the Goethe Bicentennial Celebration at Aspen became a reality. Dimitri Mitropoulos conducted the Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra for the opening of the festival. The world-famous

PANAMA

physician Albert Schweitzer was the guest of honor (it was the first and last time Schweitzer came to the United States). And the American playwright Thornton Wilder, as well as the Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, gave lectures, among many other illustrious guests from all sections of the arts. The list of the festival’s guests, the notable lectures, and the influence of the Aspen Institute on the arts and on American business in the 1950s are impressive. The importance of Paepcke’s achievement was to have bridged the deadly and horrifying abyss of Nazi Germany, not to forget the horrors of the Third Reich or to diminish German guilt for millions of innocent deaths, but to remind the cultural world of what Germany had once stood for in the realm of the arts, and that German humanism, though severely shattered, could still give meaning to the modern world. With Walter Paepcke’s death in April 1963, however, things began to change. The Aspen Institute modified its program, slowly moving away from the pure humanistic concept to more specific economic, social, and political problems of American society. New programs, organizations, and seminars such as the Aspen Film Conference and the Aspen Center for Theoretical Physics were established. This expansion at the same time diminished Aspen’s role as a humanistic shrine, as a center for humanistic studies. In 2005 the institute sees itself as an international organization whose programs are designed to enhance the ability of business and political leaders to understand the issues that challenge the national and international community. A dominant focus of the institute had been on EastWest relations. The more the institute grew, the more it lost its clear shape as once

863

conceived by Robert Hutchins, Walter Paepcke, and Mortimer Adler. At the end of the sixties, the recreational aspect of the city of Aspen had outgrown the cultural one, and skiing—what Elizabeth Paepcke had had in mind originally—became the most important economic and social factor for this town. Aspen grew into a fashionable resort for the political and financial jet set, as well as for Hollywood stars, and the prices of everything there went up astronomically. In 1978 the Aspen Skiing Corporation was sold to Twentieth Century Fox for $40 million. Gary Cooper had been proud once to be host to Ortega y Gasset on the occasion of the Goethe Festival at Aspen; in 2005 the tourist feels thrilled when catching a glimpse of Sylvester Stallone. Andreas Reichstein See also Bauhaus; Gropius, Walter Adolph References and Further Reading Allen, James Sloan. The Romance of Commerce and Culture: Capitalism, Modernism, and the Chicago-Aspen Crusade for Cultural Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1983. Bayer, Herbert. Herbert Bayer: Painter, Designer, Architect. New York: Reinhold, 1967. Childs, Marquis W. “The World of Walter Paepcke.” Horizon (September 1958): 96–103, 133–134. Reichstein, Andreas. German Pioneers on the American Frontier. Denton: University of North Texas, 2001.

PANAMA In 1521 Charles V, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and king of Spain, granted the city charter and also assigned a coat of arms to Panama City as the first European settlement on the Pacific Ocean. During the Habsburg era

864

PANAMA

(1516–1700), Panama’s economy flourished due to the Spanish system of trade (carrera de Indias) and the famous Portobello fairs. Panama’s wealth also attracted the attention of foreign states to the isthmian region and even induced Elector Friedrich III of Brandenburg in 1688 to issue a trade and colonization license for the “Kingdom of Darien” to the Brandenburgisch-Amerikanische Kompagnie (Brandenburg-American Trade Company). However, the daring enterprise was never realized. The viceroyalty of Peru was supplied largely by way of Panama, and German missionaries and specialists took that route as well. The widely renowned Jacobo Walburger, SJ, who served as a missionary in Darien during the 1740s, stood out among those who remained in this region. A study proposing an interoceanic canal through the Isthmus of Panama, published by the Prussian scholar Alexander von Humboldt in 1811, awakened public awareness and discussions within scientific circles about the feasibility of a canal route. Even Johann Wolfgang von Goethe predicted that the project could be achieved within fifty years. After gaining its independence from Spain, Panama in 1826 wanted to become a país hanseático; that is, it planned to become an American trade center, only loosely associated with Colombia and using the Hanseatic cities of the German League as models. Colombia, however, refused to give up its geographically advantageous province. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the German scholars Moritz Wagner, a geographer from Bayreuth, and Karl Theodor Sapper, a Bavarian ethnologist and geographer, explored Panama’s interior. The German Empire, favorably viewing Panama’s independence from Colombia on November 3,

1903, promptly recognized the new republic on November 30. Germany became the model for the new Panamanian school system. Recruited in Germany, several of the teachers became school administrators, and the newly established secondary school, Escuela de Artes y Oficios, was profoundly influenced by Germans. The pedagogue Ricardo Neumann, director of the Instituto Nacional for many years and inspector general of secondary schools, became one of the outstanding figures in Panamanian education. German and U.S. interests in Panama clashed early. When a Berlin company planned to build a narrow-gauge railroad in the Darien region in 1911 to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the U.S. government intervened and brought the construction to a halt, although the Panamanian parliament already had agreed and the first investments had already taken place. The United States did not tolerate economic undertakings of a competing power near the canal. Panama joined the United States immediately after its entry into World War I in April 1917. The United States, fearing German military air strikes, increased the defenses of the Canal Zone. German citizens in Panama were interned and sent to the United States. The German colony in Panama recovered only slowly from the wartime repression. Only fourteen Germans lived in Panama City and Colón in 1922. At the end of 1924, forty to fifty Germans from the Rhineland, recruited by the Porras government for the purpose of agricultural development, arrived in Panama. After failing to provide sufficient settlement land near Capira, the government settled the remaining Germans in Boquete, in the climatically more advantageous Chiriquí province,

PAPEN, FRANZ VON

where eventually several of them became successful farmers with coffee and fruit plantations. On the other hand, the settlement of a sect of Germans and Swiss, who had withdrawn to the isolated Cotito in Chiriquí where they intended to live as vegetarians in keeping with nature, ended catastrophically. Their refusal to obey the authorities led to a police action that resulted in the massacre of twelve individuals. German college teachers contributed considerably to the Universidad de Panamá starting from its founding in 1935. Among those were scholars who had to leave Nazi Germany. In 1937 three German professors established the Centro de Investigaciones Sociales, Económicas y Jurídicas de la Universidad National de Panama (Center for Social, Economic and Juridical Research of the National University of Panama). Several of the center’s scientists attained international renown; for example, Franz Borkenau, sociologist of the Frankfurt School, and Richard Behrendt, economist in the United States and director of the Institute of Sociology at the Free University of Berlin. Erich Graetz later became dean of the science faculty of the University of Panama. Diplomatic relations between Germany and Panama were interrupted by World War II. Panama once again joined the United States a few hours after its declaration of war against Germany. Once again the U.S. administration feared a German attack on the canal, resulting, as in 1917, in the internment of German citizens in U.S. camps. Although Panama never became a direct target, German submarines sank seventy-six ships flying the Panamanian flag. Diplomatic relations, mostly without conflicts, between Germany and Panama were reestablished in

865

1953. In 1969 and 1977 Arnulfo Arias and General Omar Torrijos, two prominent political figures in Panama, visited the Federal Republic of Germany. Holger M. Meding See also Frankfurt School; Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, and the United States; Sapper Family References and Further Reading Cuestas, Carlos H. Cotito. Crónica de un crimen olvidado. Panama City: Carlos H. Cuestas, 1993. Meding, Holger. Panama. Staat und Nation im Wandel (1903–1941). Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau, 2002. Porcell, Néstor. Los docentes europeos y la formación de la Universidad de Panamá. Panama City: Universidad de Panamá, 1991.

PAPEN, FRANZ VON b. October 29, 1879;Werl (Westfalen), Prussia d. May 2, 1969; Oversasbach, BadenWürttemberg German spy in the United States during World War I; diplomat, politician, and statesman who was responsible for the appointment of Adolf Hitler as German chancellor on January 30, 1933. Papen received a military education and became a career soldier connected to the General Staff. He served as a spy against the United States at the German consulate in New York City from 1913 to 1916. His job was to direct the sabotage of U.S. shipping of war supplies to England. Papen established fictitious firms that accepted military orders from the Allies. To prevent the materials from reaching Allied territories he delayed or simply never shipped the orders. He also purchased gunpowder that could be used for artillery shells and grenades but

866

PAPEN, FRANZ VON

prevented Allied access by hoarding the gunpowder rather than selling it. In the United States Papen worked with some inept agents sent by Germany who compromised his intelligence endeavors. One agent inadvertently left a briefcase behind in public; the documents were published and humiliated the Germans. Papen also had difficulty with a radical agent from Berlin whose plans to bomb American shipping lines and military establishments and to create a terrorist campaign were anathema to Papen’s style. Although the agent was removed, Papen’s message was intercepted and the agent was arrested by the Allies while attempting to return to Germany. The German Abwehr ordered a continuance of the scheme, but Papen refused. Instead, he ordered German saboteurs to blow up the Canadian Pacific Railway to prevent troop movement. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police caught the saboteurs before their plans could be carried out. Papen also forged documents for German nationals who wished to fight the Allies. The United States expelled Papen and sent him back to Germany in December 1915. Afterward, Papen served as a military attaché in Spain in 1917. Upon his return to Germany he served as battalion commander and fought at the battles of the Somme and Vimy Ridge. In 1918 he became a spy for Turkey, but failed to track T. E. Lawrence’s forces. After World War I, Papen entered politics. As a staunch Catholic, he was a monarchist with authoritarian and rightwing views and joined the Catholic Centre Party. He was politically engineered into the vice chancellorship in 1932 by General Kurt von Schleicher, adviser to President Paul von Hindenburg. Although Papen disagreed with Hitler’s political position,

he lifted the ban on the NSDAP, hoping that this party would support his government. He also achieved the cancellation of Germany’s war reparations obligation that had crippled Germany financially. Papen’s governance style alienated many powerful people and he was forced to resign on December 4, 1932, when his policies were rejected. Determined to avenge his downfall, he worked toward Hitler’s appointment as Reich chancellor. Papen joined the first Hitler cabinet and became vice chancellor. Papen was driven by the belief that he could control the upstart and inexperienced Hitler. However, it was Hitler who quickly marginalized Papen. In 1934 Papen was demoted to ambassador to Austria and was instrumental in achieving the German Anschluß (annexation) of Austria in 1938. In 1939 he was appointed ambassador to Turkey, where his job was to prevent friendly connections with the Allies. There he was again involved with intelligence. The Allies arrested Papen in April 1945. He was tried at Nuremberg but found not guilty of conspiracy. A German denazification court, however, sentenced him to an eight-year prison term, but he was released upon appeal in 1949. Annette Richardson See also Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); World War I; World War I, German Sabotage in Canada during References and Further Reading Koeves, Tibor. Satan in Top Hat: The Biography of Franz von Papen. New York: Alliance, 1941. Papen, Franz von. Memoirs. London: Deutsch, 1952. Rolfs, Richard W. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: The Life of Franz von Papen. Lanham, MD: University of America, 1996. Turner, Henry Ashby. Hitler’s Thirty Days to Power: January 1933. London, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.

PARAGUAY

PARAGUAY This small, landlocked South American republic of 6 million inhabitants has been at the center of a surprisingly large number of historical developments bearing on German American relations. The dominant Paraguayan political figure of the twentieth century, General Alfredo Stroessner, personified this unique connection. Son of an immigrant German brewer and a Paraguayan woman, Stroessner closely identified the political and diplomatic interests of Paraguay with that of the United States for much of his authoritarian rule (1954–1989), a distinct period commonly referred to as the stronato. German migration and the hegemonic influence of the United States during the cold war form the most salient points of each power’s contact with Paraguay. Immigration has been of singular importance in shaping Paraguayan German relations. Due to the devastating demographic consequences of the War of the Triple Alliance (1864–1870), in which more than one-half of Paraguay’s prewar population of 525,000 perished, the postwar government actively encouraged migration in order to repopulate the countryside. A majority of the 12,000 who entered Paraguay during this initial wave of migration from 1882 to 1907 came from Italy, Germany, France, and Spain, while others hailed from the Middle East, Japan, and Taiwan (Hanratty and Meditz 1990, 81). Several German-speaking colonies were established in the late 1800s, of which Nueva Germania, San Bernardino, and Hohenau were the largest. The first permanent colony in Paraguay was built by Jacobo Schaerer in 1881 at San Bernardino. This German immigrant colony began as an agricultural settlement and was soon

867

designated a municipality by the Paraguayan government in 1901. Bernard Förster (1843–1889) helped found another German colony at Nueva Germania in 1886. Together with his wife, Elizabeth Nietzsche (sister of Friedrich Nietzsche), Förster attempted to establish a “pure” racial living space for Aryans. The project ultimately failed, as Förster committed suicide and most of the colonists returned to Germany. Hohenau was another major German agricultural colony that was established in 1900, later becoming noteworthy for its maize exports. A particularly influential subset of German-speaking settlers was the Mennonites. Between 1928 and 1948 more than 6,000 Mennonites established three major agricultural colonies in the Chaco region to the east of the capital city, Asunción, relying to a considerable degree on local Guaraní Indians as farm laborers. Aided by a government mandate that actively encouraged foreign development of that area, the original Menno Colony was established in 1926; the Fernheim and Neuland colonies were founded, respectively, in 1930 and 1947. The town of Filadelfia served as the commercial hub of the surrounding colonies. By 1980 the number of Mennonites from these and a handful of other Mennonite communities established throughout Paraguay after World War II totaled more than 15,000 (Hanratty and Meditz 1990, 82). Taken together, the number of German-speaking settlers in Paraguay exceeded 26,000 on the eve of World War II (Grow 1981, 51). While a comparatively small figure—especially measured against the later influx of Brazilian immigrants in the 1970s—the influence of these enclaves was disproportionate to their numbers.

868

PARAGUAY

German businessmen in Asunción attained a high degree of prestige among Paraguayans. With considerable encouragement by the Paraguayan government, a vast network of German-centered organizations and social services flourished. Perhaps more so than any other single demographic, German immigrants in Paraguay reshaped the country in fundamental ways. World War II ushered in a period of intense German American rivalry over economic and strategic predominance in southeastern South America. United States policymakers were eager to safeguard their “own backyard.” After the surprise attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States moved quickly to forge a common hemispheric defense against the Fascist threat. United States foreign aid, in the form of multilateral Export-Import Bank loans and direct bilateral economic assistance, purchased Paraguayan alignment for the duration of World War II. President Higinio Morínigo (1897–1983) acceded to U.S. pressure and cut off formal diplomatic relations with the Axis countries in 1942, though he did not declare war against Germany until 1945. During a brief span of just several years, the United States had displaced Germany as the dominant external influence in the hemisphere. Yet U.S. efforts at weaning Paraguay away from its Axis proclivities faced formidable challenges. Sympathy toward the Axis powers within the Paraguayan elite and military were rampant. Indeed, a proFascist faction of the military (Frente de Guerra) steadfastly opposed efforts by the United States to sever its ties to the Axis powers. A Vichy French military mission was even established in Paraguay, further il-

lustrating the pervasive influence of the Axis presence there. Partly attributable to the residual effects of long-established German enclaves such as San Bernardino and Hohenau, these sympathies were given institutional form when in 1931 the National Socialist Germans Worker’s Party (NSDAP) opened its first Latin American branch in Paraguay. By disseminating German newspapers and propaganda pamphlets, and through personal contacts with German-language schools, hospitals, youth organizations, and churches, German agents and Nazi Party officials rallied these groups behind the Axis cause. Even Paraguayan police trainees wore swastikas, while the official Paraguayan newspaper, El País, took a proGerman attitude toward the war. Nevertheless, the end of World War II effectively reoriented Paraguayan foreign relations toward the United States, a change aided immeasurably by Alfredo Stroessner’s fierce anticommunism and the cold war. The transition from German predominance to U.S. hegemonic influence in Paraguay was tacitly recognized in 1957 when Karl Leuteritz, economic counselor of the German Embassy in Asunción, informed a U.S. Embassy official that Paraguay—and by implication all of Latin America—was the “peculiar province” of the United States. Thereafter the focus of common German American interests in Paraguay shifted primarily to the hunt for Nazi war criminals, Josef Mengele foremost among them. The notorious “Angel of Death” was issued a Paraguayan identification certificate in 1959 and was awarded full citizenship under the thinly disguised pseudonym “José Mengele.” His whereabouts remained obscure, as Paraguayan officials were reluctant to candidly discuss

PASTORIUS, FRANCIS DANIEL

the issue or even to admit that Mengele had ever set foot on Paraguayan soil. The mystery persisted until 1985 when a body subsequently identified as Mengele’s washed ashore in Brazil. Kirk Tyvela See also Förster, Bernhard; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Latin America, Nazis in; Stroessner, Alfredo References and Further Reading Grow, Michael. The Good Neighbor Policy and Authoritarianism in Paraguay: United States Economic Expansion and Great-Power Rivalry in Latin America during World War II. Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1981. Hanratty, Dennis M., and Sandra W. Meditz, eds. Paraguay: A Country Study, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1990. Lambert, Peter, and Andrew Nickson, eds. The Transition to Democracy in Paraguay. New York: St. Martin’s, 1997. Lewis, Paul H. Paraguay under Stroessner. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1980. Miranda, Carlos R. The Stroessner Era: Authoritarian Rule in Paraguay. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1990. Roett, Riordan, and Richard Scott Sacks. Paraguay: The Personalist Legacy. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1991.

PASTORIUS, FRANCIS DANIEL b. September 26, 1651; Sommerhausen, Franconia d. Exact date unknown; sometime between December 26, 1719, and January 13 1720; Germantown, Pennsylvania Founder of Germantown, Pennsylvania, and leader of the first organized German immigration to North America in 1683. Although the group of settlers who established Germantown (the so-called

869

Krefelders) came from a Dutch background, Pastorius helped to set the course of the fledgling community as a focal point for future waves of German immigration. Pastorius’s cosmopolitan education, legal training, and multilingual abilities allowed him to function as a cultural mediator between the German, Dutch, and English immigrant groups of early Pennsylvania. Assuming multiple public offices, Pastorius alleviated the confrontation with cultural and linguistic differences among fellow German immigrants; in turn, he raised awareness among prominent English inhabitants—especially leading Pennsylvania Quakers such as William Penn, James Logan, and Isaac Norris—of the intellectual and spiritual bonds they shared with their German neighbors. Pastorius circulated his multilingual manuscript writings as tokens of a communal experiment valuing moral integrity over ethnic or linguistic heritage. Ultimately, his importance in the realm of Anglo-German relations in North America lies in his careful negotiation of the difficult terrain between assimilation and isolation faced by most non-English immigrant groups. Following his father’s lead, Francis Daniel Pastorius received a classical humanistic education (including proficiency in Latin and Greek) as well as a degree in law from Altdorf University in 1676. Before his graduation, Pastorius had also studied law and modern languages at several other European universities, including Straßburg, Basel, Jena, and Regensburg. From 1680 to 1682, he completed his intellectual and worldly education by accompanying a German nobleman on a Grand Tour through Europe. His travels, his training for high government office, as well as a brief period as an attorney in Wind-

870

PASTORIUS, FRANCIS DANIEL

sheim and Frankfurt am Main, however, instilled in Pastorius the belief that European society was steering toward a moral and spiritual collapse. In Frankfurt, Pastorius found kindred spirits among the so-called Saalhof Pietists, a group of intellectuals and merchants pursuing a mystical, millenarian, and separatist course away from the orthodox Lutheran religion. When Pastorius learned about the group’s purchase of 15,000 acres of land in Pennsylvania and of their plans to emigrate, he immediately resolved “to continue in their Society, and with them to lead a quiet, godly & honest life in a howling wilderness” (Bee-Hive quoted in Weaver 1985, 403). The Saalhof Pietists formed the German Society and conferred power of attorney on Pastorius for all its transactions in America. After leaving Frankfurt in April 1683, Pastorius visited a group of Krefeld Mennonites, who had already purchased 18,000 acres from William Penn and asked Pastorius to act in their behalf. In Rotterdam, Pastorius embarked on the ship America and arrived in Philadelphia on August 20, 1683. In a letter to German friends published in 1684 as Sichere Nachricht (Certain News), Pastorius described the religious and linguistic diversity on the ship as an emblem for the communal multiplicity he found in his new home. After his arrival in Pennsylvania, Pastorius used his classical education to forge friendships with William Penn and other prominent members of the Quaker elite. He was thus able to negotiate profitable terms for the German settlers in spite of the failure of his Frankfurt friends to join him and cultivate the tract purchased from Penn. Rather than releasing Pastorius from his obligations, the Pietists retained him as

the agent for their reorganized Frankfurt Company until 1700. Pastorius’s successors apparently mismanaged the company, which fell prey to the fraudulent dealings of the German real estate speculator Johann Heinrich Sprögel and his English lawyer David Lloyd. Pastorius and other Germantown residents escaped eviction only through the assistance of prominent friends in Philadelphia. In spite of much disillusionment about the possibilities of spiritual and social reform in the New World, Pastorius embraced his roles as political and cultural leader of the Germantown community, and he gained much respect and intellectual prominence in the province at large. Except for a brief period at the William Penn Charter School in Philadelphia, Pastorius held multiple public offices ranging from court scribe to bailiff to justice of the peace and member of the provincial assembly. Teaching at the Germantown school from 1702 until shortly before his death, Pastorius designed several schoolbooks, including an English primer, and thus helped German immigrants to cope with an unfamiliar linguistic and cultural setting. Pastorius joined the Society of Friends soon after his arrival in the New World. As members of the Abington Monthly Meeting, Pastorius and three other Germantown Quakers composed the first known public protest against slavery in North America. Pastorius did not participate in any other abolitionist activities, yet his manuscript writings contain many indictments of slavery in the New World, especially of its inconsistency with Christian principles. After his official release from his duties for the Frankfurt Company, Pastorius dedicated much of his time to his studies, his

PAUL WILHELM, DUKE

extensive manuscript compositions, and his friendships with other learned Pennsylvanians, such as Penn’s secretary James Logan. Pastorius’s writings constitute several commonplace books in manuscript, of which the Bee-Hive is the most voluminous and compendious. In this volume, Pastorius gathered a vast array of philosophical, religious, moral, social, and linguistic knowledge into one of the most singular examples of early American learning. Adding his own commentary and poetic compositions, Pastorius conceived the BeeHive and other manuscript books as the means to position European culture and intellectual traditions within the changing epistemological framework of the New World. In particular, Pastorius understood his multilingual writings as reflections of the diverse languages and cultures gathering in Pennsylvania under Penn’s policy of religious freedom. Much of Pastorius’s writings are moreover concerned with practical matters, including popular medicine, gardening, agriculture, and law. With most of his complex and expansive literary work remaining unpublished, Pastorius is known almost exclusively as an emblem of German immigration to North America in the late seventeenth century. Patrick M. Erben See also Germantown, Pennsylvania; Pietism References and Further Reading Brophy, Alfred L. “The Intellectual World of a Seventeenth-Century Jurist: Francis Daniel Pastorius and the Reconstruction of Pietist Thought.” German? American? Literature?: New Directions in German-American Studies. Eds. Winfried Fluck and Werner Sollors. New York: Peter Lang, 2002, pp. 43–63. Erben, Patrick M. “‘Honey-Combs’ and ‘Paper-Hives’: Positioning Francis Daniel Pastorius’s Manuscript Writings in Early Pennsylvania.” Early American Literature 37, 2 (2002): 157–194.

OF WÜRTTEMBERG

871

Learned, Marion Dexter. The Life of Francis Daniel Pastorius. Philadelphia: Campbell, 1908. Weaver, John David. “Franz Daniel Pastorius (1651–c.1720): Early Life in Germany with Glimpses of his Removal to Pennsylvania.” Diss. U of California, Davis, 1985. Wokeck, Marianne S. “Francis Daniel Pastorius.” Lawmaking and Legislators in Pennsylvania: A Biographical Dictionary; Volume One, 1682–1709. Eds. Craig Horle et al. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1991, pp. 586–590.

PAUL WILHELM, DUKE WÜRTTEMBERG

OF

b. 1797 d. 1860 Scientist and adventurer who traveled extensively throughout the western United States. He was born the nephew of King Friedrich I of Württemberg. King Friedrich recognized the talents and intellectual capabilities of the young Paul Wilhelm and asked Paul Wilhelm’s father if he could take over custody and responsibility for the young boy. The boy’s father agreed, and by all accounts the king raised him as his own son. At his court, Paul Wilhelm was educated in the sciences, literature, languages, philosophy, diplomacy, law, and ethics. He eventually earned doctorates in philosophy, medicine, and anatomy. Initially, the king intended the young boy to pursue a military career, and in 1822 Paul Wilhelm received the rank of a colonel in command of a calvary unit. Shortly afterward, he decided that he was not suited for a life in the military or royal court and petitioned President James Monroe for permission to travel incognito (for his own

872

PENNSYLVANIA

protection against robbery or being killed) to the United States. Receiving permission, he went on his first voyage (1822–1824), accompanied only by one attendant, a hunter, and a wood carver. On this trip he traveled from New Orleans up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, collecting scientific samples and observing frontier society in the United States. In 1827, he married the princess of the house of Turn and Taxi and within a year had his only son Maximilian, but his two new roles did not dissuade him from taking other trips to the United States. On his second trip (1829–1831), he traveled through Mexico, the Rocky Mountains, and the Great Plains and went to the headwaters of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. The purpose of this trip was to collect organic and geologic specimens. He spent the next seven years organizing this collection and building a museum at Mergentheim. As a result of his renown among the scientific community, he was invited by the khedive of Egypt to join in an expedition along the upper Nile. Paul Wilhelm’s third and longest expedition to North America (1849–1856) was by far his most famous. In pursuit of scientific and social data, he traveled from New Orleans across Mexico to Acapulco, then up the California coast to Sacramento, where he witnessed the gold rush, through Panama and back to New Orleans, up the Mississippi and Illinois rivers, and then west to the Platte and Utah. After spending the winter of 1852 in New Orleans, he went to South America, exploring the Amazon, the Orinoco, the Rio Plata, Patagonia, the Andes, and the Tierra del Fuego archipelago. He finally went north again to visit the Great Lakes region and New York. His final voyage was to Australia, New Zealand, and Tasmania in

1858. As a result of his voyages, he received medals and awards from many of Europe’s scientific and literary societies. Only four months after returning from this trip, while attempting to organize his massive collection, he died. Many of these manuscripts remained undisturbed at the Royal State Library at Stuttgart until they were accidentally discovered in 1928. He once wrote, “The thought of an eventuality that might compel me to give up my predilection for travel and exploration has been the only dark cloud in my life” (Butscher 1942, 224). Gregory Paul Shealy See also Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Butscher, Louis C. “A Brief Biography of Prince Paul Wilhelm of Württemberg (1797–1860).” New Mexico Historical Review 17, no. 3 (July 1942): 181–225. Liebersohn, Harry. Aristocratic Encounters: European Travelers and North American Indians. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

PENNSYLVANIA The Pennsylvania Germans, also known as the Pennsylvania Dutch, have been intrinsically linked to the cultural and economic development of the state. Beginning in the late 1600s, Germans arrived in large numbers to escape European conflict and to take advantage of the plentiful land and policy of religious toleration in the colony. In such conditions, German spirituality had the opportunity to develop to its fullest extent, and a variety of churches and sects prospered. The industrious immigrants brought innovations in agriculture and manufacturing to the colony. They became the largest non-English-speaking minority in Pennsylvania and were the first to

PENNSYLVANIA

adopt American ideals without losing their cultural identity. The earliest substantial group of German settlers to arrive in America came on an English schooner named the Concord and docked in Philadelphia on October 6, 1683. There were thirteen families, mostly Mennonites and a few Quakers, who left their homes in Krefeld, on the lower Rhine, to be a part of William Penn’s “Holy Experiment.” They were recruited by a young German lawyer who was a friend of Penn named Francis Daniel Pastorius (1651–1719). Penn, who had in the past suffered persecution for his Quaker beliefs, promoted a policy of religious toleration in his colony. The offer of resettlement appealed to the families, and many other Germans who would eventually follow, because it allowed them to escape the religious persecution and warfare that plagued the Rhineland and Europe as a whole at the time. Pastorius and the families settled on several thousand acres, six miles north of Philadelphia. The area became known as Germantown. German immigrants continued to arrive in Pennsylvania in large numbers for the next two centuries, with the peak being in the 1740s. They usually came with their entire families or with groups of other villagers from their hometowns. Before 1720 most of the immigrants had the financial means to pay for their passage and to purchase land once they arrived. After the 1720s some of the Germans came as indentured servants, agreeing to work for terms that usually lasted for two to seven years. Once they had completed their indenture, they were free to purchase or rent their own land. These immigrants came not only from the Rhineland, but from Baden, Württemberg, Alsace-Lorraine,

873

Würzburg, Bavaria, Brandenburg, and Switzerland. The Germans who made the voyage to Pennsylvania represented a wide variety of religious affiliations. Though the majority was Lutheran and Reformed, there were many Catholics, Moravians, Pietists, Amish, Mennonites, Dunkards, Schwenkfelder, and a variety of other mystical sects, such as John Conrad Beissel’s (1690–1768) followers at the Ephrata Cloister. By the late 1700s the Germans were more numerous than all other nonEnglish ethnic groups in Pennsylvania, numbering over 100,000 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1909). Circumstances and toleration in Pennsylvania allowed the German immigrants to form a distinct and surprisingly cohesive ethnic culture at a time when Germany itself had not been politically unified. Philadelphia and other large towns in Pennsylvania became, in effect, bilingual. However, most of the immigrants settled in German-speaking communities in rural areas such as Bucks County, Lancaster County, the Lehigh Valley, and in Philadelphia’s hinterland. Cultural identity was retained through traditional dress, customs, and strengthened religious practices. Religion was at the core of life for the immigrants. In Pennsylvania, German religions, especially the smaller sects, had the opportunity to develop and implement their theology to the fullest extent. Groups such as the Amish and the Dunkards could live out their beliefs unhindered. Economically, they continued with the agricultural lifestyle that they had practiced in Europe, bringing several innovations to the colony. The Germans used a three-field rotation system for planting, fertilizers such as lime and manure, and planted a variety of crops to ensure success. Their system became the

874

PENNSYLVANIA

basis of Pennsylvania’s successful agricultural economy. As craftspeople, the Germans had few equals. They became famous for their furniture, clocks, cabinets, woodwork, architecture, pottery, and decorative arts. Germans were responsible for the design of the Conestoga wagon and Pennsylvania barn. German communities also produced many skilled gunsmiths. The folk art of the Germans was highly decorative, very colorful, and full of their distinct religious and cultural expression. The styles were based on old German traditions with a variety of subtle influences from the colonies. One of the best-known forms of Pennsylvania German art is Fraktur. Fraktur is a form of illuminated writing, descended from medieval script, that survived in Pennsylvania long after it disappeared in Europe. It was often used for official and religious documents such as Geburtsscheine (birth certificates), Taufscheine (baptismal certificates), and Trauscheine (marriage certificates). Printing in the German dialects of the region began in the 1720s. The first papers and volumes were published by English printers in Philadelphia, but they were soon superseded by German printers. Christoph Sauer (1695–1758), located in Germantown, was one of the first. He was known for publishing almanacs, Bibles, religious tracts, hymnals, and a newspaper with a circulation of several thousand. His newspaper, later published under John Miller (1702–1782), was the first to print the news of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence. The Ephrata Cloister opened a press in 1745, publishing religious books and accepting some outside orders. More publishers appeared in Philadelphia and other towns after the American Revolution. The papers helped

maintain a coherent cultural identity and language. While the hard-working German immigrants were viewed as an asset to the colony on many levels, there was still a persistent uneasiness about their large numbers. In 1727 the provincial assembly of Pennsylvania passed a resolution requiring all German males over the age of sixteen to take an oath of loyalty to the king of England. However, the Germans were not actively involved in Pennsylvania politics until the last two decades of the eighteenth century. Their inactivity was partially due to the language barrier, but also to their geographic locations and the time-intensive struggles of adapting to life in the colony. Governing was left in the hands of the Quakers, who often enjoyed German support, and later the Scots-Irish. During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) the Germans proved themselves by remaining loyal and supportive of Pennsylvania and the crown. German settlements on the frontier were frequently attacked during the conflict, as were their Scots-Irish neighbors. The bonds between the two groups were strengthened while they struggled to survive in the backcountry. In the American Revolution, some Germans fought with the Continental army while others abstained out of religious conviction. Pietists, Moravians, and other sects emphasized pacifism, and though they may have been sympathetic to the cause, could not become involved. This belief was sometimes misinterpreted by their neighbors and was a source of friction. In the early years of the new American Republic, the Pennsylvania Germans were faced with a new and unfamiliar system of government. Prominent Pennsylvanians such as Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin

PENNSYLVANIA

Rush sought to involve the Germans in state politics. They helped establish Franklin College specifically to cater to the German population and to provide a vehicle for their assimilation. Instead, as the Germans embraced more of the young republic’s ideals of individual and religious freedom, they used them as justification for retaining and asserting their ethnic identity. The visibility of Germans in government increased after the Revolution. Of Pennsylvania’s eight seats in the House of Representatives in the First Congress, three were Germans. Peter Muhlenberg (1746–1807) was the first Pennsylvania German elected to the U.S. Senate in 1801. Seven Germans held the office of governor by 1867. The Germans, whose religious and political beliefs varied greatly, never constituted a solid bloc of voters. Their votes tended to be distributed evenly among the major political parties of the day. Changes also came to the German churches in the early republic. Some level of dissatisfaction had arisen in some of the larger congregations. Several new churches, some with very similar names, were created by church members and ministers who felt that problems could not be resolved internally. The River Brethren (later known as the Brethren in Christ), the United Brethren in Christ, the United Brethren and Evangelicals (also known as the German Methodists), and the Church of God all emerged between 1790–1830. These vibrant new churches were joined by some newcomers from Germany, such as George Rapp’s Harmony Society, which settled in Harmony, Butler County, and later in Economy, Beaver County. The new churches and sects represented a revival in German spirituality.

875

The traditional churches, Lutheran and Reformed, took on more community responsibilities in the early nineteenth century and joined nationally organized synods in the 1820s. In addition to the loss of members to newly formed churches, they faced new controversies over the use of the German language in worship. The rest of the mainstream American Protestant churches had services in English, and many of the second- and third-generation Germans began to pressure the congregations to also use English. After many long debates, new English-speaking congregations began to form in Philadelphia and the surrounding area. Pennsylvania German culture faced another challenge in the form of public schools. Throughout most of the Germanspeaking areas of the state, community and parochial schools had long been established to provide elementary education. The German-run schools maintained the language and culture of the students’ families. The push for public schools run by outsiders seemed threatening. From the 1830s to the 1850s, public schools were resisted in German areas. It was argued that the schools were being forced on communities, infringing on constitutional freedoms and local control. By the 1860s most schools had become public despite the resistance. Teachers in the German districts often used both English and German in the classrooms out of necessity and to appease the German communities. At the time of the Civil War (1861–1865), many of the younger generations of Germans had shed some of their traditional heritage and were speaking English as often or more than they were speaking German. The debate over slavery had never been a major issue among the Germans because they had not

876

PENNSYLVANIA

been slaveholders. Slavery itself had been gradually abolished in Pennsylvania in the early years of the Republic. When the war started, thousands of Germans enlisted to defend the Union. After the conflict, America was becoming increasingly industrialized. While most Germans were still involved in agriculture, they were not unaffected by the changes. New and efficient farming technologies led to a larger crop yield and the need for fewer farms. Many young Germans moved to the rapidly industrializing cities to find employment as the need for agricultural workers diminished. Some of German descent became successful industrialists and businessmen, including Milton Hershey (1857–1945), the candy manufacturer; oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937); and railroad president George Baer (1842–1914). In the late 1800s public interest in the unique culture of the Pennsylvania Germans began to grow. Several books were published, the first being Phoebe Earle Gibbon’s Pennsylvania Dutch and Other Essays (1872), that specifically dealt with the lives and culture of the state’s German population. By the 1920s dozens of volumes had been published on all aspects of German life. This was accompanied by a new interest in the slowly dying German dialects. Though they were fading from common usage, Pennsylvania German writers continued to publish letters, stories, and poetry in the traditional language. In 1917, after America became involved in World War I, the loyalty of the Pennsylvania Germans was again questioned by some who failed to understand their long history. These questions dissipated when Germans began to serve as soldiers in equal numbers with their fellow Americans of other ethnic backgrounds. In

the military, the Germans often took on a special role as translators and interpreters. They would do so again in World War II. Throughout the twentieth century, various ethnic cultures blended with traditional American culture to form a new hybrid. Pennsylvania German culture was no exception. While many traditions have been retained on a personal level, most people of Pennsylvania German descent are now indistinguishable from other Americans. Some small groups, especially religious sects like the Amish, still retain German traditions and language. In 2005 elements of Pennsylvania German culture and its achievements are kept alive by German societies, historians, folklorists, and an interested public. Thomas White

See also Amish; Dutch; Ephrata; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Harmony Society; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Pastorius, Francis Daniel; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Pietism; Printing and Publishing; Sauer, Christoph; Schwenkfelders References and Further Reading Bach, Jeff. Voices of the Turtledoves: The Sacred World of Ephrata. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2003. Fogleman, Aaron Spencer. Hopeful Journeys: German Immigration, Settlement, and Political Culture in Colonial America 1717–1775. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1996. Frost, J. William. A Perfect Freedom: Religious Liberty in Pennsylvania. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1993. Glatfelter, Charles H. The Pennsylvania Germans: A Brief Account of their Influence on Pennsylvania. University Park: Pennsylvania Historical Association, 1990. Nolt, Stephen M. Foreigners in Their Own Land: Pennsylvania Germans in the Early Republic. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2002.

PENNSYLVANIA GERMAN (DUTCH) LANGUAGE U.S. Bureau of the Census. A Century of Population Growth from the First Census of the United States to the Twelfth 1790–1900. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1909. Wentz, Richard E., ed. Pennsylvania Dutch Folk Spirituality. New York: Paulist, 1993. Yoder, Don. Discovering American Folklife: Essays of Folk Culture and the Pennsylvania Dutch. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole, 2001.

PENNSYLVANIA GERMAN (DUTCH) LANGUAGE The German immigrants migrating to the American colonies (1683–1808) brought a very distinctive mother language with them, and that language had an important impact on the culture of southeastern Pennsylvania and the other areas where it was spoken, in Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas, Virginia, and Canada. Although sometimes referred to as a dialect by both native speakers and scholars, it is more properly recognized as a language that traces its origins from the regions of early German emigration, including the Rhenish Palatinate, Baden-Württemberg, Alsace, Lorraine, Hessen, Silesia, and the Saarland. The original German settlers in Pennsylvania did not all speak the same dialect or language, but in the course of time these various dialectal differences passed through a leveling and blending process, developing into a fairly homogeneous language referred to as Pennsylvania Dutch or Pennsylvania German. Speakers refer to their language as Pennsylfaanisch Deitsch, although most scholars use the term Pennsylvania German in referring to both the language and the people who speak it. There are certain regional variations in spoken Pennsylvania German, but the language is sufficiently

877

homogeneous so that speakers from all areas are easily understood by each other. Twenty-first-century speakers of Pennsylvania German can go to the Pfalz region of southwest Germany and communicate fairly easily with people who know the indigenous, regional dialects of German there; however, speakers of Pennsylvania German have difficulty communicating with speakers of high or standard German. English has had a significant impact on the dialect, and many English words have become “dutchified.” In many cases the German settler borrowed the English term and subjected it to the phonetic patterns of the native word and in the process “dutchified” the word: for example, the English word constable became Kunschdaaler, sheriff became Schrief. Frequently, a speech compromise was made in the form of a hybrid compound; that is, the word was formed with an English stem plus a German stem, or vice versa—Schmokhaus for smokehouse, Bisnessleit for businesspeople. Many English words were directly incorporated into the dialect, and the percentage of English loan words varies according to the speaker, but the percentage increased in the last half of the twentieth century. Pennsylvania German was not a written language. Pennsylvania Germans used high or standard German as their literary language in the early nineteenth century and English by the early twentieth century. In the middle of the nineteenth century, at the same time that English was replacing standard German as the main literary language for most Pennsylvania Germans, a literature developed in Pennsylvania German. This literature usually included nostalgic or earthy stories. The literature developed throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, broadened to include

878

PENNSYLVANIA GERMAN (DUTCH) LANGUAGE

plays, and in 2005 can still be found in some columns of regional newspapers. There is still no agreement upon orthography for writing in Pennsylvania German. Intellectuals have generally favored a standardized system based on high or standard German—the Buffington-Barba system— but many Pennsylvania German writers do not know standard German and use a variety of anglicized spelling systems. In the nineteenth century the dialect had three major influences: English, high German, and the native mother language (or dialect). In the twentieth century there were two major influences: the Mudderschprooch and contemporary English. There has been constant pressure on Pennsylvania German language use throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This pressure became especially intense as the result of school policies that encouraged the use of English in the nineteenth century and two wars with Germany in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania German language is still in use in the early twenty-first century and is quite frequently

the daily language used by the sectarian groups such as the Old Order Mennonites and Amish. There is considerable loss in its use by other “church” Pennsylvania Germans (Lutherans and German Reformed— now United Church of Christ), who constitute more than 90 percent of all Pennsylvania Germans (Donner 2003). Among these nonsectarian church groups, it is very rare for someone born after World War II to be fluent in the language, although there is still some ability among the people born before 1940. These older “church” speakers have initiated many educational programs to maintain the language and have developed special activities and events, such as the Grundsow (groundhog) lodges and Fersommlings (gatherings), where Pennsylvania German is spoken. David L. Valuska and William W. Donner, See also Amish; Kansas, German Dialects in; Pennsylvania; Texas, German Dialect References and Further Reading Buffington, Albert, and Preston Barba. A Pennsylvania German Grammar. Pennsylvania German Folklore Society 27. Allentown: Schlecter’s, 1965.

PETER,VAL J. Donner, William W. (Bill). “Research Note: Pennsylvania German Demographics.” The Pennsylvania German Review, Fall 2003, 41–51. Haag, Earl C., ed. A Pennsylvania German Anthology. Susquehanna: University/ Associated University, 1988. ———. A Pennsylvania German Reader and Grammar. State College, PA: KeystonePenn State Press, 2002. Louden, Mark. “The Development of Pennsylvania German Linguistics within the Context of General Dialectology and Linguistic Theory.” In A Word Atlas of Pennsylvania German. Eds. Lester Seifert, Mark Louden, Howard Martin, and Joe Salmons. Madison, WI: Max Kade Institute for German-American Studies, 2001, pp. 7–52. Stine, Eugene S. Pennsylvania German Dictionary. Birdsboro: Pennsylvania German Society, 1994. Valuska, David L., and William W. Donner. “The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language: Many Ways of Speaking German; Many Ways of Being American.” In Globalization and the Future of the German Language. Eds. Andreas Gardt and Bernd Huppauf. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2004, pp. 229–242.

PETER,VAL J. b. April 24, 1875; Steinbach bei Lohr am Main (Bavarian Franconia), Bavaria d. February 19, 1960; Omaha, Nebraska Peter created in the early twentieth century the last major chain of German-language newspapers in America. At its height, it included newspapers from Buffalo, Baltimore, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Paul, Omaha, San Francisco, and many smaller cities in the West. Peter followed the technique of acquiring failing newspapers, merging some of them, and consolidating the printing of them at his main office in Omaha. The enterprise suffered from in-

879

creasing financial problems during the Great Depression and World War II, and eventually would be overcome by the steady decline in first-generation German immigrants. After 1945 circulation began to decline, and the chain closed down in 1982. Peter migrated to the United States with his parents in 1889, settling in Rock Island, Illinois. While in his teens he became a reporter for the weekly Rock Island Volkszeitung (People’s Newspaper), then became city editor of the daily Peoria (IL) Sonne (Sun). In 1904 Peter returned to Rock Island to purchase the Volkszeitung. In 1907, searching for new opportunities, he purchased the Omaha Westliche Presse (Western Press) and the next year combined it with the Omaha Tribüne (Tribune). He sold the Rock Island paper and moved permanently to Omaha in 1909. In Nebraska, Peter quickly became the chief spokesman for the National GermanAmerican Alliance, founded in 1901 as a federation that, it was hoped, would include all German cultural and social organizations in the effort to defend German culture. When the Nebraska alliance was organized in 1910, Peter became its first and only president. The alliance agitated in behalf of German American organizations against Prohibition and in defense of German language and culture. Peter’s Tribüne was intensely involved in these efforts and, like other German newspapers, advocated support of the German Empire when war broke out in 1914. Peter joined with many other editors in supporting the Republican Charles Evans Hughes for the presidency against Woodrow Wilson in 1916. This marked his departure from the Democratic Party, which he had previously supported. The paper moderated its views after the

880

PHILIPPI, BERNHARD EUNOM

United States entered the war in 1917 and survived after the war ended. The paper played an active part in German war relief after the war. Disillusioned by Wilson’s peace efforts, the paper supported Republican candidates after the war, but moved to support the Democrat Al Smith in 1928, then remained generally Republican thereafter. Having begun daily publication of the Tribüne in 1912, Peter systematically began acquiring small weekly newspapers across Nebraska and Iowa. The Omaha paper’s circulation rose from 8,640 in 1913 to 22,610 in 1920 and, after a Depression slump, revived to 26,265 in 1940. Before World War II, Peter planned to develop several regional newspapers that would cover the American West, and for that purpose acquired German newspapers in Kansas City, St. Paul, and Denver. The problems created by the Great Depression and the war determined that these ambitions would never fully be realized, although Peter continued to believe that the West offered the greatest possibilities for new German immigration. In 1929 he acquired the Baltimore Correspondent; two of his sons went to Baltimore to publish it and for a while turned it into daily publication. He also purchased the Toledo Express, the Buffalo Volksfreund (People’s Friend), the Chicago Katholisches Wochenblatt (Catholic Weekly), and others. Many of the papers were declining in circulation, due mostly to the diminishing numbers of first-generation immigrants. During the late 1930s Peter moved to cut costs by merging some papers and consolidating the printing of all except the Baltimore paper in Omaha. World War II was difficult for the papers, mostly because many advertisers de-

serted them. The newspapers avoided the difficulties of World War I, asserting their patriotism and avoiding all political and religious partisanship (although Peter himself was a staunch Republican and Catholic). Peter organized German relief after the war and continued to acquire and merge other newspapers. He also started a new newspaper in San Francisco, the California Freie Presse (California Free Press). The Omaha and St. Paul newspapers had been merged under the title Volkszeitung-Tribüne in 1941, and continued as the only daily in the chain until 1950, when it became semiweekly. When Peter died, the chain numbered seven papers. His family continued them and added new papers, mostly in the West, but the number had declined to eight when the chain ceased publication in 1982. James Bergquist See also National German-American Alliance; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl J. R., and May E. Olson. GermanAmerican Newspapers and Periodicals, 1732–1955: History and Bibliography. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer, 1961. Bergquist, James M. “The Val J. Peter Newspapers: The Rise and Decline of a Twentieth-Century German-Language Newspaper Empire.” Yearbook of GermanAmerican Studies 29 (1994): 117–128. Luebke, Frederick C. Germans in the New World: Essays in the History of Immigration. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1990.

PHILIPPI, BERNHARD EUNOM b. September 19, 1811; Charlottenburg, Prussia d. Early November (?), 1852; Cabeza de Mar, Chile

PHILIPPI, BERNHARD EUNOM

German explorer, colonial agent, and lieutenant colonel in the Chilean army. Bernhard Eunom Philippi was the second son of Prussian auditor Johann Wilhelm Eberhard Philippi and his wife Marianne (née Krumwiede). Like his older brother Rudolph Amandus, he was initially taught by his mother, before the family moved to Yverdon in Switzerland in 1818, where he was educated at Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi’s school. Back in Berlin, Bernhard Eunom, the more adventuresome of the brothers, attended the Realschule (modern secondary school), which had just recently been founded. Following his inclinations, he set out in 1830, after graduation, on his first trip as an ordinary sailor on board the ship Prinzess Louise of the Royal Prussian Maritime Company. The trip took him to Chile for the first time in 1831. In 1832 he continued his education as a naval cadet in Danzig at the navigation school so that he would be able to return to Chile, this time as a navigator. On this trip he availed himself of the opportunity to explore the island of Chiloe. Beginning in 1841 he resided in Chile, with only brief interruptions. During a trip through southern Chile made in 1842, he rediscovered Lago Llanquihue and recognized the suitability of the region for colonization. He produced reports of his trip for the Chilean government. He attached sketched maps to the reports on which he indicated the areas of possible colonization. In 1843 Philippi voluntarily accompanied an expedition to the Strait of Magellan, which was meant to take possession of the area for the Chilean government. Philippi successfully negotiated, in the days following, with a French legation that had arrived in the meantime and was likewise asserting a claim to possession of the re-

881

gion. He achieved political recognition for his diplomatic accomplishment, which allowed him to organize and promote colonial settlements in the region of Lago Llanquihue. The first independent attempt, in connection with financial backers, failed, but finally in 1848 he obtained a commission from the Chilean government to recruit German Catholic families. For this purpose Philippi traveled to Germany, where, in 1851 and 1852, he drew up three prospectuses with the requisite information about the land. Philippi was involved in the selection of suitable applicants. He was helped by his brother Rudolph Amandus in Kassel. However, because the bishops of Fulda and Paderborn refused their support, he was able to recruit only Protestants. At any rate, these applicants underwent a strict selection process. A decisive criterion was the furnishing of proof of an acquired craft, that, in addition to a readiness for the agricultural cultivation of the new settlement area, was regarded as important for survival and as an economic foundation. Upon his return to Chile in 1852, Philippi found the position of commissioner of the German colony, intended for him, already occupied by Vicente Perez Rosales. The fact that he had not been able to recruit Catholic applicants may have been the chief reason for his ouster. Instead of this post, the Chilean government offered him the administration of the Province of Magellan. He traveled there immediately to diplomatically settle unrest that had broken out between settlers and Indians. He set out for the interior of the country from the base of Punta Arenas with some escorts at the end of October 1852 to negotiate with the Indians, but he was attacked and murdered by them. It was only some months later that investigations produced

882

PHILIPPI, RUDOLPH AMANDUS

the testimony of an Indian youth who was an interpreter and was present at the incident. Philippi is considered the father of German colonization in southern Chile. His importance lies in his correct assessment that the uninhabited regions around Lago Llanquihue could be made arable by a select group of settlers. Wolfgang Crom See also Chile; Philippi, Rudolph Amandus References and Further Reading Held, Winkler Emil. “Bernhard Eunom Philippi und die deutsche Besieldung Südchiles.” In 100 Jahre deutsche Siedlung in der Provinz Llanquihue. Santiago de Chile: Verlag Condor, 1952, pp. 13–34. Perich Slater, José. Bernardo E. Philippi K. Su vida y sus obras. Punta Arenas: Marangunic, 1980. Schwarzenberg, Georg. “Oberstleutnant Bernhard Eunom Philippi. Sein Leben und sein Werk.” Geschichtliche Monatsblätter (Osorno) 1, no. 5 (1916): 37–52. Young, George F. “Bernardo Philippi, Initiator of German Colonization in Chile.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 51, no. 2 (1971): 478–496.

PHILIPPI, RUDOLPH AMANDUS b. September 14, 1808; Charlottenburg, Prussia d. July 23, 1904; Santiago de Chile, Chile German scholar of the zoology, botany, natural history, and geography of Chile; brother of Bernhard Eunom Philippi. After private and maternal instruction, Philippi entered Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi’s school in Yverdon in Switzerland at the age of ten. As a youth he showed a special inclination toward collecting and classifying natural objects, with a preference for botany. After four

years the family moved back to Berlin, where he attended the Gymnasium Zum Grauen Kloster until 1826. Upon graduation he studied medicine and natural sciences at the University of Berlin and received his doctorate there in 1830. Incipient pulmonary disease caused him to travel to Italy, where an acquaintance with geologists Friedrich Hoffman and Arnold Escher von der Linth prompted him to do geological studies in Naples and Sicily. After returning to Germany, Philippi took his medical examinations to become a general practitioner, but he then devoted himself to assessing the research materials he had gathered in Italy. He assumed his first academic post in 1835 as professor of natural history and geography at the Higher Gewerbeschule (Trade College) in Kassel, where Friedrich Woehler, Robert Bunsen, and Wilhelm Dunker were teaching. In 1836 he cofounded the Verein für Naturkunde (Natural History Society) there and became its first director. The works he produced at this time report the results of another trip to Italy and stand out especially because of the numerous tables included in them. In 1849 Philippi assumed the office of rector of the Gewerbeschule. Because of his liberal views, he felt pressured by the reactionary political leadership that was gaining strength and, for this reason, relinquished his teaching position. He decided to accept his brother’s summons to Chile. Shortly after his arrival there in 1851, Philippi undertook, together with surveyor Friedrich Wilhelm Döll and mining engineer Carl Ochsenius, his first excursions into the hinterland of the province of Valdivia. He also succeeded in climbing the volcano Osorno almost to the summit in 1852, whereby he got his first overview

PHOTOGRAPHY

of the orographical structure of the southern Andes area. In 1853 he was made principal of the Lyceum in Valdivia, but in the same year he was called to be professor of botany and zoology at the University in Santiago de Chile. In connection with this appointment, he was entrusted with directing the National Natural History Museum. He used his tenure (until 1898) to systematically improve and expand its collections. In addition, he established the botanical garden in Santiago de Chile. At the end of 1853 he set out on behalf of the Chilean government into the Atacama, accompanied by Friedrich Wilhelm Döll as cartographer. The journey led him from the coast near Taltal to San Pedro de Atacama. The scientific productiveness of this trip is reflected in the description of several hundred plant species, in the knowledge of geological structure, and in the depiction of the regional character with its salt pan. All the more astonishing is the fact that Philippi did not recognize the enormous mineral wealth of this region and its potential economic benefit. He made numerous trips through the varied landscapes of Chile and its islands, by which further expanding his collections. He set forth the findings of his zoological, botanical, paleontological, and geographical efforts in numerous publications. He published articles in the Anales de la Universidad de Chile (Annals of the University of Chile), Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin (Journal of the Geographic Society of Berlin), as well as Petermanns Mitteilungen (Petermann’s Reports). His complete works reveal a descriptive and systematizing character; his industriousness in collecting finds its parallel in the quantity of his publications, which number several hundred items.

883

Philippi was named honorary chairman of the German Scientific Society in Santiago, founded in 1883. His name is honored in Germany in the PhilippiGesellschaft zur Förderung der Naturwissenschaften (Philippi Society for the Advancement of the Natural Sciences) and in the journal Philippi—Abhandlungen and Berichte aus dem Naturkundemuseum Ottoneum zu Kassel (Philippi—Transactions and Reports from the Ottoneum Natural History Museum at Kassel), which has appeared since 1970, one volume for three years with four or five issues. Wolfgang Crom See also Chile; Philippi, Bernhard Eunom References and Further Reading Barros-Arana, Diego. El doctor Rodolfo Amando Philippi, su vida y sus obras. Santiago: Impr. Cervantes, 1904. Gotschlich, Bernardo. Biografia del doctor Rodulfo Amando Philippi (1808–1904). Santiago: Lampert, 1904. Hantzsch, Viktor. “Philippi, Rudolph Amandus.” Biographisches Jahrbuch und Deutscher Nekrolog 9 (1904): 186–191. Henze, Dietmar. “Philippi, Rudolph Amandus.” In Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol. 4. Ed. Dietmar Henze. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlags-Anstalt, 2000, pp. 99–105.

PHOTOGRAPHY In the late 1840s William and Frederick Langenheim, immigrants from Germany to Philadelphia who were to operate America’s first commercial stereographic photography company, purchased a license for Henry Fox Talbot’s process of photography. Though they failed to establish the “talbotype” in the commercially oriented portrait industry against the daguerreotype, the process spread more widely when the value

884

PHOTOGRAPHY

of duplication of a photograph was realized. Photography as an object and a technique gained more attention after 1851, when the wet collodion process devised by the Englishman Frederick Scott Archer came into use. But even before that, the new medium had already gone beyond portraiture and invaded every possible subject. In May 1842 Hermann Biow (1804–1850) of Hamburg documented the ruins of the great fire in that city with a series of daguerreotypes. Though these images are considered to be the first photographs of a catastrophe, the honor of having permanently preserved an image of a catastrophe itself is due to George Barnard (1819–1902). In 1853 Barnard photographed the fire at the Ames Mill in Oswego, New York, said to be the first known work of photojournalism. Shortly after the medium’s inception, interest in pictures of foreign lands and sights unknown in one’s own town or country soared. Travel photography in the widest sense does not seem to have been uppermost on the agenda of photography enthusiasts in Germany, who tended to concentrate on advancing the technology. However, a few German photographers even traveled as far as the Western Hemisphere; for example, the German-born Augusto Riedel who accompanied Ludwig August Maria Eudo von Sachsen-Coburgund-Gotha and Orléans on his tour through the Brazilian province of Minas Gerais. Although American photographers journeyed through many parts of Europe, Asia, and the Americas, they devoted the greatest attention to their own country—to the grandeur of extraordinary natural formations and the cultures of Native Americans. Two of the most popular and prolific photographers of the frontier West were

Timothy O’Sullivan (1840–1882), formerly in Brady’s Photographic Corps, and William Henry Jackson (1843–1942), who marketed his own pictures and those of others in America and overseas through his Detroit Publishing Company (at its zenith the company sold 7 million images a year), conveying to Americans and the world a specific visual idea of North America. These images affected twentieth-century photographers of the American West, such as Ansel Adams (1902–1984) and Edward Weston (1886–1958), who in turn left their mark on European and, respectively, German photography and perception of the United States. Whether as images of monumental nature, of the changing urban world, or as reflections of subcultures as in the pictures of San Francisco’s Chinatown taken by German émigré Arnold Genthe (1869–1942) in 1895, photography, then viewed as a mirror of reality, contributed greatly to the formation of a national identity in America and elsewhere. While artists in Europe had well begun to experiment with the new medium, it was still considered primarily a mechanical craft and an instrument of documentation in America by the late nineteenth century. The most dynamic figure to change this and to establish photography as art in the United States was Alfred Stieglitz (1864–1946). Stieglitz, the child of German parents born in Hoboken, New Jersey, left for Germany in 1881 to study mechanical engineering at the Berlin Polytechnic Institute. His fascination with photography started after he had bought a camera on a whim and begun to work with Hermann Wilhelm Vogel (1834–1898). Vogel was a world-famous photochemist at the Polytechnic Institute in Berlin who worked on the sensitivity of film to light

PHOTOGRAPHY

and made major contributions to color photography. He instilled in Stieglitz the ambition for technical excellence and a leaning toward pictorial photography. Pictorialism demanded images resembling paintings—idealized reflections of the artist’s soul and not the grim details of reality. Stieglitz found his earliest public recognition in Germany and Britain, where his works were exhibited to a largely enthusiastic audience. Family matters called him back to New York in 1890. After his return he not only discovered the fascination of city subjects, which had been considered too vulgar for art, but also initiated his career as a powerful advocate of creative photography in the line of pictorialism. First he addressed his countrymen as a member of the local camera club, then as editor of several journals, and after a few years in his role as owner of several galleries, where he exhibited photographs by American as well as British, German, and Austrian artists. In 1902 Stieglitz assembled notable American photographers such as Edward Steichen (1879–1973) and Gertrude Käsebier (1851–1934)—who had both spent some time in Germany—in a new association he named the Photo-Secession after the secessionist painters in Germany and Austria who reacted against the established rules of their art. While the Photo-Secessionists still advocated pictorialism, a few American photographers were fascinated by new ideas discussed in Europe under the term modernism. Though American photographers did not fully adopt the extreme avant-garde imagery, parallels in the photographic gaze on both sides of the Atlantic occurred shortly before and especially after World War I. In the 1920s the pronounced industrial character of society advanced to a sub-

885

ject matter of photography. Similarly, interest grew in geometric and natural forms, visualized close up and in sharp focus to discover new aspects in well-known objects, as in the photographs of the Germans Karl Blossfeldt (1865–1932) and Albert Renger-Patzsch (1897–1966), or the Americans Edward Weston (1886–1958) and Imogen Cunningham (1883–1976)— the latter had studied photochemistry at the Polytechnic Institute in Dresden. Audiences in Germany and America wanted to see cities, such as New York or Berlin, or automobile or steel plants from a new angle. In the late 1920s the German artist association Werkbund invited Steichen and Weston to cooperate in the organization of an exhibition to be held in Stuttgart. In the ensuing noteworthy “Film und Foto” exhibition of 1929, all the major figures of art photography in America—with the notable exception of Stieglitz and Paul Strand (1890–1976)—were represented, together with the foremost modernist photographers in Europe. Fleeing Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, the latter were to exert a decisive effect on American art photography. At the same time, photography started to permeate everyday life even more intrusively. The rise of photojournalism—that is, emotive and easily recognizable imagery produced for printing purposes—ushered in a new era of reportage and news consumption. The breakthrough of photojournalism dates back to the late 1880s, when new techniques—most importantly the halftone process—allowed for mass printing of photos alongside of text. George Eastman had developed a hand-held camera that he had begun to market in 1888. In addition, the previous year two German inventors had found a new and less dangerous compound to be used as a light

886

PHOTOGRAPHY

source, called Blitzlichtpulver (flashlight powder). It was used, for instance, by Jacob Riis (1849–1914), a Danish immigrant, to photograph the living conditions in New York’s Lower East Side, published as Flashes from the Slums in 1888. Improvements such as these enabled photographers to give social issues an even more immediate expression and to bring them home to contemporaries who had previously closed their eyes to them. The methods and concepts that transformed photojournalism into the genre we know in the twenty-first century originated in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s, where the three most-popular papers alone, the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung (Berlin Illustrated Newspaper), the Münchner Illustrierte Presse (Munich Illustrated News), and the Arbeiter-Illustrierte Zeitung (Workers’ Illustrated Newspaper), sold 5 million copies a day. New cameras were devised in that country in mid-decade: the Ernox (later called Ermanox) and the Leica, the latter being the first of the simple, portable, fast cameras with roll film. Its features, including the possibility to shoot continuous exposures, explain its instantaneous adoption by photojournalists all over the world. Layout specialist Stefan Lorant (1901– 1997), later founder of the London-based Picture Post (1938), and photographers like Erich Salomon (1886–1944), who specialized in images of contemporary statesmen debating important political matters; Alfred Eisenstaedt (1898–1995), sometimes called the photojournalist of the twentieth century; and the Hungarian Robert Capa (1913–1954) are among the most famous to have left their mark on the genre. After many of them had fled the National Socialist regime in Europe, they shaped photojournalism in North America. The mas-

terpiece of the magazine genre, Life, founded by Henry R. Luce (1898–1967) in 1936, owed much of its early design and success to German contributors. Photographers such as Eisenstaedt joined the Life team, who alone finally produced over 1,000 feature stories for Luce, while Stefan Lorant moved to the United States in 1940 to be put in charge of the magazine’s design. The transfer of individuals and forms of visualization between Germany and America worked both ways, though World War II interrupted the process. After the war images and techniques began to flood back, particularly to West Germany, where photographers tried to catch up with the progress made elsewhere. Gradually, the pictures produced by photographers accompanying the advancing armies found recognition. Among them are those of Margaret Bourke-White (1904–1971), the first woman photographer to be hired by a magazine (Life), the first female war photographer, and one of the first to enter the recently liberated concentration camps in Germany and Austria. She and her colleagues produced images of death and destruction that have haunted the public mind ever since. For the past half century the ambition to produce the permanent image has turned into an undertaking even more heterogeneous and global as far as influences are concerned. Transatlantic transfers between America and Germany will continue to influence photography as a technique, a means of documentation, and an art in both countries. However, the impact will probably not again be as momentous as in the late nineteenth and first half of the twentieth century. Angela Schwarz See also Feininger, Andreas

PIETISM References and Further Reading Brown, Milton W., Sam Hunter, John Jacobus, Naomi Rosenblum, and David M. Sokol. American Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture, Decorative Arts, Photography. New York: Abrams, 1979. Davenport, Alma. The History of Photography: An Overview. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico, 1999. Frizot, Michel, ed. A New History of Photography. Cologne: Koenemann, 1998. Fulton, Marianne, ed. Eyes of Time: Photojournalism in America. New York: Little, Brown, 1988. Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography from 1839 to the Present Day. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1964. Rosenblum, Naomi. A World History of Photography. New York, London, Paris: Abbeville, 1981. Weber, Eva. Pioneers of Photography. New York: Brompton, 1995.

PIETISM Revolutionary religious movement within Protestantism. It was the expression of a deep discontent with a corrupted church life, and a longing for a new spirit in the parishes, for spiritual enrichment by stressing the Bible, for the universal priesthood of all believers, and for a deep sense of community. Pietistic groups stressed a personal relationship to God and a virtuous life that emphasized personal devotion instead of polemic judgment of others. Many groups were known for foot washing, simple dress, and women covering their heads in church. The Pietists anointed themselves with oil for healing and consecration, refrained from worldly amusements, and refused to take oaths, to go to war, or to engage in lawsuits. Chiliastic and apocalyptic notions, Christian perfectionism, and in part the belief in the “apokatastasis panton” (restoration of creation) not only played an

887

important role, but also encouraged activities like public preaching, missionary work, and charity as well. By emphasizing personally experienced conversion (Wiedergeburt), the movement fostered self-reflection and introspection, which in turn led to a tendency to become an elite in-group, contrary to Pietism’s claim to be open and receptive to all people who would follow Christ. Although Pietism was opposed to the formation of new sects, more than any other Christian movement it splintered into multiple churches, denominations, groups, and even the smallest circles. As can be seen in the influential teachings of Jacob Boehme (1575–1624), Johann Valentin Andreae (1586–1654), and Johann Arndt (1555–1621), Pietism emerged during the religious, economic, and political crises of the seventeenth century within the Holy Roman Empire. It peaked with the founding of the Collegium Pietatis by Johann Jakob Schütz (1640– 1690), Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705), and Anton Dieffenbach in Frankfurt am Main in 1670, where both church and lay people gathered to read the Bible, pray, and discuss theological topics. The publication of Pia Desideria in 1675 set forth the genuine piety and modest aims of the founding father of Pietism, Spener. At that early stage, Pietism was significantly influenced by Quakerism in England. Leaders of the movement often had personal contact with Quakers such as William Ames (d. 1662), Robert Barclay (1648–1690), and William Penn (1644–1718), from whose pamphlets the Pietists profited. After Spener’s death in 1705, many small principalities and magistrates within the Holy Roman Empire became intolerant, imposed severe penal laws, and finally proscribed any overt exercise of Pietism.

888

PIETISM

"Love feast among the Dunkers of Pennsylvania," nineteenth-century drawing by Howard Pyle. The Dunkers, a sect whose doctrines and habits of life are close to those of the Mennonites, derive their nickname from a German word descriptive of their mode of baptism by immersion. (Bettmann/Corbis)

After Spener died, his former student, August Hermann Francke (1663–1727), founded orphanages in Halle in 1698 that were famous for their relief and care of thousands of poor but pious students. Most of them were alumni of the University of Halle, founded in 1694. With the help of the Prussian government, Pietism influenced educational efforts and helped to make Halle a new center for oriental languages and led to a revision of the curriculum for theologians, reformed sermons, and had an effect on the Canstein Bible Society, established in 1710, which promoted Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible all over the world. The idea that every believer should possess his own Bible and read it daily was one outcome of Pietism. From Halle well-educated clergy

spread out to many parts of the world and became in part responsible for Western hegemony seen in Christianization and precolonial economic, cultural, and social domination. In particular, Indian tribes in North America lost their heritage and independence as a result of the zealous missionary efforts by German Pietists John Ettwein (born in Freudenstadt, 1721– 1802), Gottlieb August Spangenberg (born in Klettenberg/Harz, 1704–1792), David Zeisberger (born in Zauchtenthal, Mähren, 1721–1808), and Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf (born in Dresden, 1700–1760). The latter, who came to America in 1741, attempted to organize all Pietistic German sects of North America into what he called the Church of God in the Spirit. His efforts led to the founding

PIETISM

of the Pennsylvania Synod on December 26, 1741, a pre-ecumenical gathering of Pietists. Pietism soon became an international movement. Once it emerged within the Holy Roman Empire, it spread to the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Hungary, and many English colonies, but most of all to North America. Many immigrants’ communitarian settlements were grounded in Pietism, including the Society “Woman in the Wilderness” of John Kelpius, born in Schaessburg (1673–1708); the settlements of the Moravian Church; the Ephrata Cloister, founded by Conrad Beissel from Eberbach (1691–1768); the Harmony Society, founded by Georg Rapp from Iptingen, Württemberg (1757–1847); Zoar, founded by Joseph Michael Bimeler (1778–1853) from Württemberg; and the Amana Colonies. All these groups were bound together by their quest for religious tolerance and spiritual freedom, which was realized most significantly in the founding of Pennsylvania as a refuge. The Pietists’ retreat from the world led to perfectionism, strict moral consensus, and political noninvolvement. Besides this radical type of Pietism, the more churchly type had an impact on the German Lutheran and German Reformed churches, German dissenters such as the Schwenkfelder Church, the Church of the Brethren (i.e., German Baptist Brethren), Dunkers from Schwarzenau in Hessen-Cassel, Sabbatarians (i.e., Seventh-Day Baptists), New Lights, the Methodists, United Brethren, and the Evangelical Association. The Salzburger Pietists came to the American colony of Georgia between 1732 and 1741. Among them were the pastors Johann Martin Boltzius (1703–ca.1765) and Israel Christian Gronau (b.1721). Other

889

important Pietistic leaders with German backgrounds were Francis Daniel Pastorius (1651–1719), Alexander Mack (1679– 1735), Samuel Guldin (1664–1745), Johann Christoph Sauer (1695–1758), Henry M. Mühlenberg (1711–1787), and Justus Falkner (1672–1723). Once in America, most of the radical Pietist denominations broke connections with Germany. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, however, the “classical” period of Pietism was superseded by the French Encyclopedists, the philosophy of Christian Wolff (1679–1754) with its modern rationalism, and the process of secularization. The process of many secularizations challenged Pietism, especially in its literal understanding of the Bible. In the nineteenth century, the German Quaker settlement at Friedensthal and the Evangelical Revival (Erweckungsbewegung) carried out the movement that led to a Pietist revival (Neupietismus) and finally to the gathering of the Pentecostal conference in Gnadau in 1888 and in the founding of the Gnadau Association in 1897. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Pietistic hallmarks such as personal relationship with God and emphasis on evangelism and mission were integrated into much of the conservative Christianity of North America along the Bible Belt from North and South Carolina westward by way of Tennessee and finally into Kansas. While Pietism in its beginning was radical, creative, and inspiring, in the twentieth century it became a predominantly conservative movement of generally white middle-class people. Today Pietistic ideals are integral parts of other movements—for example, the charismatic churches and the esoteric movement—or of such disparate communities as the Amish church and the

890

PLANT, RICHARD

Hermitage of Johann Zinzendorf, established in 1988. Nonetheless, the concerns in many churches today, such as the ordination of women, the relationship between justification and rebirth, and the demand for ecumenical efforts, were once those raised by Pietism. Claus Bernet See also Amana Colonies; Amish; Ephrata; Harmony Society; Kelpius, Johann; Muhlenberg, Henry M.; Pastorius, Francis Daniel; Pennsylvania; Schwenckfelders References and Further Reading Bernet, Claus. Between Quietism and Radical Pietism: The German Quaker Settlement Friedensthal. Birmingham, England, 2004 (Woodbrooke Journal Series, 14). Carpenter, Delburn. The Radical Pietists: Celibate Communal Societies Established in the United States before 1820. New York: AMS, 1975. Durnbaugh, Donald F. “Pietism: A Millennial View from an American Perspective.” Pietismus und Neuzeit 28 (2002): 11–29. Fogleman, Aaron S. Hopeful Journeys: German Immigration, Settlement, and Political Culture in Colonial America, 1717–1775. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1996. Wokeck, Marianne S. Trade in Strangers. The Beginnings of Mass Migration to North America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1999. Zehrer, Karl. “The Relationship between Halle Pietism and Early Methodism.” Methodist History 17, no. 3 (1979): 211–224.

PLANT, RICHARD b. July 22, 1910; Frankfurt am Main, Prussia d. March 3, 1998; New York City German American writer and scholar best known for his study of the fate of homosexuals under the Nazis, The Pink Triangle (1986). Plant acted as an interpreter of things German for an English-language au-

dience and also as an interpreter of America for Germans. In addition to articles in professional journals, he published essays, short stories, and book and film reviews in the New Yorker, the New York Times, Esquire, the Nation, the New Republic, Theater Arts, the gay magazine Christopher Street, the central European émigré newspaper Aufbau, and elsewhere. He collaborated on the successful American opera Lizzie Borden (1965). Born Richard Plaut, he grew up in an assimilated Jewish family and later anglicized his last name by changing the “u” to an “n.” His father was a physician who served as a Social Democratic city councilman in Frankfurt. With the assistance of the film expert Siegfried Kracauer of the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt News) Plant embarked, while still a school pupil, on a career reviewing films. Soon after he entered the University of Frankfurt, Nazi candidates swept the lists in nationwide German Students’ Association elections in 1930. Plant, who despite tension with his father had become a Social Democrat, attended the university lectures of the Socialist Protestant theologian Paul Tillich. Nazi students disrupted Tillich’s classes even before Adolf Hitler came to power in late January 1933. Within a month Plant departed for Switzerland to continue his studies at the University of Basel. There he completed a doctorate in German literature while expanding his career as a journalist and writer—mostly under pseudonyms. By the time Swiss officialdom’s rising hostility toward German refugees impelled him to move on, he had written many film and book reviews, an excellent guide to cinema, and a children’s book. He also collaborated on a children’s book and four detective stories.

PLANT, RICHARD

Arriving in New York in May 1938, he found that his experiences in America reinforced his sense of being an outsider. His credentials were of little value in a country still in economic depression. Although he continued to write for German-language publications and within six months began publishing in English, he could not support himself adequately until years after his arrival. After U.S. entry into World War II he worked as a translator for propaganda broadcasts to Germany. Finally, in 1947 he found what became a secure base in the German Department at City College in New York. After retiring in 1973 he gave courses at New York’s New School. Plant influenced the reception of postwar German literature in the United States through popular courses and public lectures, and, on a larger scale, through his editions and published appraisals of major postwar writers such as Heinrich Böll, Ingeborg Bachmann, and Marie Luise Kaschnitz. Plant’s own major contribution to postwar literature was Dragon in the Forest (1948), a semiautobiographical novel distinguished by careful portraits of middle-class youth in pre-Hitler Frankfurt. Soon after retiring from City College, Plant joined the public discussion of the gay liberation movement that developed in the United States beginning in 1969. His distinctive contribution utilized his knowledge of Germany to research the fate of gays in Nazi Germany. By the time his Pink Triangle appeared in 1986, a small body of German publications on the topic had come out. The popularity of Plant’s book, especially its German translation (1991), was due mainly to the personal perspectives its author brought to the story of the maltreatment of homosexuals. For once Plant was an insider. He bore witness in the name of

891

friends, lovers, and acquaintances. He opened the book with a sensitive account of the experiences in Europe of himself and some of his friends, and closed with a compelling description of his agonizing endeavor after 1945 to ascertain what had happened to people from his youth. He fostered American and German awareness that homosexuals were among the victims of the Third Reich, indeed that surviving gays persecuted by the Nazis received no compensation after the war. Worse, occupation authorities and German officials returned many gays to serve out penal sentences. Although Plant’s critics, particularly in Germany, faulted him for implying that in the Third Reich gays underwent a holocaust similar to the genocide practiced on Jews, Plant was a voice of moderation in the United States, where Martin Sherman’s play Bent (1979) depicted the mistreatment and murder of homosexuals as having occurred on a scale similar to the victimization of Jews. It became Plant’s considered opinion that the Germany of his youth was far more congenial to homosexuals than the United States—at least until the changes that occurred in the wake of the gay liberation movement of the late 1960s and the 1970s. To Plant the biggest obstacle to sexual freedom in the United States was its Puritan heritage; not only were many homosexual practices illegal, as in Europe, but sinful, too. His last major project, unfinished at his death, was a history of antigay ideas in the United States. But he lived long enough to be honored by exhibits and ceremonies in Berlin and Frankfurt for his contributions to gay liberation in Europe and the United States,. Walter Struve See also Aufbau; Intellectual Exile; Kracauer, Siegfried; Mosse, George Lachmann

892

POEPPIG, EDUARD FRIEDRICH References and Further Reading Klar, Hanna Laura. I Have Two Faces: The New York Author Richard Plant. Beta Video. Frankfurt am Main: Hanna Laura Klar-Produktion, 1998. Sternweiler, Andreas, ed. Frankfurt, Basel, New York: Richard Plant. Berlin: Verlag Rosa Winkel, 1996.

POEPPIG, EDUARD FRIEDRICH b. July 16, 1798; Plauen, Saxony d. June 17, 1843; Leipzig-Wahren, Saxony German botanist and explorer in Cuba, Chile, Peru, and Brazil. Poeppig, son of a bankrupt merchant, grew up with relatives in Leipzig and attended the Thomasschule there and the Fürstenschule in Grimma. He studied medicine and natural sciences at the University of Leipzig and was awarded a medical doctorate in 1822. He then left to travel in Cuba where, with the support of the Leipziger Naturforschenden Gesellschaft (Leipzig Society for Natural Studies), he devoted himself to botanical research, while earning his living by practicing as a doctor. In May 1824 he sailed from Cuba to North America, where he spent most of his time in Pennsylvania. In 1825 some 12,000 dried plants that he had collected in Cuba and the United States arrived in Leipzig. On receiving a loan from friends in Leipzig, he was finally able to fulfill a long-held dream of exploring in South America. He sailed from Baltimore in November 1826, traveled around Cape Horn, and landed in Valparaiso in March 1827. In the Rio Aconcagua valley north of the city he built a small hut from which he continued his botanical studies. Even the loss of all his equipment when crossing a raging moun-

tain stream did not dampen his enthusiasm. He climbed to the western Andes through the Aconcagua and Colorado valleys in 1827; he spent the year of 1828 in Talcahuano, Concepción’s port, from whence he departed for the unexplored hinterland in October. He traveled through the territory of the warlike Arauca and reached the farthest outpost of European settlement, the town of Antuco, where he spent the summer and studied alpine vegetation. On February 17, 1829, he was the first to reach the top of the active volcano Antuco (9,793 ft. ). He sailed from Chile to Peru in May 1829. Poeppig traveled from Callao into the mountains and reached the high mountain mining town of Cerro de Pasco via the Chillon valley. He spent almost a year in the middle of the jungle at the Rio Huallaga, delighted by the Andean landscape and its tropical vegetation, which he later inimitably described. Traveling by raft along the Rio Huallaga, he reached the Amazon basin and finally reached Para (Belém) on April 22, 1831, via Tabatinga and Egas (Teffe) after much adventurous traveling. In Leipzig, Poeppig qualified to assume a professorship (Habilitation) in 1833 with a study of the plants he collected in Chile and in 1834 was appointed associate professor of natural sciences at the university (in 1846 professor of zoology) and director of the new zoological museum. The botanical fruits of his travels were immense, and his collection contained almost 20,000 plants. Poeppig also brought back several hundred stuffed animals, as well as more than 100 large-format drawings of landscapes and plants. Together with the Austrian botanist Stephan Endlicher, he published a scientific analysis of this material in three volumes between 1835 and 1845

POLITICS AND GERMAN AMERICANS

(Nova genera ac species plantarum quas in regno chilense peruviano et in terra amazonica annis MDCCCXXVII ad MDCCCXXXII legit [New genera and species of plants, collected in the years 1827–1832 in Chile and the Amazonean countries]). Among Poeppig’s botanical achievements, he was the first to describe 46 genuses and 1,081 species of tropical vegetation, and he introduced South American plants to Europe, the best known being the araucaria (Aracucaria araucana, monkey puzzle). Nowadays he is recognized as the founding father of epiphyte studies, an important precursor of modern tropical ecology. The herbaria laid out by Poeppig were destroyed by fire in 1943 when the Botanical Department in Leipzig was hit by a bomb, and the zoological collections were dispersed to other locations after 1968. Of lasting value is Poeppig’s two-volume travel account of his five years in South America, which at times resembled a Robinson Crusoe adventure story (Reise in Chile, Peru und auf dem Amazonenstrome während der Jahre 1827 bis 1832 [Travels in Chile, Peru and along the Amazon from 1827 to 1832], 1835–1836). This is one of the travel classics of the nineteenth century. Although Poeppig did not make any new discoveries in the narrow sense, the aesthetic style and realistic nature of his travel account make him one of the most important portrayers of South America, and his biographers put him on the same level as Alexander von Humboldt. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Chile; Humboldt, Alexander von References and Further Reading Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol IV. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 2000, pp. 145–157.

893

Morawetz, Wilfried, and Martin Röser, eds. Eduard Friedrich Poeppig 1798–1868. Gelehrter und Naturforscher in Südamerika anläßlich seines 200. Geburtstages. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, 1998. Zirnstein, Gottfried. “Poeppig, Eduard Friedrich.” In Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 20. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2001, 572–573.

POLITICS AND GERMAN AMERICANS German Americans, like most other immigrants, came to the United States—where democracy was a watchword—from lands where there was little experience with political activity by the majority of people. Because German Americans were present in large numbers at some crucial times in American political history, their votes were often sought by American party politicians. Yet it was difficult for the Germans to maximize their opportunities to exercise political power. Internal divisions and conflicts frequently prevented their uniting on major issues. Germans did unite politically at those times when they felt that their culture and identity as a group were threatened by adversaries such as nativists, liquor prohibitionists, and advocates of other cultural issues. Attempts to unite them on other issues often failed. German immigrants in colonial days received their first political education in Pennsylvania, a colony whose legislature had the most developed party system in all of British North America, and a colony in which the Germans’ political potential was recognized. By the 1730s two parties had emerged: the Proprietary Party, which was aligned with the colony’s proprietors and their governors; and the Quaker Party,

894

POLITICS AND GERMAN AMERICANS

which opposed them. The proprietors by this time were Anglican and not Quaker. Generally, the Germans adhered to the Quaker Party, partly because many German pacifists agreed with Quaker principles, but also because of differences with the proprietors’ land policies, which created obstacles for Germans eager to take up land. By the 1750s some Germans on the frontier broke with the Quakers and supported the government’s efforts to provide better defenses against the French and the Indians. In 1764 and 1765 Benjamin Franklin and others began a movement to make Pennsylvania a royal colony, but failed, in considerable part because the Germans felt that royal governors would be more arbitrary. Similar fears of British rule caused Germans to move toward the patriot cause as the colonies moved toward revolution. The British Parliament’s 1765 Stamp Act, for example, singled out the German colonists by placing a special tax on newspapers published in languages other than English. German reaction added to the general colonial protest that led to the act’s repeal. In the postrevolutionary era, as the first American party system took shape, Germans were found in the ranks of the Jeffersonian Republicans more often than among the Federalists. Germans were active in Pennsylvania in the establishment of the Jeffersonian party in the 1790s. In 1808 Simon Snyder, son of a German immigrant, won the governorship of Pennsylvania as a Jeffersonian Republican by emphasizing his identity as a member of the common folk. When the old party system broke up after the War of 1812, the elements forming around Andrew Jackson in the 1820s actively sought the immigrant vote, and

Germans began to form one of the most consistent voting blocs behind the Jacksonian Democrats. The Whig Party, which emerged as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party, frequently denounced the Democratic exploitation of the immigrants’ votes, and thus appeared in the Germans’ view to be nativistic and threatening. As new German immigration began to spread into the Ohio Valley and the Midwest, the immigrants were generally welcomed by Democratic politicians and encouraged with minor political offices. Perhaps the most successful German politician before the Civil War was Gustave Koerner, a lawyer who immigrated to Illinois in the 1830s and became a member of the state supreme court and later the lieutenant governor of the state. The German Americans would never again be as united as they were under the Democratic Party from the 1820s to the

Secretary of the Interior to President Rutherford B. Hayes, Carl Schurz remained active in politics and journalism after leaving office in 1881. (Library of Congress)

POLITICS AND GERMAN AMERICANS

early 1850s. The growing sectional conflict that emerged in the 1850s, along with a major upsurge in political nativism, created havoc with many existing political allegiances. The German population, greatly increased in numbers by the massive influx during the period from 1848 to 1854, now appeared to be more important, particularly in the midwestern states. In 1854 the Germans appeared to be turning toward the Free-Soil movement; many reacted against the Kansas-Nebraska Act and against its sponsor, the prominent Illinois Democratic senator Stephen A. Douglas. Many Germans, responding to the new leadership of German intellectuals and refugees from the revolutions of 1848, tended toward the Republican Party as it took shape from 1854 to 1856. Their main motivation, like that of other Free-Soilers, was to prevent the spread of slavery into the new territories being opened in the West. Germans who actively advocated the more radical position of abolishing slavery entirely were a small minority. The Republicans at the same time were also incorporating former Whigs and nativists, causing some Germans to remain Democratic. German Catholics and Lutherans more often adhered to the Democratic ranks. In the crucial presidential election of 1860, Germans divided their votes, mostly between the Republican Abraham Lincoln and the northern Democrat Stephen Douglas. Germans did not, as some of their leaders claimed, provide the difference at the polls that made Lincoln president. On the other hand, they did persuade the Republican Party to disavow nativism in its party platform of 1860. Although Carl Schurz, the most prominent of all German politicians, hoped to lead all Germans into the Republican Party,

895

"The man with the (carpet) bags.” Caricature of Carl Schurz, U.S. senator from Missouri, by Thomas Nast, 1872. (Library of Congress)

the divisions among them remained during the Civil War. Germans were a mainstay in the Republican Party in Missouri and played a major role in keeping that state from secession. Germans who answered the call and fought for the Union army tended to solidify their relationship with the Republicans and began to take up the position that the purpose of the war must be to end the slavery system. Germans who feared the social consequences of slavery abolition remained in opposition. The post–Civil War era continued the party competition for the Germans’ political loyalties. Schurz is probably not the model of German American political positions in this era. His self-image was as a political reformer; Germans in general responded more to issues of cultural identity and defense against nativists. Republicans in several states during the 1870s and 1880s began to promote liquor prohibition laws, thus driving some Germans toward the Democratic Party. Republican efforts

896

POLITICS AND GERMAN AMERICANS

in Illinois and Wisconsin in the late 1880s to ban school instruction in German produced a similar reaction. A Democratic landslide in the congressional elections of 1890 returned the House of Representatives to Democratic control; many attributed that result to the reaction of Germans against the Republicans. The Democratic upsurge also helped German-born John Peter Altgeld win the governorship of Illinois in 1892. In 1896, however, the Democratic Party’s adoption of the populist “free silver” issue caused many “sound money” Germans to go to the Republican Party. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the growing Socialist movement, strengthened by the recent immigration of industrial workers from Germany, also attracted support from German laborers. In the early twentieth century, moderate Socialists controlled the Milwaukee local government for many years. After the turn of the century, cultural issues gained more prominence in the political lives of German Americans. After the unification of Germany between 1870 and 1871, the earlier provincial loyalties of German immigrants were increasingly replaced by a German cultural nationalism. German political leaders encouraged the issue of cultural defense as a way of maintaining German American support. In a new effort to unite German Americans into a more powerful coalition, German leaders organized in 1901 the National German-American Alliance (NGAA), led for much of its history by Charles James Hexamer, a Philadelphia engineer. Created as an umbrella organization over German societies and institutions of all sorts, the NGAA claimed at its height a membership of over 2 million (Luebke 1974, 98), but the number who consciously acknowl-

edged membership was much fewer. In the years before 1914, the organization played a role in cultural politics, primarily on the issue of Prohibition, which was beginning to be advocated in the form of a national Prohibition law. Although this was an important and symbolic issue to many Germans, who felt that their lifestyle and customs were being denigrated, the NGAA probably weakened its credibility among other Americans by obtaining much of its financial support from the brewing industry. Because Prohibition initiatives were more often the work of the Republican Party, the Democratic Party tended to increase its German support before 1914. But at the same time, national and imperial rivalries were building in Europe, particularly between the German and British empires. Given the traditional Anglophobia that was reflected in many elements of American society, German leaders had felt free to glorify the rising German Empire as part of their cultural appeal. When the European war broke out in 1914, the German opinion makers, while clearly favoring Germany, endorsed Woodrow Wilson’s call for neutrality. Over the next two years, they actively presented the German side of the war, claiming that this was the necessary antidote to British war propaganda, which was seen as an offense against America’s neutrality. Perceiving Wilson’s policies as increasingly favorable to the British, German newspaper editors organized a meeting in 1916 to support a candidate to oppose Wilson in the presidential election of that year. Their endorsement was Charles Evans Hughes, who in fact was then nominated by the Republicans. Although German voters showed in the subsequent election that their preferences were shifting somewhat toward the Republican

POLITICS AND GERMAN AMERICANS

ticket, Hughes did not win the election, and the German community leaders’ efforts to fully unite the German American vote failed. The next four years were to see some profound changes in the politics of German Americans. In April 1917 the United States declared war on Germany, and the previous pro-German remarks of German American politicians and editors were now denounced as disloyal. German Americans and their leaders hastened to assert their loyalty and their support of the war effort, but this did not stop an intense wave of anti-German feeling that had among its effects the silencing of political opinions among German Americans. By the end of the war, the NGAA was out of business, its charter revoked by Congress for its prewar activities in distributing German propaganda. German Americans then witnessed Wilson’s advocacy of the Versailles Treaty, with its punitive measures against Germany. The general American war weariness and isolationist reaction resulted in the overwhelming defeat of the Democratic presidential candidate, James Cox, in 1920. The Germans, in a more or less silent act of revenge and retribution against Wilson, voted overwhelmingly for the Republican Warren G. Harding. While the Germans were in many ways removed from the calculus of ethnic politics after 1920, they continued to reflect in their political behavior their reaction to Wilson, his war, and his treaty. Germans have been identified as one of the principal constituents of American isolationism in the 1920s and 1930s, especially as it was found among Republicans in the Midwest. The younger generations of German Americans increasingly dissociated themselves from taking political positions as

897

Germans. The rise of National Socialism in Germany found relatively few supporters among German Americans. Those few who organized pro-Nazi groups were mostly recent immigrants from Germany seen by other German Americans as repeating the mistakes made before World War I. Isolationism and nonintervention in the war in Europe remained the principal German American position. In the events after American entry into World War II, antiGerman feelings by other Americans were markedly less than in World War I, perhaps because Germans were no longer seen either as subversive or as politically powerful. The story of an active German American role in politics basically ends in 1945. Visible efforts since then by German Americans centered on noncontroversial subjects such as cold war anticommunism, the support of West Germany, and Germany’s reunification. While there were eventually successful outcomes on these issues, the activities of German Americans played a rather small role in them. The prospect of their exercising any united political power no longer existed. James M. Bergquist See also Altgeld, John Peter; Hexamer, Charles J.; Koerner, Gustave Philipp; Milwaukee Socialists; National GermanAmerican Alliance; Pennsylvania; Printing and Publishing; Schurz, Carl; Socialist Labor Party; Treaty of Versailles; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Fogleman, Aaron S. Hopeful Journeys: German Immigration, Settlement, and Political Culture, 1717–1775. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1996. Johnson, Charles T. Culture at Twilight: The National German-American Alliance, 1901–1918. New York: Peter Lang, 1999. Luebke, Frederick C. Bonds of Loyalty: German Americans and World War I. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, 1974.

898

POTATOES ———. “German Immigrants and American Politics: Problems of Leadership, Parties and Issues.” In Germans in the New World: Essays in the History of Immigration. Ed. Frederick C. Luebke. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1990, pp. 79–92. Luebke, Frederick C., ed. Ethnic Voters and the Election of Lincoln. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1971. Trefousse, Hans L. Carl Schurz: A Biography. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1982. Trommler, Frank, and Joseph McVeigh, eds. America and the Germans: An Assessment of a Three-Hundred-Year History; Volume I: Immigration, Language, Ethnicity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985.

POTATOES No other plant changed German eating habits more than the potato. The potato broadened the base of the food supply and increased its variety, thus stabilizing the whole food system with regard to calories as well as vitamins. Potatoes came to Europe from the South American Andes heartland, where 200 wild species with a high genetic variety are known and where they had been domesticated 10,000 to 7,000 years ago from crossing of a wild diploid species of Solanum stenotonum. Later crossings made potatoes resistant against frost and diseases, so that they could be planted in altitudes of up to 4,500 meters (14,760 feet). The Incas cultivated potatoes on a large scale and preserved them for the hard winter as chuno (dried potatoes) and as papa seca (a type of flour). Spanish explorers observed the cultivation of potatoes in South America and reported on this plant in their travel accounts and even brought some plants back to Europe. Around 1570 the first potatoes reached Spain, from whence herbalists, botanists, and farmers spread them to Italy,

England, and the Low Countries, from which they finally reached Germany. Initially, potatoes were cultivated only in botanic gardens as a curiosity. It was not clear to planters which parts of the plant were suitable for human consumption and trials of eating the fruits resulted in unpleasant consequences. Farmers therefore grew suspicious of the potato and refused to cultivate it. From 1740 to 1750, rulers and botanists, who had recognized the nutritional and economic virtues of the potato tubers, engaged in promoting the cultivation of potatoes. From 1770 to 1780 another promotion campaign followed, which was much more successful because it coincided with the severe famine of 1771 and 1772, in which grain ran short. Potatoes came to the rescue of many people who otherwise would have starved. From 1766 to 1805 the size of potato fields multiplied fivefold in the Prussian province of Brandenburg, and the amount of potatoes harvested rose from 6.2 million to 64.6 million pounds (Müller 1964, 635). But due to transportation problems, a national market for potatoes developed only in the nineteenth century. As potatoes were regarded as a food for times of need and for the poor, the upper classes remained rather reluctant to indulge in the consumption of potatoes. Potatoes became the food of the peasants, who profited from the fact that potatoes were exempted from tariffs as long as they were grown for consumption by the peasants. Already by 1800 potatoes had become an indispensable part of the German food system, although limited to that of the lower classes. In fact, the shortfall in the potato harvest of 1817 and especially of 1845 to 1848 led to a severe food crisis in the German states, as well as in the rest of

POTATOES

Europe (especially Ireland). However, in the second half of the nineteenth century, the consumption of potatoes steadily increased. In 1850 the average consumption per individual was around 138 kilograms (304 pounds) and in 1864 it reached 200 kilograms (441 pounds). At the turn of the twentieth century, Germans each ate 300 kilograms (661 pounds) of potatoes each year (Teuteberg and Wiegelmann 1986, 236f.). Overall, the Industrial Revolution and the massive population growth of the nineteenth century would not have been possible without the potato, which ended the dependency on grain alone. Compared with grain, the potato has a higher content of valuable vegetable protein and an especially high content of vitamin C, which contributed to the end of scurvy in Europe. This enormous increase in consumption was rooted in the myriad of preparation techniques for the potato, which differ from region to region. In northwest Germany, which was orientated toward the Netherlands, potatoes were often eaten with herring, as fried potatoes, potato pancakes, and especially as part of a stew with vegetables and meat. The south and southeast Germans stuck to the traditional Mehlspeisen—that is pasta, dumplings, grits, and so on—but integrated potatoes into their traditional recipes and created, for instance, potato dumplings. After the turn of the twentieth century, potato consumption began to fall, due to an increase in meat consumption. After World War II, the making of potato dumplings, potato mash (Kartoffelbrei), and prefabricated potato pancakes was industrialized. In 1949 the first prefabricated powder for making potato pancakes and potato dumplings was launched, ten years later prefabricated potato mash followed. With

899

the development of the frozen food industry after 1945, french fries were introduced to German kitchens. They already had been known by the upper classes as a delicacy in the nineteenth century. But as cooking oil had been an expensive, and thus rare, article for the poorer classes, the “straw potatoes,” as they were called, were not daily food at all. This has changed because of the emergence of the frozen food industry and the concept of fast food. French fries are an important article in the fast food sector and are made from frozen prefried products. In 1960 Germans consumed only 1,000 tons of frozen potato products, which made up 4 percent of all frozen foods. By 2001 this figure had increased to 362,611 tons. About 12 percent of all frozen foods consumed in Germany are potatoes. Seventy-five percent of these are consumed as french fries in restaurants. Potatoes are still a defining element of German cuisine. Ulrike Thoms References and Further Reading Hobhouse, Henry. Seeds of Change: Five Plants That Transformed Mankind. New York: Harper and Row, 1986. Messer, Ellen. “Potatoes (White).” In The Cambridge World History of Food. Vol. 1. Eds. Kenneth F. Kiple and Kriemhild Coneè Ornelas. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University, 2000, pp. 187–201. Müller, Hans-Heinrich. “Der agrarische Fortschritt und die Bauern in Brandenburg vor den Reformen von 1807.” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 12, 1964, 629–648. Ottenjann, Helmut, and Karl-Heinz Ziessow. Die Kartoffel. Geschichte und Zukunft einer Kulturpflanze. Cloppenburg: Museumsdorf Cloppenburg, 1992. Salaman, Redcliffe N., W. G. Burton, and J. G. Hawkes. The History and Social Influence of the Potato. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University, 1985. Teuteberg, Hans-Jürgen, and Günter Wiegelmann. Unsere tägliche Kost. Geschichte und regionale Prägung. Münster: F. Coppenrath, 1986.

900

PRAGER, ROBERT PAUL

PRAGER, ROBERT PAUL b. 1886 (?); Dresden (?), Saxony d. April 4–5, 1918; Collinsville, Illinois In an extreme instance of violence directed against German Americans during World War I, a lynch mob murdered a German American worker, Robert Prager, in Collinsville, Illinois, during the night of April 4 and 5, 1918. Prager’s death occurred amid chauvinistic propaganda campaigns by federal and local officials, as well as the activities of vigilantes against Germans, Socialists, pacifists, and other opponents of the war. Immediately prior to Prager’s death, Congress was debating measures to stiffen the Espionage Act of 1917; soon after his death the Sedition Act of 1918 was passed. Although contemplated before the murder, the decision to dissolve the major German ethnic organization in the United States, the National German-American Alliance (NGAA), was formally taken at a meeting in Philadelphia a week after the lynching. Little is known about Prager, and the circumstances of his murder have never been adequately investigated. Prager was born in 1886, probably in Dresden. Immigrating in 1905 at age nineteen, he worked at numerous jobs until he was arrested on charges of a minor theft in Indiana in 1912. Paroled in 1914, after serving a year in the reformatory, he found employment as a baker in the Midwest. In 1918, he attempted to join the miners’ union in southern Illinois in an effort to secure a job in mining. It is unclear whether his rejection by the union was due to his national origins, vociferous socialism, abrasive personality, or all of these factors. Apparently, he spoke critically about President Woodrow Wilson. As a Socialist with a rep-

utation as a radical, Prager was presumably critical also of the German emperor. The president of the miners’ union denounced Prager as a liar and spy. Prager retaliated by posting handbills in Collinsville and nearby Maryville asserting his own patriotism. On April 4, 1918, Prager was seized by a group of miners in Collinsville and forced to kiss an American flag before he eluded his tormentors. Recaptured by a mob later the same day, he was rescued by the local police and placed in jail, ostensibly for his own safety. Late in the evening a crowd abducted him again and took him out of town. The Collinsville authorities made no attempt at rescue this time. Members of the lynch mob questioned Prager for some minutes about accusations that he was a spy and planned to blow up a mine. Late at night he was strung up with a rope on an elm tree and strangled to death. At some point in this gruesome process, he was permitted to write to his parents in Dresden. The social composition of the actual lynch mob remains in doubt. It has been asserted that the participants were all young men of draft age. Were they, like the first crowd that attacked Prager that fateful day, miners? Despite wartime hysteria in the United States, reckless charges of disloyalty against German Americans, and many, mostly patently false, accusations of espionage and sabotage executed by radicals and Germans, the English-language press and most public figures condemned the lynching. Yet it was symptomatic of the era that the condemnation was far from universal, and often ambiguous. Ironically, Prager himself may have been among the superpatriots of the era. After his death a St. Louis baker recounted that he himself had been a victim

PREMINGER, OTTO LUDWIG

of Prager’s patriotism. The baker had spent thirty-two days in jail for objecting to Prager’s display of the Stars and Stripes. Prager’s attempt to join the navy in 1917 (rejected because he had a glass eye) and other information suggesting his loyalty to America received only limited public circulation. Despite the efforts of a fair-minded trial judge, the jury acquitted all eleven of the men indicted for his murder. Walter Struve See also Espionage and Sedition Act; Illinois; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Hickey, Donald R. “The Prager Affair: A Study in Wartime Hysteria.” Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society 62 (1969): 117–134. Luebke, Frederick G. Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and World War I. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, 1974. Peterson, Horace C., and Gilbert C. Fite. Opponents of War, 1917–1918. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1957.

PREMINGER, OTTO LUDWIG b. December 5, 1906;Vienna, Austria d. April 23, 1986; New York City Austrian-born U.S. film director, actor, and producer. Preminger grew up in a Viennese Jewish family. After receiving his PhD in law in 1926, he found his way as a stage actor to Max Reinhardt’s theater in Berlin. He soon became an assistant and later stage director and teacher in theater arts. His first directing experience and the only film he made in Austria was a melodrama shot in Vienna, Die Große Liebe (1931), released the following year in the United States as The Great Love. In 1933 Preminger was named the head of the pres-

901

tigious Josefstadt Theater, taking Max Reinhardt’s place. Preminger emigrated to the United States in 1935 to work as a stage director on Broadway, where he also appeared as an actor, even twice accepting the role of Nazi characters. In 1936 he accepted Twentieth Century Fox’s offer to work in Hollywood, either as a director, actor, or producer. His first important film (the fifth in his career) was Laura (1944), a “film noir” that soon became his classic. Preminger’s style is remembered for its unusual, provocative themes: sex, abortion, drugs, and African American relations with whites. For instance, The Man with the Golden Arm (1955) was the first major Hollywood film to deal overtly with the theme of addiction to narcotics. While in Hollywood, Preminger teamed with Ernst Lubitsch for a story set in Russia, A Royal Scandal (1945); Preminger also finished Lubitsch’s last, unfinished project, That Lady in Ermine (1948). Shot in Quebec City, Canada, Preminger’s The 13th Letter (1951) was a remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot’s classic thriller, Le Corbeau (1941). A funny Broadway play with racy dialogue, The Moon Is Blue (1953), became a scandal when Preminger adapted it for screen because it joked about female virginity. A German-language version directed by him was released the following year in Europe, Die Jungfrau auf dem Dach (1953). A versatile director, Preminger adapted to all genres: dramas; a Western with Marilyn Monroe, River of No Return (1954); and even musicals. In a recognition of European and African heritage, the film Carmen Jones (1954) was an americanized version of the famous opera Carmen, created by French composer Georges Bizet, with new lyrics by

902

PRESLEY

IN

GERMANY

Oscar Hammerstein. For the first time in Hollywood, this film featured an all-black cast. A fine musical, Carmen Jones was a hit and featured African American actress Dorothy Dandridge (whose voice was dubbed by Marilyn Horne for the singing parts) and Harry Belafonte. Preminger’s best-remembered film from the fifties remains Anatomy of a Murder (1959), a courtroom drama involving rape. Always interested in the Atlantic triangle, Preminger adapted George and Ira Gershwin’s opera Porgy and Bess (1959) for the cinema. Oddly, the film version was a failure, although it featured Dorothy Dandridge, Sidney Poitier, and Sammy Davis Jr. Faithful to his own roots, Preminger directed a flamboyant, epic three-and-a-halfhour film, Exodus (1960), telling the story of the Jewish people returning to Israel after 1947. Preminger continued his career during the sixties and seventies. His Rosebud (1975) was about Middle Eastern terrorists taking hostages in New York City. His last film was The Human Factor (1979). As an actor, Preminger played various roles on Broadway and is best remembered for the German Colonel von Scherbach in Billy Wilder’s war film, Stalag 17 (1953). Yves Laberge See also Hammerstein, Oscar, I; Lubitsch, Ernst; Reinhardt, Max; Wilder, Billy References and Further Reading Bächler, Odile. Laura. Otto Preminger. Paris: Nathan, 1995.

PRESLEY

IN GERMANY The rock legend Elvis Presley (1935–1977) spent two years in Germany as an army soldier and remains a cultural icon for the German nation even in 2005. In October

1958 Presley landed by boat in the German port of Bremerhaven to serve with the U.S. Army. When he arrived, he was greeted by hundreds of German fans eager to catch a glimpse of the young rock ’n’ roll star. Although the reception was enthusiastic, it was a relatively calm one in comparison to the mayhem that had followed him in the United States. The German rock ’n’ roll scene at the time was flourishing with its own stars such as Ted Herold. Yet the presence of Presley in the country sparked an interest in the American performer, whose reputation for risqué stage moves and interest in women preceded him. Presley spent nearly two years serving as a tank scout at the American base in Friedberg. He rose to the rank of sergeant before he was discharged in March 1960. While on base, Presley insisted that he be treated just like any other soldier. Yet the star enjoyed a few privileges. He was allowed to live off base with his family, as well as various members of the “Memphis Mafia” who accompanied Elvis throughout his career. In addition, Presley was allowed to travel home for lunch in order to eat the Southern cooking of his grandmother, Millie Mae. The entourage initially stayed at two different hotels in the area, which they were asked to leave because of rowdy behavior and the constant flood of fans. The group finally rented a home from Maria Pieper in Bad Neuheim. While the fans continued to wait for autographs, the group settled into the home at Goethestraße 14, where Presley spent most of his evenings visiting and performing with friends. With respect to his singing career, Presley’s stay in Germany was quiet, because he never performed in public and gave only two interviews during his entire

PRESLEY

IN

GERMANY

903

Elvis Presley during his army tour guiding memorial lift, Steinfurth, Germany, April 17, 1959. (Bettmann/Corbis)

stay. Yet both American and German publications chronicled his every move. For example, after Elvis and fellow soldiers gave blood at a local Red Cross station, the German teen magazine Bravo was inundated by requests from fans wanting to buy a portion of Presley’s donation. On a personal level, the stay in Germany had a profound influence on Presley. First, he trained with Jürgen Seydel, the father of German karate, a sport he would continue in the United States and a style he would incorporate into his wardrobe and moves on stage. Second, it was in Germany that he met the then fourteen-year-old American Priscilla Beaulieu, who would be his future bride. Priscilla was not the only woman Elvis dated in Germany, and her

parents, just like the others, had to be convinced by a personal visit from Elvis that their daughter would be safe visiting the star. Finally, insiders report that during the long days of maneuvers and two trips to the Paris burlesque club, Moulin Rouge, Elvis and his entourage became addicted to barbiturates (Mansfield 2002). Presley’s cultural effect on Germany is probably best measured after his time in the U.S. Army. Although ninety records were released onto the German market, only one song made it to number one on the German hit charts. The song “In the Ghetto” hit the mark for two weeks in July 1969. In 2005, the phenomenon of Elvis as an iconic figure is his most important legacy in Germany. In his temporary

904

PREUSS, EDWARD F.

hometown of Bad Neuheim, a yearly European Elvis festival is held, and Friedberg boasts a town square named after the rock ’n’ roll star. A number of Germanproduced documentaries chronicle his life and cult status, and Germany even has several Elvis impersonators and Elvis tribute bands. Elise Brayton Mueller See also GIs in West Germany; U.S. Bases in West Germany References and Further Reading Mansfield, Rex. Sergeant Presley: Our Untold Story of Elvis’ Missing Years. Toronto: ECW, 2002. Schroer, Andreas. Private Presley: The Missing Years, Elvis in Germany. New York: Morrow, 1993.

PREUSS, EDWARD F. b. 1834 (?); Königsberg (East Prussia), Prussia d. 1904 (?); St. Louis, Missouri German American journalist and editor of the Die Amerika, which was the largest and most successful German Catholic daily in the United States. Raised as a devout Lutheran, he earned a doctoral degree in philosophy from the University of Königsberg in 1853 and a doctoral degree in theology from the University of Berlin four years later. He then spent the next ten years as a tutor at the University of Berlin, numbering among his students some members of the Prussian royal family. He was also well acquainted with some of the most prominent men in Berlin, including Otto von Bismarck and the historians Theodor Mommsen and Leopold von Ranke. As an orthodox Lutheran, Preuss published a polemical book refuting the Catholic

dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1865. Ironically, this work soon involved Preuss in theological controversies with liberal Protestant contemporaries over the rationalistic theology that divided the evangelical churches. His vehement defense of Lutheran orthodoxy alienated him from his colleagues at the University of Berlin, and by December 1868 he felt compelled to resign his position. Shortly thereafter, Preuss left Germany for the United States to take a teaching position at the theologically conservative Concordia Lutheran Seminary in St. Louis, where he was assigned to teach courses in exegesis, church history, and Hebrew. However, Preuss’s previous involvement in controversies with liberal Protestant theologians had undermined his faith in Lutheranism. After an intense personal struggle, Preuss resigned his position at Concordia Seminary on December 1, 1871, and seven days later, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, left behind the Lutheran fold forever. Preuss was baptized into the Roman Catholic Church by the German vicar general of the archdiocese of St. Louis, the Reverend Henry Muehlsiepen, on January 26, 1872. Preuss’s talents were soon put to use when he was appointed assistant editor of St. Louis’s daily Catholic newspaper, Die Amerika, which began publication on October 17, 1872. Although he did not formally assume the editorship of Die Amerika until January 17, 1878, he had been the de facto editor from the start. Under his editorship, Die Amerika became the largest and most successful German Catholic daily in the United States. Approximate circulation figures indicate that Die Amerika started with 3,000 subscribers and had reached a circulation of 13,000

PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

subscribers by 1895 (Willging and Hatzfeld 1965, 21). In 1902 ill health forced Preuss to retire from his position as editor. Recognized as the central organ of the German Catholics in the United States, Die Amerika was actively involved in the Abbelen Memorial and Cahensly controversies of the 1880s and 1890s, which concerned the continued use of the German language in the church in the United States. Rory T. Conley See also Cahensly, Peter Paul; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Barry, Colman, O.S.B. The Catholic Church and German Americans. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1953. Conley, Rory T. Arthur Preuss, Journalist and Voice of German and Conservative Catholics in America, 1871–1934. New York: Peter Lang, 1998. Gleason, Philip J. The Conservative Reformers German-American Catholics and the Social Order. University of Notre Dame, 1968. Willging, Eugene, and Herta Hatzfeld. Catholic Serials of the Nineteenth Century in the United States. Washington, DC, 1965.

PRINTING AND PUBLISHING The history of German-language printing and publishing in the Americas closely followed the rhythms of transatlantic migration. As the German-speaking population of British North America increased in the eighteenth century, printers in Pennsylvania began to turn out publications for this immigrant readership. The decades after the Revolution saw a quantitative and geographic expansion of German American printing, but no decisive alterations in style or content. Whereas publishing up to 1830

905

was mainly geared toward the tastes and preferences of a rural and small-town population of southwest German immigrants and their descendants, the growing tide of immigration during the next three decades, the presence of political refugees and experienced writers among the immigrants, technological innovations, and political developments decisively changed the scope and character of publishing. The Germanlanguage press became more urban, cosmopolitan, and secular. German-language publishing in the United States, like German immigration, reached its peak in the period from 1870 to 1900 and declined afterward. Exiles from Nazi Germany stimulated intellectual life in both the United States and Latin America but did not have a lasting impact on commercial publishing. In the postwar period German American periodicals ceased to be their readers’ primary source of information about their new country. Instead, they came to supplement information available in the American national media and focus on activities within the ethnic community. In 1728 Andrew Bradford of Philadelphia published Conrad Beissel’s tract Mystyrion Anomias as the first German-language print—and the first work by a German-speaking author—in the American colonies. Besides further works by radical pietists and their critics, Bradford issued the first German almanac in 1730, and his Philadelphia rival Benjamin Franklin published the first German-language newspaper, the Philadelphische Zeitung (Philadelphia Newspaper), in 1732. Whereas Bradford and Franklin printed with English-letter type, Christoph Sauer of Germantown used German Fraktur type imported from Frankfurt when he started his printing business in 1738. The Sauer press

906

PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

quickly became the most successful German-language printing house in colonial America, issuing a yearly almanac, a newspaper, and numerous devotional works, hymn and prayer books, catechisms, political pamphlets, and practical works like grammars, ABC primers, and medical treatises. In the 1740s the religious controversies surrounding the Great Awakening and the Moravian Church’s ecumenical synods in Pennsylvania led to a significant increase in production. Beissel’s Sabbatarian monastic community at Ephrata set up its own printing press in 1745, and Gotthard Armbrüster from Mannheim began publishing in Philadelphia in 1747. Neither Armbrüster and his brother Anton nor several other German printers who had the backing of Franklin, however, could challenge Sauer’s dominant position in the trade. The first to break Sauer’s near monopoly on German-language publishing was Heinrich Miller, who established his newspaper Der Wöchentliche Pennsylvanische Staatsbote (Weekly Philadelphia Public Messenger) in 1762. Miller also imported books from Germany: in 1769 he issued a catalogue of over 700 works he had on sale. While Christoph Sauer the younger, who had succeeded his father in 1758, became a Loyalist during the American Revolution, Miller emerged as the preeminent patriot among the German American printers. After Sauer’s print shop had been confiscated and Miller’s press dismantled during the War for Independence, a new generation entered the field. When the new federal constitution was debated in 1787 and 1788, Melchior Steiner in Philadelphia, Michael Billmeyer in Germantown, a partnership of three printers and editors in Lancaster (Pennsylvania), and Mathias Bartgis in Frederickstown (Maryland) kept

German-speaking readers informed of events. While some 1,200 separate Germanlanguage publications (broadsides and newspapers excepted) are known to have been produced during the period from 1728 to 1799, close to 2,000 religious and practical works were published from 1800 to 1830 (figures calculated from Arndt, Richard, and Eck 1989). Printers set up their presses in Pennsylvania towns like Easton, Reading, York, and Lebanon, as well as in western Maryland and Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. In 1820 German imprints appeared in 17 different locations in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Ohio. Despite expanding production, the content of German-language works changed very little: Printers continued to turn out mostly Bibles, devotional works, hymnals, catechisms, almanacs, spelling books, chapbooks, and popular medical tracts. The works of the pietist Johann Heinrich Jung-Stilling were popular among German Americans, but other contemporary German authors aroused little interest, and scholars have noted an increasing isolation from secular intellectual trends and a lack of original works on legal and political themes. German-language publishing in the United States after 1830 benefited from rising immigration rates and innovations in printing and communication technology like the steam-powered press and the telegraph. By 1840 there were about 40 German newspapers in the United States. Their number rose to 70 in 1848 and 144 in 1860, while total circulation is estimated to have reached over 300,000 copies on the eve of the Civil War (Wittke 1957, 76). The number of publishers and book dealers specializing in German-language works

PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

during the 1850s has been put at over 200. As the majority of new immigrants settled in urban centers of the Northeast and Midwest, New York City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, Chicago, St. Louis, Milwaukee, and New Orleans emerged as centers of German-language publishing. In the case of New Orleans, for example, more than 50 different periodicals have been identified for the period between 1839 and 1909, and while many of them were short lived, the city’s leading German newspaper (New Orleanser Deutsche Zeitung [German Newspaper of New Orleans]) flourished for almost 60 years after its founding in 1848 (Arndt, Richards, and Olson 1976, 1: 175–184). Political refugees who fled Germany after the failed Revolution of 1848—a significant number of whom were experienced writers, journalists, and editors— provided intellectual leadership, raised professional standards, and publicized a much larger variety of views than earlier publications. They took over periodicals like the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung (New York Public News) and founded new papers like the Cleveland Wächter am Erie (Watchman on the Erie). As the 1850s were a period of intense partisan competition, state and local politicians subsidized and promoted new periodicals in order to garner the German American vote. By the end of the decade many cities and towns had rivaling Democratic and Republican German-language newspapers. Historians have argued that the intense political engagement of the press during this period played an important role in the americanization of German immigrants. A number of publications also gave expression to religious rationalism, free thought, and socialism; many small, short-lived periodicals es-

907

sentially served as mouthpieces of their editors’ worldviews. In the 1830s German printers in Pennsylvania also began to issue anthologies of literary classics, and after midcentury publishers like Friedrich Wilhelm Thomas turned the reprinting of the works of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, and Wilhelm Hauff in cheap editions into a flourishing business. The works of “Young Germany” authors like Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Börne were likewise published in large numbers. As there was no comprehensive copyright law in the United States before 1891, many publishers thrived on reprints of German literature, translations of French and English works, and colportage, or trivial, novels. In 1874 there were over 300 German periodicals in the United States. Two decades later the number of German periodicals had risen to almost 800; more than three-fourths of all foreign-language newspapers and magazines published in the United States at that time were in German (Wittke 1957, 206–208). To keep up with growing competition, German American periodicals adopted many of the innovations in printing technology, layout, advertising, and marketing that revolutionized English-language publishing at the end of the nineteenth century. In order to increase their readership, newspapers started to include women’s pages, and Die Deutsche Hausfrau (The German Housewife), founded in 1904, became a very successful women’s magazine. A number of periodicals served as organs of religious, professional, and social groups, clubs, and fraternal societies. No less than 26 papers published in 1890 were reported to be Socialist in orientation, and total circulation

908

PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

in 1915 stood at about 127,000 (Wittke 1957, 174). Falling immigration rates, the americanization of second-generation immigrants, and the increasing stratification of the German American population initiated the decline of German-language publishing after 1890. Although some newspapers and magazines continued to prosper, the number of periodicals fell to 537 in 1914. By 1920 there were only 278 German periodicals left, including 26 dailies with an estimated total circulation of less than 250,000 (Wittke 1957, 243–244, 273). Although over 90 percent of German overseas migrants went to the United States, Latin America also became an important destination in the nineteenth century, and the growing German-born population sustained an ethnic press in several Latin American countries. The first periodicals in South America were founded in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in the early 1850s, and the first German weekly in Argentina appeared in 1863. A survey compiled in 1888 counted twenty German newspapers in Mexico and South America (Arndt, Richard, and Olson 1976, 2: 91). The Blumenau-Zeitung (Blumenau Newspaper, 1881– 1938) and the Kolonie Zeitung (Colony Newspaper, 1863–1941) catered to settlers in the Brazilian province of Santa Catarina, and further German newspapers appeared in Porto Alegre, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and the Chilean cities of Valdivia and Valparaiso. In Canada, German-language publishing also began on a larger scale around midcentury. First concentrated in Ontario, it spread to the prairie provinces after 1890.

After 1933 political exiles from National Socialist Germany transformed several older publications and founded new ones. The democratically oriented Argentinische Tageblatt (Argentinean Daily), which had been established in 1879, published articles and caricatures by political refugees, supported the founding of a bilingual school in Buenos Aires, and helped the left-wing committee Das Andere Deutschland/La Otra Alemania (The Other Germany) publish its own journal. In 1941 a group of German-speaking exiles in Mexico that included Egon Erwin Kisch and Anna Seghers founded the political and cultural monthly Freies Deutschland (Free Germany). The journal, which appeared until 1946, featured contributions by Heinrich Mann and Lion Feuchtwanger and had a circulation of up to 4,000. In 1942 German exiles in Mexico also founded a publishing house, El Libro Libre, whose mostly German-language publications included the first edition of Seghers’s novel The Seventh Cross. The Deutsche Blätter (German Pages), a nonpartisan political and literary journal in Santiago de Chile, circulated far beyond Latin America. In the United States the former theater critic Manfred George turned the New York Aufbau, originally the periodical of a German Jewish immigrant club, into a respected weekly that continued to thrive in the postwar period. Circulation tripled from 10,000 copies in late 1939 to over 30,000 in 1944. In contrast to other exile periodicals, Aufbau actively fostered integration into American society. The Aurora-Verlag, established in New York City in 1943, published works by Bertolt Brecht, Ernst Bloch, and Oskar Maria Graf.

PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

By 1950 the number of German periodicals in the United States had dropped to sixty, seven of them dailies. In the mid1980s only sixteen German-language papers continued to be published, the three largest being Aufbau, the venerable New Yorker Staats-Zeitung und Herold, and the Chicago-based Amerika Woche (America Weekly). Mark Häberlein See also Argentina; Aufbau; Brazil; Brecht, Bertolt; Chicago; Chile; Cincinnati; Ephrata; German Almanacs in Rio Grande do Sul; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Illinois Staatszeitung; Intellectual Exile; Kisch, Egon Erwin; Mexico; Milwaukee; New Orleans; New York City; New Yorker StaatsZeitung; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Pennsylvania; Pietism; Ontario, German-Language Press in; Sauer, Christoph; Seghers, Anna

909

References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl, John Richard, and May E. Olson. Die deutschsprachige Presse der Amerikas. 3 vols. Munich: Verlag, Dokumentation, 1976. Arndt, Karl, John Richard, and Reimer C. Eck, eds. The First Century of German Language Printing in the United States of America. 2 vols. Göttingen: Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, 1989. Blaschke, Monika. Die Entdeckung des weiblichen Publikums: Presse für deutsche Einwanderinnen in den USA 1890–1914. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1997. Geitz, Henry, ed. The German-American Press. Madison, WI: Max Kade Institute for German-American Studies, 1992. Roeber, A. Gregg. “German and Dutch Books and Printing.” In A History of the Book in America. Vol. 1: The Colonial Book in the Atlantic World. Eds. Hugh Amory and David D. Hall. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2000, pp. 298–313. Wittke, Carl. The German Language Press in America. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1957.

R RADIO FREE EUROPE Pro-Western radio program that, along with its sister program, Radio Liberty (RL), constituted the main anti-Communist radio propaganda effort of the United States in Eastern Europe during the cold war. From the early 1950s to the mid1990s, Radio Free Europe (RFE) beamed the Western version of world and local news over the iron curtain in an attempt to counter pro-Communist Radio Moscow and to foster pro-Western sentiment in the Eastern European masses. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, RFE programming became less focused on anticommunism and in 2005 it continues to be the main source of radio news in the former Communist bloc nations. Radio Free Europe was created in the ashes of post–World War II Germany, when the U.S. government needed a strong radio propaganda program to counter the new threat of communism. Though the United States had relied on the Voice of America (VOA) radio program to counter first Nazism after 1942 and then communism after 1945, the VOA was deemed insufficient for blanketing Eastern Europe. Radio Free Europe was created in 1950, with headquarters in Munich, as part of

the National Committee for a Free Europe and was secretly funded and controlled by the CIA. In 1971, after CIA funding was revealed to the public, RFE and RL were officially combined into the RFE/RL program and funded by open congressional appropriations. During the cold war, RFE programming was a curious blend of attempted journalistic objectivity combined with heavy anti-Communist propaganda. Because CIA funding and control of RFE was secret, overt propaganda was downplayed in favor of news coverage that presented both Communist and capitalist views of political events. In this regard, RFE was designed to serve as the free press of the radio waves, and its programming soon became the most reliable source of news on both sides of the iron curtain. In 1956, for example, RFE was lauded for its objective take on the labor strikes in Poland and its evenhanded coverage of the Hungarian Revolution. As testament to RFE news objectivity, both Communist leaders Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin volunteered to continue RFE programming in Russia after 1989. In most cases, however, the RFE proWestern agenda was evident. Radio Free

911

912

RADIO INSIDE THE AMERICAN SECTOR

Europe programs frequently included interviews with Communist refugees, and several stations even hired refugees as staff journalists. Radio discussions of culture, religion, economics, academic lectures, and politics were usually wrapped in Western ideology. Communist-banned books were read over the airwaves, as were the antiCommunist speeches of Czech dissident Vaclav Havel. Moreover, RFE transmissions were never aimed at Yugoslavia, because it was deemed that propaganda was not needed there in light of Josip Broz Tito’s pro-Western stance. At its height RFE programming featured around-the-clock broadcasting, all in native languages, to Romania, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Albania. After RFE and RL were merged, it came under the new direction of the nonmilitary Board for International Broadcasters, a program that from 1985 to 1993 included Radio Free Afghanistan. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, RFE operations were relocated, by personal invitation of Czech president Havel, to Prague. Jeff Stone See also Berlin Wall; Radio Inside the American Sector References and Further Reading Snyder, Alvin A. Warriors of Disinformation: American Propaganda, Soviet Lies and the Winning of the Cold War. New York: Arcade, 1995. Urban, George R. Radio Free Europe and the Pursuit of Democracy: My War within the Cold War. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University, 1997. Washburn, Philo C. Broadcasting Propaganda: International Radio Broadcasting and the Construction of Political Reality. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1992.

RADIO INSIDE THE AMERICAN SECTOR The most influential American radio and later television programming effort in cold war German history. Located in Berlin after World War II, Radio Inside the American Sector (RIAS) broadcasts became the main source of news and entertainment for German citizens on both sides of the iron curtain. Created in 1946, RIAS also served as an important vehicle for political debates between East and West Germany, as well as between the United States and the Soviet Union, for over forty years. Moreover, the station served to bring Western European culture to thousands of East Germans living in Berlin and its surrounding areas. American radio operations in Berlin began in early 1946, sponsored by the U.S. military. A system of wired transmissions (Drahtfunk) began broadcasting through preexisting telephone lines in early 1946 under the program label DIAS. Because Berlin was located in the postwar Soviet quarter of Germany, the U.S. radio presence there became a strategic point to disseminate pro-Western propaganda. Among the first DIAS broadcasts was of Sovietoutlawed American jazz music. Soviet jamming of DIAS broadcasts began almost immediately. Berlin’s bomb-shattered telephone lines proved inadequate for large-scale radio transmission, however, and in late 1946 DIAS obtained an 800watt transmitter, renamed its program RIAS (Rundfunk [Radio] Inside the American Sector), and expanded its programming schedule. The new broadcasts reached past East Berlin and into the East German countryside. Unlike other U.S.-sponsored international radio programs, RIAS had little di-

RATZEL, FRIEDRICH

rect oversight, which allowed it a larger measure of journalistic objectivity. The station gained a reputation among citizens on both sides of the iron curtain for evenhanded coverage of cold war news and political issues. But aside from news coverage, station programming usually propagated Western ideology. Airing jazz and blues music, West German political debates, lessons of democratic theory, and promoting the establishment of universities free from political ideology served to undermine Soviet authority in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Communist authorities in East Berlin hence referred to RIAS as “Revanchism, Interventionism, Anti-Bolshevism and Sabotage.” Pro-Western propaganda was stepped up after 1955 when RIAS became part of the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), and broadcasts were increased to include eight transmitters on shortwave, FM, and AM bands that reached across all of Germany and into Poland and Czechoslovakia. By the 1980s the radio medium became supplanted by television in Germany, and RIAS quickly adapted. In a partnership with the West German government, RIAS created a television station called RIAS-TV. The new station was 90 percent financed by the West German government but controlled by the United States, and it had the dual role of favoring the Christian Democratic governments in Bonn and Berlin as well as promoting American values across the Berlin Wall. RIAS-TV soon had an audience of 3 million GDR residents, mostly youths who liked the MTVstyle programming. Although GDR-TV described RIAS-TV as “perverse,” East Germany soon began mimicking RIAS-TV programming in an effort to win back the

913

GDR youth. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, demand for RIAS and RIAS-TV waned and programming officially ended in mid-1992. Jeff Stone See also American Occupation Zone; Radio Free Europe; West Berlin References and Further Reading Bogart, Leo. Premises for Propaganda: The United States Information Agency’s Operating Assumptions in the Cold War. New York: Free Press, 1976. Snyder, Alvin A. Warriors of Disinformation: American Propaganda, Soviet Lies and the Winning of the Cold War. New York: Arcade, 1995.

RATZEL, FRIEDRICH b. August 30, 1844; Karlsruhe, Baden d. August 9, 1904; Ammerland am Starnberger See, Bavaria German journalist and geographer who became famous for his travel reports about the United States and Mexico, as well as his scholarly writing about North America and the problems of human geography. Following the wish of his father, who was a personal servant at the ducal court of Baden, Ratzel began an apprenticeship as a pharmacist and subsequently worked as a pharmacist’s assistant for several years after passing his pharmacy examination. His lively interest in the natural sciences spurred him, however, to strive for a university education. After he obtained his Abitur (academic high school certification) through evening studies, he began his university education, first at the University of Karlsruhe in 1866, and then continued at the universities of Heidelberg, Jena, und Berlin. By 1868 the twenty-four-year-old received

914

RATZEL, FRIEDRICH

his doctorate from the University of Heidelberg. Afterward, Ratzel wanted to continue his university studies at the universities of Montpellier and Cette; however, a continued shortage of money and the loss of his microscope caused him increasingly to resort to the composition of travel accounts, which he wrote with great success, starting in the early 1870s, for the Kölnische Zeitung (Cologne Newspaper). The reports were published collectively in the two-volume Wandertage eines Naturforschers (Excursions of a Naturalist, 1873– 1874). From August 1873 until June 1875 he toured the United States on behalf of the Kölnische Zeitung. He visited New York, Boston (where he sought out the zoologist and paleontologist Louis Agassiz), Philadelphia, and Washington (where he sought the Republican politician and political commentator Carl Schurz). He then turned southward and went to Florida via Savannah. From there he continued to Louisiana, visited New Orleans, and went up the Mississippi and Ohio rivers to Cincinnati. He studied Niagara Falls and then spent some time in Chicago and St. Louis. Ratzel crossed the great prairie regions of the middle west and reached Denver. He hiked westward across the Yosemite Valley, through the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada, and finally reached San Francisco, where he embarked in October 1874 on a trip along the American West Coast to Mexico. After his arrival in Mexico, he toured, on different excursions, the interior of the country. Ratzel visited Mexico City and reached Germany again, after a four-week stopover in Cuba, in June 1875. Motivated by his American adventure, Ratzel now turned to geography, for which he qualified as a university lecturer (Habilitation) in 1875 with a work on Chi-

nese emigration. Starting in 1876 as a university lecturer and after 1880 as a full professor at the University of Munich, Ratzel began an indefatigable period of publication. He published numerous essays in geographical journals, reworked his American reports into monographs (Städte- und Kulturbilder aus Nordamerika [Cities and Culture of North America, 1876]; Aus Mexico [From Mexico, 1878]), and collected his observations in an enthusiastically written two-volume introduction to North American culture and geography for people who were ready to leave for the United States (Die Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika [The United States of America, 1878–1880]). In 1886 he accepted a position at the University of Leipzig, where he taught with great success as a popular college professor until his death in 1904. The publication of his most famous works occurred during the Leipzig period. To those works belong the two-volume Anthropogeographie (Human Geography, 1882–1891) and the three-volume Völkerkunde (Ethnology, 1885–1888), as well as his internationally recognized and influential book Politische Geographie (Political Geography, 1897). The Politische Geographie became the foundation of geopolitics, a new field of cultural studies that came into fashion during the 1920s. It also, especially through its adoption by Karl Haushofer, became the source of the National Socialist Lebensraum (living space) ideology. While many contemporary German-speaking geographers were reservedly opposed to Ratzel’s work, his ideas were made known in American geography through his student, Ellen Churchill Semple. Even today Ratzel is one of the most frequently read German geographers in America. Ute Wardenga

RECONSTRUCTION See also Schurz, Carl; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Antonsich, Marco, Vladimir Kolossov, and Paola M. Pagnini, eds. Europe between Political Geography and Geopolitics: On the Centenary of Ratzel’s Politische Geographie. 2 vols. Rome: Societa Geografica Italiana, 2001. Hunter, James M. Perspective on Ratzel’s Political Geography. Lanham, MD: London University, 1983.

RECONSTRUCTION OF WEST GERMANY (1945–1949) The reconstruction of West Germany after World War II is the story of an unprecedented economic boom. In an amazingly short period of time, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) managed to recover from the starving, physically and psychologically devastated country it was in 1945. In the 1950s the world witnessed a stunning “economic miracle” (Wirtschaftswunder) that was made possible mainly by two developments: a major shift in U.S. occupation policy due to the emerging cold war and, on the German side, a resolute will to exploit this newly found opportunity to literally rebuild the country. With average daily rations not higher than 1,300 calories per person in the first three postwar years, Germany was starving. The great influx of refugees from the East contributed to the serious shortage of housing, jobs, fuel—of almost everything except poverty and misery. While the British had, since the Potsdam Conference, been in favor of higher German production figures, official American occupation policy in the economic sector had originally been more restrictive. Afraid of Germany’s allegedly inherent bellicose national char-

OF WEST

GERMANY

915

acter, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States were initially not interested in allowing Germany to become an economically powerful nation because this would only lead to a new war. Immediately after the end of hostilities, measures were introduced to weaken the economic capacity of Germany to assure that it would never start a war again. The Allies agreed on the dismantlement of the most advanced German technology: the production of military and civil airplanes was strictly forbidden. In most other sectors, the production was limited to a statistical average of some 55 percent of the 1938 level, while the production of steel was cut even more severely and fixed at 25 percent of the prewar level. Furthermore, an internationalization of the coal-rich Ruhr and Saar areas was discussed. All German intellectual property and foreign investment was confiscated. The United States in particular was very successful in luring away Germany’s most prominent scientists. About 650 researchers, among them the famous rocket pioneer Wernher von Braun, more or less willingly left for the United States. Lucius D. Clay, deputy military Governor of the Office for Military Government (United States) in Germany, saw very early the negative consequences that the purely “corrective” treatment would have, not only on Germany but also on the whole of Europe. Accordingly, often in conflict with the U.S. State and War departments, he tried his best to water down the provisions of the punitive directive JCS 1067 and foster German economic development instead. While JCS 1067 prohibited positive measures in the economy, the import of food and fertilizers was allowed “to avert the spread of diseases and unrest,”

916

RECONSTRUCTION

OF WEST

GERMANY

A military government official speaks at a railroad station near the Czech border during ceremonies marking the delivery of 75 new freight cars in Furth Im Wald, Germany, November 1948. The sign above the speaker reads: "America helps to rebuild Europe. These freight cars were delivered through the Marshall Plan." (Bettmann/Corbis)

a loophole that Clay exploited. In July 1947 the change in policy already exerted by Clay became officially sanctioned by the promulgation of directive JCS 1779. Although it confirmed some of the negative measures, such as the dissolution of trusts and dismantlement of industrial capacities, it was more positive in tone and propagated a healthy and generally less restricted economy; for example, steel production

was elevated from 5.8 to 11.1 million tons. Most importantly, JCS 1779 provided the model of the market economy that the FRG was later to adopt. Already one year earlier, on September 6, 1946, the American secretary of state, John Byrnes, made a speech in Stuttgart that outlined a reversal of American occupation policy. The reasons for this change in the U.S. occupation policy were three-

REDLICH, JOSEF

fold. First, the Truman administration realized that a lasting peace and a healthy reconstruction of Europe needed the cooperation of an economically active and stable Germany. Second, Great Britain and the United States agreed that they did not want their taxpayers to finance the enormous food imports that Germany so desperately needed and, more generally, the costs of occupation for an unforeseeable future. Third, the shift in U.S. policy was further caused by the growing antagonism between the Western powers and the Soviet Union. A poverty-stricken Germany, it was feared, might look eastward for help. American foreign policy thus first aimed at preventing West Germany from falling into the Communist orbit and ultimately at making it an ally in the containment of the Soviet bloc. To reach these ends, it was necessary to bolster not only West Germany’s confidence but also its economic and political institutions. The American effort to foster Western European and German reconstruction culminated in the European Recovery Program (ERP) announced by the secretary of state, George C. Marshall, at Harvard University on June 6, 1947. Between 1948 and 1952, the United States provided the enormous sum of $13.4 billion for European reconstruction, which was the equivalent of some 2 percent of its annual GDP. Germany was to be included in the scheme and, surpassed only by the United Kingdom and France, received about 10 percent of the total ERP fund. Initially, German ERP funds consisted mainly of loans that were to be used to buy American products. Only later was this policy reversed and the share of grants was increased. In spite of these considerable sums, however, the psychological effect of the ERP was of much

917

greater importance. The German people were no longer seen as an international pariah but recognized as worthy of American help and support. In the aftermath of the war, more than 9 million CARE parcels were sent to the defeated nation by Americans. By this act of sympathy with their former enemy the American population laid the foundations of an evolving German American friendship. Ulrich Schnakenberg See also Braun, Wernher von; Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe/Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany; Foreign Policy (U.S., 1949– 1955) Influence of West Germany on References and Further Reading Buchheim, Christoph. Die Wiedereingliederung Westdeutschlands in die Weltwirtschaft 1945–1958. München: Oldenburg, 1990. Diefendorf, Jeffry M. American Policy and the Reconstruction of West Germany, 1945–1955. Washington, DC: German Historical Institute, 1993. Herbst, Ludolf, ed. Vom Marshallplan zur EWG: Die Eingliederung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland in die westliche Welt. München: Oldenburg, 1990. Krippendorff, Ekkehart. The Role of the United States in the Reconstruction of Italy and West Germany: 1943–1949. Berlin: John F. Kennedy-Institut, 1981.

REDLICH, JOSEF b. June 18, 1869; Göding (Moravia), Austria-Hungary d. November 12, 1936;Vienna, Austria Jewish Austrian jurist and politician. Redlich was a noted law professor both in Austria and in the United States, a member of the Austrian parliament, and twice Austrian finance minister. He is known in the United States principally for a study he made in 1914 of American legal education.

918

REED, DEAN

As a youth Redlich spent time in England. He studied law at the University of Vienna and at the universities of Leipzig and Tübingen. In 1891 the University of Vienna awarded him a doctorate of jurisprudence. In 1901 he published the work that made his academic reputation; a book on local administration in England, which he soon published in English as well. Redlich joined the faculty of the University of Vienna and became professor of administrative and constitutional law. On the eve of World War I, the Carnegie Foundation commissioned him to conduct a study of American legal education. In 1907 Redlich became a member of the Austrian parliament; for two months in October and November he was finance minister in the last government of the Habsburg monarchy. After World War I, Redlich lectured in the United States and in 1926 joined the faculty of Harvard Law School. He became the Charles Stebbins Fairchild Professor of Comparative Public Law and in 1929 head of the newly established Harvard Institute of Comparative Law. In 1931 he was called back to Austria to again be minister of finance, but held that position for only four months. He did not return to teaching at Harvard. In 1930 Redlich was elected a deputy judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice in The Hague. To this day Redlich is known in the United States as the author of what is regarded as the first major study of American legal education. Many contemporary readers of Redlich’s report chose to see in it a validation of the case method of instruction that had then become dominant, particularly in elite law schools. Redlich saw strength in the case method, which he considered to be “an unrivaled method for training the American law student in inde-

pendent thought and [in] the keenest powers of legal reasoning” (Redlich 1914, 52). But Redlich saw in the case method serious weaknesses, particularly in what he called its “scientific side.” For Redlich these weaknesses were both in the “scientific comprehension of law by the students” and in the “scientific elaboration of law in general [by the faculty]” (Redlich 1914, 41). Redlich’s report includes many valuable comparative insights into American law and legal education from a European civil law perspective. James R. Maxeiner References and Further Reading Burlingham, Charles C. “Josef Redlich.” Harvard Law Review 50 (1937): 392–394. Frankfurter, Felix. “Josef Redlich.” Harvard Law Review 50 (1937): 389–391. Redlich, Josef. The Case Method in American Law Schools. A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 8. New York: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1914. Stevens, Robert. Law School: Legal Education in America from the 1850s to the 1980s. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina, 1983.

REED, DEAN b. September 22, 1938;Wheat Ridge, Colorado d. June 17, 1986; Zeuthen Lake, German Democratic Republic Often considered to be the “red Elvis,” Reed was an American singer-songwriter, actor, film director, and peace activist who converted to Marxism in the1960s and became a cult figure first in South America and then in Communist Eastern Europe. Reed moved to the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1972, where he lived until his premature death—from suicide—

REED, DEAN

at age forty-seven in 1986. Although not the only American citizen to settle in the GDR (other Americans in East Germany included singer Aubrey Pankey, cartoon artist Oliver Harrington, big band arranger Billy Moore, and a number of deserters from the U.S. armed forces), it was Reed who in the 1970s and early 1980s came to be revered in East Germany and in the Socialist world beyond as the authentic voice of an anticapitalist “other” America. Reed took up meteorology at the University of Colorado but soon began pursuing a career in show business. In 1959 he landed a number two hit in the United States with his song “Our Summer Romance.” Politicized during his time in South America, where he traveled extensively in the early 1960s, Reed publicly criticized American nuclear tests and the war in Vietnam. He achieved enormous popularity in Latin American countries, particularly in Chile and Argentina, where he came to host his own weekly television show in 1965. After a right-wing military coup, Reed was expelled from Argentina in July 1966 because of his leftist activities (among other things, Reed was a member of the Argentinean delegation to the Soviet-inspired World Peace Congress in Helsinki, Finland, in 1965). Following a brief spell in Spain and a hugely successful tour of the Soviet Union (only the second American artist after folksinger Pete Seeger invited to do so), Reed came to Italy, earning a living as an actor in B-grade movies in the studios of Rome’s Cinecittá. After losing his work permit in 1969 (he had protested against the Vietnam War outside the American Embassy in Rome), Reed returned to South America, where he supported the election campaign of Popular Front candi-

919

date Salvador Allende in Chile and subsequently, after a number of failed attempts to enter the country, returned to Argentina in June 1971. In the same year, Reed published an “open letter” to dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Soviet press, denouncing the Nobel Prize winner’s “false charges” against the Soviet Union and instead branding the United States as “the most violent society which history ever knew” (http://vmeste.org/prime/prime_ dean_reed.htm [retranslated from Russian]). In 1972 Reed moved to East Germany, where he lived for the subsequent fourteen years until his death. Apart from his political difficulties in Argentina (he had been repeatedly arrested and detained in the course of 1971), Reed’s decision to relocate behind the iron curtain was driven by private motives: In July 1973 he married Wiebke, a Leipzig schoolteacher whom he had met on his first visit to the GDR during the Leipzig film festival in late 1971. (For Wiebke, Reed divorced his first wife of nine years, Patricia). His artistic breakthrough in the GDR came in 1975, when he played a leading role in Blutsbrüder (Blood Brothers), a DEFA classic that became the most popular film of that year. El Cantor (The Singer), a film adaptation of the life of left-leaning Chilean singer-songwriter Victor Jara (murdered after the Pinochet coup in September 1973), which Reed cowrote and directed and in which he played Jara, won international acclaim two years later. Also in 1977, Reed’s own TV show Der Mann aus Colorado (The Man from Colorado) was first broadcast in the GDR. Apart from his exceedingly good looks, Reed owed his tremendous popularity to the fact that he embodied the politically correct version of the American dream in

920

REINHARDT, MAX

the eyes of fans and functionaries in the Socialist world and less to his (somewhat limited) artistic talents. In the era of the ending of the Vietnam War and the reign of Socialist idol Salvador Allende in Chile, and after the ousting of the GDR’s Stalinist leader Walter Ulbricht by Erich Honecker (then regarded as a moderate), socialism seemed to have regained some of its social dynamism, and the fact that an American artist chose to live in East Germany gave the Socialist experiment a dash of additional credibility. Reed, who had not given up his American citizenship and traveled regularly to the United States, became the center of an international propaganda dispute in 1978. On a visit to the United States, he had been arrested and indicted on trespassing charges after participating in a local protest in Buffalo, Minnesota. Reed immediately went on a hunger strike and refused to post bail, and the negligible incident quickly widened into an international affair. Pete Seeger and Joan Baez petitioned President Jimmy Carter on Reed’s behalf, and scores of support telegrams from Socialist countries arrived in Reed’s cell in Wright County jail. Reed himself wrote passionate letters about his “struggle” to East German leader Erich Honecker and his party’s chief ideologue, Kurt Hager. In the end, a jury found Reed not guilty and he was released after eleven days behind bars. The affair was a gift to Soviet propaganda and considerably increased Reed’s standing with Communist officials as well as with ordinary people in the Socialist countries. The late 1970s and early 1980s saw Reed at the apex of his popularity. In 1979 he was the first foreigner to be awarded the Lenin Prize for Art and Literature by the Soviets; in 1980 an official biography with

the title Dean Reed. Aus meinem Leben (Dean Reed. From My Life) was published in the GDR. By the mid-1980s, however, his appeal had waned. At a time when East Germans desperately tried to leave the country in the tens of thousands, an American who stayed voluntarily seemed like a strange anachronism. Sales of his records slumped sharply, a film project in which he placed high hopes was stalled, and his third marriage (to East German actress Renate Blume) was increasingly in tatters. On June 17, 1986, Reed’s corpse was pulled from Zeuthen Lake, near his home on the Rauchfangswerder peninsula in the south of Berlin. Hans Michael Kloth See also Friedman, Perry; Indian Films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft References and Further Reading Bräuer, Hans-Dieter. Dean Reed. Aus meinem Leben. Leipzig/Dresden: Edition Peters, 1980. Eik, Jan. “Tod eines Sängers. Leben und Sterben des Dean Reed.” In Besondere Vorkomnisse. Politische Affären und Attentate. Berlin: Verlag Neues Berlin, 1995. Nadelson, Reggie. Comrade Rockstar: The Search for Dean Reed. London: Chatto & Windus, 1991.

REINHARDT, MAX b. September 9, 1873; Baden, Austria d. October 31, 1943; New York City Austrian stage director who emigrated to the United States in 1934; perhaps the most influential theatrical figure in Germany before Bertolt Brecht. Born Maximilian Goldmann, he grew up in a modest Jewish family. After a debut as an actor in Vienna and Salzburg, Reinhardt became the director of the famous Deutsche The-

REISS, JOHANN WILHELM

ater (German Theater) in Berlin, from 1905 until 1933. Through his productive career, Reinhardt managed or owned some thirty theater companies. Reinhardt did not write plays, although he wrote scripts for the few films he directed. With one exception, he directed only silent movies: Sumurun (1910), Das Mirakel, (The Miracle, 1912), Die Insel der Seligen (The Island of the Blessed, 1913), Eine Venezianische Nacht (A Night in Venice, 1913). His Deutsche Theater in Berlin was like an acting school for the most important actors, directors, and set designers in Germany, from Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau to Arthur von Gerlach, from Emil Jannings to Paul Wegener and Werner Krauss. Although Reinhardt was never an expressionist director, he influenced and inspired some expressionist directors, on stage and in their films, from the late 1910s. In 1917 he opened a new avantgarde theater for young authors: Das junge Deutschland (The young Germany) in Berlin. Among the plays created onstage by Reinhardt were Georg Kaiser’s Die Koralle (The Coral), and Walter Hasenclever’s Der Sohn (The Son). In 1920 he cofounded the Salzburg Festival with Richard Strauss and Hugo von Hofmannsthal. There he presented shows in unusual places: the medieval play Everyman was staged on the steps of the Salzburg Cathedral, a concept that he used again in California (in the California Festival). Reinhardt went to the United States for the first time in 1924 with a pantomime, The Miracle, which was a success on tour. With the Nazi seizure of power, Reinhardt was forced to leave Germany and returned to Austria, along with Otto

921

Preminger. The many theaters Reinhardt owned in Germany were expropriated by the Nazis. Back in Vienna, Reinhardt worked for a short while at the Josefstadt Theater. But in 1934 he emigrated to the United States with his wife Helene Thimig and two sons. Among many projects, he created a gigantic stage version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Hollywood Bowl. He also codirected, with William Dieterle, a feature film titled A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1935), from the famous Shakespeare play that he had so often brought to stage since 1905. Some other film projects were prepared but never materialized. Yves Laberge See also Brecht, Bertolt; Dieterle, William; Jannings, Emil; Korngold, Erich Wolfgang; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Preminger, Otto Ludwig References and Further Reading Eisner, Lotte H., L’Écran démoniaque. Les Influences de Max Reinhardt et de l’Expressionnisme. Paris: Éric Losfeld, 1981. The German-Hollywood Connection. At http://www.germanhollywood.com/abc_in dex2.html (accessed May 11, 2005). Max Reinhardt: The Man and His Work. The State University of New York at Binghamton. University Library. At http://library.lib.binghamton.edu/special/re inhardtwork.html (May 11, 2005). Richard, Lionel, ed. Encyclopédie de l’expressionnisme. Paris: Somogy, 1978.

REISS, JOHANN WILHELM b. June 13, 1838; Mannheim, Baden d. September 29, 1908; Castle Könitz in Thuringia German geologist and volcanologist who spent many years researching in South America with Alphons Stübel. Reiss undertook his first journeys in his youth in

922

REISS, JOHANN WILHELM

southern Germany and in 1856 traveled to Italy, where he hoped to find a cure for a chronic eye complaint. He became interested in geology and mineralogy, especially volcanism. He followed this interest from 1858 to 1860 on a longer journey to Madeira, the Azores, and the Canary Islands. Reiss finished his studies after many interruptions and sojourns at various German universities, completing his doctorate in Heidelberg in 1864. Shortly thereafter he became qualified to assume a professorship (Habilitation) and became an associate professor. However, his restless nature soon led him to embark on new travels. Together with the geologists Karl von Fritsch and Alphons Stübel (he had met the latter on the Canary Islands) he traveled to the Greek island of Thera (Santorini) in 1865 to carry out a scientific study of the recent volcanic eruption there. Stübel and Reiss planned a great trip around the world, the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) being their ultimate planned destination. After intensive preparations, the two geologists began their journey early in 1868. Although they had only intended to make a brief stopover in South America, they were so fascinated by the volcanic high mountain regions of the Andes that they spent eight years in South America. Following in the footsteps of Alexander von Humboldt, whose descriptions they strongly criticized as being inaccurate, they first spent two years in Colombia where they examined a total of 22 volcanoes and collected 18,000 geological samples. The following four and a half years they spent in Ecuador, and this was the most productive period of their journey. However, they usually went separate ways, as had already been the case in Colombia. This was partly because they wanted to collect as much

material as possible and partly because of their different aims and scientific philosophies. Reiss made his headquarters in the capital Quito and undertook expeditions into the mountains from there. His geodetic and trigonometric observations were so exact that they served as the basis for topographical maps for almost a century. Among the volcanoes he examined were Pichincha, Atacatzo, Pasochoa, Corazón, Rumiñagui, and Antisana, and on November 7, 1872, Reiss made the first ascent of Cotopaxi, the highest volcano on earth. Reiss and Stübel were supported in their research by the Ecuadorian president García Moreno, who was favorably disposed to the Germans, and the German geologist Theodor Wolf, who taught at the University of Quito. The two men met up again at the Pacific coast in the autumn of 1874 and sailed to Callao in Peru, planning to cross the Andes from there and travel on to the Amazon Basin and the east coast. But this plan was thwarted by the revolution in Lima. Thus forced to stay put for a longer period, they began archaeological excavations near the seaside resort of Ancón, where they found the burial grounds of a pre-Inca culture, probably their most important scientific discovery. They then separated again and Reiss undertook a daring crossing of the Cordilleras alone and traveled by raft along the Huallaga and the Amazon to Pará (Belem). Physically and mentally exhausted, Reiss returned to Germany in 1876. Stübel, who returned from America a year later, and Reiss began the scientific analysis of the large amounts of materials they had collected. Their most important publication appeared from 1880 to 1887, an impressive three-volume work Das Todtenfeld von Ancón in Perú (The burial

RHEINSTEIN, MAX

grounds of Ancón in Peru), the product of their archaeological excavations. In 1881 Reiss moved to Berlin, where he occupied various positions on the committees of the Gesellschaft für Erdkunde (Society of Geography) and the Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte (Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory). In 1892 he retreated to the Castle Könitz in Thuringia, which he had bought some time before, and devoted himself to the analysis of the materials and observations from his expedition. But his willpower was no longer equal to the task. He finally capitulated before the immense masses of material he had brought back with him. Reiss produced nothing more of significance, apart from a few publications mainly on the petrography of Ecuador. Some of the materials were analyzed and reported on by other scientists to whom Reiss and Stübel had donated them. Reiss had become personally and scientifically so estranged from Stübel that communication between the two men broke down completely. His death was also tragic: he was found dead beside the gun with which he had intended to shoot jackdaws. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Stübel, Moritz Alphons References and Further Reading Brockmann, Andreas, and Michaela Stüttgen, eds. Spurensuche. Zwei Erdwissenschaftler im Südamerika des 19. Jahrhunderts. Ausstellungskatalog. Unna: Kreisverwaltung, 1994. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol IV. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 2000, pp. 575–576. Waller, Franz. Bilder aus Südamerika 1868–1876. Wilhelm Reiss (1838–1908) zum 150. Geburtstag. Mannheim: Städtisches Reiß-Museum, 1989.

923

RHEINSTEIN, MAX b. July 5, 1899; Bad Kreuznach (Bavarian Palatinate), Bavaria d. July 9, 1977; Bad Gastein, Austria German American jurist. Rheinstein was a promising young academic when the Nazis came to power and forced him to flee to the United States on account of his Jewish heritage. In the United States he became a comparative law scholar of international renown at the University of Chicago Law School. Rheinstein grew up in Munich, where he graduated from the Gymnasium (academic high school). After military service in World War I he returned to Munich for legal studies, completing the first and second state exams in 1922 and 1925, respectively, and his doctoral dissertation in 1924. While studying in Munich he became an assistant to Professor Ernst Rabel. When Rabel was appointed director of the newly established Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Foreign and International Private Law in Berlin, Rheinstein went with him as assistant and director of the library. In Berlin in 1932 Rheinstein completed his second dissertation (Habilitationsschrift) on a topic of Anglo-American contract law at the Friedrich Wilhelm University. When the Nazis gained power in 1933, he was able to use a Rockefeller Foundation Fellowship to study at Columbia University Law School and Harvard Law School. In 1935 he was visiting professor and from 1936 Max Pam Professor for Comparative Law at the University of Chicago Law School. With the exception of a year and a half spent with the Legal Division of the American Military Government of Germany in 1945 to 1947, Rheinstein remained at the University of Chicago past retirement until 1976, when he moved to Stanford.

924

RITTINGER, JOHN ADAM

Rheinstein is known for his work in comparative law, family law, and the sociology of law, and for further international legal education and cooperation, especially between Germany and the United States. For Rheinstein, according to one of his students, comparative law “seems to have been a window onto the complex interaction among law, behavior and ideas; a potent generator of new insights; and an aid to understanding” (Glendon 1993, 178). Although Rheinstein strove to broaden the horizons of American students, most did not respond in a country where comparative law is undeveloped. Rheinstein’s work in family law, in which field he authored important publications and otherwise supported the liberalization of what had been strict divorce laws, is said to have followed from his strong interest in the sociology of law. This, in turn, was promoted by his intense interest in the works of Max Weber. Together with Edward Shils, Rheinstein translated major portions of Weber’s Law and Economy. Immediately after World War II, Rheinstein served for a year and a half with the Legal Division of the American Military Government in Germany and was intimately involved in the reestablishment of the German legal system and universities. He became an important intermediary between Germany and the United States. Upon his return to the United States he spoke up for moderate treatment of Germany. He was instrumental in bringing young German jurists to the United States to study American law. Rheinstein subsequently created an analogous counterpart program, the Foreign Law Program, for American law graduates to study foreign law first in Chicago and then abroad in Germany or France. The German govern-

ment recognized Rheinstein’s contributions to German American cooperation by awarding him the Bundesverdienstkreuz (Order of Merit). James R. Maxeiner See also American Occupation Zone; Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Duden, Konrad. “Max Rheinstein—Leben und Werk.” In Ius Privatum Gentium, Festschrift für Max Rheinstein zum 70. Geburtstag am 5. Juli 1969. Vol. 1. Eds. Ernst von Caemmerer, Soia Mentschikoff, and Konrad Zweigert. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1969, pp. 1–14. Glendon, Mary Ann. “The Influence of Max Rheinstein on American Law.” In Der Einfluß deutscher Emigranten auf die Rechtsentwicklung in den USA und Deutschland. Eds. Marcus Lutter, Ernst C. Stiefel, and Michael H. Hoeflich. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993, pp. 171–181. Marschall, Wolfgang Freiherr v. “Max Rheinstein.” In Der Einfluß deutscher Emigranten auf die Rechtsentwicklung in den USA und Deutschland. Eds. Marcus Lutter, Ernst C. Stiefel, and Michael H. Hoeflich. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1993, pp. 333–342. Zweigert, Konrad. “Max Rheinstein.” RabelsZeitschrift 42 (1978):1–3.

RITTINGER, JOHN ADAM b. February 16, 1855; Berlin, Ontario d. July 29, 1915; Berlin (Kitchener), Ontario German Canadian publisher, journalist, writer, and humorist. Rittinger’s father, Friedrich, had immigrated to Canada in 1847. John Adam Rittinger was one of a long list of authors and editors of nineteenth-century Canadian German-language journals and newspapers, such as Henry William Peterson, Benjamin Burk-

ROEBLING, JOHN AUGUSTUS AND WASHINGTON AUGUSTUS

holder, Peter Heinrich, Elias Eby, Joachim Kalbfleisch, Otto Pressprich, Hans Sikorski, Jakob Teuscher, Daniel and Jakob Ritz, John and William J. Motz, and Friedrich Rittinger (father of John Adam). As an editor and publisher, Rittinger was interested and involved in public affairs. He propagated a fervent Canadian patriotism and the maintenance and promotion of German language and culture that, in his view, were not only compatible with Canadian culture but also desirable. From among his many journalistic and public affairs writings, Rittinger’s writing proved to have lasting literary value in his “Briefe vun Joe Klotzkopp, Esq.” (Letters of Joe Klotzkopp, Esq.). These letters, which he wrote and published from 1890 until his death in 1915, total 120, all published in the Ontario Glocke and the Berliner Journal. The letters were composed in the Pennsylvania German dialect, a German dialect common among Germans of nineteenth-century Ontario. The publishing of texts in the Pennsylvania German dialect in German-language newspapers was a tradition at the time, and under various noms de plume, letters were published in almost all German-language newspapers in upper Canada, Nova Scotia, and lower Canada. In a very short time, Rittinger’s Joe Klotzkopp letters became the most favored among the large number of these writings. It is noteworthy that Rittinger was not of Pennsylvania German descent and acquired the dialect later, yet to an admirable competency. The hallmark of Rittinger’s Klotzkopp letters was their humor, similar to that of the great Canadian literary humorists Thomas Chandler Haliburton (1796–1865) and Stephen Leacock (1869–1944), both in quality and impact. For the most part, the letters deal with

925

matters of public concern in contemporary Ontario (upper Canada) and Canada as a whole. Less often, Rittinger wrote letters and poems of an occasional type, such as a description of his son’s birthday party. Despite the thematic restriction of the letters to regional Canadian matters, their literary value consists of their linguistic and stylistic treatment of the themes and of their humoristic and ironic mode of narration. Steven Totosy de Zepetnek See also Berliner Journal; Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Literature, German Canadian; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Ontario References and Further Reading Boeschenstein, Hermann, ed. Heiteres und Satirisches aus der deutschkanadischen Literatur: John Adam Rittinger, Walter Roome, Ernst Loeb, Rolf Max Kully. Toronto: German-Canadian Historical Association, 1980, pp. 21–73. Totosy de Zepetnek, Steven. “A Selected Bibliography of Theoretical and Critical Texts about Canadian Ethnic Minority Writing.” In Literary Theory and Ethnic Minority Writing. Ed. Joseph Pivato. Special Issue of Canadian Ethnic Studies / Études ethniques au Canada 28, 3 (1996): 210–223. Weissenborn, Georg K. “John Adam Rittinger: The ‘Glockemann’ (1855–1915).” In Deutschkanadisches Jahrbuch / GermanCanadian Yearbook. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1984, pp. 221–224.

ROEBLING, JOHN AUGUSTUS AND WASHINGTON AUGUSTUS John (Johann) Augustus: b. June 12, 1806; Mühlhausen,Thuringia d. July 22, 1869: Brooklyn Heights, New York Washington Augustus: b. May 16, 1837; Saxonburg, Pennsylvania d. July 21, 1926;Trenton, New Jersey

926

ROEBLING, JOHN AUGUSTUS AND WASHINGTON AUGUSTUS

German American engineer John Augustus Roebling and his son Washington Augustus planned and oversaw the construction of several suspensions bridges in the United States—the most famous being the Brooklyn Bridge. Johann August Roebling was born on June 12, 1806, in Mühlhausen, Thuringia, and educated at Berlin’s Royal Polytechnic Institute, also studying philosophy with Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel. He worked for the Prussian government for three years before organizing emigration with others from Mühlhausen in 1831 to form the Socialist agricultural community of Saxonburg on 7,000 acres in western Pennsylvania. Johann (anglicized to “John”) married Johanna Herting, a fellow emigrant’s daughter. Their nine children included eldest son Washington Augustus. After becoming a civil engineer in the state capital of Harrisburg, John built dams, canals, and locks while surveying a Pennsylvania railroad route. He envisioned weaving iron wire into cables, first to replace flimsy hemp hawsers to tow canal boats up inclined planes. Given growing demand for such rope for coal mines and industrial equipment, he opened a Trenton, New Jersey, wire rolling mill in 1848, the first to manufacture everything from chicken wire to 36-inch cables, on 14 acres of grounds. After graduating from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, his son Washington joined the firm. It remained in the family for three generations, incorporated in 1876, and managed by sons Charles and Ferdinand. Roebling’s first engineering project was a suspension aqueduct across the Allegheny River (1845) that required innovating new construction techniques. He built a suspension bridge with cast-iron towers at Pittsburgh (1846) that was strong enough

to carry coal wagons. Other projects included railway bridges and the Delaware and Hudson Canal Aqueducts (1848). Roebling’s 825-foot Niagara Falls Gorge or International Suspension Bridge (1851– 1855) with four low stone towers attracted acclaim due to its dramatic location and its being the first chain bridge to carry trains with vehicular and pedestrian traffic on a lower level. Its success assured the future of suspension bridges. His 1,030-foot Allegheny River Bridge (1857) in Pittsburgh, the first built with his son, had six ornamental iron towers with cables “spun” on the site and carried trolleys and other traffic. The Covington and Cincinnati Bridge Company (1846) under coal merchant Amos Shinkle hired Roebling in 1856 to design the first span across the Ohio River. The Panic of 1857 and the worst winter on record shut down work as Irish laborers quit. When the Civil War intervened, son Washington served in the Union army with the rank of colonel, then returned to take charge of building the enormous twin masonry towers with German workers. The world’s longest suspension bridge, running 1,057 feet in length over water (2,252 feet in total and 36 feet wide), was complete in 1866. One New Yorker praised it as a model for one in his city. The Roeblings began plans for the first bridge to unite Manhattan with Brooklyn across the East River in 1867. Ferries had been the only link, impeded by winter ice. After congressional approval, New York State hired the Roeblings to design it with supporting cables of steel, then considered experimental in its first use for any bridge or building. Deck elevation 130 feet above the water would make it the world’s highest bridge and permit navigation by all but the tallest-masted ships. The 1,595-foot

ROEBLING, JOHN AUGUSTUS AND WASHINGTON AUGUSTUS

span over water, 80 feet wide, would be the world’s longest, extended to 5,862 feet onto the shores. The revolutionary plan included two central tracks for trains pulled by endless cables powered by a steam engine in Brooklyn, two flanking lanes for traffic, and an “elevated promenade” or pedestrian boardwalk above. Claiming it would last forever, Chief Engineer John promised the “Great Bridge” would appeal to New York’s “pride, gratitude and prosperity” with its two great towers serving as landmarks between the adjoining cities like a “great monument to progress” (McCullough 1972, 90). Washington traveled to Europe with a “bridge party” of engineers and consultants for a year to study innovative methods for sinking foundations into the East River to support granite towers with Gothic archways, including a visit to the Krupp works at Essen. Back in New York, while he was checking final measurements from pilings, a docking ferry smashed John’s feet. Doctors amputated toes, but John died three weeks later, on July 22, 1869, of tetanus at his son’s Brooklyn Heights home. Appointed chief engineer in his father’s place, Washington Roebling set to work on foundations using experimental, watertight, pneumatic timber caissons, the largest ever built, weighing 3,000 tons and larger than 4 tennis courts. The effects of work in underwater chambers with compressed air was not known, and over a hundred workers either died or suffered paralysis as a result of decompression sickness (“caisson disease” or the “bends”) from surfacing too rapidly. After spending twelve hours in a chamber one day in 1872, Roebling was carried home unconscious. Although recovering, nitrogen in his blood left him a semicrippled invalid in extreme pain. A six-month

927

Illustration of the New York entrance of the Brooklyn Bridge with inset portrait of J. A. Roebling, 1883. (Library of Congress)

trip to take the therapeutic waters at Wiesbaden (Nassau, Prussia) did not help. With the second granite tower complete in 1876, he watched the dramatic spinning of 14,000 miles of wire into cables with field glasses from his bedroom, as his wife Emily Warren Roebling took charge, carrying orders to engineers and foremen and bringing home her reports. Roebling’s “amanuensis” won her own public acclaim as “assistant engineer.” After thirteen years of work, President Chester A. Arthur inaugurated the bridge on May 24, 1883, as 150,000 walked for the first time between the two cities, paying a penny each. Retired to Trenton, New Jersey, the ailing Washington Roebling remained active in the John A. Roebling’s Sons wire business, which provided cable to the Otis Elevator Company, for telegraphs and electricity, and even for building the Panama Canal. Emily died in 1903. Washington

928

ROTERMUND,WILHELM

oversaw the building of a new mill complex ten miles away in Kinkora, renamed Roebling and judged one of the nation’s bestplanned industrial towns. He posed for a statue of his father in 1908, the year he remarried. He electrified the Roebling mills and began producing electrolytic galvanized wire. He published his Early History of Saxonburg (1924) two years before his death at age eighty-nine, founding the Roebling Press for it and other books, including his father’s reminiscences of the immigration experience. Washington left an estate of over $29 million in 1926. Blanche M. G. Linden References and Further Reading McCullough, David. The Great Bridge: The Epic Story of the Building of the Brooklyn Bridge. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972. Roebling, John Augustus. Diary of My Journey from Muehlhausen in Thuringia via Bremen to the United States of North America in the Year 1831. Trans. Edward Underwood. Trenton, NJ: Roebling, 1931. Schuyler, Hamilton. The Roeblings: A Century of Engineers, Bridge-Builders, and Industrialists. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1931. (Reprinted as: Roeblings: The Story of Three Generations of an Illustrious Family, 1831–1931. AMS Press, 1972.) Steinman, David. The Builders of the Bridge: The Story of John Roebling and His Son. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1945.

ROTERMUND,WILHELM b. November 21, 1843; Stemmen, Hanover d. April 5, 1925; São Leopoldo, Brazil Secretary of the Committee for the German Protestants in Southern Brazil and founder of the Synod of Rio Grande do Sul. He established the most important

South American publishing house for didactic material in German. Rotermund was a theologian, pastor, publisher, and writer. After his theological studies at the universities of Erlangen and Göttingen with Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann, Johannes August Heinrich Ebrard, Friedrich August Eduard Ehrenfeuchter, Albert Peip, and L. F. Schöberlein, he worked as a Hauslehrer (family teacher) in Kurland and did his internship in Hanover, where he also worked as a school inspector. In the fall of 1873 he became the secretary of the Committee for the German Protestants in Southern Brazil and was a collaborator of Friedrich Fabri in Barmen. In 1874 he defended his doctoral dissertation, Die Ethik Laotses mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die buddhistische Moral (The Ethics of Lao Tse with special emphasis on Buddhist Morality), at the University of Jena. From December 1874 until 1918 he was a Lutheran parish pastor in São Leopoldo, where he arrived a few weeks after the massacre of the messianic movement of the Muckers. The lack of orientation of the Lutheran congregations prompted him to become a writer, bookseller, and publisher from 1877 on. The school needs of the same congregations led him to create a publishing house, which became one of the most significant publishers of didactic material in German in South America. In order to fight the ideas of Ludwig Feuerbach and Ernst Haeckel that were promoted by the journalist Karl von Koseritz and other Forty-Eighters, he published the Deutsche Post (German Mail) from 1880 to 1928 and the Kalender für die Deutschen in Brasilien (Calendar for Germans in Brazil) from 1881 to 1939. (Koseritz rejected religion; he also advocated Darwinism and evolution. Thus, he became a propagandist

RUPPIUS, OTTO

for atheism based on natural sciences and philosophical materialism. Rotermund opposed these views and Koseritz. Rotermund defended Christianity [based on a historical-critical Protestantism] although he recognized that modern sciences had an important place in society.) In his publications Rotermund advocated equal rights for Lutherans and Catholics. His publications range from the primer (Fibel) to the Vollständige Grammatik der portugiesischen Sprache (Comprehensive Grammar of the Portuguese Language). His most important accomplishment, however, was the creation of the Synod of Rio Grande do Sul, the German Protestant church of the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The Synod of Rio Grande do Sul served as a model for the creation of three other synods: the Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Santa Catarina, Paraná and Other States (1905), the Evangelical Synod of Santa Catarina and Paraná (1911), and the Synod of Central Brazil (1912). These four synods gave rise to the Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil in 1949. Martin Norberto Dreher See also Brazil; Forty-Eighters; German Almanacs in Rio Grande do Sul; Germanism in Rio Grande do Sul; Mucker; Printing and Publishing References and Further Reading Dreher, Martin. Igreja e Germanidade. 2d ed. São Leopoldo: Editora Sinodal, 2003. Fausel, Erich. D.Dr. Wilhelm Rotermund. Ein Kampf um Recht und Richtung des Evangelischen Deutschtums in Südbrasilien. São Leopoldo: Verlag der Riograndenser Synode, 1936.

RUPPIUS, OTTO b. February 1, 1819; Glauchau, Saxony d. June 25, 1864; Berlin, Prussia

929

German author of many novels on German immigrants in the United States. Ruppius was a mercantile apprentice, soldier, bookseller, and writer before he came to America. He was convicted and sentenced to prison because of an article on the dissolving of the Prussian National Assembly, which he had published in the Bürger- und Bauernzeitung (The Town and Country Journal), a newspaper he had founded in 1848; but he escaped to America in 1849. In Louisville, Kentucky, he worked as a conductor and music teacher, then earned his living as an editor and journalist. In Milwaukee, he founded the journal Westliche Blätter (Western Papers) in 1855, published in St. Louis starting in 1859. Much of Ruppius’s fiction was first published in the United States and was directed at a German American readership. He returned to Germany in 1861 and became an important novelist for the Gartenlaube (the Arbor), where his new works were serialized. In 1863 Ruppius founded the Sonntags-Blatt für Jedermann aus dem Volke (The Sunday Edition for Everyone). The Gartenlaube was the leading family magazine in nineteenth-century Germany. Founded in 1853 by the FortyEighter and liberal Ernst Keil, the weekly covered German American life extensively for a German audience. Read at home and abroad, the Gartenlaube became the model for similar German American magazines like Ruppius’s Westliche Blätter. Addressed to a bourgeois, middle-class audience, the magazine, which aimed to educate as well as entertain, combined articles on inventions and natural sciences, health care, politics, celebrities, increasing numbers of illustrations, and fictional writing. The United States was a dominant topic of the magazine from its very begin-

930

RUPPIUS, OTTO

ning. Articles on the political situation (e.g., the Civil War), American life and American character, slavery, the experience of emigration, and immigrant life were supplemented by anecdotes of hunting expeditions or reports of fortunate or tragic occurrences in which German Americans were involved. These reports, which were sometimes more fiction than fact, presented moments of American life or scenery in a dramatic way and with a personal point of view. Shorter narratives or serialized novels made up a significant part of the content. While the magazine’s most prominent contributor was the female author Marlitt (Eugenie John), Friedrich Gerstäcker’s stories and travel reports as well as Ruppius’s fiction were also published there. In its reports on America, the Gartenlaube endeavored to inform German readers, to shape public opinion, and to point potential immigrants to the pitfalls of emigration. Ruppius’s contributions to the Gartenlaube supplemented articles on the American situation during the Civil War and answered to a substantial interest in American affairs. Ruppius’s novels of education deal with the fate of the individual German immigrant, mostly male. In Der Pedlar (1857), a political refugee is mentored by a Jewish peddler, after his worldly goods have been stolen by a sly German immigrant and his American companion. Because they, like the protagonist, move down South in the course of the novel, the underworld plot continues to intersect with the story of the protagonist’s adaptation to American life. When he is wrongly accused and tried for murder, he finds support in a German childhood love and her aged American husband. The sequel, Das Vermächtnis des Pedlars (The Peddler’s Legacy, 1859), wraps up

the plot of the criminal underworld and has the protagonist unite with his now-widowed childhood love. The novel criticizes the attitudes and values of southern planters as well as German values. In the courtroom scene, both seem to be on trial. American women also serve as guides to the hapless intellectual immigrant in Ein Deutscher (A German, 1862), where the protagonist’s American odyssey concludes with his wedding to a wealthy American. Immigrant women’s plight in the Midwest is at the center of Mary Kreuzer (1862), in which a German orphan girl is expelled from her German foster family but, due to her impeccable behavior, earns the trust and love of a well-off American and his family. Ruppius’s protagonists, male and female, are characterized by faultless manners and a “German” pride, which sets them on a course of striving and succeeding. African Americans play a minor role in Ruppius’s fiction, where they appear as intelligent and alert slaves or free blacks (as in Eine Speculation [A Speculation], 1863). His “Amerikanische Zustände Nr. 2” (Gartenlaube, 1861), however, compiles racist stereotypes derived from nineteenthcentury race theory and speaks in support of slavery. Yet, unlike many German novels of the nineteenth century, his Pedlar novels are a rare case of philosemitism. Annette Bühler-Dietrich See also Forty-Eighters; Literature (German American) in the Nineteenth Century; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Novel, German American References and Further Reading Belgum, Kirsten. Popularizing the Nation: Audience, Representation, and the Production of Identity in Die Gartenlaube, 1853–1900. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.

RUTH, GEORGE HERMAN, “BABE” Hering, Christoph. “Otto Ruppius, der Amerikafahrer: Flüchtling, Exilschriftsteller, Rückwanderer.” In Amerika in der deutschen Literatur: Neue Welt, Nordamerika, USA. Eds. Sigrid Bauschinger, Horst Denkler, and Wilfried Malsch. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1975, pp. 124–134. Woodson, L. H. American Negro Slavery in the Works of Friedrich Strubberg, Friedrich Gerstäcker and Otto Ruppius. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1949.

RUTH, GEORGE HERMAN, “BABE” b. February 6, 1895; Baltimore, Maryland d. August 16, 1948, New York City

931

Professional baseball player (1914–1938) of German descent. Babe’s mother was the daughter of German immigrants named Schamberger. She died when her son was only fifteen. Babe’s father, after whom he was named, was a saloon keeper in Baltimore, and also of German descent. It was probably in his family that the Babe picked up some German, which he still spoke in later years. Babe Ruth had a rough childhood. At the age of seven he was sent to St. Mary’s Industrial School for Boys, a Catholic reform school led by Xaverian brothers. During recreation time the boys were required to participate in some kind of team sport. It was here that the Babe was introduced to baseball. Until the age of nineteen he attended this school

At the World Series, October 4, 1924: George Sisler, Babe Ruth, and Ty Cobb (left to right). (Library of Congress)

932

RUTH, GEORGE HERMAN, “BABE”

off and on. Later the myth arose that he was an orphan. Ruth started his baseball career with the Baltimore Orioles, then a minor league team, when he was 19 years old. By the end of the season he had joined the Boston Red Sox. Six years later that team sold him to the New York Yankees. Following this transaction, the Red Sox did not win a World Series title again until 2004. This monumental losing streak was attributed by superstitious fans to the alleged “Curse of the Bambino.” The Babe is known for his outstanding achievements in baseball, such as hitting 714 home runs (a record that stood from 1935 to 1974) and hitting 60 homers in one season (1927, a record that stood until 1961). He was the highestpaid player of his time. Except for 1925, Ruth led the league in batting from 1918 through 1931. After his career as an active player was over, Babe Ruth unsuccessfully tried to get into coaching or managing positions in baseball. Besides his athletic achievements, the Babe was also known for his undisci-

plined lifestyle, which included parties, gambling, uncountable affairs with women, drinking, and consuming huge amounts of food, which accounted for weight problems. Before each season he habitually went on a diet. Babe Ruth was married twice. After the death of his first wife, Helen Woodford, whom he had married at the age of nineteen but had lived separately from for many years, he married Claire Hodgson in 1929. She had a positive influence on his lifestyle. The Babe also adopted two children, one together with Helen and later, Claire’s daughter. Babe Ruth died of throat cancer. According to his biographer Kal Wagenheim, he became a legend that the press elevated to “sterile sainthood” (Wagenheim 2001, 271). Annette Hofmann References and Further Reading Chronik des Sport. Berlin: Sportverlag, 2000. Kirsch, George B., Othello Harris, and Claire E. Nolte, eds. Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sport in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2000, pp. 397–398. Wagenheim, Kal. Babe Ruth: His Life and Legend. Chicago: Olmstead, 2001.

S SALOMON, EDWARD S. b. December 25, 1836; SchleswigHolstein (?) d. (?) 1913; San Francisco, California Highest-ranking German Jewish officer in the Union army during the American Civil War and the only Jewish governor of the Washington Territory. After the Revolution of 1848, Salomon relocated to Hamburg to improve his economic situation. Eventually in 1855, he emigrated to the United States and settled in Chicago, Illinois. Salomon soon found work as a clerk and bookkeeper and began studying law at the Davis & Buell firm. After passing the bar, Salomon joined the Peck & Buell firm, became politically active in the Republican Party, and was elected as the Sixth Ward alderman to the Chicago City Council in 1860. When hostilities commenced between North and South, Salomon enlisted in the 24th Illinois Infantry Regiment under the command of fellow German Friedrich Hecker. In 1862 Salomon and Hecker left the 24th Illinois and formed the 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Salomon’s recruitment efforts helped to bring numerous German Jewish immigrants into the regiment, forming an entire company of German Jews. Within three days,

ninety-six German Jews from Chicago had volunteered. The 82nd Illinois fought in several of the most important battles, including Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Mission Ridge, Atlanta, and General Sherman’s march through the Deep South. It was during the Battle of Gettysburg in July 1863, however, that Lieutenant Colonel Salomon rose to prominence. With the wounding of Hecker weeks earlier, Salomon demonstrated his leadership abilities. During the battle, Salomon rallied his men after their apparent defeat on the first day and captured more Confederate soldiers than men under his command during the second day. When Colonel Hecker left the regiment in 1864, Salomon became commander and eventually achieved the rank of brevet brigadier general, the highest rank of any German Jewish officer. After the war ended in 1865, Salomon returned to his political life and was elected county clerk for Cook County, Illinois. For Salomon’s conduct during the Civil War, President Ulysses S. Grant rewarded him with the governorship of the Washington Territory in the spring of 1870. He held that office for two years, leaving it in the spring of 1872. Salomon and his family relocated to San Francisco, California, and lived there until his death. During the

933

934

SAPPER FAMILY

thirty years spent in northern California, Salomon continued to practice law, became a member of the California State Assembly, and worked in the office of the district attorney. Never forgetting his service in the Union army, Salomon became an active member in veterans’ associations around the San Francisco area. Salomon petitioned the U.S. government to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to a fellow German Jewish solider, Captain Joseph B. Greenhut, for his brave and heroic actions during the Battle of Gettysburg. Although his petition was unsuccessful, Salomon continued to honor the contributions of his regiment. Marc Dluger See also Chicago; 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; Hecker, Friedrich References and Further Reading “The Governor of Washington Territory: 1870–1872.” Western States Jewish History 17, no. 3 (April 1985): 214–215. Tortorelli, Susan. “82nd Illinois Infantry Regiment History: Adjutant General’s Report.” At http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilcivilw/history /082.htm (cited October 9, 2002).

SAPPER FAMILY Several members of this Swabian family established themselves in Guatemala in the late nineteenth century and prospered as coffee planters and leading members of the German immigrant community. While managing his brother Richard’s estate, Karl Theodor Sapper collected scientific data in the Alta Verapaz region and continued his geographical, geological, and anthropological investigations during several extended journeys through Mexico and Guatemala

in the 1890s. After his return to Germany he taught geography at several universities and published numerous scientific and popular books and articles based on his work in Central America. Richard Sapper (1862–1912), whose father August had operated a hammer mill in the small Bavarian town of Wittislingen, was apprenticed to an export merchant in Bari (Italy). He emigrated to Guatemala in 1884, where he began his career as an estate manager but soon acquired land of his own. His estate in the municipalities of Cobán, San Pedro Carchá, Senahú, Telemán, and Lanquín, Alta Verapaz, eventually comprised a combined 30,000 acres with 550,000 coffee trees and was valued at 1.2 million reichsmarks in 1897 (Wagner 1991, 202–208). He also built up a large export firm and served as representative of the Guatemalan national bank in the Verapaz region. In 1889 he became president of the German Society of Guatemala and in 1897 he was appointed vice-consul. Richard Sapper had four children from his marriage to Charlotte Schilling, daughter of a district judge in Ravensburg, Württemberg, in 1890. His youngest son, Theodor Helmuth, succeeded him in the office of German vice-consul. During World War II, Theodor Helmuth Sapper and 141 other Germans were arrested and deported to an internment camp in Texas in 1943. Richard’s younger brother, Karl Theodor Sapper, was born in Wittislingen on February 6, 1866. He attended high school in Ravensburg and studied geology and natural sciences in Munich from 1884 to 1888. After finishing his studies with a PhD degree in geography, he traveled to Guatemala to visit his brother Richard and

SAPPER FAMILY

recuperate from pneumonia. From 1889 to 1893 he managed his brother’s Campur plantation in the municipality of San Pedro Carchá. In collaboration with the German planter Erwin Paul Dieseldorff, Sapper excavated several archaeological sites in the Verapaz region, including the ancient Maya town of Mixco Viejo. Combining his own scientific interests with the economic interests of the region’s planters, Sapper systematically mapped the Alta Verapaz, surveyed estate boundaries, and established a series of meteorological stations. Following some geological work in Mexico (1893–1895) he returned to Guatemala, where he undertook numerous scientific expeditions in the years 1895 to 1900. Returning to Germany in 1900, Sapper submitted his second doctoral thesis (Habilitation) titled “On the Geological Significance of the Tropical Forms of Vegetation in Central and South America,” which was based on the data and observations collected during his travels, at the University of Leipzig. He became associate professor at the University of Tübingen in 1902 and full professor in geography in 1907. The following year Sapper and the ethnologist Georg Friederici undertook an expedition to New Guinea (then a German colony known as the Bismarck Archipelago) under the auspices of the Imperial Colonial Office. In 1910 he was appointed professor of geography and ethnology at the University of Straßburg, and in 1919 he became professor in Würzburg. He founded an institute for American research there and served as rector of the university in 1928 and 1929 before retiring in 1932. Sapper, who was also elected to several prestigious scientific societies, died in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Bavaria, on March 29,1945.

935

Of Karl Theodor Sapper’s numerous scholarly publications, his work on Central America’s volcanoes and his cartographical work in particular have proved to be of enduring value. A total of eighty-one volcanoes were first charted by him. His ethnological studies on the Maya peoples of Guatemala, especially the K’ekchi and the Pokom’chi, promoted the knowledge of their cultures in Europe. In his later years Sapper also published several studies on ancient American civilizations and on the colonial history of Guatemala that continue to be cited in modern scholarly publications. He corresponded with numerous geographers and ethnologists on both sides of the Atlantic, including the German American anthropologist Franz Boas, who taught at Columbia University starting in 1899. Michaela Schmölz-Häberlein See also Dieseldorff, Erwin Paul; Panama; Termer, Karl Ferdinand Franz; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in References and Further Reading Beaudy-Corbett, Marilyn, and Ellen T. Hardy, eds. Early Scholars’ Visits to Central America. Reports by Karl Sapper, Walter Lehmann, and Franz Termer. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, 2000. Schmölz-Häberlein, Michaela. Die Grenzen des Caudillismo. Die Modernisierung des guatemaltekischen Staates unter Jorge Ubico 1931–1944. Eine regionalgeschichtliche Studie am Beispiel der Alta Verapaz. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993. Thermer, Franz. “Carlos Sapper, explorador de Centro América (1866–1945).” Revista Conservadora del Pensamiento Centroamericano 14, no. 69 (1966): 32–43. Wagner, Regina. Los alemanes en Guatemala, 1828–1944. Guatemala City: Editorial IDEA, 1991.

936

SARTORIUS, KARL C.

SARTORIUS, KARL C. b. (?) 1796; Gundernhausen, Hesse d. (?) 1872; Huatusco (Veracruz), Mexico German liberal who was forced to leave his homeland in 1824, he brought German settlers to Mexico. As a university student in Gießen, he took part in the student movement that had begun during the Napoleonic occupation of 1807 to 1814. Like many other men who joined this movement, Sartorius joined a Burschenschaft (students’ association) dedicated to forging a united, free, and democratic Germany out of the patchwork of small states dominated by Austria and Prussia. In 1818 he got a high school teaching position. After just a few months in his new job, the Carlsbad Decrees led to a crackdown on democratic societies throughout Germany, and he was suspended from his position and brought to trial. In 1824 he decided to accompany a friend and fellow democrat, Karl Follenius, to Mexico. Once there, Follenius and Sartorius began a small mining operation. Six years later, Sartorius wed Follenius’s sister and bought a hacienda near Huatusco in the Gulf Coast state of Veracruz. Successful as a sugarcane grower, he attempted to bring more German immigrants to Veracruz and assembled a small colony of Germans in the tropics. After a three-year stay in Germany between 1848 and 1851, Sartorius established an important German Mexican clan, the descendants of whom still live in Mexico in 2005. Sartorius is best known for his main work Mexico und die Mexicaner (Mexico and the Mexicans, 1852), an attempt at a human and physical geography of Mexico. Richly illustrated by the engraver Moritz Rugendas, the work shares Alexander von Humboldt’s optimistic tone, but is far less

detailed and more attuned to describing social and cultural characteristics. Even more importantly, it was based on two decades of life experience as a hacendado in tropical rural Mexico. A permanent immigrant, Sartorius retained his inborn prejudices—prejudices shared by many of his class, whether Mexican or foreign. But he acquired a personal stake in the country that precluded a pessimistic outlook. Like many Mexican liberals of his day, he disdained the moral and intellectual faculties of the indigenous and mestizo population and desired to “improve” his adopted country by “whitening” it through German immigration. Written in a lively, engaging style, his book therefore reads like an invitation to Mexico, if not a propaganda piece. The book shows the fascination of a romantic intellectual brought about by a verdant, exotic landscape, and his harsh condemnation of what he thought of as primitive people who made the best use of their tropical environment. Jürgen Buchenau See also Follen, Charles (Karl); Humboldt, Alexander von; Mexico References and Further Reading Sartorius, Karl Christian. Mexico und die Mexicaner. Darmstadt: Gustavus George Lange, 1852.

SAUER, CHRISTOPH b. (?) early 1695; Ladenburg on the Neckar, Palatinate d. September 25, 1758; Germantown, Pennsylvania Founder of the most influential German American printing house of the eighteenth century. As editor of the first commercially successful German-language newspaper in

SAUER, CHRISTOPH

North America and publisher of numerous pamphlets and broadsides, Christoph Sauer (also spelled Saur or Sower) became an opinion leader among German settlers in Pennsylvania and neighboring colonies. Not only the elder Christoph Sauer, but his son and four of his grandsons worked as printers and publishers. The data on Sauer’s early life are fragmentary. Some time after the death of his father, a Reformed pastor, in 1701, the family removed from Feudenheim in the Palatinate to the Westphalian county of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg. Due to the tolerationist policies of the ruling prince, the small territory of Wittgenstein was then regarded as a haven for religious separatists and radical pietists. Sauer initially worked as a tailor in Schwarzenau and was living in Laasphe when his only son, Christoph, was born in 1721. Three years later the family migrated to Pennsylvania and settled in Germantown. In letters to friends in Germany, Sauer described the conditions of the voyage and his circumstances in his new home. The positive tenor of his letters seems to have animated a number of people to follow him to America. In 1730 the family was disrupted when Sauer’s wife joined the monastic Ephrata community of the radical pietist and mystic Conrad Beissel; she returned to her husband only in 1744. Sauer practiced a variety of trades and worked a farm in Lancaster County for several years before he succeeded in obtaining Fraktur type from Frankfurt am Main for a printing press that he had evidently constructed himself. The numerous works coming from his press beginning in 1738 included a yearly almanac (Der HochDeutsch Americanische Calender [The HighGerman American Calender ]) and a news-

937

paper (Der Hoch-Deutsch Pensylvanische Geschicht-Schreiber [The High-German Pennsylvanian Chronicler], later renamed Pensylvanische Berichte [Pennsylvanian Reports]). First issued in 1739, the paper appeared monthly beginning in 1741 and bimonthly after 1756. Sauer repeatedly called upon his fellow Germans to become naturalized and exercise their political rights in provincial elections. In Pennsylvania politics he supported the pacifist position of the Quaker party during the colonial wars with France and advocated legislation to improve the conditions on immigrant vessels. When leading representatives of the colony set up so-called charity schools in the 1750s to further the linguistic and cultural assimilation of German immigrant children, Sauer’s consistent opposition was largely responsible for the failure of this ambitious and well-organized project. Worried by Sauer’s influence, Benjamin Franklin sponsored several rival newspaper publications, but all of them were short lived. A religious separatist, Sauer often criticized the Lutheran and Reformed clergy and attacked the ecumenical endeavors of Nikolaus von Zinzendorf and his Moravian brethren in a series of articles and pamphlets. His most ambitious project was the printing of the German Bible in 1743—the first Bible edition in a European language printed in North America (in the seventeenth century John Eliot had published the Bible in an Algonquian dialect). Lutheran and Reformed clergymen rejected the work because Sauer had included three apocryphal books from the radical pietist Berleburg Bible. The second Christoph Sauer (1721– 1784) continued the printing business after his father’s death, renaming the

938

SCHAFF, PHILIP

newspaper Germantowner Zeitung (Germantown Paper) and reprinting the Germantown Bible in 1763 and 1776. By 1778 the Sauer enterprise comprised four printing presses, a paper mill, and a type foundry. The younger Sauer, who also officiated as a Dunker bishop, was sympathetic to American resistance against London’s taxation policies but rejected independence from Great Britain. During the British occupation of Philadelphia in the winter of 1777–1778 his sons Christoph III and Peter worked for the British. For these reasons the second and third Christoph Sauer were indicted for high treason in 1778 and their substantial property confiscated. In 1784 Christoph III successfully petitioned Parliament for recognition as a Loyalist and compensation for damages. He later returned to North America and died in Baltimore, where his brother Samuel was operating a printing press, in 1799. Mark Häberlein See also Ephrata; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Pennsylvania; Pietism; Printing and Publishing References and Further Reading Durnbaugh, Donald F. “Christopher Sauer, Pennsylvania German Printer: His Youth in Germany and Later Relations with Europe.” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 82 (1958): 316–340. ———. “The Sauer Family: An American Printing Dynasty.” Yearbook of GermanAmerican Studies 23 (1988): 31–40. Longenecker, Stephen L. The Christopher Sauers: Courageous Printers Who Defended Religious Freedom in Early America. Elgin, IL: Brethren, 1981. Roeber, A. G. Palatines, Liberty, and Property: German Lutherans in Colonial British America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 1993. Steckel, William Reed. “Pietist in Colonial Pennsylvania: Christopher Sauer, Printer, 1738–1758.” PhD diss. Stanford University, 1949.

SCHAFF, PHILIP b. January 1, 1819; Chur, Switzerland d. October 20, 1893; New York City German American church historian and ecumenical leader. After studying with several prominent theologians in the universities at Tübingen, Halle, and Berlin (including Isaak A. Dorner, David F. Strauss, Ferdinand C. Baur, Frederick Augustus Gottreu Tholuck, and August Neander), he accepted an invitation in 1844 to serve as professor of a fledgling German Reformed seminary in south-central Pennsylvania. At Mercersburg, together with his colleague John Williamson Nevin, Schaff brought some of the ripe fruit of European theology and church history to bear on American Christianity. In so doing, he and Nevin emerged as the twin pillars of what became known as the Mercersburg Theology, a modest but influential theological movement characterized by a high view of the church and sacraments and a critique of populist, revivalistic evangelicalism. His influence was extended through his regular contributions to the Mercersburg Review and, perhaps more importantly, his founding of Der deutsche Kirchenfreund (The German Church Advocate), a monthly periodical to support the interests of German American Christianity. In 1853 and 1854 Schaff made the first of more than a dozen trips back to Europe, delivering an important series of lectures in Berlin that were published as Amerika. In the early 1860s he left the German Reformed enclave of Mercersburg for New York, where he worked with the New York Sabbath Committee and then, in 1870, joined the faculty of Union Theological Seminary. From that prestigious post, Schaff considerably augmented his reputation for bridging Eu-

SCHIFF, JACOB HENRY

ropean and American Christianity and theological scholarship. He carried on a lengthy correspondence with churchmen across America, in Britain, and on the continent. Schaff ’s achievements were considerable. The leading American promoter of the Euro-American Evangelical Alliance of the second half of the nineteenth century, his was perhaps the strongest voice for a Christian ecumenism that would not obliterate or ignore theological and confessional distinctiveness on the part of each denomination or tradition. Schaff was also the president from 1872 to 1884 of the American Committee for Bible Revision, responsible for organizing the American contribution to the 1881 revision of the King James Version of the Bible, commonly called the Revised Version. He wrote a comprehensive multivolume history of the church, founded the American Society of Church History and helped to found the Society of Biblical Literature, and released an edition of the Creeds of Christendom (1877). Schaff actively sought to forge connections between European and American Protestants because he strongly believed that Christians on both sides of the Atlantic needed each other. He frequently pointed out the achievements of America’s pragmatist spirit in religious life, but he also noted how the more idealist and abstract tendencies of the German mind served as a corrective to pragmatist excess. Schaff was rare among American churchmen both in his appreciation for and his understanding of continental religious thought. R. Bryan Bademan See also German Reformed Church

939

References and Further Reading Graham, Stephen R. Cosmos in the Chaos: Philip Schaff ’s Interpretation of NineteenthCentury American Religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Nichols, James Hastings. Romanticism in American Theology: Nevin and Schaff at Mercersburg. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961. Penzel, Klaus. Philip Schaff: Historian and Ambassador of the Universal Church. Macon, GA: Mercer University, 1991.

SCHIFF, JACOB HENRY b. January 10, 1847; Frankfurt am Main d. September 25, 1920; New York City Eminent German American Jewish financier and philanthropist. Schiff used his enormous wealth not only to contribute to a vast array of philanthropic and educational institutions for American Jews but also to help his oppressed and impoverished coreligionists abroad. In addition, Schiff extensively supported a host of civic and cultural activities beyond the Jewish fold. His status, influence, and scope of communal activities brought him recognition as the most prominent figure of his time in American Jewry. Still, during his twilight years Schiff and the established American Jewish leadership (mostly of German origin) came under mounting criticism from groups that mainly represented Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe. Born into a distinguished family of a rabbinical background, Schiff received a modern orthodox education that gave him a thorough grounding in both Jewish and German culture. Schiff ’s father, Moses, was a dealer in shawls who became a successful stockbroker associated with the Rothschild

940

SCHIFF, JACOB HENRY

banking firm. Jacob followed his father and entered his brother-in-law’s banking firm, where he worked until he was eighteen. Meanwhile, his desire to go to America intensified, and at the age of eighteen (1865) he emigrated to the United States. Initially hired as a clerk by a brokerage firm, Schiff was soon known for his ability to drum up trade and became a partner in the brokerage firm of Budge, Schiff & Company before his twentieth birthday. In 1875 Schiff married Theresa, the daughter of Solomon Loeb, head of the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Company, and entered that firm. The young man’s extraordinary financial abilities were acknowledged when he became head of Kuhn, Loeb & Company in 1885. The firm profited from the rapid industrialization and the booming American economy of the last third of the nineteenth century. Schiff ’s firm achieved phenomenal success through its business with railroads and the financing of companies such as Westinghouse Electric and American Telephone & Telegraph. By 1900 Schiff ’s firm was one of the two most powerful investmentbanking houses in the United States; the estimates of his personal wealth ranged from $50 million to $100 million (Cohen 1999, 23, 256n). Together with other members of German Jewish families in America (Guggenheim, Lehman, Lewisohn, Seligman, Strauss, Warburg), Schiff was part of a cohesive group of bankers and businessmen, often bound by blood or marriage, who worked, socialized, and worshiped together. Schiff ’s breadth of involvement in Jewish affairs, however, was second to none. He generously helped to maintain a range of Jewish institutions such as the

United Hebrew Charities, the Young Men’s Hebrew Association (YMHA), and the Montefiore Home and Hospital for Chronic Diseases. Yet all other philanthropic efforts by the Jewish elite were eclipsed with the arrival of a tidal wave of more than 2 million Jewish immigrants from eastern Europe in the four decades following 1880. Equally concerned with the newcomers’ cultural as well as their physical condition, Schiff embarked on a philanthropic endeavor. Besides aiding the immigrants with lodging, food, and medical relief, Schiff helped to establish institutions that would teach them English and the duties of citizenship (the Educational Alliance); provide them vocational training (the Hebrew Technical School); and disperse them across the country to relieve New York’s overcrowded Jewish quarters (the Industrial Removal Office, and later turning Galveston, Texas, into the entry port for some 10,000 Jewish immigrants). Schiff also assisted institutions of Jewish learning regardless of their affiliation. Although a member of a Reform synagogue in New York, Schiff ’s orthodox background was evident in his support for the Jewish Theological Seminary from its inception in 1886. The philanthropist hoped the seminary would offer an attractive and modern form of Jewish orthodoxy to the eastern European Jews, who were largely alienated from Reform Judaism. Yet beyond philanthropy, Schiff saw himself as a guardian of Jews, whether in America or abroad. In the wake of a deadly wave of pogroms in tsarist Russia (1906) Schiff joined other leaders of the established Jewish community (Mayer Sulzberger, Louis Marshall, Cyrus Adler) to

SCHIMMELPFENNIG, ALEXANDER

form the American Jewish Committee, aimed at defending the rights of Jews in the United States and elsewhere. Schiff was particularly enraged by the Russian authorities’ indifference toward (and even encouragement of ) violence against Jews in Russia and thus became committed to fight the tsarist regime. Aside from helping Russian Jews with food and medicine, Schiff aided Jewish self-defense groups. During the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) Schiff largely financed Japan while using his influence to prevent other banks from underwriting Russian loans; and later he played a crucial role in a successful campaign (1911) to terminate a Russo-American commercial treaty, following Russia’s refusal to admit American Jews. With the outbreak of World War I (1914) Schiff helped to establish the Joint Distribution Committee to provide relief for suffering Jews in war-ravaged Europe. Whereas Schiff was determined to defend Jews in need, he strongly opposed the Zionist movement and once even claimed that a Zionist could not be a “true American.” During World War I, Zionist, orthodox, and Socialist groups that represented mostly eastern European Jews (by then the overwhelming majority among American Jews), attacked Schiff and other German Jewish leaders for ruling American Jewry as “autocrats”; emptying Judaism of its national dimensions; and hampering the efforts to form a democratically elected American Jewish Congress. During his last years, however, Schiff underwent a change of heart toward Zionism: he aided agricultural projects in Palestine and the Technical Institute in Haifa and in 1917 he endorsed the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Gil Ribak

941

See also Frankfurt am Main Citizens in the United States; German Jewish Migration to the United States; New York City: Warburg, Felix Moritz References and Further Reading Adler, Cyrus. Jacob H. Schiff: His Life and Letters. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Doran, 1928. Cohen, Naomi W. Jacob H. Schiff: A Study in American Jewish Leadership. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1999. Friesel, Evyatar. “Jacob H. Schiff and the Leadership of the American Jewish Community.” Jewish Social Studies 8 (Winter/Spring 2002): 61–72. Supple, Barry E. “A Business Elite: GermanJewish Financiers in Nineteenth-Century New York.” Business History Review 31 (Summer 1957): 143–178.

SCHIMMELPFENNIG, ALEXANDER b. July 20, 1824; Lithauen, Prussia d. September 5, 1865;Wernersville, Pennsylvania Eminent German American general in the American Civil War. During the Schleswig-Holstein war and later the revolution in Baden, Schimmelpfennig served as an engineer in the Prussian army. He immigrated to the United States in 1853 and settled in Philadelphia. He earned a living as an engineer and published a book that anticipated the Crimean War. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Schimmelpfennig was working as a draftsman for the War Department in Washington, D.C., and following the attack of Fort Sumter and Abraham Lincoln’s call for 75,000 volunteers to subdue the rebellion, he offered his services to the government and was promoted to brigadier general.

942

SCHINDLER, RUDOLF

In September 1861 Schimmelpfennig was mustered into service as the colonel of the 74th Pennsylvania Infantry. Due to an injury suffered when his horse fell on him and a case of smallpox, Schimmelpfennig missed the important military engagements in Virginia until the Battle of Second Manassas, which took place at the end of August 1862. At Second Manassas he commanded the 1st Brigade of Carl Schurz’s division of Franz Sigel’s corps due to the recent death of General Henry Bohlen. Following Second Manassas, Schimmelpfennig was promoted to the rank of brigadier general before he next saw action at Chancellorsville in May 1863. At Chancellorsville, his unit was stationed on the Union right as part of Oliver O. Howard’s XI Corps when it was attacked in the early evening by Confederate General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s entire corps. The entire corps was taken by surprise and the resulting rout went far in damaging the reputations of both Howard and Schimmelpfennig. Two months later and now serving at the rank of brigadier general, Schimmelpfennig was still in command of Schurz’s division, which was positioned north of Gettysburg to meet Confederate attacks on July 1, 1863. By late afternoon, the XI Corps was in full retreat through the town of Gettysburg to the high ground of Cemetery Hill. Not unlike others, Schimmelpfennig was cut off from his unit as Confederates continued their advance through town; he failed to link up with the rest of the Union army and sat out the rest of the battle behind a woodpile in the garden of a private residence. Following the Battle of Gettysburg and not wishing to serve with the 11th Corps, Schimmelpfennig requested a transfer to South Carolina. His request was granted,

but due to a case of malaria, he remained away from his new command for an extended period of time. Schimmelpfennig was present in Charleston, South Carolina, on February 18, 1865, to witness the official transfer of authority; he served as the military commander of the city until the beginning of April 1865. While in Charleston, Schimmelpfennig contracted tuberculosis and was granted sick leave for thirty days. Schimmelpfennig traveled to Living Springs Water Cure Establishment in Wernersville, Pennsylvania, and convalesced until he died on September 5, 1865. Kevin M. Levin See also 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; Forty-Eighters; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz References and Further Reading McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom. New York: Oxford University, 1998. Sears, Stephen. Gettysburg. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2003.

SCHINDLER, RUDOLF b. May 10, 1888; Munich, Bavaria d. September 6, 1968; Munich, Bavaria German American pioneer in endoscopic technology. Schindler, the son of a German Jewish banker, received his medical doctor degree when he turned twenty-one. He participated in World War I as a doctor and pathologist and was awarded several medals. During this time he was also infected with dysentery from which he never fully recovered. It is possible that this illness might have caused his interest in chronic abdominal diseases. From 1919 to 1934 Schindler worked in Munich, first at the Municipal Hospital Munich-Schwabing and later in private practice. After four years of assistantship,

SCHINDLER, RUDOLF

he already had achieved international fame for publishing the first extensive and illustrated textbook on gastroscopy. The endoscopic pictures were produced by a painter who witnessed the procedure; Schindler and (at least) one of his colleagues immediately corrected mistakes and the picture was finished at the end of the session. The resulting pictorial atlas attracted more than 300 colleagues from all continents to visit Schindler’s gastroenterological-endoscopic practice throughout the 1920s. Schindler developed a rigid gastroscope that remained the most important instrument for about 10 years. He was able to demonstrate the safety of this instrument in more than 400 procedures, performed without complications. Between 1928 and 1932 Schindler, together with the Berlin engineer Georg Wolf, developed the first semiflexible gastroscope, which became the standard instrument for more than twenty-five years. The heart of this new tool was the steel wire spiral that contained the optical system. This spiral was surrounded by two rubber layers that provided enough space for a power supply for the light bulb at the tip of the instrument. It also facilitated pumping air into the stomach. The optical system consisted of a column of fifty tiny magnifying lenses linked to a prism near the tip. This semiflexible instrument caused fewer complications and allowed for a much better picture of the stomach. However, patients still needed to be constrained and to hold their heads rigidly back during the entire procedure. To make the procedure bearable, the patient’s throat and mouth were anaesthetized with cocaine, and the patient was injected with an opiate. After the Nazis took power in Germany, Schindler was arrested because of a

943

denunciation in February 1934 and spent about two months in prison. In the summer of 1934, however, he was allowed to leave Germany and immediately immigrated to Chicago. For many years, Schindler became the leading expert on stomach endoscopy in the United States. Hundreds of students came to Chicago in order to learn from him, thus making Chicago the center of gastric endoscopy in the United States. In 1937 Schindler received the Gold Medal of the American Medical Association for his gastritis research and in 1941 he was appointed president of the American Gastroscopic Club, of which he was the main founder. This club was the first worldwide association of endoscopic gastroenterologists. In 1942 a conflict over the interpretation of gastritis between Schindler and the several-years-younger and less-illustrious Walter L. Palmer erupted. Palmer was the head of the gastroenterological department at the University of Chicago and in charge of Schindler’s contract. While Schindler, based on his experience with patients, considered gastritis an illness, Palmer considered it, based on his literary-statistical research only, a hypothesis. When Schindler’s contract expired in 1943, it was not renewed. One of the causes for this decision, however, was probably linked to the accidental damaging of the stomachs of three patients during gastroscopical procedures that occurred to Schindler in 1936. These accidents caused a gradual cooling down of the professional relationship between both men. In 1943 Schindler went to California and accepted a position at the Loma-Linda University in Los Angeles. In 1953 the American Gastroscopic Club honored him with the creation of the Schindler Award.

944

SCHLÜTER, HERMANN

One year after the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was founded as the successor organization to the American Gastroscopic Club, Schindler became the first candidate to receive the award named after him. His stay in California was interrupted by a two-year visiting professorship in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. The illness of his first wife, Gabriele, forced them to return to Long Beach, California. Gabriele Schindler had worked as an endoscopy assistant with her husband since his tenure in Munich. After her death, Schindler returned to Germany in 1965. Peter K. Schäfer and Tilman Sauerbruch See also Intellectual Exile; Jewish Refugee Scientists References and Further Reading Schäfer, Peter K., and Tilman Sauerbruch. “Rudolf Schindler (1888–1968) ÇVater der Gastroskopie.” Z Gastroenterol 42 (2004): 550–556.

SCHLÜTER, HERMANN b. October 8, 1851; Elmshorn, Holstein d. January 26, 1919; New York City Pioneer historian of the working class and working-class movements, especially among German Americans. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, an era when most studies in German Americana were written by ethnocentric searchers for evidence of the contributions of Germans to American history, Schlüter wrote critical studies engaging major historical issues. Much of his life in the United States was devoted to Socialist journalism and organizing. For twenty-five years he was the editor of a major German American newspaper, the Socialist Volkszeitung (People’s Newspaper) in New York.

He belonged to a generation of Socialists who knew Friedrich Engels personally and were among Engels’s correspondents. Schlüter grew up in abject poverty. Like many a nineteenth-century labor leader, he was an autodidact. He went through an apprenticeship as a cabinetmaker. Perhaps as early as 1871 he was in Chicago. There he was involved in the formation of a furniture workers’ union and the founding of the Workers’ Party in Illinois. Schlüter served as secretary of the furniture workers and as editor of a Socialist newspaper. Returning to Germany in 1876, he became a full-time editor. Under Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law (1878–1890) Socialist papers were banned, but many copies circulated clandestinely. By 1883 Schlüter and other Socialist leaders had fled to Switzerland. Under pressure from Germany, the Swiss eventually expelled the German editors of the party organ, Der Sozialdemokrat (The Social Democrat), including Schlüter. They found refuge in London and continued to publish their journal. In 1889 Schlüter, probably with the approval of his Socialist comrades, went to New York. When the Anti-Socialist Law lapsed in 1890, many of the sentences meted out in absentia under it were rescinded, but Schlüter’s two-year sentence remained standing. Under his editorial guidance, the New York Volkszeitung eventually shifted from an affiliation with the Socialist Labor Party to one with the vibrant new Socialist Party founded in 1901. The circulation of the daily edition stood at 20,000 in 1890 and 18,000 in 1915; that of the Sunday edition at 29,000 in 1905 and 20,000 in 1915 (Arndt and Olson 1976, 406). The Volkszeitung was the most important foreignlanguage Socialist journal in the United States from 1890 to its demise in 1932.

SCHMIDEL, ULRICH

While living in New York, Schlüter wrote several books examining the history of workers in international perspective. Much of this work has never been translated into English. An exception is his Brewing Industry and the Brewery Workers’ Movement in America (1910), a fine example of his comparative, materialist analysis of labor organizations. As an ethnic industry in which virtually all bosses and owners—and most workers—were German, brewing in nineteenth-century America displayed the strengths and limits of ethnic solidarity. In his studies of labor Schlüter never lost sight of the big questions: How do workers’ movements develop? What conditions are conducive to their growth? What is the role of trade unions? What is their relationship to political movements and parties? Is socialism an ethnic import in the United States? Do ethnic identities obscure class relationships? Does ethnicity both promote and hinder the formation of a class-conscious proletariat? In Lincoln, Labor, and Slavery (1913) Schlüter argued that the activities of German American opponents of slavery were crucial to the early history of the Republican Party and the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency. Although this thesis has been challenged, Schlüter’s formulation of it remains classic. He died in New York, a victim of the influenza epidemic of 1919. Scores of labor and Socialist organizations and thousands of people mourned his passing. His body lay in state in the Yorkville section of Manhattan at the Labor Temple, which had grown out of the Workers’ Educational Association, one of many organizations that he helped to found. Walter Struve

945

See also Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Socialist Labor Party References and Further Reading Arndt, Karl J. R., and May E. Olson. The German Language Press of the Americas, 1732–1968. Vol. 1: United States of America. 3rd rev. ed. Munich and Pullach: Verlag Dokumentation, 1976. Poore, Carole. “Introduction to Hermann Schlüter.” In Die Anfänge der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung in Amerika. New York: Peter Lang, 1984. Schneider, Dorothee. Trade Unions and Community: The German Working Class in New York City, 1870–1900. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1994.

SCHMIDEL (SCHMIDL, SCHMIDT), ULRICH b. (?) 1510/11; Straubing, Bavaria d. (?) 1581; Regensburg, Bavaria Lived for eighteen years the life of a conquistador in South America. Schmidel was born of a patrician family, both his father and half-brother serving as mayor and city councilmen of Straubing. Though almost certainly guaranteed a position in his family’s successful mercantile business, Schmidel chose instead to accompany a Spanish expedition to the Rio de la Plata region of Argentina and Paraguay. His account of travels to, within, and from South America (1534–1554), Warhafftige und liebliche Beschreibung etlicher fürnemen Indianischen Landschafften und Insulen . . . (True and Lovely Description of Several Fine Indian Territories and Islands), was published in 1567 in Frankfurt. In 1534 Emperor Charles V made Don Pedro de Mendoza viceroy, commissioning him both to claim lands on the east coast of South America surrounding La Plata and to establish three cities therein

946

SCHMIDEL, ULRICH

Illustration from Ulrich Schmidel's account of his South American travels in the sixteenth century. (Schmidel, Ulrich. Fahrt in die Neue Welt: Die Reise eines Straubingers, der 1534 aufbrach, die Welt zu entdecken und 20 Jahre später zurückkam.)

for the Spanish Habsburg crown. Mendoza assembled a flotilla of fourteen ships manned by 2,500 Spaniards and 150 Germans, Dutch, and Saxons. Schmidel signed on to the one ship belonging to Nuremberg financiers Sebastian Neidhart and Jakob Welser. The expedition set off on September 1, 1534, landed near Rio de Janeiro, then proceeded to Rio de la Plata, arriving on January 26, 1535. Here Schmidel helped to found the city of Buenos Aires. Nevertheless, overwhelming attacks by indigenous tribes and ensuing hunger compelled a party of 350, Schmidel among them, to travel up the Rio Paraná in search of food. Half of this party starved, the other half returned to Buenos Aires, only to face an onslaught of 23,000 natives from neighboring tribes. Within a year the original expedition of 2,650 had been reduced to 560 men.

Schmidel then accompanied Mendoza’s successor, Juan de Ayolas, to Asunción (Paraguay) to establish another settlement, this time in the middle of land inhabited by the Guarani tribe. While on an exploratory excursion, Ayolas was killed and Schmidel, under the leadership of Martin Domingo Irala, attempted to gather the remaining Europeans at Asunción. After extensive travel and conquests along the Paraná and Paraguay rivers, and further adventures under Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Schmidel received a letter from his ailing half-brother in July 1552 requesting that he return home to continue the family line. Arriving at Lisbon in 1553, he made his way to Seville, a shipwreck off of Cadiz having bereft him of the treasure he had plundered in South America, and continued to Antwerp, before finally reaching Straubing. Schmidel married in 1558

SCHOMBURGK, ROBERT HERMANN

and pursued his family’s business, practicing the Protestant faith until the CounterReformation compelled him to relocate to Regensburg. He lived there as a respected citizen until his death. Though married three times and widowed twice, he left no descendants. Perhaps Schmidel’s most important legacy, however, lies in his travel narrative, which contains descriptions, corroborated by modern ethnographers, of the various tribes—their names, physical appearances, diets, and customs—then occupying the Rio de la Plata region. The Warhafftige und liebliche Beschreibung . . . was eventually translated into several European languages; Latin (1597), French (1599), English (1625), Dutch (1706), and Spanish (1731). A 1599 edition by Nuremberg printer Levinus Hulsius contained sixteen copper engravings illustrating various episodes and native people treated in the text. In 1889 Valentin Langmantel published the narrative with extensive notes and explanatory apparatus, while the research of Argentinian president, poet, and historian Bartolome Mitre was crucial in South America in bringing recognition to Schmidel. A bust of the explorer, originally dedicated in 1968, stands today in Buenos Aires and bears the inscription, “The people of Argentina to Germany and Ulrich Schmidel. Straubing–Buenos Aires 1536, first geographer and historian.” Richard John Ascárate See also Argentina; Brazil; Conquista; Staden, Hans; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Bolaños Cárdenas, Alvaro Félix. “The Requirements of a Memoir: Ulrich Schmidel’s Account of the Conquest of the River Plate, 1536–54.” Colonial Latin American Review 11, no. 2 (2002): 231–250.

947

Classen, Albrecht. “Ulrich Schmidel in the Brazilian Jungle: A Sixteenth-Century Travel Account.” Archiv fur das Studium der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen. 230, no. 2 (1993): 241–260. Schmidel, Ulrich. The Conquest of the River Plate (1535–1555). I. Voyage of Ulrich Schmidt to the Rivers la Plata and Paraguai. Translated for the Haklyut Society. New York: Burt Franklin, 1964, pp. 1–81

SCHOMBURGK, ROBERT HERMANN b. June 5, 1804; Freyburg/Unstrut, Saxony d. March 11, 1865; Berlin-Schöneberg, Prussia German English naturalist and explorer in British Guyana. Robert Schomburgk, a pastor’s son, traveled as commercial assistant to a firm from Leipzig to the United States in 1829, accompanying a herd of sheep. In Richmond, Virginia, he tried his hand as a merchant and tobacco farmer; in 1830 he moved first to St. Thomas and then to the Virgin Islands and founded his own trading company. However, his interest in naturalism grew and he taught himself in the fields of botany, geology, hydrography, and topography. In 1832 he sent a map he had drawn of the island of Anegada, the coast of which was much feared by sailors, to the Royal Geographical Society in London, where his ability made a considerable impression. After he suggested a scientific survey of British Guyana, he was commissioned to survey the colony in 1834. Between 1835 and 1839 Schomburgk devoted himself to this task in three long journeys. He surveyed the coasts and the most important rivers (Essequibo, Rupununi, Corentyne,

948

SCHÖNBERG, ARNOLD

Berbice, Rio Branco), completed maps far superior to all previous surveys, and regularly reported on his expeditions in the Journal of the RGS (published in book form as Description of British Guiana, 1840; Views in the Interior of Guiana, 1841). On his second expedition in 1837 he came across the water lily “Victoria Regia,” which he named although it had already been discovered by Thaddäus Haenke in 1801; it is now Guyana’s national flower. After a brief visit to Europe, Schomburgk returned to Guyana late in 1840, this time accompanied by his brother, the botanist Richard Schomburgk (1811–1891). Together they explored the northwestern coastal region of the colony between Essequibo and Orinoco and the interior, including the highest mountain in the country, Roraíma. With his exact latitudinal and longitudinal measurements and a dense network of barometric and temperature stations, Schomburgk established the foundations of the geographical knowledge of the country, which was valid long after his death. Based on Schomburgk’s surveys, a demarcation line known as the “Schomburgk-line” was established as the boundary between Guyana and Venezuela; this served as the basis for the exact delimitation of Guyana’s boundaries in the late nineteenth century. In 1844 Schomburgk was knighted for his achievements. In 1848 he was sent as British consul to Santo Domingo. Schomburgk was also active in the Antilles, completed a comprehensive History of Barbados (1848), and surveyed the island of Hispaniola at a scale of 1:200,000. His last position was as British consul of Siam from 1857 to 1864. Heinz Peter Brogiato

See also Haenke Thaddäus References and Further Reading Burnett, Graham. “Exploration, Performance, Alliance: Robert Schomburgk in British Guiana.” Caribbean Studies 15, nos. 1–2 (2000): 11–37. Dam, Juul A. C. van. The Guyanan Plant Collections of Robert and Richard Schomburgk. Flora of the Guianas; suppl. series; fasc. 3. Kew: Royal Botanic Gardens, 2002. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol. V. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 2004, pp. 78–84.

SCHÖNBERG, ARNOLD b. September 13, 1874;Vienna, Austria d. July 13, 1951; Los Angeles, California One of the most controversial composers of the twentieth century who was forced to leave Germany in 1933 for the United States. For some, his extension of tonality stands for the revolution of modern music; others judge his atonal compositions as bloodless constructs. Yet the increasing popularity of his works and interest in his life confirms Schönberg’s position as a founder of a new classical music. Various facets of Schönberg’s legacy emphasize his creative powers: the style and quality of his paintings and inventions demonstrate a visionary and—more than five decades after his death—still modern mind. Schönberg’s work and life, with all the triumphs and downfalls, are a pattern for a biography full of struggles, shared by many Americans and Europeans in his time. Unlike other famous artists, Schönberg was born in a family without any artistic ambitions. In spite of his devotion to music from early childhood—he began

SCHÖNBERG, ARNOLD

composing and playing violin before he was nine—Schönberg never felt like a child prodigy. After the death of his father in 1889, the sixteen-year-old boy began an apprenticeship in the bank Werner & Company in Vienna. A few years later Schönberg used the bankruptcy of his employer to start his music career. In 1894 he became a member in the small orchestra Polyhymnia, in 1895 the conductor of the Meidling Men’s Choral Society and the choirmaster of a singers union of metal workers in Stockerau. Though the first public performances of his compositions— symphonic-orientated works like the Streichquartette (string quartets) in 1898— were not a remarkable success, the positive response of other artists and experts for Schönberg’s music was encouragement enough to continue striving. The reactions of the very conservative audience in Vienna for Schönberg’s music were seldom supportive, and occasionally brawls ensued between his admirers and critics. Eventually, with the triumphal premiere of the Gurrelieder (Songs of Gurre) in 1913, the young composer gained the long-desired success. Striding away from tradition, Schönberg combined a lyrical text and its strophic structure in the tradition of Johannes Brahms with the expanded orchestral language of Richard Wagner—until then an unthinkable mélange of styles. Schönberg’s extraordinary concept of composing led in 1923 to the public introduction of his “method of composing with twelve tones which are related only with one another” (Freitag 1973, 100), meaning that this way of composing is not based on a common tonic note. The first composition strictly based on this method became the Klaviersuite op. 25 (Suite for Piano). Better known

949

as twelve-tone music, Schönberg hoped to establish it as a new system of composing. Despite the impact of his twelve-tone music on modern classical music, it was not accepted by a broader audience. Schönberg was also a very popular teacher. In 1911 he demonstrated his didactic ambitions by publishing the Harmonielehre (Theory of Harmony), a book on principles of composition addressed to young musicians. In its preface the notorious autodidact Schönberg confessed that he had learned by teaching his students, too. In the first decade of the twentieth century, Schönberg started to instruct a circle of young talents like Alban Berg and Anton Webern. They were followed in later years by other ambitious famuli, such as Theodor W. Adorno, Josef Zmigrod (i.e., Allan Gray), and Hanns Eisler. To secure his livelihood he gave private lessons for almost fifty years, even after his retirement. In his own estimation, he taught more than a thousand students—and for the talented but poor, he even did so for free. For a couple of years stipends and highly acclaimed positions all over Europe (especially in Berlin) and—after his emigration—in the United States allowed Schönberg to establish a lifestyle in modest prosperity. Despite his conversion to Protestantism in 1898, Schönberg found the way back to his Jewish roots. He regained a sense of pride in being a Jew faced with growing antisemitism in Austria and Germany beginning in the twenties. But his attitude toward the religion of his ancestors for him was more than lip service. He felt that the rejection of his compositions and his understanding of music was a symptom of being different: “not a German or a European, maybe not even a man any longer”

950

SCHULTZE-JENA, LEONHARD SIGMUND

(“kein Deutscher, kein Europäer, ja vielleicht kaum ein Mensch zu sein”)—but a Jew (letter to Wassily Kandinsky, April 19, 1923). In 1933 Schönberg, professor at the Berliner Akademie, emigrated via France to the United States. In 1936 he became a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, where he organized the Department of Music. With his charming kindness and wit, Schönberg was always able to convince experts and patrons to support his career and ambitious projects. His close relation to the Wiener Secession encouraged the composer to express his emotions also on canvas—which were greeted with more than polite respect, as a financially successful exhibition in 1910 at the Heller Gallery in Vienna demonstrated. The significance of the twelve-tone system for modern culture was realized by Thomas Mann, who used it as an inspiration for his novel Doktor Faustus (1947). Schönberg was outraged: The character Adrian Leverkühn, the composer of Mann’s novel, was insane and suffered syphilis. After Mann added to the English edition the comment that the twelve-tone system was Arnold Schönberg’s own creation in 1950, the controversy between the two exiles, almost neighbors in Los Angeles, ended. Stefan Zahlmann See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Intellectual Exile; Mann, Thomas References and Further Reading Cross, Charlotte M. Political and Religious Ideas in the Works of Arnold Schoenberg. New York: Garland, 2000. Freitag, Eberhard. Arnold Schönberg in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowolth, 1973. Henke, Matthias. Arnold Schönberg. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch-Verlag, 2001. Shawn, Allen. Arnold Schoenberg’s Journey. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2002.

SCHULTZE-JENA, LEONHARD SIGMUND b. May 28, 1872; Jena,Thuringia d. March 29, 1955; Marburg, Hesse German geographer, ethnologist, and student of the Indian languages of Central America. Leonhard Schultze, the son of a wellknown gynecologist, studied medicine, natural sciences, and zoology at the universities of Kiel, Jena, Lausanne, and Berlin and completed his PhD under Ernst Haeckel in 1896. Only three years later he qualified to assume a professorship (Habilitation) in Jena. As associate lecturer in zoology, he undertook his first research expedition to German southwest Africa from 1903 to 1905. In the course of this journey, the initial purpose of which was the exploration of the coastal fishing grounds, his interests expanded to include geography and ethnology. His major account of this journey, Aus Namaland und Kalahari (1907), was so admired for its brilliant descriptions and comprehensive approach that he was offered an extraordinary professorship of geography in Jena in 1908 on the recommendation of Hans Heinrich Joseph Meyer, although he did not have a qualification in geography. After a year spent as a professor in Kiel, he moved to the University of Marburg in 1913, where he taught and researched until his retirement in 1937. He was also director of the Institut für Grenz-und Auslandsdeutschtum (Institute for Germans in Border Regions and Abroad) from 1919 to 1926. In the 1920s Schultze, who had now added the suffix “Jena” to his name, turned to the study of Central America and Mexico, with a strong emphasis on

SCHURZ, AGATHE MARGARETHE

linguistic research. He undertook a research expedition to Central America from 1929 to 1931 to record the everyday speech of the Indian peoples. He first stayed in the Mexican provinces of Guerrero and Oaxaca among the Tlapaneca, Mixteca, and Aztec language groups; subsequently he traveled to the western highlands of Guatemala to study the Mayan language of the Quiché. His last project was to record the language of the Pipil in Salvador. Using these materials he developed comprehensive language textbooks in Germany, analyzing and transcribing the Indian languages and translating them into German (Indiana, 3 vols., 1933– 1938). His translation of the holy book of the Quiché, the Popol Vuh, is considered to be his most significant achievement. This is one of the most important sources for the cultural history of the ancient Indian cultures in Central America. In the last years of his life Schultze-Jena studied the history, culture, and languages of the ancient Aztecs. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph References and Further Reading Ruhnau, Elke. “Berliner Sahagún-Pioniere: Eduard Seler, Leonard Schultze-Jena, Walter Lehmann und Cäcilie SelerSachs.” In Die Berliner und Brandenburger Lateinamerikaforschung in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Personen und Institutionen. Ed. Gregor Wolff. Berlin: Wiss. Verlag, 2001, pp. 241–253. Termer, Franz. “Leonhard Schultze Jena (18.5.1872–29.3.1955).” Petermanns geographische Mitteilungen (Gotha) 99, no. 3 (1955): 212–213. Trimborn, Hermann. “Leonhard SchultzeJena (1872–1955). Geograph/ Sprachforscher.” In Marburger Gelehrte in der ersten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Marburg: Elwert, 1977, pp. 479–500.

951

SCHURZ, AGATHE MARGARETHE b. August 27, 1833; Hamburg d. March 15, 1876; New York City Brought the kindergarten, invented by Friedrich Froebel in Germany, to the United States. From late 1856 to 1858, she conducted the first kindergarten in the United States at Watertown, Wisconsin, teaching her daughter Agathe (b. 1853), a neighbor boy, and four of Agathe’s female cousins according to Froebel’s mature kindergarten pedagogy. In 1859 Margarethe and Agathe acquainted Elizabeth Palmer Peabody (1804–1894) with Froebel’s work and helped inspire her to open a kindergarten. Peabody, soon the country’s most influential kindergarten advocate, called Margarethe “an adept in the theory, and expert in practice” (Boone 1889, 333) of kindergarten. Despite her always difficult health and often difficult life as the wife of Carl Schurz, Margarethe supported the kindergarten cause until her death. Margarethe was the daughter of Agathe Margarethe Meyer (née Beusch, 1794–1833), who spent her eighteen years of marriage in seventeen pregnancies and fragile health. She died at age thirty-nine of excessive blood loss, hours after Margarethe’s birth. Heinrich Christian Meyer (1797–1848), Margarethe’s father, transformed himself in just a few years from an uneducated peddler of walking sticks into one of Hamburg’s wealthiest and most powerful businessmen. He funded civic projects, created welfare and insurance funds for his workers, and supported progressive causes, including the freethinking German Catholic movement led by Johannes Ronge, the charismatic, excommunicated Roman Catholic priest called by

952

SCHURZ, AGATHE MARGARETHE

some the “Luther of the nineteenth century.” The often-repeated assumption that Margarethe Schurz came from a Jewish family cannot be substantiated by the available sources. Margarethe’s interest in education developed under the guidance of her remarkable elder siblings, who honored their parents’ humble beginnings and civic engagement by generously supporting social causes. Margarethe’s two oldest sisters, Amalie Westendarp (b. 1816) and Bertha Traun (1818–1864), helped to establish significant women’s initiatives to promote the German Catholic movement, Christian-Jewish understanding in Hamburg, and the education of women and children. Bertha helped found the pioneering Hamburger Hochschule für das weibliche Geschlecht (Hamburg College for the Female Sex), which opened in 1850 with financial backing from Bertha’s husband C. J. F. Traun (1804–1881) and her brother Heinrich Adolf Meyer (1822–1889). In connection with the college, which also trained kindergarten teachers, Bertha helped to bring Friedrich Froebel to Hamburg during the winter of 1849 and 1850 for lectures and practical demonstrations on kindergartening. Bertha saw to it that Margarethe, sixteen years old in 1849 and already struggling with health problems, was enrolled in Froebel’s course and the college as one of its few resident students. There are glimpses of Margarethe during these months. She was one of the most successful and well-liked students. She led classmates in high-spirited pranks and practical jokes. Fascinated by Froebel’s lectures and demonstrations, she took extensive notes that he reviewed and revised, pronouncing them clearer than his own books. These notes later went missing in

the mail, a loss that, in Peabody’s words, “can never be sufficiently lamented” (Peabody 1873, 11). At the college, Margarethe also underwent a physical and psychological crisis severe enough to require a nurse’s care. She left the college around February 1851 to undergo a “water cure” (hydropathy). Elke Kleinau plausibly sees a cause of this crisis in Bertha’s then scandalous decision, in early 1850, to divorce her husband and begin a liaison with Johannes Ronge. Bertha Traun and Johannes Ronge exiled themselves to England in October 1850 and married in 1851. They established England’s first kindergarten and led the British kindergarten movement for years. In autumn 1851 Margarethe’s family let her travel to London to care for Bertha during a serious illness and help run the Ronges’ kindergarten. In London, Margarethe deepened her experience in kindergartening, thrived in the German exile community, and met Carl Schurz. They married and emigrated in 1852, arriving in New York City on September 16. When Elizabeth Peabody traveled to Europe in 1867 and 1868 to study the Froebelian kindergarten, she carried letters of introduction from Margarethe and Carl Schurz to their well-connected friends and family in Germany. Such letters probably led, in 1867, to Peabody’s fortunate meeting with Emma Marwedel, director of the new Weibliche Gewerbeschule in Hamburg (Industrial School for Girls in Hamburg) and protégée of Margarethe’s brother Heinrich Adolf Meyer. Peabody encouraged Marwedel’s emigration to the United States and later credited Marwedel with showing her “Froebel’s genuine kindergarten” and giving her the courage to spend the rest of her life promoting it in the

SCHURZ, CARL

United States. During Carl Schurz’s term as senator, Margarethe joined congressmen James A. Garfield and James G. Blaine as a prominent patron of Marwedel’s kindergarten and teacher-training school in Washington, D.C. Margarethe met her mother’s fate when she died at the age of forty-three of complications following the birth of her fifth child. Daughter Agathe, the kindergarten’s first U.S. pupil, served on the first board of directors of the National Kindergarten Association, founded in 1909. Jefford B. Vahlbusch See also Kindergartners; Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Boone, Richard G. Education in the United States. Its Earliest History from the Earliest Settlements. 1889. Reprint. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries, 1971. Hirsch, Helmut, and Marianne Hirsch. “Stammte Margarethe Meyer-Schurz aus einer ursprünglich jüdischen Familie? Zur Problematik ihrer ersten Biographie.” In Deutsch-jüdische Geschichte im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Eds. Ludger Heid and Joachim H. Knoll. Stuttgart: Burg Verlag, 1992, pp. 85–106. Kleinau, Elke. Bildung und Geschlecht. Eine Sozialgeschichte des höheren Mädchenschulwesens in Deutschland vom Vormärz bis zum Dritten Reich. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag, 1997. Peabody, Elizabeth Palmer. “Kindergarten Literature.” Kindergarten Messenger 1, no. 3 (July 1873): 11–17. ———. “The Origin and Growth of the Kindergarten.” Education 2, no. 5 (May–June 1882): 507–527.

SCHURZ, CARL b. (?) 1829; Liblar (Rhineland), Prussia d. May 14, 1906; New York City Very successful German American journalist and politician who advanced from

953

being senator for Missouri to being named secretary of the interior in the administration of Rutherford B. Hayes. A lieutenant in the German revolutionary army in 1849, Schurz rose to instant fame when in 1850 he managed to liberate his friend and teacher Gottfried Kinkel from a Berlin prison. He himself claimed to have evaded the surrender of Rastatt through an unfinished sewer. Via Switzerland, he went first to France, then to England, trying to support himself writing for newspapers, but his real career as a journalist and later also as a politician only started after his arrival in the United States. Functionally bilingual, Schurz forged for himself an important mediating position between the German and the Anglo-American element. His contributions to the Lincoln presidential campaign were so substantial that he was awarded a diplomatic position to the Spanish court, from whence he returned to fight for the Union. Brevetted brigadier in March 1862, Schurz and his division fought at Bull Run, Fredericksburg (after replacing Franz Sigel), Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and Chattanooga. As a major general he briefly commanded the XI Corps at Gettysburg. His role there and at Chancellorsville is controversial; Schurz defended his troops against accusations of cowardice in the nativist press. In 1864 Schurz resigned his command temporarily to support Abraham Lincoln again. His effort contributed substantially to preventing the radical German wing of the Republican Party from nominating Schurz’s former superior, John Frémont. After the war Schurz wrote for the New York Tribune and worked on a book about his journey through the defeated

954

SCHUTZ, ANTON

southern states. He next took editorial positions with the Detroit Post and the German Westliche Post in St. Louis, before managing to win a seat in the U.S. Senate from Missouri on the Republican ticket in 1869. A supporter of Horace Greeley (against his former superior Ulysses S. Grant) in 1872, Schurz was made secretary of the interior by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1877. He effectively reorganized the Indian affairs administration and introduced many civil service reforms. On the occasion of a visit to Germany, the former revolutionist, now rather conservative, even met with Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Schurz remained active in politics and journalism after leaving office in 1881, writing for Harper’s Weekly, the Atlantic Monthly, the Nation, and the North American Review, as well as working as managing editor of the New York Evening Post. Among the books he published are a much-read and frequently reedited autobiography and a biography of Lincoln. His political influence, notably in German circles but also on the Republican Party, remained considerable. Among his admirers was Mark Twain, who wrote a very complimentary obituary. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also American Civil War, German Participants in; 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; Forty-Eighters; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States; Politics and German Americans; Schurz, Agathe Margarethe; Sigel, Franz References and Further Reading Schurz, Carl. Lebenserinnerungen. 3 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1906–1912. Trefousse, Hans. Carl Schurz. A Biography. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, 1982. Twain, Mark. “Carl Schurz, Pilot.” Harper’s Weekly, May 26, 1906.

SCHUTZ, ANTON (JOSEPH FRIEDRICH) b. April 19, 1894; Berndorf (Rhineland), Prussia d. October 6, 1977; New York City German American artist who produced copperplate etchings of European and North American cityscapes (especially New York City) during the 1920s and 1930s. In 1914 Schutz was drafted into the German army and served with distinction in Flanders, East Galicia, reaching the rank of corporal. His experiences in World War I had a profound effect on him that increased his pacifist leanings. Upon returning from war, he resumed his art and moved to Munich. His early artistic career was known for oil paintings of traditional German landscapes that focused on historic architecture of the German-speaking world. In Munich he simultaneously attended both the Art Academy and the Technical University for architectural studies. Under Hermann Groeber, he learned the skill of copperplate etching and began etching hundreds of cityscapes across Germany. His etchings sold well in Germany from 1918 to 1922, particularly in the galleries of Munich. In Munich Schutz witnessed firsthand the economic crisis of 1923 and the early rise of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) under Adolf Hitler. His apartment window faced out directly to the Feldherrnhalle where Hitler tried to violently overthrow the Weimar Republic in November 1923. Although socially and economically successful in Munich, he emigrated in February 1924 to New York City after destroying all of his copperplates used to print his German etchings. In New York he immediately became a successful etcher, known for his technical skills and portray-

SCHWAB, FRANK X.

als of American city life on the eastern seaboard. His depictions of the modern progressive city were so impressive that the newly formed Soviet Union invited him to Moscow to produce similar etchings. After returning from Moscow in 1928, he also toured Europe as an “American” artist. His primary subject was the architecture and city life of New York with emphasis on Manhattan and Brooklyn. His portrayals of New York City are renowned for his sense of progress and his ability to capture the grandeur of the modern city. After being in the United States for only a short time, Schutz was able to capture the American spirit of New York City in the 1920s so remarkably that his New York etchings are still highly sought after today. Their style and the spirit of the time they invoke represent how the immigrant sees the progress of the modern American metropolis. Despite his successes in the U.S. art world, the coming war and the waning interest in black-and-white etchings drove him to shun art production in 1939. As founder of the New York Graphic Society (NYGS), he turned his attention to highquality art reproduction. The NYGS produced many books highlighting European masters in full color from 1925 to 1966. The NYGS was engaged in 1949 by the United Nations through UNESCO to publish the World Art Series. Schutz traveled the world from 1949 to 1961 documenting world art for the United Nations. Michael Shaughnessy See also New York City References and Further Reading Bruening, Margaret. “Anton Schutz, Etcher.” American Magazine of Art (1927): 136–142. Schutz, Anton. My Share of Wine. Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, 1972.

955

SCHWAB, FRANK X. b. August14, 1874; Buffalo, New York d. April 23, 1946; Buffalo, New York Controversial German American mayor of Buffalo from 1922 to 1929. Schwab acquired national publicity in the 1920s for his open hostility to both Prohibition and the Ku Klux Klan. Schwab was elected mayor in 1921 while still under indictment for violations of the Volstead law, a law that defined the ban on intoxicating liquors in the Eighteenth Amendment. The former brewer proceeded to dismantle the city’s effort to police the flow of illicit liquor. He also waged a ruthless campaign against the Klan in western New York. Hated by some for his supposed Anglophobia and wisecracking, Schwab lost the mayoralty in 1929 to a former friend, Charles Roesch. He continued to run for the mayoralty unsuccessfully in many bids thereafter, and became the most outspoken German American opponent to the city’s Nazi element. Schwab was the son of a workingclass Austrian father and a Bavarian mother. After graduating from St. Anna’s German Catholic parochial school, Schwab began work as a cabinetmaker. He later recalled that a priest was about to pay for his high school education, but that his father had complained that just when children got big enough to help their parents, they left them. Schwab thereupon refused to go to high school and worked long hours to supplement the family income. Schwab’s rise through a blue-collar world came from a series of practical inventions he made to improve the safety of the shops where he worked, his German Catholic connections, a notable sense of humor, and a superior

956

SCHWAB, FRANK X.

singing voice—which he used to good effect at the age of twenty at a Milwaukee Saengerfest. His break from manual labor came after a Buffalo brewer, Conrad Hammer, heard his Milwaukee performance. Hammer appointed Schwab as a solicitor for his brewery, starting at $15 dollars a week. Schwab’s success in getting saloon owners to adopt Hammer beer increased his income to $4,500 dollars a year and facilitated his marriage to a St. Anna girl, whose father was a storeowner. His wife, Theresa, of Prussian ancestry, served as his personal accountant for life and did most of the work to raise the couple’s six children. Schwab’s success with Hammer beer also helped make him a well-known personality throughout the working-class neighborhoods of the city. In 1915 Schwab opened his own liquor store, and shortly thereafter, a brewery. He delved into politics in 1917, supporting the Socialist antiwar position, and became an outspoken opponent to Prohibition. In 1920 twenty local policemen working with federal authorities raided Schwab’s Buffalo Brewing Company. They found that the alcoholic content of his “near-beer” was over .5 percent, and falsely labeled. Schwab reorganized his firm and appealed for clemency. City and federal authorities appeared unmoved, but the local citizenry rallied to his defense. When a columnist, Jack Kelly, of the Buffalo Times playfully proposed Schwab as a candidate for mayor, the joke itself became a force. The brewery industry rallied behind him, and Schwab defeated the incumbent, superpatriotic mayor, George Buck, in the fall election of 1921.

As mayor, Schwab supported increases in taxation to fund new schools and a series of programs to help the poor. But the public debate about the mayor focused on his personality and his stand against Prohibition. Performing for working-class Catholics and east-side Germans, Schwab wore his bow tie submarined under his collar, and used a beer starter for a gavel. He declared that the waves of Lake Erie were sad because they were only water (and not beer). Dismissed by a council member for making the city a “laughingstock,” Schwab waged a life and death struggle against his most vociferous critics, the local Klan. As vigilante Klansmen threatened saloonkeepers, the mayor remade the city’s police force into an antiKlan agency. He even employed covert agents and encouraged the organization of anti-Klan societies. For this, Klansmen called the mayor, “Frank Xsema Slob,” and murdered one of his informants in the summer of 1924. But the mayor’s supporters fought back with bombings, death threats, and at least one attempt to poison a leading Klansman at a local restaurant. For a time in the summer of 1924 a clandestine war was being waged in Buffalo. Schwab claimed afterward that the Klan almost assassinated him twice, and it is probable that he became in effect a local Henry II, who encouraged the police and the Mafia to wreak vengeance but did not directly order skirmishes or executions. At last, Schwab obtained a list of Klan members, which he used to intimidate and destroy the group. Elected again in 1925, Schwab continued to humor some and rankle others. He spoke against daylight saving time, automobiles, jazz, short dresses, and the hip flask. While mayor he

SCHWAB, JUSTUS H.

called America’s recent ally, Great Britain, the traditional enemy of the United States, and claimed that both Abraham Lincoln and George Washington had been saloonkeepers. Schwab was a Republican, but he lacked strong ties to the parties, and their opposition by 1929 helped to explain his defeat. For the rest of his life, Schwab aspired to reclaim the mayoralty, especially after Mayor Joseph Kelly during World War II removed his bust from City Hall. During this time of continued politicking, Schwab again became an active member of German Vereine, and opened a restaurant named Old Vienna. He used his reputation as a former Klan antagonist and mayor to attack Nazi penetration in the German clubs. To Schwab, the Nazis constituted a Klan of German aliens who mocked the Constitution, and did not deserve its rights. Schwab, however, lacked the social influence to keep the Nazis out of German Day festivities and the political influence to repeat the performance of exposing a hate group. In his last election in 1945, he won a respectable, though inauspicious 36,000 votes, and worsened an already unstable heart condition. Andrew Yox See also Buffalo; German-American Bund References and Further Reading Holli, Melvin G., and Peter Jones, eds. Biographical Dictionary of American Mayors 1820–1980. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1981, p. 321. Lay, Shawn. Hooded Knights on the Niagara: The Ku Klux Klan in Buffalo, New York. New York: New York University, 1995. Yox, Andrew P. “Decline of the GermanAmerican Community in Buffalo, 1855–1925.” PhD dissertation. University of Chicago, 1983, pp. 348–350.

957

SCHWAB, JUSTUS H. b. (?) 1847; Frankfurt am Main d. December 18, 1900; New York City German American saloonkeeper who, from 1870 until his death, played a pivotal role in New York’s Socialist and anarchist movements. Schwab was an imposing man, broad shouldered with curly blonde hair and a stentorian voice. A friend once described him as a “Viking,” a figure too large for his cozy little tavern. Another characterized him as a muscular fellow with an enormous appetite, a sense of humor, and a popular joviality befitting a southern German. Schwab was the son of a Forty-Eighter who had served four years in prison for rioting against the Prussians. The young Schwab learned the masonry trade and possibly participated in the late 1860s labor movement in Germany. He immigrated to New York in May 1869 and joined the German section of the International Workingmen’s Association. Difficult economic times during the 1870s led unemployed workers to demand public assistance from city authorities. Schwab participated in the protests, believing a government should be run by and for the workers. In January 1874, for example, he marched together with thousands of the unemployed in a demonstration in Tompkins Square that was ultimately violently dispersed by police officers. Schwab was promptly arrested and accused of inciting to riot and “waving a red flag.” Sometime after these events, Schwab married and had four children. It is at this time that he opened a corner saloon on 50 First Street in the heart of Little Germany. This saloon would become a prominent

958

SCHWARZENEGGER, ARNOLD

Freiheit, the London radical paper edited by Johann Most, to New York. The two men remained close friends until 1886, when Schwab broke with Most because of his involvement with arsonists. His saloon, however, remained an important hub of radical activities, frequented by such luminaries as Emma Goldman and Ambrose Bierce. Aside from providing a space for countercultural groups, Schwab himself remained active in the movement. He contributed to legal defense funds for anarchists and free speech campaigns. He was also a member of the Internationale Arbeiter-Liedertafel, a popular German anarchist musical society in New York. Tom Goyens Justus Schwab played a pivotal role in New York’s socialist and anarchist movements. (Leslie's Weekly, February 21, 1874)

bohemian meeting place for French communards, Russian revolutionaries, German anarchists, and American artists and was well known throughout the Lower East Side. Inevitably, Schwab’s café became a target for police and antisaloon leaguers. Twice, in 1876 and 1877, he was arrested for selling lager beer on Sunday and for disorderly conduct, but was released each time. In 1879 Schwab was still a prominent member of the New York section of the Socialist Labor Party, but by 1880 he strongly opposed the party’s hierarchy and reformism. Expelled as a dissident, Schwab became a leader of a group of antistatist Socialists. In October 1881 he was chosen as a delegate for New York at the Chicago convention of social revolutionaries. In 1882 Schwab was instrumental in moving

See also Anarchists; Forty-Eighters; Most, Johann; New York City; Socialist Labor Party References and Further Reading “Defense of Justus Schwab.” Outlook 48 (November 25, 1893): 957. Goldman, Emma. Living My Life. 2 vols. London and New York: Knopf, 1931. Lynch, Denis Tilden. The Wild Seventies. New York and London: Appleton-Century, 1941.

SCHWARZENEGGER, ARNOLD b. July 30, 1947;Thal, Austria Austrian American world-champion bodybuilder, actor, and governor of California. Arnold is the son of Gustav and Aurelia Schwarzenegger. Gustav was a local police officer, both before and after World War II, in which he participated on the German side. From an early age both sons were required to rise at 6 A.M., do chores, and perform proscribed workout routines before breakfast. Their father’s strictness propelled

SCHWARZENEGGER, ARNOLD

both youths into sports and to become masters of their art. Not only did this psychological motivation indirectly pay off for Arnold, his brother also became a champion boxer. Schwarzenegger began his sports career with soccer. Realizing that his fifteen-year-old body required twenty-inch biceps to be correctly proportioned, he picked up dumbbells and set to work. He worked out six times a week, whenever and wherever he could. Even at fifteen he trained so hard that once he fainted while biking twelve kilometers from the gym to his home. By eighteen, he was sneaking dumbbells into his Panzer during military obligation, going AWOL (absent without leave) within a month of arriving to attend the Mr. Junior Europe bodybuilding competition in Stuttgart, which he won with a perfect score. After leaving the army, he enrolled at the University of Munich to study marketing, a talent that later proved its worth. In 1967 Schwarzenegger took first place in the Mr. Universe bodybuilding competition. Shortly afterward, fitness mogul Joe Weider invited Arnold to the United States to train in California. Within two years he starred in his first of many films, Hercules in New York, his accent so thick that his voice had to be dubbed. While this was the beginning of a long list of films, acting would not become a major source of income for Schwarzenegger until the Conan movies (Conan the Barbarian, 1982; Conan the Destroyer, 1984). In the meantime Schwarzenegger concentrated his efforts on generating enough income in America to finance bodybuilding book deals, which he and fellow bodybuilder Franco Columbu supported through a bricklaying partnership. The money was immediately put toward an apartment and real estate deal in the Santa

959

Monica area. He also won his first (and to date only) acting award, a Golden Globe for his role in Stay Hungry (1976), in which he played an Austrian bodybuilder who comes to the United States for fame and fortune. In addition, he became five-time Mr. Olympia while taking enough correspondence courses through the University of Wisconsin at Superior to receive a bachelor’s degree in international marketing. The year 1977 proved decisive for Schwarzenegger when he was invited to play tennis at the Robert F. Kennedy Tennis Tournament. Maria Shriver, the niece of John F. Kennedy, took notice. After dating for eight years, they married in 1986, three years after he had become a U.S. citizen. They were (aptly) labeled the odd couple of the celebrity world. Eunice Shriver, Maria’s mother, involved herself heavily in supporting the Special Olympics, an organization that also profited from Arnold’s interest. Branching from there, he founded the Inner City Games, an after-school program designed in 1991 by Schwarzenegger and the executive director of East Los Angeles’s Hollenbeck Youth Center, Danny Hernandez, to keep kids off the streets. Then in 1990 George H. W. Bush asked Schwarzenegger to chair the President’s Council on Physical Fitness, promoting health for children (and adults) in fifty states. Proving himself more than a bulky Hollywood action hero, Schwarzenegger’s public image took center stage during the 2003 governor recall election in California. Gray Davis had been receiving negative publicity as gubernatorial incumbent during the previous year, an image that continued to decline (along with the state’s budget) until Californians exercised their state constitutional right to hold a recall

960

SCHWENKFELDERS

election. Arnold stepped in on the Republican ticket, announcing his candidacy on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, and never backed down until he became California’s thirtyeighth governor, beating his nearest electoral rival by over 500,000 votes. LaVern J. Rippley See also Hollywood References and Further Reading Andrews, Nigel. True Myths of Arnold Schwarzenegger: The Life and Times of Arnold Schwarzenegger, from Pumping Iron to Governor of California. London: Bloomsbury, 2003. Blitz, Michael, and Louise Krasniewicz. Why Arnold Matters: The Rise of a Cultural Icon. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Leigh, Wendy. Arnold: An Unauthorized Biography. Chicago: Congdon & Weed, 1990. Leamer, Laurence. Fantastic: The Life of Arnold Schwarzenegger. New York: St. Martin’s, 2005. Schwarzenegger, Arnold. Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder. New York: Simon & Shuster, 1977, 1993.

SCHWENKFELDERS The Schwenkfelders are a denomination whose ancestors were spiritual descendants of Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig (1489–1561). German-speaking Silesian Schwenkfelders immigrated to Pennsylvania in six waves of migration between 1731 and 1737. Schwenkfelders in Pennsylvania maintained contact with coreligionists in Silesia until the last Schwenkfelder, Melchior Dorn, died in 1826. Generous assistance from several benefactors during the trek to Pennsylvania prompted American Schwenkfelders to send funds for war relief in 1816 to Görlitz, one of their refuges, and CARE packages to Silesia at the end of World War II. In 1863 a monument in Harpersdorf to their ancestors was funded

by American Schwenkfelders, which was restored and rededicated in 2003 with American Schwenkfelder clergy and laypersons in attendance. From 1888 to 1919 the editorial office of the Corpus Schwenkfeldianorum was located in Wolfenbüttel, Germany, and then moved to Pennsburg, Pennsylvania. The Schwenkfelder Library and Heritage Center in Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, presents the Schwenkfelder story and preserves their legacy. In 2005 several Schwenkfelder churches are associated with the United Church of Christ. There are six congregations, all located in southeastern Pennsylvania: Central Schwenkfelder Church, Worcester; Faith Community Church, Lansdale; Olivet-Schwenkfelder United Church of Christ, Norristown; Palm Schwenkfelder Church, Palm; First Schwenkfelder Church of Philadelphia, and Schwenkfelder Missionary Church, Philadelphia. Total membership is about 2,600. Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig was a Silesian nobleman. A participant in the Protestant movement, his views differed from Martin Luther’s on the questions of the Lord’s Supper and baptism. Schwenckfeld rejected both transubstantiation (the consecrated bread and wine transformed into the body and blood of Christ) and consubstantiation (body and blood of Christ exist in the consecrated bread and wine) interpretations of the sacramental elements. He advocated a suspension of the sacrament until all Christians believed in and practiced the sacrament in the same way. Schwenckfeld preferred believer’s baptism to infant baptism. In 1529 Schwenckfeld entered voluntary exile, leaving Silesia and living the remainder of his life in various cities in southwestern Germany including Straßburg, Augsburg, and Ulm.

SCHWENKFELDERS

During his exile he published many volumes defending his religious point of view and taught small groups in private homes. Although he had a large following, Schwenckfeld never advocated the organization of a new church. After Schwenckfeld’s death, his followers, who called themselves Confessors of the Glory of Christ, were numerous in Ulm and Silesia, but dwindled until only a small number remained in the Harpersdorf/Liegnitz area of lower Silesia at the close of the seventeenth century. Despite the 1555 Treaty of Augsburg and the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which recognized only Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed churches as official religions, these Schwenkfelders lived at relative peace with their Catholic and Lutheran neighbors. There were occasional incidents of persecution, but a major, persistent thrust to convert them to Catholicism by a Jesuit mission drove most of them out of Silesia in 1726. Initially these refugees found benefactors in Saxony, first at Görlitz and then at Herrnhut and Berthelsdorf, villages under the jurisdiction of Nicholas Ludwig, Count of Zinzendorf (1700–1760). However, a decree in 1732 forbade Zinzendorf to harbor the refugees on his lands. Having decided to emigrate to Pennsylvania, the Schwenkfelders traveled by foot and boat through Saxony to Holland, where they embarked upon a ship to Pennsylvania. On September 22, 1734, the major group of Schwenkfelders landed in Philadelphia after nearly three months in transit from Haarlem, Holland. Most of these Schwenkfelders established farms in present-day Montgomery, Berks, and Lehigh counties, although a few remained closer to Philadelphia in Chestnut Hill. The Schwenkfelders were unaccustomed to

961

The Viehweg ("cowpath") monument was erected in the 1860s to honor some two hundred ancestors of the Schwenkfelders buried along the cowpath outside of Harpersdorf (now Twardocice, Poland). The ancestors had been forbidden Christian burial in the local church cemetery. Interment in this dumping ground or “potter's field” was a symbol of disgrace to the families of the deceased. (Schwenkfelder Library and Heritage Center)

worshiping in a church and felt no need to erect such buildings. In these early days worship and religious training of young people took place in members’ homes. George Weiss (1687–1740) became their spiritual leader as the exodus from Saxony began, and he continued in that position until his death. Balthasar Hoffmann (1687–1775), who had been assisting Weiss, then took the leadership position. Both men rode a circuit to conduct worship and catechize young people. They also solemnized marriages and funerals. Once Balthasar Hoffmann retired in 1750, Christopher Schultz (1718–1789), assisted by Christopher Kriebel (1724–1800) and

962

SCHWENKFELDERS

Christopher Hoffmann (1727–1804), administered to the Schwenkfelder population, which had grown and was widespread. Gradually the Schwenkfelders organized themselves as a church, adopting a church governance in 1782 and dividing the area into an Upper District and a Lower District. The first structure for worship was a log house built in Hosensack in 1790. Eventually there were six meeting houses, the last erected in Lower Salford in 1869. A Sunday school mission began in Philadelphia in 1895 and grew into the First Schwenkfelder Church, built in 1898. The Norristown congregation was organized in 1904, and the Lansdale church was established in 1916. In 1911 a new church facility was built in Palm, Pennsylvania, as a consolidation of three meeting houses in the Upper District. The newest church of the denomination is the Schwenkfelder Missionary Church, also in Philadelphia. Secular and religious education has always been important to the Schwenkfelder community. In Silesia and Saxony children were taught at home, not in schools, because of religious sensitivities. At that time a few boys, who later became community leaders, came under the tutelage of educated Schwenkfelders. Abraham Wagner’s mentor was the Schwenkfelder physician Melchior Heebner, and Christopher Schultz’s mentor was George Weiss. Parents saw to their children’s religious education. Possibly in Saxony, but certainly in Pennsylvania, the religious education of young people, including such basic skills as reading and writing, became a major responsibility of the spiritual leaders. Soon Pennsylvania Schwenkfelders recognized the need for more formalized education and commenced organizing a school system. Subscribed by thirty house fathers,

two schools opened in the fall of 1764. School was often taught at a Schwenkfelder home, sometimes at meeting houses. Beginning with the Free Schools Act of 1834 Schwenkfelder schools, which had been open to children of all faiths, were abandoned, as the state promised all Pennsylvania children an education at public expense. Early Schwenkfelder schools were, at least in part, bilingual schools, as the materials and languages of instruction were both English and German. Because public schools were not teaching German, the language of the Schwenkfelder worship and church materials, Sunday schools were soon established to preserve the German language in the church and at home. German as the language of worship and religious instruction began to waver about 1880 and faded out in the 1920s. In 1891 the Schwenkfelder Church established a private school for its children and other community children. This school was called Perkiomen School (since 1916), the successor of the Perkiomen Seminary (1875 to about 1916). In 2004 the Perkiomen School was still under the jurisdiction of the Schwenkfelder Church. Silesian Schwenkfelders passed on their history and religious teachings in oral and manuscript form, printing being denied to them. In Pennsylvania they were unable to procure or provide sufficient copies of their writings for their community. In 1762 colonial printer Christoph Sauer (1721–1784) produced their first book, Neu-Eingerichtetes Gesang-Buch (A Newly Organized Songbook), a hymnal of 917 songs. This was followed by a catechism in 1763, and by 1771 they had written and arranged with Schwenkfelders in Silesia for the printing of a defense of their founder entitled Erläuterung für

SCHWENKFELDERS

Caspar Schwenckfeld (A Vindication of Caspar Schwenckfeld). By 1830 American Schwenkfelders had issued eleven volumes of doctrinal and devotional literature and continued to publish a variety of churchrelated materials throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Founded in 1898, the Board of Publication with support from the Schwenkfelder Church and Hartford Theological Seminary published between 1907 and 1961 a critical edition of the works of Caspar Schwenckfeld and his associates, the Corpus Schwenkfeldianorum, with an editorial office in Wolfenbüttel, Germany. At this time a concerted effort was made in both Germany and Pennsylvania to preserve the manuscripts, books, papers, letters, diaries, ledgers, photos, and other material objects of the Schwenkfelder tradition. At the conclusion of World War I, the editorial office was moved to Pennsburg, Pennsylvania, where these materials were deposited on the second floor of the Carnegie Library at the Perkiomen School. A new, separate library building was constructed in 1951 while the museum was maintained at the Carnegie site. Twenty-first-century descendants of the Silesian Schwenkfelders can learn about their German and colonial heritage in a remodeled and expanded structure, the Schwenkfelder Library and Heritage Center, dedicated in 2001. Connected with the preservation of these relics, a genealogical record of the Schwenkfelder families and their descendants was compiled in 1879, and greatly expanded in a 1923 edition. A new data bank will keep the records constantly up to date. Christian compassion and community outreach has always been a trait of the Schwenkfelders. As the Schwenkfelder emigrants embarked for Philadelphia, they re-

963

ceived a donation by the von Byuschanse brothers for the needs of the poorer Schwenkfelders upon arrival in Pennsylvania, establishing a charity fund. This generosity and the funding of the passage by the Byuschanses was never forgotten. In 1771 and 1772 American Schwenkfelders wrote to friends in Harpersdorf and Probsthayn, offering financial help to any Schwenkfelders in need. In his last will and testament the Schwenkfelder physician Abraham Wagner (1715–1763) determined that one-third of his estate was to be distributed to poor and destitute persons without regard to denomination. Unexpended funds from Wagner’s estate were folded into the Schwenkfelder Charity Fund in 1774, which still provides benefits to persons and families. In 1816 American Schwenkfelders sent a monetary gift to Görlitz as a thanks offering for the protection their ancestors had received. The money was for relief of Napoleonic War victims and destitute Schwenkfelders living in the area. Between 1946 and 1950 Schwenkfelders sent thousands of CARE packages to Silesian war refugees. Since colonial times Schwenkfelders have been involved in public affairs. David Schultz (1717–1797) was a surveyor, scrivener, and arbitrator of land disputes. Christopher Schultz (1718–1789) raised funds to pay the home guards who defended the frontiers during the French and Indian War. He urged his fellow Schwenkfelders to donate money to the Friendly Association to establish peace with the Indians. During the Revolutionary War period he protested the Test Law of 1777, which required all white male inhabitants of Pennsylvania to take an oath of allegiance to Pennsylvania, renouncing an earlier pledge of loyalty to the king of England

964

SEALSFIELD, CHARLES

and promising to inform authorities about any traitorous acts against the colonies. In 1779 he was appointed assessor of Hereford Township. Although a pacifist denomination, one or two Schwenkfelders served in the Continental Army. In the Civil War, John F. Hartranft (1830–1889) was a general and earned a Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions in the Battle of Bull Run. At the end of the war he was in charge of the Old Capital Prison and the hanging of the conspirators in the Lincoln assassination. Between 1872 and 1879 he served as governor of Pennsylvania. Schwenkfelder descendant Richard S. Schweiker represented Pennsylvania in the U.S. House of Representatives (1960– 1969), the U.S. Senate (1969–1981), and returned to Washington, D.C., as secretary of health and human services from 1981 to1983. Allen Viehmeyer See also Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe/Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany; Pietism; Pennsylvania; Sauer, Christoph References and Further Reading Erb, Peter C., ed. Schwenckfeld and Early Schwenkfeldianism: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on Schwenckfeld and the Schwenkfelders. Pennsburg, PA: Schwenkfelder Library, 1986. ———. Schwenkfelders in America: Papers Presented at the Colloquium on Schwenckfeld and the Schwenkfelders. Pennsburg, PA: Schwenkfelder Library, 1987. Kriebel, Howard Wiegner. The Schwenckfelders in Pennsylvania, A Historical Sketch. Lancaster, PA: New Era Printing. Reprinted from Volume 13, Proceedings of the PennsylvaniaGerman Society, 1891, 1904. Meschter, W. Kyrel. Twentieth Century Schwenkfelders: A Narrative History. Pennsburg, PA: The Schwenkfelder Library, 1984.

Moyer, Dennis K., ed. Fraktur Writings and Folk Art Drawings of the Schwenkfelder Library Collection. Pennsylvania German Society, vol. 31. Gen. ed. Willard W. Wetzel. Kutztown, PA: Centennial Printing, 1997. Schultz, Selina Gerhard. A Course of Study in the Life and Teachings of Caspar Schwenckfeld von Ossig (1489–1561) and the History of the Schwenckfelder Religious Movement (1518–1964). Pennsburg, PA: Board of Publication of the Schwenckfelder Church, 1964. Weigelt, Horst. The Schwenkfelders in Silesia. Trans. Peter C. Erb. Pennsburg, PA: Schwenkfelder Library, 1985.

SEALSFIELD, CHARLES b. March 3, 1793; Poppitz (Moravia), Austrian Empire d. May 26, 1864; Soluthurn, Switzerland After Karl May, the most popular German novelist using American settings. Unlike May, who never visited America, Sealsfield spent many years there, traveled extensively in North America, and became a U.S. citizen. His creative period extended from the mid-1820s to the mid-1840s. Sealsfield glorified what he took to be the essential characteristics of the United States: an inevitably expanding society constantly revitalized by the egalitarian democracy of the frontier. His first books, which preceded his many novels, were political studies of America and his Austrian homeland such as The United States of North America as They Are (1827). Almost all of his works appeared promptly in English. In both Europe and America he was often regarded as an American or Englishman whose work had been translated into German. Actually, his earliest known novel, Tokeah; or the White Rose (1829), was apparently written first in English.

SEGHERS, ANNA

This novel has an Indian as a central character. Like James Fenimore Cooper, to whom he was much indebted, Sealsfield was an early writer of westerns, but the perspectives of the two men were very different. Sealsfield welcomed the victory of the white man over the Indian as essential to the westward march of civilization. Sealsfield was born as Karl Anton Postl into a locally prestigious family of vintners in Poppitz, Moravia. His father held several offices: mayor, district judicial official, and district winery master (Kellermeister). Sealsfield was sent to the Gymnasium (preparatory school) in Znaim, the nearby regional center. At age fifteen he entered, probably under family pressure, the Bethlemite monastic order, for which his father worked. After ordination as a priest and study at the university in Prague, Sealsfield became secretary to the head of his order. In 1823 he suddenly became a fugitive from Austrian justice by fleeing monastic life and sailing to America. Through his university experiences and his contacts with liberal circles he had become a political and religious dissident, a dangerous position in the Austria of Baron Metternich. The renegade monk traveled extensively during the next thirty-five years. These journeys included several Atlantic crossings. In North America he went as far south as Mexico. During the 1840s he settled down in Switzerland, where, after revisiting America from 1853 to 1858, he died. In his will he at last revealed his real name. Because Sealsfield wrote both anonymously and under several pseudonyms, his contemporaries were unable to look at his work as a whole. By the time he published his first novel, he had developed a comprehensive worldview. For him all monarchies,

965

with the partial exception of Britain, were unfree, if not tyrannical. The American Republic demonstrated that a free people could be a beacon of hope to a Europe dominated by autocratic regimes, degenerate aristocracies, and the Catholic Church. Sealsfield has been described as a supporter of Jacksonian democracy. He warned that even in the United States the monarchists, led by John Quincy Adams, posed a serious threat to democracy and were de facto allied with Metternichean Europe. In an optimistic moment a few years before the European revolutions of 1848, Sealsfield boldly proclaimed the impending triumph of democracy on both sides of the Atlantic. But as American commerce and industry expanded, Sealsfield’s attachment to agrarian democracy became increasingly difficult to square with reality. Walter Struve See also Adams, John Quincy; Indians in German Literature; May, Karl Friedrich; Novel, German American; Travel Literature, German-U.S.; Traven, B. References and Further Reading Grünzweig, Walter. Charles Sealsfield. Boise, ID: Boise State University, 1985. Jordan, E. L. America: Glorious and Chaotic Land. Charles Sealsfield Discovers the Young United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Schuchalter, Jerry. Frontier and Utopia in the Fiction of Charles Sealsfield. New York and Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1986.

SEGHERS, ANNA b. November 19, 1900; Mainz, Hesse d. July 1, 1983; East Berlin, German Democratic Republic Important German author who was forced to leave Nazi Germany in 1933 and went into exile in Mexico. Netty Reiling, who

966

SEGHERS, ANNA

later adopted the name Anna Seghers, was born into an orthodox Jewish family. In 1920 Reiling began studies in art history and sinology at Heidelberg University, where she graduated four years later. Her dissertation, entitled Jude und Judentum im Werk Rembrandts (Jews and Judaism in the Work of Rembrandt), explored what would become a central question in her later fiction: the relationship of the portrait to reality. A few weeks after her graduation, she published her first story, Die Toten auf der Insel Djal (The Dead on the Island Djal), in the Christmas edition of the Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt News). In 1925, Reiling married the Hungarian writer and philosopher László Radványi (later Johan-Lorenz Schmidt) and moved with him to Berlin, where they lived until forced to flee Germany in 1933. Throughout her life, Seghers was known not only for her literary accomplishments, but also for her active involvement in politics. Through her husband, who was a member of the Budapest Sunday Circle, Seghers was introduced to thinkers such as Georg Lukács, with whom she maintained correspondence while in exile. In Berlin, Seghers joined the German Communist Party and worked with the Bund proletarisch-revolutionärer Schriftsteller (Alliance of Proletariat-Revolutionary Writers). In 1926, Grubetsch was published in serial form in the Frankfurter Zeitung, followed in 1928 by Aufstand der Fischer von St. Barbara (The Revolt of the Fisherman from St. Barbara), which appeared under the name Anna Seghers. For these two stories, Seghers was awarded the Kleist Prize. Her first novel, Die Gefährten (The Companions), was published in 1932 and warned of the growing strength of fascism in Germany.

After being arrested for a short time by the Gestapo in 1933, Seghers was able to flee to Switzerland and then Paris, where she was met by her family. While living in Paris, she worked on the anti-Fascist exile newspaper, Neue Deutsche Blätter (New German Journal). Her first work in exile, the short novel Der Kopflohn (The Bounty), appeared in 1933. In this novel, as well as in subsequent works written during her years in exile, Seghers explored the growth of National Socialism in Germany, and provided a framework in which to understand the historical struggle against fascism. Two more novels, Der Weg durch den Februar (The Way of February) and Die Rettung (The Escape), were published in 1935 and 1937. In 1940, as the Germans marched into France and her husband was taken prisoner, Seghers finished the manuscript for the work that—largely thanks to its 1944 Hollywood filming—would win her international renown; Das Siebte Kreuz (The Seventh Cross). In 1940, as the Germans occupied Paris, Seghers and her family fought to leave France. After many delays, they were able to settle in Mexico a year later. During her flight from Paris to Mexico, Seghers began work on the novel Transit. Set in Marseille in 1941, the novel portrays the same chaos faced by Seghers and her family: the hundreds of refugees who, fleeing the German invasion, poured into Marseille as their last hope and harbor. The years Seghers spent in Mexico were just as active as those in France. She founded the anti-Fascist Heinrich-HeineKlub (Heinrich Heine Club), an organization that focused on German literature and culture. Together with Ludwig Renn, Seghers organized the movement Freies Deutschland (Free Germany) and pub-

SEUME, JOHANN GOTTFRIED

lished a newspaper of the same name. In 1944 Seghers wrote the story, Der Ausflug der toten Mädchen (The Excursion of the Dead Young Girls), which is considered to be her only biographical work. Finally, in 1947 Seghers returned to Germany and settled in West Berlin. However, she became a member of the Socialist Unity Party, which quickly dominated political life in the Soviet Occupation Zone. In the same year, she was awarded the Büchner Prize for Das Siebte Kreuz. In 1948, she became the vice president of the Kulturbund zur demokratischen Erneuerung Deutschlands (League of Culture for Democratic Renewal of Germany). A year later, she published the novel Die Toten bleiben jung (The Dead Stay Young) and the novella Die Hochzeit von Haiti (The Haitian Wedding). In 1950 she finally moved to East Berlin, where she became a member of the World Peace Organization. She was awarded the National Prize of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1951. During the years between 1952 and 1978, Seghers acted as the president of the Schriftstellerverband der DDR (League of GDR Writers), and was followed in this position by Hermann Kant. A two-volume collection of stories entitled Der Bienenstock (The Beehive) was published in 1953, followed in 1959 by the novel Die Entscheidung (The Decision). That same year, Seghers received an honorary doctorate from the University of Jena. In 1967 the story Das wirkliche Blau (The Real Blue) again dealt with the theme of life in Mexican exile. Two years later, the novel Das Vertrauen (The Faith) was published. In 1971 Seghers published her last story, Überfahrt (Crossing), which is based on life in the GDR. A serious illness in 1978 finally

967

forced Seghers to give up her position as the president of the Schriftstellerverband. Kerri Snead See also Intellectual Exile; Mexico References and Further Reading Alexander, Stephan. Anna Seghers im Exil: Essays, Texte, Dokumente. Bonn: Bouvier, 1993. Fehervary, Helen. Anna Seghers: The Mythic Dimension. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2001. Romero, Christiane Zehl. Anna Seghers: eine Biographie 1900–1947. Aufbau: Berlin, 2000.

SEUME, JOHANN GOTTFRIED b. January 29, 1763; Poserna, Saxony d. June 13, 1810;Teplitz (Bohemia), Austrian Empire German poet who wrote about his encounters with the landscape and the native inhabitants of Nova Scotia. When after the end of the War of Independence some six thousand “Hessians”—Brunswick and Ansbach soldiers sent over to support or even rented out to the English king during the war—elected to stay in North America, Seume was not one of them. He preferred to be repatriated even though his diary and letters show that he held sympathies for the republican cause and had at one point pondered deserting. Ironically, Seume found himself on the wrong side of any conflict coming his way. An Enlightened scholar and republican idealist, he was pressed into Hessian services while en route to Paris in 1781. Twelve years later, in the Polish uprising against czarist rule, he was almost killed because by then he was a Russian lieutenant, secretary to a general. Only his known sympathies for the Poles saved his life. In the twenty-first century, Seume is

968

SEUME, JOHANN GOTTFRIED

known mostly for his Spaziergang nach Syrakus im Jahre 1802 (Stroll to Syracuse in 1802), a travelogue covering his journey from Saxony to Sicily and back in 1801 and 1802. His accurate method of observation and description make the book an important document of the Enlightenment; the unusual method of his travels—he was an ardent and dedicated pedestrian and walked most of the way—make it also a curiosity. Seume’s importance for German American relations lies in his writings about the landscape and the native inhabitants of Nova Scotia. Toward the end of the eighteenth century, Indians started to feature in German poetry: Friedrich Schiller had written a dirge called “Nadowessiers Todtenlied” (Sioux Death-dirge) based on Jonathan Carver’s travelogue. Friedrich D. Schubart had created the image of a bloodthirsty savage in his Der sterbende Indianer an seinen Sohn (The Dying Indian to His Son). Seume added Der Wilde (The Savage) in which a Canadian Indian acts as host to a man who had sent him from his door when they met before, and who is now lost in the woods and at the Indian’s mercy. The white man is taken in, fed, given a bed, and sent off the next day with an admonition that the savage is the better human being after all. The poem echoes assumptions by writers like La Hontan and Voltaire, whose “Hurons” were exemplary carriers of European Enlightenment ideas. The insistence on an Enlightenment “Huron” stands in curious contrast to some of Seume’s actual experiences as laid down in Mein Leben (My Life, 1813) and various articles (e.g., in Archenholtz’s Magazine 1789) from America. Arriving in the British fortress Halifax with a shipload of replacements and recruits for the Hessian and Brunswick regiments in 1781, Seume

had come too late for any major fighting. His renditions of the environment are remarkably accurate; his descriptions of the native Mi’kmaq population are friendly yet patronizing. There is no trace of the “noble savage” ideal in these texts, though Seume did meet one Huron who served as batman (a servant to an officer) and guide to one of Seume’s friends, Lieutenant Karl Ludwig von Münchhausen. After his return to Germany, Seume finished his studies, wrote a second doctoral dissertation (Habilitation) on weaponry, and translated Robert Bage’s novel The Fair Syrian (as Honorie Warren), published in 1788. Following his resignation from the Russian army in 1796 he worked for Georg Joachim Göschen, editing Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock and Christoph Martin Wieland. His wanderings to Syracuse and in Russia (1805) made him well known, but his stern and uncompromising personality never won him many friends. His failure to get a Russian pension and a position as professor of English, which he coveted, left him destitute. By 1808 he was mortally ill. His autobiography was edited by Göschen and his friend Christian August Heinrich Clodius. Together with his letters and articles from Halifax it marks the beginning of German Canadian writing. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also Hessians; Nova Scotia; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Hochbruck, Wolfgang. “Observing Soldier and Enlightened ‘Huron’: Johann Gottfried Seume’s Nova Scotian Experience.” European Review of Native American Studies 8, no. 2 (1994): 1–5. Kahn, Robert L. “Seume’s Reception in England and America.” Modern Language Review 52 (1957): 65–71. Stirk, S. D. “Seume’s Visit to Canada, 1782–3.” Queen’s Quarterly 54 (1947/8): 429–439.

SHUSTER, GEORGE NAUMAN

SHUSTER, GEORGE NAUMAN b. August 27, 1894; Lancaster,Wisconsin d. January 25, 1977; South Bend, Indiana Writer, educator, Catholic apologist, government official, college president, and prominent interpreter of German culture and public affairs. He was the child of Anton and Elizabeth Nauman Schuster. (George later changed the spelling of his family name.) Three of his grandparents and one great-grandparent had immigrated from Germany, German was spoken at home until George and his sisters began school, and George was comfortable speaking German all his life. He was raised in a devout Catholic household, attended his parish grade school, and then St. Lawrence College, near Fond du Lac, for high school. In 1912 he entered the University of Notre Dame. In 1917 he enlisted in World War I, witnessed several months of fighting in France, and remained at the University of Poitiers after the war to earn a Certificat in French literature. He returned to Notre Dame in 1919, taught British and American literature for five years, chaired the Department of English for a time, and published The Catholic Spirit in Modern English Literature in 1922. Two years later he married a former student from nearby Saint Mary’s College, Doris Parks Cunningham, with whom he would have one son, Robert. The Shusters moved to New York in 1924, where George began doctoral studies in English literature at Columbia University and also began teaching at St. Joseph’s College for Women in Brooklyn. In early December he published a poem in The Commonweal, a Catholic weekly founded a month before, and he remained associated

969

with the journal for the next twelve years, eight as managing editor. Shuster made three extensive trips to Europe in the 1930s, and three major works resulted. Published in 1932, The Germans: An Inquiry and an Estimate was primarily a study of Germany’s history and cultural contributions over the centuries; Strong Man Rules, published in 1934, investigated the rise of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in Germany; and Like a Mighty Army: Hitler versus Established Religion (1935) examined Hitler’s opposition to Judaism, Protestantism, and Catholicism, and decried the effect this conflict would have on religious Europe. In researching these works, Shuster became well acquainted with Heinrich Brüning, Germany’s chancellor in 1930–1932, and he helped Brüning escape to the United States in 1935. In the fall of 1939, Shuster was named academic dean and acting president of New York’s Hunter College, then the world’s largest college for women, and the following year, after receiving his PhD from Columbia University, was named president, a position he held for the next twenty years. He revised the college curriculum to emphasize the liberal arts, oversaw the inauguration of the college’s concert series and opera workshop, began programs in both nursing and social work, and upgraded the academic standards of almost every department. In 1942 he purchased President Franklin Roosevelt’s former home on 65th Street for student use and Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious services and meetings. Under his presidency the college became coeducational, enrollment increased from 10,000 to 15,000, and the budget nearly doubled to $4.6 million annually.

970

SIEVERS,WILHELM

Throughout these years, Shuster was called upon for service outside the college also. During World War II he was a member of New York’s Enemy Alien Board II and the General Advisory Committee of the State Department’s Division of Cultural Relations. He was chairman of a War Department committee sent to Europe in 1945 to interview military and civilian leaders of Nazi Germany, and he served on the University of Chicago’s Committee on Freedom of the Press that same year. In 1947 he chaired the National Committee on Segregation in the Nation’s Capital. Under High Commissioner John McCloy he was named land commissioner of Bavaria in 1950 and 1951, presiding over the continuing denazification program and preparing for home rule at the close of the American occupation. Returning from Bavaria, he served as either chairman or president of the American Council on Germany from 1952 to 1970. For twelve years between 1946 and 1963 he was a member of the U. S. National Commission for UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) and from 1958 to 1963 was a member of UNESCO’s executive board. Shuster’s work received national and international recognition. In addition to numerous honorary degrees, he was awarded the Great Gold Medal of the Republic of Austria in 1955, the Great Cross of the Federal Republic of Germany that same year, the Austro-Hungarian Mariazell Medal in 1957, the Insignis Medal from Fordham University in 1959, and Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal in 1960. Having resigned from Hunter College, he returned to Notre Dame in 1961 as assistant to the president, Reverend

Theodore M. Hesburgh, CSC, and director of the newly established Center for the Study of Man in Contemporary Society. Under Shuster’s leadership, the center secured funding for in-depth research into Catholic elementary and secondary education, assisted in establishing a Latin American studies program, and sponsored studies on juvenile delinquency, artificial intelligence, and world population. Thomas E. Blantz See also Brüning, Heinrich; Denazification References and Further Reading Blantz, Thomas. E. “George N. Shuster and American Catholic Intellectual Life.” In Studies in Catholic History. Eds. Nelson H. Minnich, Robert B. Eno, and Robert F. Trisco. Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 1985, pp. 345–365. ———. George N. Shuster: On the Side of Truth. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1993. Lannie, Vincent P. “George N. Shuster: A Reflective Evaluation.” In Leaders in American Education. Ed. Robert J. Havighurst. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1971, pp. 306–320. Shuster, George N. The Ground I Walked On. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1969.

SIEVERS,WILHELM b. December 3, 1860; Hamburg d. June 11, 1921; Gießen, Hesse German geographer who explored Venezuela, Colombia, and Puerto Rico and who published popular regional-political studies of South America. From 1879 to 1882, he studied history and geography at the universities of Jena and Göttingen before he received his PhD in 1882. Beginning in 1883, Sievers deepened his knowl-

SIGEL, FRANZ

edge of physical geography under the guidance of Ferdinand von Richthofen at the University of Leipzig. Financially supported by the geographical societies of Hamburg, Leipzig, and Berlin, Sievers toured Venezuela and Colombia from 1884 to 1886, during which time he explored the Andean parts of both countries (Die Cordillera von Merida [The Merida Cordellera], 1888; Venezuela, eine Landeskunde [Venezuela: A Regional Geography], 1888). In 1887 he received his second doctoral degree (Habilitation) in geography from the University of Würzburg, where he taught until 1890. In 1891 he became an associate professor at the University of Gießen, where he remained until his death. In 1892 and 1893 Sievers toured Puerto Rico and Venezuela, supported by the Geographical Society of Hamburg. In 1909 he set out on another research trip, which led him this time into the high Andean regions of Peru and Ecuador. Sievers became well known in German academia for a series of extensive regional geographical handbooks, starting in 1891. He wrote the volumes, which sold out quickly and were immediately revised and reissued, on Asia (1892), South America (1893), Australia and Polynesia (1895), as well as on Africa (1901). Moreover, he penned other regional geographies addressed to a larger public, especially on the South American area (Die Cordillerenstaaten [The Cordillera States], 2 vols., 1913; Peru und Ecuador [Peru and Ecuador], 1914). Ute Wardenga References and Further Reading Mertins, Günter. “Wilhelm Sievers 1860–1921.” In Geographers. Biobibliographical Studies. Vol. 8. Ed. Walter T. Freeman. London: Mansell, 1984, pp. 107–110.

971

SIGEL, FRANZ b. November 18, 1824; Sinsheim, Baden d. August 22, 1902; New York City One of the most controversial figures in German America. His biography is almost impossible to write. Contemporary accounts of his actions, notably during the Civil War, were contradictory from the very beginning. Together with their interpretations they generate a strongly divided image with hardly any middle ground. To the German Forty-Eighters and their supporters, Sigel was a hero. To conservative circles and nativists, he was never more than a bungling foreigner. Sigel started a military career in Baden, but left the army after a duel. Studying law in Heidelberg, he came in contact with republican circles, and in 1848 commanded a column of volunteers. Defeated on the outskirts of Freiburg, Sigel escaped. He returned for the revolutionary campaign of 1849 to command the army in Baden. He also served as minister of the (provisional) War Department for some time. Defeated at Laudenbach and Waghäusel, Sigel led a successful retreating campaign, bringing most of his men safely to Switzerland. Via France, he fled to England, where he earned money playing the piano in the Chinese pavillon in the Crystal Palace exhibition. He emigrated to the United States in 1852 and entered his brothers’ tobacco business, at the same time renewing associations with other exiled revolutionists as well as joining the Turnerbund. He also received a New York militia commission as a major. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Sigel was superintendent of the German schools in St. Louis, Missouri. His first command was the 3rd Missouri Volunteer

972

SINGMASTER, ELSIE

regiment of infantry, which had many veterans of his revolution forces in its ranks. His record during the war is mixed. His popularity won thousands of volunteers for the Union. Where his military skills coincided with luck, as they did during the retreat from Carthage, Missouri, in July 1861, and at Pea Ridge, Arkansas, in March 1862, he was highly successful. More often, however, bad timing, ill luck, and—as before in Baden—disloyal officers under his command led to defeat as at Wilson’s Creek (August 1861) and New Market (May 1864). Growing more and more irritable, and (not unjustifiably) perceiving himself in a constant quarrel with General Henry Wager Halleck, Sigel resigned from command in 1861 and again in 1862, receiving new commands in turn. In the summer of 1864 he was shelved for good. His postwar career included being copublisher and editor of the Baltimore Wecker (Alarm Clock), the designer of an elevated railway, and holder of a political position as internal revenue collector and later as registrar in New York—appointments he received for supporting Ulysses S. Grant in the 1868 and 1872 presidential elections. Sigel and Frederick Douglass accompanied President Grant to Santo Domingo, and lobbied against its annexation. In the 1880s Sigel changed his politics and received patronage positions from the Democrats. When he died, he had not finished his autobiography, though many of his articles and letters discuss his role in the revolutions of 1848/49 and the American Civil War. To his German veterans and to the German element in the United States, he always remained their most popular general, who in two wars had fought for liberty. Wolfgang Hochbruck

See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Forty-Eighters References and Further Reading Engle, Stephen D. Yankee Dutchman: The Life of Franz Sigel. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas, 1993.

SINGMASTER, ELSIE b. August 29, 1879; Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania d. September 30, 1958; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania Writer whose specialty was fiction set in the Pennsylvania German region. Whether dealing with her contemporaries or with historical figures, Singmaster employed the techniques of “sympathetic realism” to develop characters who were, despite ethnic differences, all very human. At the height of her popularity as an author from 1910 to 1940, she provided interpretations of Pennsylvania German life to a broad American audience. Elsie Singmaster descended from a long line of Lutheran pastors. Her father, a distinguished Lutheran theologian, was to become president of Gettysburg Seminary. Her mother came from English Quaker stock. Singmaster completed her formal education at Cornell and Radcliffe. She was very conscious of possessing a dual heritage: two languages (English and Pennsylvania German), two literatures—indeed, two cultures. She savored the religious life, church music, and attachment to the soil that she found in her region. But she was never a regional writer in the strict sense, and certainly not a regional apologist. Perhaps her consciousness of the fragmentation of the Pennsylvania Germans due to religion and to the strength of sectarianism among

SINGMASTER, ELSIE

them, and certainly her steadfast commitment to enlightenment and secularism, led her to portray religious fanaticism and sectarianism unfavorably, although with some sympathy for her characters displaying these traits and their predicaments. Despite her sensitivity to spirituality, she was not given to taking the fine points of theology seriously. Her feminism is apparent in much of her writing. Ellen Levis, the central figure in Singmaster’s novel of the same name (1921), as well as Naomi and Miss Gleason in Bennett Malin (1922), differ greatly in religion, social standing, and intellect, but each is a strong woman whose activities and development are restricted by a patriarchal society. In the early twentieth century Singmaster became a regular contributor to prominent periodicals including Scribner’s, Century, and Atlantic Monthly. Because she published hundreds of short stories and some of her novels were first serialized, it is not surprising that in her time she was best known as the author of short works. More disconcerting is the frequent identification of Singmaster as a children’s author. It is true that many of her books, especially nonfiction such as Martin Luther (1917) and historical fiction such as Stories of Pennsylvania, 1616–1860 (1940), are directed to young people, but she did not “write down” to this audience, and most of her work is clearly intended for adults. At her best, as in her collection of tales involving Mennonites, Bred in the Bone (1925), her novel of a simple Pennsylvania German household at the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, The Magic Mirror (1934), and in some of her attempts to write the history of Pennsylvania German settlements in the eighteenth century, she entertains and enlightens while avoiding

973

Elsie Singmaster, 1920. At the height of her popularity from 1910 to 1940, she provided interpretations of Pennsylvania German life to a broad American audience. (Macungie Historical Society, Singmaster Family Collection)

the stereotypes that often distort the public image of the Pennsylvania “Dutchman.” Despite her literary craftsmanship and the popularity of her work during the early decades of the twentieth century she is in 2005, unfortunately, scarcely known even among literary scholars. Walter Struve See also Novel, German American; Pennsylvania References and Further Reading Graeff, Arthur D., et al. The Pennsylvania Germans. Ed. Ralph Wood. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1942. Kohler, Dayton. “Elsie Singmaster.” Bookman 72 (1931): 621–626. Wagenknecht, Edward. Cavalcade of the American Novel: From the Birth of the Nation to the Middle of the Twentieth Century. New York: Holt, 1958.

974

SLAVERY

IN

GERMAN AMERICAN AND GERMAN TEXTS

SLAVERY IN GERMAN AMERICAN AND GERMAN TEXTS During the nineteenth century, slavery was a persistent issue in expository and fictional writings in German. The German translation of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1852 set the paradigm for a German discussion of slavery. A point of reference for expository texts and an influential model for a spate of novels on slavery, its impact on German attitudes toward slavery was vital during the nineteenth century. Numerous translations, abridged versions, and editions for young readers flooded the market after the initial publication, which was followed by a German translation of the Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin in 1853. Specific scenes from the novel gained prominence in German fiction, among them “The Quadroon’s Story,” the death of little Eva, and Lucy’s suicide. Next to them, a taste for scenes of brutality can be seen in abridged versions and in original fiction. Missing, however, is Stowe’s appeal to Christian compassion in German compilations and citations of scenes from her novel. While Stowe’s example was thus deployed in support of abolition, an element of catering to popular demand for sentimental and sensational plots prevailed, too. During the first half of the nineteenth century, German writers and historians considered slavery in the context of an overall evaluation of American democracy. With Charles Sealsfield’s novels and Gottfried Duden’s guidebook, a pro-slavery stance encountered the antislavery position of Jungdeutsche (Young Germans) authors like Heinrich Heine, Ludwig Börne, Karl Gutzkow, and Heinrich Laube, which

was furthered by their reception of the representation of slavery in Alexis de Tocqueville and Francis Beaumont. Among German travelers, arguments were deployed both for and against slavery, in which the influence of racial bias and fear determined the pro-slavery arguments. While, at the turn of the century, German liberal historians evoked natural law in their attack on slavery and clearly considered slavery to be detrimental to economy and morals, during the course of the century the influence of race theory increased. Eventually, the Forty-Eighter Friedrich Kapp was one of the few outspokenly abolitionist liberal historians. When German and German American writers criticized slavery as contradictory to the American ideal of freedom, racist stereotypes accompanied this criticism and an acceptance of slavery as a necessity considering agriculture and the southern climate was occasionally voiced, even among Forty-Eighters like Otto Ruppius, Julius Froebel, and Theodor Griesinger. In spite of his antislavery stance, the latter drew an almost Edenic picture of life on a plantation in his Freiheit und Sklaverei unter dem Sternenbanner (Freedom and Slavery under the Star-Spangled Banner, 1862). Arguments concerning the justification of slavery and the way to end it divided German “Greys” and “Greens,” and it was the radical Forty-Eighters who published abolitionist papers. The Socialist Adolf Douai, editor of the abolitionist San Antonio Zeitung (San Antonio Newspaper), is a striking instance of a writer who spoke out against all racist stereotypes. In his Land und Leute in der Union (The Country and the People of the Union, 1864), he asserted that the world of black slaves was the

SLAVERY

IN

GERMAN AMERICAN AND GERMAN TEXTS

true home of humanity and intelligence in the South. Ottilie Assing’s close friendship with Frederick Douglass opened up a singular perspective on African American issues in her writing. Her translation of Douglass’s My Bondage and my Freedom (Sclaverei und Freiheit, 1860) introduced a black point of view to the German audience. Mathilde Franziska Anneke, a FortyEighter, put abolition at the center of her fictional writing, in which she attacked the cruelty of slavery and slave auctions and also showed the support of white abolitionists for blacks. Finally, the aged Alexander von Humboldt’s outspokenness for abolition had a decisive impact on the struggle. Slave trade, slave auctions, life on the plantation, scenes of family separation and mistreatment, as well as musings on the character of slaves and slave owners were the recurring topics of writings about slavery, both fiction and nonfiction. When racial prejudice drew on black physiognomy, a differentiation between shades of blackness singled out the beautiful “quadroon” as an erotic object and focus of compassion. While many novels before 1852 included slaves matter-offactly, after the publication of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, slave novels were in fashion, which, in imitation of Uncle Tom, put at their center the quadroon’s story. This story pattern contained a light-skinned female who, after the death of her white father or due to financial hardship, was sold into slavery, from which she was rescued by a wealthy white male who married her. Friedrich Gerstäcker’s “Jazede” (1848) and Friedrich August Strubberg’s “Die Quadrone” (from Sclaverei in Amerika, 1862) were examples of such stories,

975

which combined the sentimental element of the persecuted virtuous heroine with the topicality of slavery, a combination that proved pervasive in German literature. While miscegenation was abhorred in some expository texts, intermarriage of light-skinned black women and white Americans or German immigrants was a staple in these novels, which we also find in Gerstäcker’s In Amerika (1872). This rare depiction of life during Reconstruction especially featured the situation of former slaves in the South. Slavery remained a persistent motif in German fiction by authors without firsthand experience of it. While Johann Christoph Biernatzki’s Der braune Knabe (A Black Fellow, 1839) was an early example of the heroic black, Berthold Auerbach’s Das Landhaus am Rhein (The Villa on the Rhine, 1869) featured a wealthy former slave trader living in Germany and a protagonist who supports the Union side in the Civil War. Yet, many of the slavery novels and rewrites of Uncle Tom displayed a voyeuristic pleasure in violence. German newspapers and journals like Die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg General Newspaper), Cotta’s Morgenblatt (Morning Journal for Educated Readers), and the family magazine Die Gartenlaube (The Arbor) were decidedly abolitionist. While early in the century, the Augsburger Allgemeine still skeptically regarded abolitionist activities, after 1850 and during the Civil War, these newspapers and magazines supported the cause of the Union. Assing, a fervent advocate of abolition, had her articles printed in all of these papers. The comparison of the situation of German workers and agricultural laborers

976

SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY

with the slaves’ situation was evoked in the German evaluation of slavery. Slavery also became a metaphor for the tribulations of poor German workers and was exploited as such in German fiction like Friedrich Wilhelm Hackländer’s Europäisches Sklavenleben (The Life of the European Slave, 1854). After the Civil War, only a few works dealt with slavery. Annette Bühler-Dietrich See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; Assing, Ottilie; Duden, Gottfried; FortyEighters; Griesinger, Karl Theodor; Humboldt, Alexander von; Kapp, Friedrich; Ruppius, Otto; Sealsfield, Charles; Strubberg, Friedrich August References and Further Reading Cronholm, Anna-Christie. “Die Nordamerikanische Sklavenfrage im deutschen Schrifttum des 19. Jahrhunderts.” PhD thesis. Free University of Berlin, 1958. Keil, Hartmut. “German Immigrants and African-Americans in Mid-Nineteenth Century America.” In Enemy Images in American History. Eds. Ragnhild Fiebigvon Hase and Ursula Lehmkuhl. Providence, RI: Berghahn, 1997, pp. 137–157. Koch, Rainer. “Liberalismus, Konservatismus und das Problem der Negersklaverei: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des politischen Denkens in Deutschland in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” Historische Zeitschrift 222, no. 3 (1976): 529–577. Paul, Heike. “‘Schwarze Sklaven, Weiße Sklaven’: The German Reception of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” In Amerikanische Populärkultur in Deutschland. Eds. Heike Paul and Katja Kanzler. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2002, pp. 21–39. Wagner, Maria. “The Representation of America in German Newspapers before and during the Civil War.” In America and the Germans: An Assessment of a Three-Hundred-Year History. Vol. 1. Eds. Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985, pp. 321–330.

SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY The Socialist Labor Party (SLP) has its roots in German Socialist tradition and in German American working-class culture. It was founded in the wake of labor upheavals in conjunction with the wave of railroad strikes of 1877. Its founding myth indicates that activists from the International Workingmen’s Association (Internationale Arbeiter Association), the Chicago-based Workingmen’s Party of Illinois, and the New York–based Social Democratic Labor Party met in Newark to reconcile the seemingly antagonistic forces of “Lasalleanism” (reform) and “Marxism” (revolution)— that is, the political and the economic approach to working-class struggle—to form a party. In doing so they attempted to replicate developments in Germany, where similar theoretical and practical insights had led to the founding of the Sozialistische Partei Deutschland (Socialist Party of Germany, SPD) in Gotha in 1875. The SLP, of course, was never a “mass party” or a people’s party, as its German model came to be. In the 1880s and 1890s its membership varied between 1,000 and 7,000 at its 1885 peak (Foner 1955, 40). However, its social and cultural impact among urban immigrant workers made up for its membership numbers. The party and its members were steeped in a working-class urban culture, which extended far beyond the workplace and scientific Marxism. In New York, the party’s stronghold, 80 percent of its members were of German descent. In the 1880s the party supported about fourteen German-language organs, which were published by relatively autonomous local sections, among them such substantial organs and long-lived papers as the New York Volks-Zeitung (Peoples News), the Philadelphia Tageblatt (Daily),

SOCIALIST LABOR PARTY

or the Chicago Vorbote (Harold, weekly) and the Arbeiter-Zeitung (Workers’ News, daily). Similar papers were published in Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and St. Louis. The papers provided a platform for theoretical discussions, analysis of current political events, and shop-floor activities, as well as announcements or reports of community events. They thus functioned as the media that kept a revolutionary industrial working-class community in touch. Ideological conflicts notwithstanding, party members were involved in union activities: founding and sustaining local craft unions (such as cigar makers, bakers, machinists, shoemakers, printers, etc.) and forming federations (such as the Central Labor Union in New York and Chicago) to be locally more effective in their demands for better working conditions and higher wages. As individuals they were influential in the formation of the American Federation of Labor. They also participated in electoral politics, and local circumstances permitting, such as in Illinois, even enjoying some success. Their leisure activities revolved around the Turner and singing societies, mutual aid and benefit associations, and the staging of performative events such as picnics, parades, and theatrical shows. All of these activities became elements of a vibrant ethnic and urban working-class culture. In 1875 in Chicago a Lehr and Wehrverein, an association rooted in the German sharpshooters’ tradition, was organized in response to police brutality. It at first united revolutionary German American workers, but soon, moving toward a more anarchist trend, antagonized SLP members. Though German Americans were the largest contingent in the early SLP and Socialist ideals originating in Germany had a strong impact, German Americans were

977

not the only ones striving for Socialist change, nor were their ideals and dogmas uncontested. Time and again they were scolded by German Socialist activists such as Friedrich Engels and Wilhelm Liebknecht for their sectarianism and their inability to relate to the American working class, often being unable and/or unwilling to learn to speak English. However, the party did embrace the growing diversity of the immigrant working class. In 1885 an English party paper was established and workers from other immigrant groups found the SLP organizational structure and its ideological outlook congenial enough as to actively participate in the party’s development. Between the 1880s and 1920s the party supported seven Yiddish, eight Yugoslav, six Czech, three Slovak, four Hungarian, and one each Bulgarian, Greek, and Polish newspapers. Or one might say that the newspapers, rooted in their respective ethnic communities in Cleveland, Chicago, Detroit, or New York, supported the party. In 1890 Daniel De Leon (1852–1914) joined the party. He became editor of the English journal The People in 1892 and during the following years the undisputed leader of the party. His entry marked the demise of German dominance of the party and the beginning of a more “American” outlook. This did not mean, however, that the party’s basis broadened. Its development continued to be marked by ongoing discussions over political versus economic activism; and conflicts and dissension prevailed, often leading to embittered fights at the workplace. In the 1880s the more radical party members split off to form the socalled anarcho-syndicalist branch of the labor movement, and in the 1890s an ongoing conflict with the American Federation of Labor led to the Socialist Trades and

978

SOCIEDAD COLOMBO-ALEMANA

DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS

Labor Assembly in 1896. Party members also were unable and/or unwilling to embrace other social movements. In 1881 an active women’s group in New York became part of the SLP as Branch 14, engaging in discussions over women’s labor and the future of socialism, in addition to supporting a free Sunday school. Party officials, however, rejected the concept of women’s suffrage and were hostile to women working in factories. Rather they emphasized women’s role in supporting the family, sustaining a German cultural identity, and fending off americanization. When later they did acknowledge the validity of woman’s suffrage, they relegated the issue to the future when the revolution had been accomplished and the “social question” solved. Neither did they make particular efforts to address the “race question.” Again, in theory, African American workers were considered as equals. But in practice no attempt was made to bring them into the Socialist fold or to help organize effective unions for African Americans. Around the turn of the twentieth century, the SLP’s hold among workers dwindled even further and its activities were focused on publishing the various foreign-language newspapers and supporting a printing company, which mainly published writings and speeches by De Leon and translated European Socialist classics. Catering to a sense of a superior understanding of socialism became particularly important, while standing in the shadow of the rising Socialist Party under the leadership of Eugene Debs. The party, which claims to be the second-oldest social democratic party, is still in existence in 2005 and publishes the journal The People six times a year. Christiane Harzig

See also Chicago; Liebknecht, Wilhelm; New York City; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Foner, Philip S. History of the Labor Movement in the United States. Vol. 2. New York: International, 1955. Girard, Frank, and Ben Perry. The Socialist Labor Party, 1876–1991: A Short History. Philadelphia: Livra, 1991. Harzig, Christiane. “The Role of German Women in the German-American Working-Class Movement in Late Nineteenth-Century New York.” Journal of American Ethnic History 8, no. 2 (1989): 87–107. Hoerder, Dirk, and Christiane Harzig, eds. The Immigrant Labor Press in North America, 1845–1976. An Annotated Bibliography. 3 vols. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1987. Nadel, Stan. “The German Immigrant Left in the United States.” In The Immigrant Left in the United States. Eds. Paul Buhle and Dan Georgakas. Albany: SUNY, 1996, pp. 45–76.

SOCIEDAD COLOMBOALEMANA DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS One of the earliest and, for more than a decade, most successful ventures in civil aviation in Latin America. Founded in 1919, the Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aéreos (Colombian-German Air Transport Company, SCADTA) was perceived as a symbol of the resurgence of German interest in the region after World War I. Its “German” character, however, was not so clear. The 1920s and early 1930s were the pioneering days of civil aviation. During World War I, technology had advanced immensely. After the war, more and better aircraft, trained personnel, and equipment were available than ever before. The devel-

SOCIEDAD COLOMBO-ALEMANA

opment and production of aircraft and the creation of airlines rested primarily with private initiatives in Europe and the United States. Besides its well-known military potential, aviation soon became a sign of prestige on the international stage and in commercial relations. Hence, governments developed an interest in the new means of transport as an element of foreign policy. This was observable especially in Germany, where aviation promised to compensate for the loss of military power at the Treaty of Versailles. For economic and geographic reasons, Latin America soon emerged as an important market for the export of aircraft, as well as for airline enterprises. Competition was intense because French, German, and later American firms fought for their share relentlessly. Because of the peace treaty, German aircraft producers in the early 1920s had to move to foreign countries to test machines, make progress in technological development, and increase sales. Latin America emerged as a center of interest because the notorious problems of transport in countries such as Colombia for the first time seemed solvable—thanks to civil aviation. German interest in Colombian aviation can be explained by three factors. First, the Andean country had been one of the few neutral countries during the war. Second, German emigrants had a long tradition in steamship navigation on the Magdalena river. The presence of a small but influential group of German expatriates served to attract German aircraft producers. Third, there was a pool of former German military pilots without jobs willing to take the high-risk venture of aviation in Colombia. On December 5, 1919, SCADTA was founded in Barranquilla, initiated by Ger-

DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS

979

man and Colombian businessmen. The company was a direct response to a French aviation venture begun a few months earlier. The founders of the company planned to import German airplanes and to employ German personnel. Their success was to be a first sign of German revival after the humiliation at Versailles and a starting signal for the reestablishment of commercial relations between Colombia and Germany. After buying the brand-new Junkers airplane F 13, the first metal airplane in the world, in Germany and recruiting pilots such as Fritz W. Hammer and Hellmuth von Krohn, and the technician Wilhelm Schnurbusch, SCADTA made its first successful flights along the Río Magdalena. This marked the first time the coast and the capital Bogotá had been connected via airplane. The company received special conditions for selling airmail stamps in return. However, the flights did not immediately bring the badly needed economic stabilization. The organization of SCADTA’s main office in Barranquilla left much to be desired. In addition, its airplanes were seriously damaged after accidents during the test flights and negotiations for credit in Germany with the Junkers Company proved difficult. In 1921 and 1922, however, four more F 13s were exported to Colombia on a leasing arrangement between SCADTA and Junkers. Due to the restrictions of the Treaty of Versailles these exports had to be sent secretly via the Netherlands. Test flights went well for SCADTA, and the company received an official airmail contract for the route Barranquilla-GirardotNeiva. Connections from Barranquilla to the nearby port cities Cartagena and Santa Marta were soon added. Until 1924 SCADTA regularly expanded its service on

980

SOCIEDAD COLOMBO-ALEMANA

DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS

this route. Its reliability became well known even beyond Colombian borders. The distance from Barranquilla to Girardot amounted to approximately 1,000 km (625 miles). The ships on the Magdalena took 10 to 14 days for the trip. Twice a week SCADTA’s services shortened this journey for 3 passengers and up to 40 kg (88 pounds) of cargo to 8.5 hours. From Girardot passengers and cargo traveled by train to the capital, which took another 8.5 hours. The distance from Girardot to Neiva was 150 km (94 miles) and was serviced once a week by a 70-minute flight. The alternative was a trip on horseback of 4 to 5 days. The saving of time was expensive, however. The price for a one-way ticket amounted to 250 pesos—only slightly less than the average monthly income of the pilots. In economic terms, SCADTA’s basis was its virtual airmail monopoly. The company held this monopoly until 1932, when the Administración del Correo Aéreo was created. Already in 1922 the contract with the Colombian government was considerably extended. The company got the official government order to develop the national and international airmail services of Colombia. Hence, SCADTA set up its own post offices in Colombia and abroad, issued its own airmail stamps, and even delivered the mail. Because of the very favorable airmail contract, SCADTA was the most profitable airline of its times—indeed the only one that could manage to do without direct government subsidies. Despite setbacks, such as the mortal accident of Krohn, SCADTA had consolidated its status as the leading airline of Colombia, nationally and internationally known for its reliability and its success in pioneering air routes under difficult circumstances by 1924. At this point the

company’s directorate developed plans for extending service to neighboring Venezuela, the Caribbean, Central America, and then via Cuba to Florida. At that point SCADTA’s project provoked the suspicion of the United States, which was anxious to protect the Panama Canal. Emphasizing the Colombian nationality of their company, SCADTA managers led unsuccessful negotiations with the postmaster general and the United Fruit Company in New York. United States government agencies were opposed to the plans of what to them was a German enterprise in a region of special American interest. As a last resort, SCADTA tried to mobilize public opinion in Colombia and Panama against the restrictive U.S. aviation policy. The effects of its press campaign, however, proved to be counterproductive in the United States. Opposition to SCADTA’s schemes was reinforced. In general, American aviation interests looked upon the new European airlines in Colombia, Bolivia, Brazil, and other Latin American countries as a threat to their sphere of influence. In addition, the technical potential of American aircraft producers and airlines was increasing. SCADTA’s activities had sparked initiatives for the creation of an international airmail service. The results were a legal code for aviation and, more importantly, the foundation of Pan American Airways (PAN AM) in 1927. This company was turned into a highly subsidized and commissioned instrument of U.S. government policy. In the meantime, events in Germany gained significance for the further development of SCADTA. In 1926 the Deutsche Luft Hansa was founded as the central instrument of German aviation policy and inherited stock shares in SCADTA. After the foundation of an airline in Brazil, Syn-

SOCIEDAD COLOMBO-ALEMANA

dicato Condor, Luft Hansa managed a formal delimitation of the spheres of interest of the new company and SCADTA. Apart from the Pacific Coast, South America south of Cape Roque was to be the exclusive zone of interest of Lufthansa and its subsidiary. The sphere of SCADTA was defined as Colombia, Venezuela, the Guayanas, and the Pacific Coast. The company also held a prerogative to create airlines in Central America. In Peru, Chile, and Mexico, both groups were willing to cooperate if necessary. Moreover, financial relations were clarified by an exchange of stocks. On the whole, while both parties wanted a future “cooperation of friendly neighbors” in Latin America the agreement between SCADTA and its German partners was a parting of the ways. Moreover, American competition made itself felt in Latin America. Following the European example, a promotional flight of the U.S. Air Force was carried out in 1926 and 1927. While this mission was not very fortunate, Charles A. Lindbergh’s Atlantic crossing in May 1927 gave American aviation the decisive thrust. Just in time for the Pan-American conference, Lindbergh arrived in Havana and from there visited Colombia. Lindbergh’s flights were not only a sign of goodwill but also of the expansionist designs of U.S. aviation policy. Backed by the government in Washington, American airlines now planned to build their own international service in Latin America. However, they needed permission to fly over Colombian territory, which—for the moment—was not granted due to SCADTA’s opposition. SCADTA answered the American challenge with unprecedented growth within Colombia between 1927 and 1929. On an international scale, SCADTA advanced de-

DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS

981

cisively with the new line from Buenaventura to Guayaquil in Ecuador in 1928. This was the company’s first regular service beyond Colombian borders and it planned to extend service along the West Coast to Peru and Chile. Yet, only a few months later, PAN AM was granted a similar concession, and by the end of 1929 it became clear that SCADTA had lost the race for Peru. In 1929, SCADTA celebrated its tenth anniversary with great publicity. The press emphasized that the world’s oldest and most reliable airline, SCADTA, was a Colombian enterprise. In Germany, on the other hand, SCADTA’s achievements were interpreted as proof of German “thoroughness and energy.” The management of the company stressed one or the other nationality, depending on the situation. Indeed, SCADTA had continued to receive the moral support of the German government. Very important was the publicity trip of ex-chancellor Hans Luther to Latin America in 1926. However, the plan for an exclusively German airline covering the whole Latin American subcontinent had to be abandoned after 1929 when it became clear that U.S. competition was insurmountable. The Great Depression made itself felt in Colombia as early as 1928. In the following years, SCADTA’s development was determined to a large degree by the Colombian slump. While the performance in 1929 reached new heights in terms of miles flown and passengers and cargo carried, the results for 1930 were already much less favorable. In the meantime, the competition by PAN AM and its subsidiary Panagra grew steadily, thanks to generous U.S. government subsidies. Whether in Ecuador, Peru, Panama, or Venezuela, everywhere SCADTA had to confront the Americans, who seemed to

982

SOCIEDAD COLOMBO-ALEMANA

DE TRANSPORTES AÉREOS

have all the money and diplomatic support they wanted. Because of the tight financial situation SCADTA managers sooner or later had to accept an agreement with the U.S. competitors. Already in 1929, SCADTA had to sign contracts of cooperation with PAN AM. Under the pressure of the slump, neither the German nor the Colombian governments were willing and able to help SCADTA out financially. Under these circumstances PAN AM bought 84 percent of the stock of SCADTA between February 1930 and April 1931. In return, the Colombian airline received financial support that allowed for the purchase of new American aircraft. SCADTA had to give up its international services. From that moment on, the company was confined to flying within Colombian borders and became a supplier for the big American parent company. The “gentleman’s agreement” (Boy 1963, 123) between SCADTA and PAN AM was not a secret. But the degree of the American takeover was known only to a few insiders. Neither the Colombian public and authorities nor the German envoy knew exactly whether SCADTA was still Colombian or American. The reason was that the old personnel were allowed to continue working in relative autonomy. After Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, the activities of German aviation interests in and the export of German weapons to Latin America caused concern for the U.S. government. Though the majority of shares were controlled by PAN AM, SCADTA was still too “German” in the eyes of American officials. For a variety of reasons SCADTA’s star was slowly but surely on the wane after 1934. Hitler’s criminal policies and the arrival of Jewish refugees contributed to anti-German senti-

ment in Colombia. More important for the deterioration of SCADTA’s image in Colombia was an accident in June 1935 that caused a number of casualties, one of whom was Carlos Gardel, the Argentinean tango idol. When the political situation in Europe worsened in 1938, U.S. and Colombian apprehension about the “German” SCADTA increased. After the outbreak of the war, PAN AM carried out orders from the U.S. Department of State and, with tacit approval of the Colombian government, forced German employees out of the company in 1940. Shortly afterward, SCADTA was formally liquidated and formed into Avianca (Aerovías Nacionales de Colombia). In the new company, PAN AM retained control, although the Colombian government held 40 percent of the shares. Stefan Rinke See also Lindbergh, Charles Augustus; Treaty of Versailles References and Further Reading Boy, Herbert. Una historia con alas. Bogotá: Iqueima, 1963. Davies, Reginald E. G. Airlines of Latin America since 1919. London: Putnam, 1984. Newton, Wesley P. The Perilous Sky: United States Aviation Diplomacy and Latin America, 1919–1931. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami, 1978. Randall, Stephen J. The Diplomacy of Modernization: Colombian-American Relations, 1920–1940. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1977. Rinke, Stefan. Der letzte freie Kontinent: Deutsche Lateinamerikapolitik im Zeichen transnationaler Beziehungen, 1918–1933. Stuttgart: Heinz, 1996. ———. “‘Amalgamarse al alma de Colombia’: SCADTA y los principios de la aviación en Colombia, 1919–1940.” Innovar: Revista de ciencias administrativas y sociales (Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá) 10 (July–December 1997): 7–30.

SOLMS-BRAUNFELS, PRINCE CARL

OF

983

SOLMS-BRAUNFELS, PRINCE CARL OF b. July 27, 1812; Neustrelitz, Mecklenburg-Strelitz d. November 13, 1876; Rheingrafenstein, Hesse Directed from 1843 to 1845 the operations of the Adelsverein in Texas. SolmsBraunfels was the object of heated controversy from the day he set foot in Texas as commissioner-general of the association in June 1844. He has been portrayed as a pretentious, impractical aristocrat, an incompetent administrator incapable of managing finances. He has been dismissed as a pompous military man with romantic dreams of establishing a semifeudal German realm in Texas. Although SolmsBraunfels must bear much of the responsibility for the stranding of thousands of Adelsverein immigrants on the shores of the Gulf of Texas and along inland routes, most other charges against him are, at best, partial truths. A founding member of the Adelsverein, he was familiar with its policies and practices. Yet even when ship after ship, engaged by the Adelsverein to carry the humble German passengers across the Atlantic, arrived before facilities in Texas to shelter them temporarily or means to transport them to the interior had been developed, Solms-Braunfels failed to communicate to the directors of the Adelsverein in Germany the tragedy in the making. While he had prudently acquired land closer to the coast than the distant territory far in the interior of Texas already claimed by the Adelsverein, this new land was still the better part of 200 miles from the tract he bought to serve as a port of entry and named after himself—Carlshafen (today’s Indianola). We lack reliable estimates of the number of colonists who died of dis-

Prince Carl of Solms-Braunfels, ca. 1840s. (DeZavala Papers, 1766 CT Number 0444, Center for American History, University of Texas–Austin)

ease and exposure before reaching their new homes in Texas. The Adelsverein’s speculative character led to fatally unrealistic forecasts of expenses and income. Solms-Braunfels was left with no alternative but to return to Europe when the organization’s credit in Texas dried up. Solms-Braunfels belonged to the high nobility. Queen Victoria of Great Britain was a close relative. Her consort, Prince Albert, studied together with Solms-Braunfels at the University in Bonn. SolmsBraunfels was not a ruling prince. He made his career in the military, serving as an officer in the Habsburg army in Austria. While he had a strong sense of German patriotism, he also strongly identified himself as a cosmopolitan European. Critical and suspicious of America before journeying to the New World, Solms-Braunfels found much evidence there to support his views.

984

SOLMS-BRAUNFELS, PRINCE CARL

OF

He arranged a leisurely trip to include some months of travel from Boston down the East Coast to Washington, then westward, down the Mississippi to New Orleans, and finally to Texas. In his diary he finds little of value in the American people. He sees them as motivated largely by desire for material gain. Solms-Braunfels took a keen interest in military matters. He visited military facilities, talked to officers, assessed the characteristics of fortifications, and generally evaluated U.S. military potential. Perhaps he was already formulating the proposals he presented to Queen Victoria in a long memo in 1846 after his return to Germany. In this document he advocated a European war led by Britain against the United States. With a certain prescience he predicted that the United States, if unhindered, would overtake even Britain as a commercial and industrial power. He outlined a strategy to create major obstacles to American expansion. Although this end was to be accomplished partly by exerting pressure from Canada, the moment was ripe, he argued, to work through Mexico to undo the U.S. annexation of Texas. With the assistance of German settlers in Texas, a European monarch on the throne in Mexico, a British-trained Mexican army, Indian tribes, and freed slaves, Mexico and Texas would form a permanent barrier to U.S. expansion after its military defeat. SolmsBraunfels was quite explicit that his grand strategy would succeed only if Britain played the major, if partly covert, role in the war he advocated. As best we know, nothing came of Solms-Braunfels’s grand plan. Was it a pipedream? Perhaps, but it constitutes an important instance of negative reactions by Germany and Europe to the rapid growth of

the United States in the nineteenth century and beyond. Among the other episodes that come to mind, two threatened to restore to Mexico territories that were lost to the United States and ranged powers outside the Western Hemisphere with Mexico against its neighbor to the north. The first of these episodes involved Archduke Maximilian of Austria, who, with the diplomatic and military backing of the French emperor Napoleon III, acted as emperor of Mexico from 1864 to 1867, while the United States was distracted by the Civil War. The second episode involved the German foreign office in early 1917 prior to U.S. entry into World War I. Arthur Zimmermann, the German foreign minister, bruited the idea of an alliance directed against the United States in a telegram sent to his representative in Mexico City. The British intercepted this dispatch and effectively exploited it for propanganda purposes. After returning to Europe, SolmsBraunfels also published a book that promoted the Adelsverein emigration while cautioning against the greed of English-speaking Americans. Before rejoining the Austrian army, he married his betrothed, Princess Sophie Salm-Salm, after whom he had named a building in the most important town he founded in Texas, New Braunfels. Walter Struve See also Adelsverein; Meusebach, John O.; New Braunsfels, Texas; World War I References and Further Reading Fey, Everett Anthony. New Braunfels: The First Founders. 2 vols. Austin, TX: Eakin, 1994. Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of. Texas, 1844– 1845. Houston, TX: Anson Jones, 1936. ———. Voyage to North America, 1844–1845: Prince Carl of Solms’s Texas Diary of People, Places, and Events. Tr. W. M. VonMaszewski. Denton: German-Texas Heritage Society and University of North Texas, 2000.

SONS

OF HERMANN A German American fraternal order founded in 1840 in New York City, the Order of the Sons of Hermann, also known as the Order of Hermann Sons, worked for solidarity among German immigrants in the United States through the promotion of their common heritage and traditions. Named in honor of Hermann the Cheruscan, the first-century German leader who defeated the Romans at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in the year 9 C.E., the order grew rapidly during the nineteenth century, when hundreds of lodges formed across the country. In 1897 the Sons completed the construction of a 102-foot-tall monument to Hermann in New Ulm, Minnesota, as a symbol of German American freedom, pride, and unity with the fatherland. The popularity of the Sons dropped rapidly during World War I, however, as a wave of anti-German hysteria swept across the nation. This fact, combined with a decline in German immigration, dramatically reduced the number of Hermann Sons lodges in the United States. The lodges that still exist in 2005 continue to promote pride in German heritage and the teaching of German in America’s schools. The founders of the order chose the name Sons of Hermann to show their commitment to protecting the freedom of Germans in America, just as Hermann had organized the ancient Germans to defend themselves against the Romans. Known to the Romans as Arminius, Hermann, as he was first called by the Germans in the sixteenth century, was a war leader of the Cherusci tribe, one of several Germanic tribes living between the Rhine and Elbe rivers during the first century C.E. In 9 C.E., Hermann led the Cherusci and other

OF

HERMANN

985

SONS

Hermann Monument, Hermann Heights Park, New Ulm, Minnesota. (Library of Congress)

tribes in an ambush of three Roman legions under the leadership of the Roman commander Publius Quinctilius Varus, who was trying to consolidate Roman control over land east of the Rhine River in northern Germany. Hermann’s forces annihilated the legions, killing 20,000 men. Varus committed suicide. The Battle of Teutoburg Forest ended Rome’s effort to control Germanic territory east of the Rhine and became an inspiration for nineteenth-century German nationalists, many of whom saw Hermann’s battle as a precursor to Otto von Bismarck’s struggle to create a unified German nation. Inspired by the Hermann legend, the Sons of Hermann worked to unify German Americans. In 1848, eight years after their founding, the Sons organized a Grand

986

SONS

OF

HERMANN

Lodge in New York City. The growing order, which had some 1,000 members organized in lodges in several northern states, adopted the motto “Friendship, Love, and Loyalty” and black, red, and gold as its official colors. Those colors reflected the members’ sympathy for the German Revolution of 1848, whose supporters in Germany fought under the black-red-gold tricolor flag. The upsurge of German immigration brought on by the defeat of that revolution added thousands of new members to the rolls of the Sons’ lodges. As the United States expanded, German migrants moved west and the Sons followed; the fraternity established lodges across the west from Missouri to California. By 1885 the Sons of Hermann had 362 lodges in the United States. The growth of the Sons of Hermann reflected the pride German Americans took in the creation of a unified Germany in 1871. The figure of Hermann served as a powerful rallying symbol for the new German state, which provided funds for the completion of a monument to the Germanic hero near the city of Detmold in northern Germany. Designed by Ernst von Bandel, who supervised the laying of the foundation stone in 1841, the Hermann Monument took 34 years to complete. Dedicated in 1875, the monument, which still exists in 2005, stands on top of 1,300foot-high Grotenburg hill; Hermann’s 87foot-tall copper statue, which portrays the German warrior holding a 23-foot-long sword above his head, rests on top of an 88-foot-high stone base. Ten years after the opening of Germany’s Hermann Monument, the Sons of Hermann began a campaign to build a monument honoring their namesake in

America. In 1885 the Grand Lodge of the Sons decided to endorse Julius Berndt’s plan for a Hermann monument in New Ulm, Minnesota, a city founded by the Chicago Landesverein (land society) in 1854. Berndt, one of the pioneers of New Ulm and a founder of the town’s Sons of Hermann chapter, conceived the idea of building a monument to Hermann based on the Detmold model. He estimated the cost of building would require up to $24,000. Fundraising difficulties delayed the start of construction for two years, as many lodges across the country complained about the plan to locate the monument in New Ulm, a small town in rural Minnesota. Groundbreaking finally began in 1887 after the Grand Lodge provided $2,000 in start-up money and promised to give $1,000 a year until the monument was completed. The monument finally opened on September 25, 1897. Representatives from Sons of Hermann lodges in 23 states attended the dedication and unveiling of the statute at Hermann Heights Park in New Ulm. Now over a hundred years old, New Ulm’s Hermann Monument is 102 feet tall; it consists of a 32-foot-high copper replica of the Detmold statue resting on a 70-foot-high colonnaded cupola. The dedication of the Hermann Monument in 1897 was a celebration of the extraordinary growth of the Sons of Hermann during the previous fifty years. The twentieth century proved to be much more difficult for the Sons, however. After continuing to prosper through the first decade of the new century, the Sons of Hermann underwent a membership crisis following America’s entry into World War I. As antiGerman sentiment rose, fewer and fewer men wanted to be publicly associated with

SORBS (WENDS)

the pro-German fraternity. Membership fell, many lodges closed, and other lodges broke with the national organization. World War II brought on another round of membership decline as many eligible German American men stayed away from the organization while America once again fought Germany. While the world wars were a tremendous blow to the order, the Sons managed to survive and several lodges exist in the early twenty-first century. Some of the most active lodges are located in Texas, where the Sons of Hermann have existed as an organization independent of the national fraternity since 1921. Now a fraternal life insurance company, the Texas Hermann Sons has 76,000 members organized into 152 local lodges. The national order of Hermann Sons continues to exist as well; its lodges still celebrate their German heritage and actively promote the teaching of German. Boyd Murphree See also German Unification (1871) References and Further Reading Area History from New Ulm, MN. “Hermann Monument.” At http:www.newulmtel.net (cited July 6, 2004). New Ulm Journal. “The Journal Online—All About Hermann.” At http:www.oweb.com/neulm/journal (cited July 6, 2004). Order of the Sons of Hermann in Texas. “From Folk Hero to Fraternalist.” At http:www.texashermannsons.org (cited July 10, 2004). United German American Societies of the East Bay. “What Is the Order of Hermann Sons?” At http:www.ugas-eb.org (cited July 10, 2004). Wells, Peter S. The Battle that Stopped Rome: Emperor Augustus, Arminius, and the Slaughter of the Legions in the Teutoburg Forest. New York: W. W. Norton, 2003.

987

SORBS (WENDS) Sorbian Americans are among the leastknown nationalities to have immigrated to America. On the one hand, their numbers in Europe were never large. The numbers that left the homeland were likewise diminutive. Even today, many Germans in Europe are unaware that this minority exists within its boundaries. In the United States, most people have never heard of the Sorbs, or Wends, as they are known in the United States, because they immigrated primarily only to Texas. On the other hand, many Sorbs were so thoroughly assimilated into the larger German immigrant culture in Texas within the first 150 years that they forgot they were of Slavic heritage. Today, the Sorbian legacy is remembered by a few Texas institutions founded by Sorbs, as well as in the use of traditional Slavic family names employing many consonants and few vowels (e.g., Tschatschula, Miertschin). Sorbs have lived in a compact area in eastern Europe for over 1,500 years. First mentioned by the Frankish chronicler Fredegar in 631, they occupied a territory bounded in the west by the Elbe and Saale rivers, in the south by the low mountain ranges, in the east by the Oder and Neisse rivers, and in the north by an imaginary line contiguous with the area around today’s Berlin. Within this area, two Slavic tribes, the Lusizi and the Milceni, gradually separated from about twenty-seven other Slavic groups, and have maintained their existence into the twenty-first century. The social structure of these tribes— large families grouped in a kind of military democracy—did not allow for hierarchical governments to develop. As a result, they

988

SORBS (WENDS)

never possessed a national structure. The invading Franks from the west thus found them easy prey. Henry I conquered them in 929. The subsequently founded bishopric of Meissen began their Christianization, placing them under the authority of the German church. In ensuing centuries, a region that had once been populated by about 300,000 Slavic speakers came to be infiltrated by Frankish colonists who joined the Sorbs in working the land through the end of the Middle Ages. To the degree that Sorbs were predominant in respective areas, their language and culture thrived and survived. The Reformation contributed to the strengthening of ethnic consciousness and intellectual pursuits in this sixty-bytwenty-five-mile region, geographically known as Lusatia. On the one hand, sermons and singing in the language of the worshippers reinforced the use of Sorbian. On the other hand, this emphasis on a literate religious life encouraged the development of Sorbian as a written language, leading to the emergence of a literature and an intelligentsia. The Sorbian language continued to provide the basis for a national consciousness in the absence of national structure. Beginning in the nineteenth century, a revitalized focus on language, folk customs, and history strengthened ethnic consciousness to help the Sorbs/Wends continue to celebrate their heritage through subsequent eras of repression. An emphasis on poetry and other literary genres was championed by Handrij Zejler (1804–1872), Jakub Bart-Cisinski (1856–1909), and Mato Kosyk (1853–1940). Folk-singing festivals continued the ancient traditions of community singing that once predominated in

the women’s spinning circles. Translation of traditional Latin and German hymnody into Sorbian and new compositions of Sorbian hymns fostered a continuing source for oral music. The Sorbian theater movement also began in the nineteenth century, at first translating important dramas for presentation and then creating independent contemporary repertoire. As a minority group, the Sorbs experienced differing treatments in the twentieth century under the Weimar Republic, National Socialism, the German Democratic Republic (GDR), and the twenty-first-century German government. In general, it may be said that germanization has continued unabated. The worst proscriptions occurred under Nazi rule when the main national body, the Domowina, was disbanded, printed materials confiscated, and leaders arrested. Under the GDR, the Domowina was restored and attempts were made to demonstrate the new government’s commitment to diversity. The territorial governments in which Lusatia is located in 2005 are embroiled in controversies with the Sorbs on the issue of whether the constitutions require bilingual schools in Sorbian-speaking areas. The two surviving languages of the Sorbs are related, yet distinct. Upper Sorbian in the southern highland part of Lusatia is related to Czech and Slovak. Lower Sorbian, in the northern lowland part of Lusatia is related to Polish. Both are considered modern standard languages with access to relevant reference works such as dictionaries, grammar books, textbooks, etc. There are approximately thirty schools, which offer differing degrees of bilingual teaching. The University of Leipzig has a division for Sorbian language study. Ap-

SORBS (WENDS)

proximately 30,000 people are assumed to speak both languages in 2005. The name for this minority group has at times been Wend and at times Sorb. Roman historians referred to all Slavic tribes between the Carpathians and the Baltic Sea as Venedi (Veneti). Translated into German, this word later came to be written as Wenden, applying to all Slavs in eastern and central Germany. The other designation came from the Latin word Surbi, first evidenced in a document from 631 C.E. This term, in itself, has roots in the Slavonic Serbja (Upper Sorbian) or Serby (Lower Sorbian). The use of these terms has varied in regions and in history. When residents of Lusatia immigrated to Australia and the United States in the nineteenth century, they knew themselves as Wends, and this is how they are known in the diaspora in the twenty-first century. However, in scholarly or political writing in Europe, the preferable terms are Sorb and Sorbian. Due to a variety of factors, residents of Lusatia immigrated in the mid- to late nineteenth century to South Africa, Canada, Australia, and the United States. The total numbers of those immigrating was never large, perhaps not more than 3,000. The reasons for immigration were largely social and economic. The largest group, the Texas colonists, had strong religious interests, but these did not predominate. In most cases, the immigrations were of smaller groups, sometimes only several families. Additionally, at times a mixture of Germans immigrated with the Wends, contributing to dissolution of Wendish cultural strength in the settlements. In almost all cases, the Wendish heritage disappeared within a few generations, with the

989

exception of the settlements in Australia and Texas. Even in Australia, the leadership of the larger groups was German, not Wendish, leading to the cessation of language development, one of the important builders of ethnic consciousness. The ethnic consciousness in the immigration to Texas lasted much longer, and has left a stronger imprint in Texas in the twentyfirst century. There were several initial family groups and one group of thirty-five Wends who immigrated to Texas between 1849 and 1853. They knew of one another and made contact with one another in the New World. They were interested in land ownership and most of them, being bilingual, assimilated quickly into existing German communities. After learning about the settlers, an even larger group with numbers approaching 600 emigrated on the ship Ben Nevis from Liverpool, England, in 1854. This group was organized by lay leaders who were struggling with the financial impact of the decline of the feudal system and were dissenters from the state church. Most of them objected to the forced integration of Lutherans and Calvinists by Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia in 1830. His son and successor, Friedrich Wilhelm IV, allowed for the formation of independent congregations in 1840, and 100 people in the communities of Klitten and Weigersdorf did precisely that. They then called Jan Kilian, a well-known but disaffected pastor in the state church, to be their spiritual shepherd in 1848. Kilian attempted to help the members of the congregation address social and economic problems by teaching children the arts of spinning and weaving. When this proved

990

SORBS (WENDS)

to be unsuccessful financially, he worked with the church leaders to organize immigration to the United States. The Wendish immigrants’ numbers were diminished before their arrival in Texas by about 50, due mostly to cholera. Fourteen were buried in Liverpool, and another 31 in Queenstown, Ireland. On October 23, 1854, they sailed for open sea and arrived seven weeks later in Galveston on December 15. The leaders, along with Pastor Kilian, journeyed to nearby New Ulm to meet with previous Wendish settlers and to secure land for the surviving 500 immigrants. They bought some 4,250 acres of land from A. C. Delaplain at one dollar per acre. Here in the community they named Serbin, they struggled to clear land, plant crops, and build orchards. They faced many challenges, including having made a poor choice of lowland, small acreages unsuitable for grazing, and little acquaintance with climate, crops, and work animals common to Texas. During the first seventy-five years of their history as a colony, the settlers in Serbin experienced a great deal of conflict, yet their use of a common Wendish language and their Lutheran faith was the source of their ethnic consciousness. Serbin was the only place in the world, outside Lusatia, where Wendish was not only the language of the home, but the public language of the church and community. Children studied Wendish in school and, until 1881, used it as the language for confirmation instruction. This unity was gradually broken through schism and assimilation with German settlers who represented the dominant language group in their area. Schisms arose for two reasons. The first had to do with a style of piety involving

small-group Bible study and prayer (Stundenchristen), a concept with European roots that worked well among scattered parishioners in the New World. This finally led to the formation of a short-lived second Lutheran congregation established in 1860. The second schism revolved around language, the use of German or Wendish, and was resolved in 1870 with a split in the congregation and the establishment of two churches, St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s (which was rebuilt in 1871 and continues in use in 2005). St. Peter’s was closed in 1914. Kilian’s son, Herman, continued as the pastor of the surviving St. Paul’s congregation until his own death in 1920. Wendish services ceased with him. His successor, the Reverend Herman Schmidt, also a Wend, used the language only in private devotions and conversation. The Wendish community in Texas, unlike counterparts in Australia, Canada, and South Africa, continued to claim its heritage for a variety of reasons. The strong commitment to the use of the Wendish language led by Kilian in the early years was supported by new immigrants to Texas from the homeland. The number of immigrants who arrived after 1865 at least equaled the number in the original migration. The new Wends often married into existing families, providing an infusion of European heritage into New World families. As the settlers moved away from the poor farming conditions in Serbin to more promising opportunities elsewhere, they brought their strength to communities like Fedor, Mannheim, Thorndale, Lincoln, Loebau, Dime Box, The Grove, Copperas Cove, Cisco, and Austin. In addition to the Texas migration, reference must be made to Mato Kosyk

SS ST. LOUIS

(1853–1940) and a small group of Wends he discovered while attending a church conference in Sterling, Nebraska, in 1891. Kosyk emigrated from Lusatia in 1883 at the age of thirty. He studied at seminaries in Springfield and Chicago, was ordained in Iowa, and served congregations in Iowa, Nebraska, and Oklahoma until his retirement in 1913. During all these years, he expressed his homesickness and personal tragedies through poetry written in Lower Sorbian, which he sent home to be published in Lusatia. He is unknown to Americans, except as a faithful pastor and cofounder of the German-Nebraska Synod, an act performed on the day he discovered fellow Wends in Sterling. In 2003, however, he was honored in Europe on the 150th anniversary of his birth (June 18), with the publication of a six-volume critical edition of his works, as the greatest Lower Sorbian poet who ever lived. Two institutions in Texas perpetuate the heritage of the Wends. One is the Texas Wendish Heritage Society, located in Serbin, Texas. Founded in 1977, it maintains a museum (the largest outside Bautzen, Germany) and a library. The other institution is Concordia University at Austin. It was founded in 1926 by thirteen Lutheran congregations in central Texas, the majority membership of which was of Wendish descent. The university regards itself as the only university in the world founded largely by people of Wendish ancestry and continues to have strong percentages of Wends among its student body, faculty, and staff. David Zersen References and Further Reading Malinkowa, Trudla. Ufer der Hoffnung: Sorbische Auswanderer nach Uebersee. Bautzen: Domowina Verlag, 1999.

991

Nielsen, George R. In Search of a Home: Nineteenth Century Wendish Immigration. College Station: Texas A & M University, 1989. ———. Johann Kilian. Serbin: Texas Wendish Heritage Society, 2003. Schiemann, Maria, ed. The Sorbs in Germany. Goerlitz: MAXROI Graphics, 1998. Stone, Gerald. The Smallest Slavonic Nation. London: Athlone, 1972. Wukasch, Charles. The History of the Wends. Austin, TX: Concordia University, 2004. Zersen, David. “An American Birthday Remembrance on Mato Kosyk’s 150th.” Concordia Historical Institute Quarterly 75, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 49–64.

SS ST. LOUIS The SS St. Louis was a passenger ship with Jewish refugees that was denied entry to Havana and was forced to return to Europe. On May 5, 1939, one week before the SS St. Louis set sail from Hamburg, the Cuban government had passed a decree that required shipping companies to obtain authorization in writing from the secretaries of state and labor to allow aliens to disembark in Cuba. It also required all aliens, except U.S. tourists, to post a $500 bond in order to land. This change in the statutes was meant to slow Jewish immigration into Cuba, and the St. Louis was to be the “guinea pig,” along with two other ships in similar circumstances (the SS Flandre, a French ship with 132 passengers who lacked visas, and the SS Orduna, a British ship with 72 passengers who lacked visas). The Cuban government was concerned about sufficient employment for Jewish refugees and worried that they would become public charges. These concerns were exacerbated by the draconian immigration measures imposed by the

992

SS ST. LOUIS

Third Reich, which severely restricted the amount of money immigrants were allowed to take with them. In addition, as Jewish refugees arrived in Cuba in greater numbers (totaling over 4,000 by May 1939), violence and antisemitism were more prevalent. On Saturday, May 27, 1939, after a thirteen-day journey, the St. Louis sailed into Havana, Cuba, with 937 passengers on board, almost all of whom were Jewish refugees from Europe. These refugees all possessed landing permits, which they had purchased for $160 apiece, issued by the director of immigration in Havana, Colonel Manuel Benitez Gonzalez. These fees were not part of official immigration procedures, and 907 of the refugees lacked official visas and the newly required permission of the Cuban departments of state or labor. Therefore, they were denied admission, and the steamship lay at anchor in the harbor for a week. The American consulate general in Cuba, Coert du Bois, was kept appraised of the situation and communicated extensively with the U.S. Department of State as it progressed. In the United States, Jewish groups unsuccessfully lobbied the government to obtain safe landing in Cuba for the refugees. In the meantime, as the ship lay at anchor, conditions worsened. The ship sailed out of Havana on June 2, 1939, and wandered around the area, several times sailing close enough to Miami to see its lights. The U.S. government clearly stated that the St. Louis would not be allowed to land. The Cuban government renewed negotiations to ensure that these refugees, if they were allowed to land, would be self-sufficient. The Cuban president, Laredo Bru, requested a bond of $453,000 ($500 per passenger) and guarantees of adequate food,

clothing, and housing from American Jewish organizations, and stated that his requirements needed to be met by the following day, June 6, at noon. The American Jewish agencies were unable to meet this deadline, and the Cuban government still refused to let the refugees land. Shortly before midnight on June 6, the St. Louis began its return to Germany. The passengers tried a last-ditch effort to gain admittance to the United States by sending a telegram to the White House. But neither this telegram nor the 233 messages sent to the U.S. Department of State were enough to alter U.S. immigration policy. The quotas established by the U.S. Congress in 1924 remained firm (25,957 German immigrants per year), and U.S. public opinion, while sympathetic to the plight of these refugees, remained consistently against altering immigration laws and quotas. In fact, in April 1939, Fortune magazine published a poll stating that 83 percent of Americans were opposed to any increases in immigration quotas. As with Cuba, antisemitism, fear of the impact of refugees on employment, and desire to keep out populations who may need economic assistance from the government all played a role in these opinions. By the second week of June, U.S. diplomats and Jewish leaders began negotiations with various European governments (Belgium, France, Great Britain, and the Netherlands) to secure refuge for these passengers. Each government stipulated that this was a special case, and that it did not constitute a precedent for allowing additional Jewish refugees to land in the future. On June 17, the ship docked in Antwerp and arrangements for further resettlement were made. In the end, 287 received asylum in Great Britain, 181 in the Nether-

ST. RAPHAELSVEREIN

lands, 224 in France, and 214 in Belgium. However, the story does not end there. With the Nazi occupation of western Europe, hundreds of the St. Louis passengers were later deported to concentration camps and to the killing centers in Poland. Laura Hilton See also German Jewish Migration to the United States; World War II References and Further Reading Gellman, F. “The St. Louis Tragedy.” In American Jewish History. Volume 7: America, American Jews and the Holocaust. Ed. Jeffrey Gurock. New York: Routledge, 1998, pp. 57–70. Mendelsohn, John. The Holocaust: Selected Documents in Eighteen Volumes. Volume 7: Jewish Immigration: The S.S. St. Louis Affair and Other Cases. New York: Garland, 1982. Thomas, Gordon, and Max Morgan Witts. Voyage of the Damned. New York: Stein and Day, 1974. Wyman, David. Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938–1941. New York: Pantheon, 1985.

ST. RAPHAELSVEREIN ZUM SCHUTZE KATHOLISCHER DEUTSCHER AUSWANDERER The St. Raphaelsverein zum Schutze katholischer deutscher Auswanderer (St. Raphael’s Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants) was founded in 1871 and officially acknowledged by Pope Leo XIII in June 1878. Starting in 1865 the merchant Peter Paul Cahensly advocated for the assistance of emigrants at the annual German Catholic Congresses (Katholikentage). In September 1871 the members of the General Assembly of German Catholic Societies voted in support of Cahensly’s idea for the formation of an emigrant aid society under the putative pro-

993

tection of the archangel Raphael. The main aim of the association would be to improve the physical, moral, and spiritual conditions for the German Catholic emigrants. Although more notable for the figure he cut in society, Prince Karl von und zu Isenburg-Birstein was named the association’s president, while Cahensly became its general secretary. However, there was no question that Cahensly was the dynamic force behind the association. That force was matched by high ambition; during the first two years of its existence, the association sent letters to U.S. president Ulysses S. Grant and to the German government. It called for the passage of international laws to govern the moral and material conditions for emigrants. Because these letters remained unanswered, the association was forced to focus on a more regional basis. In 1873 the association opened its first mission center in Hamburg and established branches in the major European port cities soon thereafter. The association sent advice cards (Empfehlungskarten) to the various Catholic parishes throughout Germany and Europe. The agents (Vertrauensmänner) of the association were then charged with greeting emigrants at train stations, securing good lodgings, offering advice on ticket purchases and money exchanges, directing passengers to ships, and sending word across the Atlantic to prepare the association’s agents in the United States, Brazil, and other countries of destination for the new arrivals. Cahensly and his agents negotiated with port commissions and shipping companies to improve conditions within port lodging houses and on board transatlantic steamers. Most importantly, the agents were to provide the emigrants with spiritual care—

994

ST.VINCENT MONASTERY AND COLLEGE

Catholic religious services, communion, and confession. Given the dangers of shipwrecks, sickness, and disease during the lengthy journey, such spiritual care was viewed as essential for the fearful traveler. The formative years of the association closely coincided with the German Kulturkampf (literally “battle of civilizations” that pitted a progressive, Protestant, liberal German state nationalism against ultramontane Catholicism). The association continued to grow in Germany and abroad despite battles with the Prussian state during the 1870s and 1880s over the legality of “promoting” German emigration. The association was particularly dynamic during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. In 1886 it started publishing its own newspaper, the St. Raphaels-Blatt. Three years later the association opened its American headquarters, the Leo House (named after Pope Leo XIII), in New York City. During this period, southern and southeastern Europeans began to supply the majority of emigrants. The St. Raphaelsverein adjusted its mission accordingly and the association sought agents who could speak eastern European languages. Within Germany the association increasingly aided Italian workers, and in the United States (and New York City in particular) the bond with Italian immigrants was particularly strong. The shift toward a more universal policy of emigration aid continued into the twentieth century. During the Nazi era, the association granted aid to Jewish emigrants. These activities caught the attention of the Gestapo, and on June 25, 1941, the St. Raphaelsverein was banned officially by the state. Following World War II, the association reformed (1947) and has

continued to assist emigrants in Europe. The name of the association was changed to Raphaels-Werk in 1977. Kevin Ostoyich See also Cahensly, Peter Paul; New York City References and Further Reading Cahensly, Peter Paul. Der Raphaelsverein zum Schutze katholischer deutscher Auswanderer. Sein Werden, Wirken und Kämpfen während des 30-jährigen Bestehens. Freiburg im Breisgau: Verlag des Charitasverbandes für das kathol, 1900. Coleman, Barry OSB. The Catholic Church and German Americans. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1953. Reutter, Lutz-Eugen. Die Hilfstätigkeit katholischer Organisationen und kirchlicher Stellen für die im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland Verfolgten. PhD diss., Universität Hamburg, 1969.

ST.VINCENT MONASTERY AND COLLEGE Founded in 1846 by the Bavarian monk Boniface Wimmer, St. Vincent Archabbey, near Latrobe, Pennsylvania, was the first Benedictine monastery in the United States and one of the first Roman Catholic institutions in America to see to the needs of German Catholic immigrants. The monks of St. Vincent attempted to preserve their German heritage while at the same time adapting to modern life in the United States. The monastery, located in the Diocese of Greensburg (formerly part of the Diocese of Pittsburgh), formed a college and sent out missions to establish many of the early Benedictine monastic communities in the country. The Benedictines emerged with a new determination and enthusiasm in the 1800s after having survived the assaults of Enlightenment thinkers and Napoleon’s

ST.VINCENT MONASTERY AND COLLEGE

antimonastic policies. Wimmer, a young monk from the abbey of St. Michaels in Metten, personified the monastic renewal. Determined to bring the traditions of Benedictine education and evangelization to the growing number of German Catholic immigrants in America, Wimmer was given permission to establish a monastic community. With the assistance of Bishop Michael O’Conner, Wimmer was able to purchase a tract of land known as Sportsman’s Hall, which was within the boundaries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh near Latrobe, Westmoreland County. Wimmer was determined to make the monastery self-sufficient and successful like similar institutions in his homeland. Several buildings were put up during the first years. Monks worked the surrounding farmland and constructed a gristmill and brewery on nearby property in the 1850s. The college and seminary opened in the fall of 1846 and educated both young German boys and those who wished to enter the priesthood. Wimmer was soon embroiled in conflicts with Bishop O’Conner over issues of authority and autonomy. The German monk did not wish to yield control to the Irish bishop. When O’Conner intended to send Irish seminarians from Pittsburgh to St. Vincent, Wimmer refused, fearing outside influence before the monastery was firmly established. Eventually a compromise was reached and they were accepted on a case-by-case basis. Another dispute erupted over the sale of beer that was produced in the monastery’s brewery to local taverns. The bishop, who favored the temperance movement, ordered them to cease distribution of alcohol and close the brewery. The monks agreed to stop distribution,

995

but the brewery continued to operate. When the case went to the Vatican it was decided that the brewery could provide beer only for the monastery. In 1860 a new brewery was constructed at St. Vincent. Wimmer and his supporters continued to lobby the Vatican, and by 1855 were able to secure the status of “exempt abbey” for the monastery, placing it beyond the control of local bishops. In the second half of the nineteenth century, the Benedictines of St. Vincent were firmly established and were able to expand their order in America. Missions and monastic communities were successfully established in Minnesota, Kansas, New Jersey, Kentucky, Virginia, Illinois, and other places in Pennsylvania. Missions to Texas, Nebraska, and Tennessee were ultimately unsuccessful. The Civil War hampered mission efforts in the 1860s and severed communication with new communities in the southern states. Several of the younger monks at the monastery began to receive draft notices in 1862 as a result of the Conscription Act. Wimmer dispatched some of the monks to Canada, and some were exempted by the War Department. Five served in the Union army until the end of the war. After the Civil War, the monks of St. Vincent renewed their missionary activities, especially in the war-torn South. The college and seminary continued to grow in size and reputation, attracting students from other parts of the country. By the first decades of the twentieth century, the student population began to become more ethnically diverse. The monastery was slowly beginning to shed some of its German heritage as new groups of immigrant Catholics came to western Pennsylvania.

996

STADEN, HANS

Wimmer died in 1887, after leading his community for over forty years. His successors faced the challenges of losing students and seminarians during the world wars and attempting to reconcile their German heritage with American patriotism. During World War I, before U.S. involvement, many of the German-born and German-descended monks advocated neutrality. When America entered the war, the monastery firmly supported the Allies and held daily prayer vigils, but continued to openly display signs of their German heritage. During World War II many young men affiliated with St. Vincent’s went off to fight, and the monastery did not have to face as much popular anti-German sentiment as in the previous war. Other challenges appeared in the form of the Spanish influenza of 1918, a costly and ultimately unsuccessful mission to China in the 1930s, and a fire that destroyed several monastery buildings in 1963. The monastery and college have continued to thrive despite these obstacles, while maintaining strong elements of German and Benedictine tradition. Thomas White See also Pennsylvania References and Further Reading Kline, Omer U. The Saint Vincent Archabbey Gristmill and Brewery 1854–2000. Latrobe, PA: St. Vincent Archabbey, 2000. Oetgen, Jerome. An American Abbot: Boniface Wimmer, O.S.B. Latrobe, PA: Archabbey, 1976. ———. Mission to America: A History of Saint Vincent Archabbey, the First Benedictine Monastery in the United States. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 2000. Szarnicki, Henry A. Michael O’Connor: First Catholic Bishop of Pittsburgh 1843–1860. Pittsburgh: Wolfson, 1975.

STADEN, HANS b. (?) 1525; Homberg, Hesse d. (?) Author of a popular travel narrative of sixteenth-century Brazil published under the title of Warhafftig historia und beschreibung einer landschafft der wilden, nacketen, grimmigen menschenfresser leuthen in der Newen Welt America gelegen . . . (True History and Description of a Territory of the Wild, Naked, Fierce Cannibal People Located in the New World of America, 1557). Staden may have participated in the War of the Schmalkaldic League (1546–1547) before traveling to Lisbon in 1547. After a journey to Pernambuco on a commercial vessel in 1548, tales of rich Indian kingdoms in Spanish America lured Staden back to the New World two years later. Due to unforeseen circumstances, he was back in Portuguese Brazil by 1552 and became commander of a remote military outpost on the island of Santo Amaro. In late 1553 or early 1554 he was captured by cannibalistic Tupinambá Indians and, after a lengthy ordeal, was freed a year later by the captain of a French privateer. Following his return to Europe, Staden became a citizen of Wolfhagen (Hesse) in 1556, learned the making of gunpowder, and published a book on his experiences in the university town of Marburg. His whereabouts after 1557 are unknown. Staden’s book, which was dedicated to the landgrave Philip of Hesse and illustrated with over fifty woodcuts in the first edition, is divided into a narrative part, detailing his adventures among the Tupinambá, and an ethnographic part. Cannibalism forms a leitmotif, especially in the first section: Staden is constantly threatened by death, repeatedly witnesses

STADEN, HANS

anthropophagous practices, and narrowly escapes being killed and eaten himself on several occasions. Courage, practical intelligence, and his faith in divine Providence sustain him through his captivity. Staden’s sensational account was one of the best-selling travel narratives of the sixteenth century. No less than four printings have been identified for 1557, the year of its first publication, and the Antwerp publisher Christophe Plantin brought out a Dutch translation in 1558. Further Dutch editions appeared in Antwerp in 1563 and Amsterdam in 1592, and a Latin version came out in 1592 and was reprinted in 1605. Altogether, over eighty editions appeared in eight languages. A Brazilian feature film, Hans Staden, coproduced, written, and directed by Luiz Alberto Pereira, was released in 1999. In recent years the authenticity of the narrative—for which no corroborating evidence exists, as Staden is never mentioned in Portuguese or French sources— has been the subject of debate. Careful analysis has revealed that Staden incorporated episodes and structural elements from earlier travel narratives and skillfully crafted his work to satisfy a readership that expected books on America to feature graphic instances of cannibalism. In addition, the half-learned Hessian soldier’s tale was apparently coauthored (and may have been ghostwritten) by the Marburg anatomy professor Johannes Dryander (1500–1560), the author of a number of medical and cosmographical works, whose influence appears particularly evident in Staden’s accounts of illnesses and cures. Defenders of the book’s veracity, on the other hand, have dismissed these findings and pointed to ethnographic evidence from contemporary Brazil to sus-

997

Staden's Zwei Reisen nach Brasilien. (Hans Staden, The True History of His Captivity, 1557)

tain their claim that it authentically describes a personal encounter with cannibalistic Indians. Mark Häberlein See also Conquista; Indian Captivity;, Schmidel, Ulrich (Schmidl, Schmidt References and Further Reading Arens, William. The Man Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy. New York: Oxford University, 1979. Menninger, Annerose. Die Macht der Augenzeugen: Neue Welt und KannibalenMythos, 1492–1600. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1995. Whitehead, Neil L. “Hans Staden and the Cultural Politics of Cannibalism.” Hispanic American Historical Review 80 (2000): 721–751; cf. the exchange between Mark Häberlein, Michaela Schmölz-Häberlein, and Neil L. Whitehead in Hispanic American Historical Review 81 (2001): 745–756.

998

STALIN NOTE

STALIN NOTE Although East and West Germany finally reunified in 1990, the Soviet Union had offered to reunify Germany in 1952 but was rejected by the United States, its allies, and even West Germany. On March 10, 1952, the Soviet Foreign Ministry’s “Stalin Note” proposed an end to the “abnormal situation” in Germany by: (1) a peace treaty between the Four Powers and Germany, (2) administrative unification of the four occupied zones of Germany, and (3) holding of all-German elections (in that order). The proposal also asserted the right of a sovereign Germany to arm itself, with the conspicuous proviso that it remain neutral. President Harry S. Truman remained on a Florida fishing trip while midto high-level State Department officials handled the rejection of German reunification in 1952. The paradox was for the United States and its allies to reject discussion of German reunification without looking like they were rejecting it, such as by proposing talks to investigate the possibility of proposing talks on the matter. The missives lasted until the U.S.-BritishFrench note of September 23, after which the Soviets abandoned the failed Stalin Note bid. The context for the Stalin Note was the multifaceted “German Question.” First, the German Question involved how Germans identified themselves and related to the outside world; West, East, or neutral. The first chancellor of West Germany, Konrad Adenauer, argued that an independent road would result in Germany “sitting between two chairs” (Steininger 1991, 10). He instead courted the West with an image of a neo-Carolingian empire, which dovetailed with U.S. policy at that time. Second, the German Question involved how

the world related to Germany, complicated further by the frictions then developing between the Soviet Union and the Western Allies (France, Britain, and the United States). Germany was no longer only a problem as a defeated enemy and future, potential aggressor, but also as a potential ally for both sides. Given that the Soviets defeated Germany only with the help of the West, a Germany in NATO would combine past and present mortal dangers. The stalemate was that the Soviets wanted a unified Germany only if at least it extended its buffer westward from the Elbe to the Rhine, while the United States wanted a unified Germany only if it expanded NATO eastward from the Elbe to the Oder. The continuing controversy over the Stalin Note involves the allegation that the West missed a genuine opportunity to reunify Germany and defuse the cold war in 1952 and the even more dramatic claim that the Stalin Note was another “stab in the back” foreign conspiracy in which the West betrayed Germans’ true interests. Much of the scholarship has focused on a determination of Soviet sincerity; although declassified Soviet documents now appear to confirm Adenauer’s and others’ suspicions that at least the primary purpose of the Stalin Note was to derail the West’s integration of West Germany. Meanwhile, indications of Soviet sincerity on Germany’s unification often tend to undermine Soviet sincerity on Germany’s neutral independence. Declassified Soviet and East German documents support Adenauer’s claim that “neutralization means sovietization” (Steininger 1990:80) and indicate that East Germany was complicit in these endeavors to use neutral reunification as a Trojan horse to sovietize the united Ger-

STEFFEN, HANS

many. Whether or not the Soviets would have followed through on the full Stalin Note terms as a price worth paying to prevent West German integration into the U.S. sphere remains debatable because it is a road that was not taken. However, the issue of Soviet sincerity to a certain extent is irrelevant because U.S. State Department documents authored by Richard M. Scammon, Robert W. Tufts, and John H. Ferguson indicate that the State Department actually assumed Soviet sincerity as a basis for action precisely to avoid any possibility of the Soviet Union agreeing to a German reunification. The more important point was that the United States would have rejected the Stalin Note even if it was certain of Soviet candor. As early as April 1949, the U.S. State Department adduced “An Approach to the CFM” (Council of Foreign Ministers) that officially (but not publicly) subordinated German reunification to European recovery because U.S. containment policy required rebuilt and rearmed allies. American analysis determined that European recovery required the industrial and military input of West Germany, and American documents well before the Stalin Note assumed West German integration into the U.S. alliance as a prerequisite for its security plans. Because West German voters’ support for Adenauer’s pro-Western integration Christian Democratic Union (CDU) might not hold in a united Germany, U.S. policy also required a specific sequence of events; first integration (of West Germany), then reunification. The reverse order would have imperiled both U.S. security plans and Adenauer’s foreign policy. As a result, the Stalin Note with its German neutrality clause was dead on arrival. John W. Walko

999

See also German Unification (1990) References and Further Reading Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. New York: Oxford University, 1997. Steininger, Rolf. The German Question: The Stalin Note of 1952 and the Problem of Reunification. New York: Columbia University, 1991. Walko, John W. The Balance of Empires: United States’ Rejection of German Reunification and Stalin’s March Note of 1952. Parkland, FL: Universal, 2002.

STEFFEN, HANS b. July 20, 1865; Fürstenwerder (Brandenburg), Prussia d. April 7, 1936; Clavadel, Switzerland German geographer, hydrographer, and specialist on Chile and Patagonia. After finishing school in Charlottenburg, he entered the University of Berlin and studied history with Ernst Curtius and Theodor Mommsen and later geography at the University of Halle an der Saale. He received his doctorate under the supervision of Alfred Kirchhoff in 1886 with a work on Lower Franconia and Aschaffenburg. In 1889, through the intervention of Ferdinand von Richthofen, he was called to the Pedagogical Institute of the University of Santiago de Chile as professor of history and geography. Although he soon submitted his first publications on the history of the voyages of discovery, he did not like the integration of history and geography into one academic field. The purpose of his first expedition was to collect data for the later demarcation of the frontier between Argentina and Chile. In the international treaty the location of the border was considered to be a line that connected the highest Andean elevations

1000

STEINEN, KARL VON

DEN

with each other and formed the continental divide. The results of his first study trip into the Andean region of Lago Llanquihue and Lago Todos los Santos proved the political benefit of his hydrographical research on the continental divide. As a consequence, he was able to carry out in the course of the next few years, with state support, several expeditions to Patagonia and to investigate the river systems there. He published the result of his journeys in numerous essays in geographical journals. The quality of these works on the orohydrography of the Andes region brought him, between 1899 and 1902, the assignment as scientific specialist on the border commission for the establishment of the border between Argentina and Chile. In this capacity Steffen participated in the mediation talks in London under the chairmanship of King Edward VII, which ended with the king’s ruling in November 1902. From 1903 until 1914, he dedicated himself to the comprehensive interpretation of his exploratory trips but also to related themes, such as the causes and effects of the Valparaiso earthquake of 1906 or the description of the part German scientists played in the geographic and geological exploration of Chile. He relinquished his responsibility for training students in 1914 on health grounds. He first went to Berlin, but his pulmonary ailments soon caused him to resettle in Clavadel in Switzerland, where he could devote himself completely to the scientific analysis of his findings. It was here that he wrote his great two-volume work on western Patagonia as well as the comprehensive memoir of his expeditions. Despite the great time gap between the political negotiations and the writing of his recollections, one can still detect his inner turmoil over the subordination of scientific and technically reasonable viewpoints to

diplomatic considerations. During his literary labors, he followed the continued scientific exploration of Chile and especially Patagonia. Prints, journal articles, and maps concerning Chile and South America were, together with his travel diaries, notes, sketches, lecture manuscripts, and photographs or slides from the years 1892 through 1912, provided by his will as a legacy to the Ibero-Amerikanische Institut (Ibero-American Institute) in Berlin. Steffen was honored during his lifetime with his name being attached to prominent landscape features. The Chilean navy named an estuary after him, even before 1900—Estero Steffen (Steffen Estuary). In the immediate vicinity of the estuary, there are also to be found the promontory, Punta Steffen, and the glacier tongue, Ventisquero Steffen. Wolfgang Crom See also Argentina; Chile References and Further Reading Carrasco, Domíngues, German. Hans Steffen—Pedagogo, Geógrafo, Explorador, Experto en Límites. Santiago de Chile: Ed. University, 2002. Donoso Rauld, Francisco J. Hans Steffen. El Geógrafo de la Patagonia. Santiago de Chile: Ed. Platero, 1994. Quelle, Otto. “Zur Erinnerung an Hans Steffen.” Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut 10 (1936/37): 508–510.

STEINEN, KARL VON

DEN b. March 7, 1855; Mülheim an der Ruhr (Rheinland ), Prussia d. November 4, 1929; Kronberg, Hesse German ethnologist and explorer in Xingú in Central Brazil. Von den Steinen studied medicine at the universities of Zürich, Bonn, and Straßburg (Dr. med. in 1875)

STEINEN, KARL VON

and first worked as a doctor and psychiatrist in the Charité hospital in Berlin. On a voyage around the world (1878–1881) he became acquainted by chance with Adolf Bastian in Honolulu, and Bastian awakened his ethnological interest in “primitive peoples.” When von den Steinen resumed his journey, he spent a long time in the Samoan Islands and collected ethnographical material for the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin. Probably on Bastian’s recommendation, von den Steinen was appointed doctor and zoologist to the German expedition to South Georgia in 1882 and 1883 in the First International Polar Year. Von den Steinen had already decided before departure not to return to Germany on the expedition ship, but to travel to South America. Together with the physicist Otto Clauss (1858–?) he left the ship in Montevideo, where his cousin, the artist Wilhelm von den Steinen, awaited him. On May 26, 1884, the group left Cuiabá, the capital of Mato Grosso, to search for the source of the Rio Xingú. Traveling via Rosario and accompanied by a Brazilian military escort of thirty-two men, they explored areas as yet unknown. They traveled a tributary arm of the Xingú in canoes that were repeatedly dashed to pieces on the rocks, and von den Steinen named this tributary Rio Batovy after the president of Mato Grosso. On August 30 they were finally able to prove that the Rio Xingú originated at the confluence of three tributary rivers. The most important geographical product of the expedition was a map of the rivers prepared by Clauss. The expedition group then traveled along the Amazon to Pará (Belém), and after a stay in Rio de Janeiro, where they were welcomed with a festive banquet attended by Emperor Dom Pedro I, the three explorers returned to

DEN

1001

Germany in January 1885. The expedition was a great success from an ethnological point of view, as von den Steinen had made contact with Indian tribes who had never before been seen by white men. The sale of their collections to the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin enabled the men to pay off the costs incurred during the expedition. Von den Steinen’s account of his travels (Durch Central-Brasilien. Expedition zur Erforschung des Schingú im Jahre 1884 [Through Central Brazil. An Expedition along the Xingú], 1886) was an important starting point for further ethnological exploration of Central Brazil. Von den Steinen made a second expedition along the Xingú in 1887 to settle many open questions, with the financial support of the Alexander-von-HumboldtFoundation. His cousin Wilhelm accompanied him again, as well as Peter Vogel, who had been in South Georgia in 1882, and the doctor and anthropologist Paul Ehrenreich. The emphasis this time was on a cartographic survey of the eastern tributary river, the Rio Kuluene. Together with the German Brazilian Carlos Dhein, who later also supported Hermann Meyer, Karl von den Steinen stayed among the Bakairi people, studied their everyday life and their language, and bartered for ethnographical objects. After a period of recuperation in Cuyabá, the explorers traveled into the territory of the Bororo, who had only recently become sedentary. Thereafter the group separated; Karl and Wilhelm von den Steinen visited German settlements in Rio Grande do Sul and then returned to Germany. Karl von den Steinen collected great quantities of ethnological material on both expeditions, almost 2,000 objects during the Xingú trip alone, from Bakairi, Kustenau, Yurúna, Nahuquá, Mehináku, Auetö,

1002

STERNBERG, JOSEF VON

Yaualapiti, Trumái, and Kamayurá peoples. He summarized his impressions of this trip in Unter den Naturvölkern ZentralBrasiliens. Reiseschilderung und Ergebnisse der Zweiten Schingú-Expedition 1887– 1888 (Among the Primitive Peoples of Central Brazil. An Account of the Second Xingú Expedition, 1894). In 1889 he qualified to assume a professorship in ethnology (Habilitation) at the University of Berlin and two years later became associate professor in Marburg. In 1893 he took up an appointment at the Museum of Ethnology in Berlin, traveling to the Marquesas Islands in 1897 and 1898 to collect material for the museum (Die Marquesaner und ihre Kunst [The Marquesians and their Art], 3 vols. 1925–1928). In 1904 he became head of the American section of the museum. But in 1906 he retired from all academic offices to devote himself to his studies as a private scholar. Karl von den Steinen brought a significant impetus to the study of ethnology. He vigorously rejected the then-usual stereotype of the uncultured “wild man” and openly admired Indian cultures. In contrast to the usual Eurocentric perspective, he strove for an objective evaluation of the Indians and used his intensive knowledge of the customs of the Bakairi to question European moral values. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil; Ehrenreich, Paul Max Alexander; Humboldt, Alexander von; Meyer, Hermann References and Further Reading Coelho, Vera Penteado, ed. Karl von den Steinen, um sécolo de antropologia no Xingú. São Paulo: Universidad, 1993. Hartmann, Günther. “Karl von den Steinen und seine Xingu-Expeditionen 1884/87.” Staden-Jahrbuch 36 (1988): 197–215.

Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol V. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 2004, pp. 227–228. Hermannstädter, Anita. “Abenteuer Ethnologie. Karl von den Steinen und die Xingú-Expeditionen.” In Deutsche am Amazonas. Forscher oder Abenteurer? Expeditionen in Brasilien 1800 bis 1914. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung. Berlin: Staatl. Museen–Preuß. Kulturbesitz, 2002, pp. 66–85.

STERNBERG, JOSEF VON b. May 29, 1894;Vienna, Austria d. December 22, 1969; Hollywood, California Austrian-born U.S. film director. Growing up in a Jewish family, the young Jonas Sternberg spent his childhood between Austria and America, crossing the ocean a few times, beginning in 1901. At seven, he moved with his mother, brother, and sister to the United States, where his father had established himself three years before, looking in vain for a better life. When Jonas turned ten, they all returned to Vienna, but four years later, in 1908, the Sternberg family went once again to the United States, to live on Long Island. After many small jobs, at seventeen, Jonas changed his name to Josef, and worked for the World Film Corporation. In addition, he directed technical documentaries for the Signal Corps and the Medical Corps of the U.S. Army during World War I. In 1919 he began as an assistant director, and later as a scriptwriter for various projects, under the invented name of Josef von Sternberg. He worked as a sustaining actor in Europe until 1924 when

STERNBERG, JOSEF VON

he returned to Hollywood. A project with Charles Chaplin from 1926, The Sea Gull (or The Woman of the Sea, 1926), was screened only once and then forever hidden by Chaplin, who produced and codirected the film with Sternberg. An efficient, versatile technician who could often replace other directors in the middle of a shoot, Sternberg supervised the postproduction and editing of two films initially directed by Erich von Stroheim: The Wedding March (1928) and The Honeymoon (1928), as he did later (although uncredited) for Julien Duvivier’s The Great Waltz (1938), set in Vienna. For his first film as sole author, The Salvation Hunters (1925), Sternberg was simultaneously scriptwriter and director, as well as editor and producer. With the exception of Anatahan (1954), this drama was his only feature film shot outside the studio. In fact, Sternberg became famous by creating what was retrospectively seen as the first modern gangster movie, Underworld (1927), which was a huge success and the prototype of the genre later labeled “film noir.” For The Last Command (1928), Sternberg invented a story set in pre-1917 Russia and gave the leading role of General Golgoroucki to actor Emil Jannings, who had just arrived from Germany. Many of his subsequent movies were set in a European context, including The Case of Lena Smith (1929) and The King Steps Out (1936). After a trip to England in 1926, Sternberg went to Germany to work for the most important German producing company in those days, the Universum Film Aktiongesellschaft (UFA). His most famous film and his first talkie, Der Blaue Engel (The Blue Angel, 1930), from Heinrich Mann’s novel Professor Unrath, was

1003

shot in Berlin, again with Jannings, in two versions (German and English). But the real star of that film was Marlene Dietrich. After the success of this movie, Sternberg produced six more movies together with Dietrich: Morocco (1930), Dishonored (1931), Shanghai Express (1932), Blonde Venus (1932), The Scarlet Empress (1934), and The Devil Is a Woman (1935). They made a perfect team; Sternberg invented the exotic stories and situations in which Dietrich created passionate characters, wore flamboyant costumes, and delivered her famous lines. In sum, Dietrich incarnated the femme fatale, but it was Sternberg who created that evanescent character in his movies. Although they were shot in Hollywood studios, many of these films with Dietrich exploited the Atlantic connection: Morocco is set in French North Africa; Dishonored takes place in Vienna during World War I; Blonde Venus tells the love story between a German singer and an American chemist who both live in the United States but have to leave for Europe; The Scarlet Empress refers to the eighteenth-century Prussian princess Sophia Frederica, who became a Russian princess. The last of their collaborations, The Devil Is a Woman, was adapted from a novel by French author Pierre Louys (La femme et la pantin), and the story is located in Spain. From that group, only Shanghai Express was set in China, on a continent that often inspired Sternberg. After the Marlene Dietrich cycle, Sternberg adapted a remake of Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment (1935), with Peter Lorre playing Roskolnikov. In the following years, Sternberg worked in England on an unfinished project (I Claudius), and returned to Hollywood

1004

STERNBURG, HERMANN SPECK VON

during World War II, directing for the U.S. Office of War Information a short propaganda film titled The Town (1943). Sternberg’s last films focused on the Pacific. Indeed, The Shanghai Gesture (1941) is set on the South China coast. Produced by Howard Hughes, Jet Pilot (shot in 1950, but delayed and released in 1957) is the sentimental story of a female Soviet pilot who seeks refuge in Alaska; the film was imagined to magnify Janet Leigh’s generous profile. Similarly, Macao (1952), with Jane Russell and Robert Mitchum, tells the story of a New York policeman who is involved in a special investigation in Hong Kong and Macao. The last film by Sternberg, Anatahan (1953) is very different from all his previous movies, being done with a Japanese cast and crew. It is the story of a group of Japanese isolated on the island of Anatahan in 1944. Very often, Sternberg said this was the favorite of his own films. In the following years, Sternberg worked on abandoned projects, lectured at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) where he began in 1947, and wrote his memoirs. Yves Laberge See also Dietrich, Marlene; Film (German), Amerian Influence on; Hollywood; Jannings, Emil; Lorre, Peter; Stroheim, Erich von References and Further Reading Sternberg, Josef von. Fun in a Chinese Laundry. New York: Macmillan, 1965.

STERNBURG, HERMANN SPECK VON b. August 21, 1852; Leeds, England d. August 23, 1908; Heidelberg, Baden German ambassador to the United States from 1903 to 1908, he was an important

channel of German American diplomatic relations in the crucial decades prior to World War I. Considered a close friend of President Theodore Roosevelt, his personal style left an ambivalent imprint on the relationship between Germany and the United States. Sternburg belonged to the second generation of nobility in the Speck family. In June 1870 he joined a Saxon Hussar regiment and fought in the FrancoPrussian War. Twelve years later, he was appointed to the staff at the German legation in Washington as a military attaché. In 1888 Sternburg was reassigned to the post. In 1893 he entered the diplomatic service and five years later managed to be ordered to his favorite post, Washington, once again. While Sternburg possessed some of the necessary qualifications for a successful career in the diplomatic service, such as wealth and a military background, a significant impediment was his rather “young” aristocratic title. Thus, he suffered from rejection and derision within the diplomatic ranks. The extraordinary prestige that a member of the diplomatic elite enjoyed, however, helped to compensate for these troubles. Already in the late 1880s, Sternburg had made friends with Roosevelt, at that time a civil service commissioner in Washington. The diplomat was Roosevelt’s only close friend from Germany. Both Sternburg and the six-years-younger Roosevelt shared beliefs based on what the American had termed “the strenuous life.” As men of action, they were attracted by war, hunting, and sport. Sternburg’s Anglophilia and his admiration for Roosevelt were prerequisites for the friendship. Yet, Sternburg’s well-known pro-American attitude proved to be counterproductive when German American relations reached a low point between 1898 and 1903. De-

STEUBEN, FRIEDERICH WILHELM VON

spite his success in negotiating a peaceful solution to the Samoa problem in 1899, his superiors criticized Sternburg. When in 1900 he married the American Lillian May Langham, he was transferred as consul to Calcutta. The transfer to India was a step backward in Sternburg’s career. When Roosevelt surprisingly became president in 1901, the Germans used his influence to arrange for Sternburg’s return to Washington. In 1902 changes in the international system helped him. German foreign policy now sought the support of the United States. Yet, by the end of the year the Venezuelan crisis shattered the bilateral relationship. The German government reacted to the rapidly worsening situation by replacing Ambassador Theodor von Holleben with Sternburg in 1903. Sternburg’s appointment was a personal decision of Wilhelm II and caused much criticism in the diplomatic service and the German public. In his five years as ambassador, Sternburg had an impact upon the Moroccan Crisis of 1905 and 1906, German policy in Latin America, and the abortive German American plans for an entente in the Far East. In general, Sternburg faced an almost impossible task: On the one hand, officials in Berlin expected him to improve the German American relationship; on the other hand, right-wing organizations demanded a more aggressive German foreign policy and the German Empire continued to pursue its Weltpolitik (world politics), posing a potential threat to American interests. Sternburg was the representative of a new generation in German diplomacy. He developed his own style and was instrumental in the relative improvement of German American relations in the years from 1903 to 1908. Nevertheless, he overesti-

1005

mated the political influence of his friendship with Roosevelt. Sternburg contributed decisively to the wishful thinking that guided German foreign policy in this period. In sum, he was unable to understand that close German American cooperation was not possible because of a number of factors beyond his control. Stefan Rinke See also Bernstorff, Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht Count von; Far East, U.S.-German Entente in the; First Morrocon Crisis (1905–1906); Venezuelan Crisis (1902–1903) References and Further Reading Rinke, Stefan. “The German Ambassador Hermann Speck von Sternburg and Theodore Roosevelt, 1889–1908.” Theodore Roosevelt Association Journal 27, no. 1 (1991): 2–12. ———. Zwischen Weltpolitik und Monroe Doktrin: Botschafter Speck von Sternburg und die deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen, 1898–1908. Stuttgart: Heinz, 1992. Vagts, Alfred. Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten in der Weltpolitik. New York: Macmillan, 1935.

STEUBEN, FRIEDERICH WILHELM VON b. September 17, 1730; Magdeburg, Prussia d. November 28, 1794; Remsen, New York As a Prussian-born general in the American Revolution, Steuben gave the Continental army a significant edge by adapting European military drill to American soldiers and providing invaluable siege engineering advice at the Battle of Yorktown. An enthusiastic republican, Steuben also played a significant role in advocating federalism, the Constitution, northwest expansion,

1006

STEUBEN, FRIEDERICH WILHELM VON

Statue of Baron von Steuben, Washington, D.C. (Library of Congress)

and the formation of a military academy in the early years of the United States. Born in his father’s Prussian army camp, Steuben was expected to follow family tradition and become a Prussian officer himself. At sixteen he joined the Breslaus Lestwitz Regiment as an officer and saw action at the siege of Schwerdnitz Fortress (1754) and the battles of Prague (1757) and Torgau (1760). The end of the Seven Years’ War meant a scale-down of the Prussian armies, and Steuben, who had served on the staff of Friedrich II, found himself unemployed and used as a diplomatic courier. Patronage from the princess of Württemberg found him a job as court grand marshall of the duchy of Hohenzollern-Hechingen, but Steuben was restless and unhappy as a civilian courtier.

In 1777 Benjamin Franklin, the American ambassador to Paris, and his French counterpart Beaumarchais offered Steuben a place in the Continental army as a drillmaster. Franklin liberally exaggerated his qualifications to George Washington, promoting Steuben to major general and emphasizing the “von” title, which the Steuben family had never used. Steuben arrived at the nadir of American morale, finding Washington at Valley Forge on February 23, 1778. Although unable to speak English, he worked through two translators in French and German to train a “model company” in European-style military drill and then had them train the rest of the Valley Forge contingent. Steuben’s experience with Americans forced him to reevaluate his Prussian training, and the resulting “Blue Book” of drill combined European military efficiency with American independent thinking and small-unit autonomy. The new training proved so useful to the Continental army that Congress promoted Steuben to major general and inspector general on May 5, 1778. Steuben raised companies in Virginia, commanded a German American division at the Battle of Monmouth Courthouse (June 1778), and proved invaluable as a military engineer during the siege of Yorktown. After the war, Steuben chose to remain in the United States. He became a strong advocate of national defense planning, a military academy, and a more centralized federal government, often lobbying through his connections within the Society of the Cincinnati. A promoter of the Ordinance of 1787, he encouraged settlement of the Ohio Valley and was pleased when the settlers named Steubenville, Ohio, in his honor. He opposed the Articles of Confederation so vociferously that he sup-

STEUBEN SOCIETY

ported Shays’ Rebellion and even corresponded with Prince Heinrich of Prussia about accepting a regency of America until a stronger central government could be formed. Luckily, the Prussians declined in favor of a treaty of amity, and Steuben remained a devoted American republican. The state of New York gave Steuben a land grant, where he built an estate at Remsen. In his later years, he served as a trustee of New York University, and, greatly pleased with the new Constitution, attended his friend Washington’s first inauguration in 1789. Steuben never married, and rumors followed him from Prussia to America that he was homosexual. He lived so discreetly that while another German officer, Lieutenant Gotthold Frederick Enslin, was drummed out of the Continental army for sodomy, Steuben was never investigated. However, since the 1970s, Steuben has become a figure promoted by proponents of the integration of gays and lesbians in the military, and his memorial in Washington, D.C., is a focal point for rallies. Margaret Sankey See also Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel; Steuben Society of America; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Doyle, Joseph. Frederick William von Steuben and the American Revolution. New York: B. Franklin, 1970. Palmer, John McAuley. General von Steuben. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1966. Ueberhorst, Horst. Frederich Wilhelm von Steuben. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: German Language, 1981.

STEUBEN SOCIETY AMERICA

OF

Founded in May 1919, the Steuben Society of America was named after Frederick

OF AMERICA

1007

von Steuben. The founders of the Steuben Society were a small group of German Americans in New York City that was suffering from considerable anti-German sentiment following World War I. To combat this anti-German sentiment, these individuals wished to create a fraternal organization that would pique the curiosity in and celebrate the numerous social, cultural, political, and scientific contributions of German Americans to American society. One of the primary aims of this organization was to promote and retain a sense of pride and dignity in the heritage of German Americans. The Steuben Society further provided a uniform identity that represented the millions of Americans of Germanic descent, often in an official capacity. With this in mind, the organization promoted tolerance, duty, justice, and charity as its cornerstone principles. The Steuben Society explicitly condemned vigilantism and aimed to uphold the civil rights of all American citizens. In order to show its American patriotism, the Steuben Society supported the elimination of immersion language programs, recognizing English as the predominate language in the United States. The organization does, however, strongly advocate studies in German-language education, not only for purposes of identity but also because the German language initially possessed a reasonable level of importance in international matters, especially in the fields of the natural sciences and philosophy. In order to permit greater European immigration, the Steuben Society urged changes in U.S. immigration policies. The Steuben Society’s main symbol is a circle of the U.S. national colors—red, white, and blue. In the center is a black

1008

STIEFEL, ERNST C.

disc that produces the additional combination of black, red, and white. These were the three colors found on the German flag prior to 1933. Thus, all four colors combined signify the patriotic interconnection German Americans have with the United States and Germany. The Steuben Society is involved in a number of civic and cultural activities throughout the nation. It supports the Boy Scouts of America, the Statue of Liberty restoration project, and awards scholastic prizes for academic achievements in the German language and American history. One such award is the “von Steuben Award for an Essay in German” presented by the United States Naval Academy for the best essay in German by a midshipman of the first, second, and third classes. The Steuben Society’s most famous activity is arguably the German American Steuben Parade in New York City. Beyond this it was significant in establishing October 6 as German American Day in recognition of the first German immigrants to settle on the North American continent in 1683. The holiday was first officially recognized in 1983. Christopher Brooks See also Steuben, Friederich Wilhelm von; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Steuben Society of America. “German Day: In Commemoration of the 250th Anniversary of the Arrival in America of the First Group of German Settlers under the Leadership of Franz Daniel Pastorius and the 200th Anniversary of the Valiant Fight Made by John Peter Zenger for the Freedom of Press.” Madison Square Garden, December 6, 1933. ———. At www.steubensociety.org/ (cited January 20, 2004).

STIEFEL, ERNST C. b. October 29, 1907; Mannheim, Baden d. September 3, 1997; Baden, Baden German American lawyer and jurist. Stiefel was a lawyer newly admitted to practice when the Nazis took power in 1933 and forced him to leave Germany because of his Jewish background. Eventually establishing himself in the United States, he became something of the dean of German American Hitler-era refugee lawyers. Stiefel grew up in Mannheim where he graduated from the Gymnasium (academic high school) in 1926. He studied law at the universities of Heidelberg, Berlin, and Paris. In 1929 he passed the first state examination and was awarded a doctorate in law by the Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg. His Doktorvater (doctoral supervisor) was the legal historian Heinrich Mitteis. He then published the first edition of what remains a leading commentary on automobile insurance law. After completion of professional training, he passed the second state examination and was admitted to the bar in 1933, only to be prohibited almost immediately from practicing by the newly installed Nazi government. When Stiefel left Germany, at first he did not go far. He settled across the Rhine in Strasbourg, France, where he provided legal counsel to French firms on insurance law, which in formerly German AlsaceLoraine was still the old German law. He studied French law and obtained the necessary degrees for practice in 1934 and 1935. While living in Strasbourg, he was also admitted to practice in England. Two weeks after World War II began, he left Strasbourg for the United States, having out of caution a year before obtained immigration

STRAUCH, ADOLPH

papers. In his first years in America he worked in a variety of odd jobs outside his profession. Thanks to his English bar admission he was admitted to practice in New York without further formal study in 1943. That same year he joined the Office of Strategic Services. After the end of the war Stiefel worked for the Alien Property Custodian and later was active in Germany on behalf of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. From 1950 until his death he practiced as a lawyer in New York City and was associated with two of the city’s leading international law firms. The focus of his practice was advising American firms in Germany and, from the 1970s, German firms in the United States. He published numerous articles and books on issues of international commercial practice and taught at New York Law School. James R. Maxeiner See also Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Ebenroth, Carsten Thomas, and Ernst C. Stiefel. Institutioneller Wettbewerb als Herausforderung für die Globalisierung der Wirtschaft. Festgabe zur Verleihung der Ehrendoktorwürde an Ernst C. Stiefel. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1995. Lutter, Marcus, Walter Oppenhoff, Otto Sandrock, and Hanns Winkhaus. Festschrift für Ernst C. Stiefel zum 80. Geburtstag. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1987. Stiefel, Ernst C. “Als jüdischer Jurist in Mannheim und Heidelberg: Bericht eines Zeitzeugen für die Jahre 193–45 und heute.” In Max Hachenburg. Zweite Gedächtnisvorlesung 1996. Eds. Peter Hommelhoff, Heinz Rowedder, and Peter Ulmer. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Verlag, 1997, pp. 1–12. Stiefel, Ernst C., and Frank Mecklenburg. Deutsche Juristen im amerikanischen Exil (1933–1950). Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1991.

1009

STRAUCH, ADOLPH b. August 30, 1822; Eckersdorf (Silesia), Prussia d. April 25, 1883; Cincinnati, Ohio Strauch came to the United States and transformed American landscape architecture through his designs of many private estates, cemeteries, and public parks. His father managed the model farm of Count Magnis and lived in the castle. After studies in botany in the Birez Gymnasium, Strauch began six years of training in landscape gardening at age sixteen in 1838 with an appointment to Vienna’s Schönbrunn and Laxenburg Imperial Gardens under Habsburg gardeners. There he struck up a lifelong friendship with Hermann Ludwig Heinrich, Fürst (prince) von Pückler-Muskau. Acclaimed as “the great European park reformer,” PücklerMuskau’s design credo insisted on magnificent pastoral spatial sequences along clearly defined sightlines, well-groomed expanses of lawn or “greenswards” carefully framed by masses of trees and shrubs—the “beautiful” rather than the overgrown, woodsy landscape of the “picturesque.” He hired Strauch on his Silesian estate in Muskau, prescribing readings including his own influential Andeutungen über Landschaftsgärtnerei verbunden mit der Beschreibung ihrer praktischen Anwendung in Muskau (Notes on Landscape Gardening, 1834) and Briefe eines Verstorbenen (Letters of a Defunct). The prince then urged Strauch to make a tour of major gardens in Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands in 1845. Strauch worked for three months in Louis van Houtte’s famed gardens in Ghent, then studied landscape gardening in Paris until the Revolution of

1010

STRAUCH, ADOLPH

1848. Strauch moved on to work in London’s Royal Botanic Society Gardens, Regent’s Park, for three years. When the Crystal Palace Exhibition of 1851 drew visitors from abroad, Strauch, fluent in German, Czech, Polish, French, and English, busied himself as a freelance guide for tours of the fair and other great English gardens and parks. Thus he met Cincinnati businessman Robert B. Bowler, an avid horticulturalist, who gave Strauch his calling card, encouraging him to visit if ever in the “Queen City.” Fascinated with images of the American Far West at the Fair, Strauch sailed to Galveston in 1851, determined to see it himself. He got only as far as Texas, unable to reach the Southwest due to hostilities between the U.S. Cavalry and the Comanches. He wintered with Germans in Boerne, Fredericksburg, New Braunfels, Sisterdale, and San Antonio, then headed back east in the spring, intending to visit Niagara Falls en route to investigate a potential job on the Belmont estate near Boston or to return to Europe. He got as far as Cincinnati, but his steamer ran late and he missed his train. He remembered Bowler’s card and called on his acquaintance. Bowler was delighted and asked Strauch to stay to design the landscape of his new 73-acre estate, “Mount Storm” (now a public park) in the picturesque, hilltop village of Clifton, newly incorporated just north of the city. Bowler introduced Strauch to his friends in the Cincinnati Horticultural Society (1843). Strauch “improved” the landscapes of Robert Buchanan’s 43-acre “Greenhills,” George Neff ’s 25-acre “The Windings,” Henry Probasco’s 30-acre “Oakwood,” William Resor’s “Greendale,” and George Schoen-

berger’s 47-acre “Scarlet Oaks”—all without walls or fences so that the whole neighborhood looked like a large, unified park reached by sinuous drives through undulating terrain for a processional revealing a sequence of carefully designed, gradually unfolding views. Clifton, one of the first picturesque designed suburbs, was acclaimed as the “Eden of Cincinnati Aristocracy” by Emperor Dom Pedro of Brazil and the Prince of Wales. Lippincott’s Magazine judged that “the incomparable mountain suburb” had only one rival, “the mountain paradise of Wilkemolke which the Elector of Hesse adorned at the expense of a hundred ill gotten millions” (Hurley 1982, 82). Those horticulturists who had founded Spring Grove Cemetery (1845) as a model “rural” landscape persuaded Strauch to become the cemetery’s landscape gardener in 1854 and superintendent in 1859; but Strauch insisted on having full authority to reform the place with “good taste” through “the pictorial union of architecture, sculpture and landscape gardening,” blending the “well-regulated precision of human design with apparently wild irregularities of divine creation”—his “landscape lawn plan” and “scientific management.” He decreed that the grounds not be crowded with gravestones to look like “a marble yard where monuments are for sale.” He banned the vogue for enclosing lots with cast-iron fences. He advocated low-lying markers around family monuments, ideally “extra fine works of art,” with trees and shrubs framing views. His ideal combined “cheerfulness, luxuriance of growth, shade, solitude, and repose . . . as to imitate rural nature” (Strauch 1857, 30). Throughout the 1870s Strauch sculpted acres of low-lying, unusable wet-

STRAUCH, ADOLPH

lands to create a series of serpentine lakes with “wooded” peninsulas and islands, applying design principles from PücklerMuskau and famed, eighteenth-century English gardens. Their shapes and sizes play tricks with perceptions of distance, scale, and space. Their limits are not quite perceptible, so they seem much larger. Strauch also introduced diverse plant materials from around the world, making Spring Grove by the 1860s one of the nation’s first arboretums. He imported many species of waterfowl and song birds, aiding Andrew Erkenbrecher’s Society for the Acclimatization of Birds. Spring Grove became an attraction, drawing over 150,000 visitors in 1875, not including mourners. Strauch’s transformation of Spring Grove into a “garden” or parklike showplace attracted national attention and made him much in demand to reform existing “rural” cemeteries and to design new ones. He laid out Cincinnati’s German Catholic Maria Cemetery and Greenlawn in Hamilton, Ohio, then worked on Chicago’s older Oakwoods (1853) and Indianapolis’s new Crown Hill in 1864. He designed Buffalo’s Forest Lawn (1864–1866). In 1869 he laid out Detroit’s Woodmere and went to Cleveland to prepare plans for Lake View Cemetery as a museum, arboretum, bird sanctuary, park, historical archive, and landmark. His theories influenced the design of Woodlawn (1863) in the Bronx and Philadelphia’s West Laurel Hill (1869). Nashville cemetery administrators called on him to consult. Oak Ridge Cemetery (1860) in Springfield, Illinois, called upon Strauch in 1877 to “improve” the grounds after Lincoln’s interment there. The Swiss German Jacob Weidenmann used Strauch’s “landscape lawn

1011

Adolph Strauch, park designer and landscape reformer who came to the United States in 1851. He became Spring Grove Cemetery’s landscape gardener in 1854 and superintendent in 1859. (Collection of Blanche M.G. Linden)

plan” in designing Hartford’s 252-acre Cedar Hill Cemetery in 1863. Trustees of Louisville’s Cave Hill (1848) visited Strauch in 1867 and then applied his principles in 1875. Osian C. Simonds used Strauch’s ideas from 1881 on, designing additions to Chicago’s Graceland (1860) after visiting Strauch at Spring Grove. Even the directors of London’s Abney Park Cemetery asked Strauch’s advice in 1883 to lay out 80 more acres based on his “American System.” New sections added in the 1890s to Boston’s Mount Auburn (1831) and Richmond’s Holly-Wood (1849) followed Strauch’s “landscape lawn plan.”

1012

STRAUCH, ADOLPH

Strauch also designed the grounds of Cincinnati’s Longview Lunatic Asylum in 1860. As superintendent of the city’s first park board from 1871 to 1875, he designed the first public parks as Volksgartens—the 207-acre Eden Park (1870) overlooking the Ohio River and the 170-acre Burnet Woods (1872) in Clifton. Following German precedents, Strauch added a deer preserve to Eden Park as a prime site to develop a waterworks pumping station with reservoirs resembling natural lakes. Strauch redesigned the older, smaller Lincoln Park near the city’s heart. He even had a hand in the Cincinnati Zoo (1875), the nation’s second-oldest zoological gardens, providing advice to German landscape designer Theodore Findeisen. Scribner’s Monthly lauded Strauch as “the most accomplished landscapist in America” (“Where Shall We Bury Our Dead?”) in 1871; the Atlantic Monthly, as a “Natural Artist” in 1867 (Parton, 237). Frederick Law Olmsted, incorrectly acclaimed the “father of American landscape architecture,” knew and admired Strauch’s work, calling Spring Grove the nation’s best cemetery “from a landscape gardening point of view” in 1875. The Philadelphia Press judged that Cincinnati in the 1870s had become “a center of correct taste in rural architecture, landscape gardening, and the various arts associated with suburban and more rural life”; that Strauch had made the city “a long way in advance of Philadelphia, New York, or Boston” and that Strauch’s name was “as highly cherished in this line as is that of Olmsted in New York, in the Central Park connection, or Agassiz or Gray in science in Boston.” Appleton’s Encyclopedia judged that Spring Grove “ranks as the first park in the world.” Blanche M. G. Linden

See also Central Park; Cincinnati; Fredericksburg, Texas; Landscape Architects, German American; New Braunfels, Texas; Olmsted, Frederick Law; Texas References and Further Reading Hurley, Daniel. Cincinnati: The Queen City. Cincinnati: Cincinnati Historical Society, 1982. Linden, Blanche M. G. Spring Grove: Celebrating 150 Years. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Historical Society, 1995. Linden-Ward, Blanche. “The Greening of Cincinnati: Adolph Strauch’s Legacy in Park Design.” Queen City Heritage (Journal of the Cincinnati Historical Society) 51, no. 1 (Spring 1993): 20–39. Linden-Ward, Blanche, and David C. Sloane. “Spring Grove: The Founding of Cincinnati’s Rural Cemetery, 1845–1855.” Queen City Heritage 43, no. 1 (Spring 1985): 17–32. Moore, John Travers. Cincinnati Parks. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Park Board, 1953. Olmsted, Frederick Law, to Adolph Strauch. Olmstedt Associates Papers, Library of Congress, microfilm edition, reel 14 (March 12, 1875). Parton, James. “Cincinnati.” Atlantic Monthly 20, no. 118 (August 1867): 237. Ratterman, Heinrich Armin. Spring Grove Cemetery and Its Creator: H. A. Ratterman’s Biography of Adolph Strauch. Ed. Don Heinrich Tolzmann. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1988. Strauch, Adolph. “Reports from the Landscape Gardener and Superintendent” (October 1, 1856). In The Cincinnati Cemetery of Spring Grove. Cincinnati: C. F. Bradley, 1857, 30. ———. Spring Grove Cemetery: Its History and Improvements with Observations on Ancient and Modern Places of Sepulture. Cincinnati, OH: Robert Clarke, 1869. Vernon, Noel Dorsey. “Adolph Strauch.” Pioneers of American Landscape Design. Eds. Charles A. Birnbaum and Robin Karson. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000, 384–388. “Where Shall We Bury Our Dead?” Scribners Monthly, 1871.

STRAUSS, LEO

STRAUSS, LEO b. September 20, 1899; Kirchain, Hesse d. October 18, 1973; Annapolis, Maryland German American conservative political philosopher. A central figure in the history of modern conservative thought in America, Strauss critiqued the leveling, relativistic tendencies of modernity. For Strauss, the crisis of what he called the “Modern Project” was the denial of purpose and the erosion of universal standards of human thought and conduct, which he believed debased Western thought and set modern political systems on a self-destructive course. He argued that the cumulative efforts of modern thinkers beginning with Niccolò Machiavelli radically transformed political philosophy in a number of fundamental ways: by rejecting normative ideals for human behavior; by privileging selfpreservation as the highest human goal; by viewing nature as something to be overcome rather than as an immutable barrier to human aspiration; and by replacing human will for nature as the source of values. Strauss, a German Jewish émigré to the United States during the interwar migration of intellectuals fleeing Nazism, believed that both the horrors of Nazism and Fascism and the debasement of democratic principles on either side of the Atlantic testified to the failure of modern political ideologies. Raised in an orthodox Jewish family, Strauss attended the gymnasium in Marburg, where he became a Zionist at age seventeen. He served as an interpreter in the German army during World War I, before undertaking graduate studies at the universities of Marburg, Frankfurt, Berlin, and Hamburg, where he earned his PhD on

1013

Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi’s epistemology under the direction of Ernst Cassirer. He continued his education with postdoctoral studies in Giessen, Marburg, Berlin, and Freiburg, where he attended lectures by Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. From 1922 to 1924, Strauss participated in Franz Rosenzweig’s Freies Jüdisches Lehrhaus (Free Jewish House of Learning), analyzing Baruch Spinoza’s religious thought and interrogating the tenability of Zionism. In 1925 he accepted a position at the Akademie für die Wissenschaft des Judentums (Academy for the Scientific Study of Judaism), and then conducted research in Paris and London on a Rockefeller Foundation fellowship before emigrating to the United States in 1937. While in Europe, he worked his way from Spinoza to Moses Maimonides to Thomas Hobbes analyzing the “theologico-political” problem confronting modern Jewry and examining the tension between reason and revelation in the modern world. Prior to coming to United States at age thirty-eight, Strauss had grown increasingly doubtful that either rationalism or religion was an adequate foundation for the moral life. After Strauss’s permanent relocation to the United States in 1937, he held positions at Columbia University (1937) and the New School for Social Research (1938–1948), before becoming professor of political science at the University of Chicago from 1949 to 1967. He made his debut at Chicago with a series of lectures in October 1949 that formed the basis of what would become his best-known work, Natural Right and History (1953). Here Strauss challenged the view that modern natural right doctrines, which set the course in political theory toward radical historicism, had rendered classical natural

1014

STROESSNER, ALFREDO

right theory obsolete as a universal standard of justice. His insistence on the persistent relevance of natural right theory and his warning that relativism of contemporary social sciences was “bound to lead to disastrous consequences” established Strauss as an important, if controversial, political theorist in America. Strauss viewed teaching and scholarship as part of his obligation as a Socratic philosopher. His lasting influence on generations of students he trained at the University of Chicago, many of whom would later be identified as “Straussians,” helped to establish Strauss as the foremost conservative thinker of the postwar era. Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen See also Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Drury, Shadia. Leo Strauss and the American Right. New York: St. Martin’s, 1997. McAllister, Ted. Revolt against Modernity: Leo Strauss, Eric Voegelin, and the Search for a Postliberal Order. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1968. Pangle, Thomas L., ed. The Rebirth of Classical Political Rationalism: An Introduction to the Thought of Leo Strauss. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1989.

STROESSNER, ALFREDO b. November 3, 1912; Encarnación, Paraguay President of Paraguay, commander in chief of its armed forces, and titular head of the largest political party (Partido Colorado) between 1954 and 1989. He oversaw a period of unprecedented economic growth and modernization, mostly due to the construction of the massive Itaipú hydroelectric project, and a degree of political order and stability not evident in Paraguay since

the mid-1800s, thanks largely to authoritarian repression. Stroessner is of German and Paraguayan parentage. Son of an immigrant German brewer, Hugo Stroessner, and a Paraguayan woman, Heriberta Matiauda, Alfredo Stroessner personified the German American connection. At age sixteen he entered the national military college located in the capital city, Asunción, and never looked back. He first earned the notice of his superiors as an artillery officer during the Chaco War (1932–1935) against Bolivia. He was subsequently appointed to positions of increasing rank and privilege with the army. At age thirty-nine Stroessner was appointed commander in chief of the Paraguayan armed forces in October 1951. Less than three years later, in May 1954, Stroessner forged a tactical alliance with leading members of the faction-ridden Colorados to position himself as the sole presidential candidate. Thereafter he was ritualistically “elected” president seven times. Although Stroessner faced an opposition candidate beginning with the 1963 election, his take of the popular vote usually exceeded 90 percent. By the time he was removed from power in 1989, Stroessner had ruled longer than any other Latin American head of state (since surpassed by Cuba’s Fidel Castro). The novelist Graham Greene, whose travels to Paraguay supplied much of the colorful backdrop to one of his works, once famously likened Stroessner to a skillful owner of a “beer cellar” who knew how to handle his customers. Purposely alluding to the vocation of Stroessner’s father, Greene encapsulated the theme essential to understanding Stroessner’s longevity: the ability to bring order and stability to a country that since its independence in 1811 had ex-

STROESSNER, ALFREDO

perienced several tumultuous international and civil wars that devastated its population, society, and national identity. Stroessner enforced this order through a combination of co-opting potential threats to his personal power, institutionalizing official corruption and engaging in contraband trade as a means of dispensing patronage to loyal Colorado members, and brutally repressing social movements and dissident political opponents. A prominent international human rights monitoring group labeled conditions inside Paraguay during the 1970s as “medieval” for the grisly torture routinely practiced on its political prisoners. Stroessner used fear to underpin a highly integrated tripartite system of presidential, military, and political power. Stroessner’s personality and manner of rule most closely resembled the traditional figure of the caudillo, a dominant figure able to force order on society by dint of strong personality and violence. Yet Stroessner relied on more than simple force. The Stroessner regime is more accurately described as authoritarian rather than totalitarian, lacking as it did a totalizing ideological view of Paraguayan society. A rather unusual cult of personality even developed around Stroessner that emphasized his utter lack of personality. Although never described as particularly charismatic, he exhibited several characteristics that proved conducive to his longevity. Most accounts of his work habits describe him as “industrious.” He frequently crisscrossed the country to attend numerous dedication ceremonies, where he spent considerable time cultivating ties with local officials as a means of keeping informed about events outside the capital. His name and image

1015

were ubiquitous adornments throughout the country. The most recognizable of these was a large neon sign in downtown Asunción that bore the phrase “Peace, Jobs, and Well-being with Stroessner.” One of the few missteps of his regime that bears on the German American connection occurred in 1985 when members of the West German Social Democratic and Green parties protested Stroessner’s planned visit to the birthplace of his father at Hof in Bavaria; the state visit was promptly cancelled. Just as Stroessner’s many years in office began with a golpe de estado (coup d’etat), so too did they end. Rival political factions within the Colorados fought over the question of choosing (not electing) a suitable successor to the faltering Stroessner. General Andrés Rodríguez, a military officer and erstwhile ally of Stroessner, engineered the putsch that finally overthrew the president in 1989. (To the surprise of many observers, Rodríguez instituted several democratic reforms and voluntarily stepped down as president after one term in office.) Stroessner was briefly detained at the home of his mistress by Paraguayan troops, and later surrendered on February 3, 1989. Upon this ignominious exit from the presidency of Paraguay, Stroessner opted for political asylum in Brazil, where he continues to reside in 2005. Kirk Tyvela See also Paraguay References and Further Reading Bourne, Richard. Political Leaders of Latin America. New York: Knopf, 1970. Lewis, Paul H. Paraguay under Stroessner. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1980. Miranda, Carlos R. The Stroessner Era: Authoritarian Rule in Paraguay. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1990.

1016

STROHEIM, ERICH VON

STROHEIM, ERICH VON b. September 22, 1885;Vienna, Austria d. May 21, 1957; Maurepas Castle, France Austrian-born, U.S. film director and scriptwriter, also French actor. Born Erich Oswald Stroheim to a Viennese Jewish family, Erich Stroheim spent his childhood in Vienna and many summer holidays in Tyrol. At twenty-three he emigrated to the United States and from March 1909 began working in various jobs, first in New York City and later in California. From 1914, under the aristocratic name he invented, Erich von Stroheim, he was hired in Hollywood as a stuntman in some productions. The next year he was extra, advisory, and later second assistant in David W. Griffith’s masterpieces: Birth of a Nation (1915), Intolerance (1916), and Heart of the World (1918). This last collaboration with Griffith, in which Stroheim played a part that he repeated several times (a German officer), was shot in England, France, and Hollywood during World War I. However, Stroheim wanted his chance as a film director. The German-born Carl Laemmle accepted Stroheim’s first script in 1918, possibly because it was given for free! The multitalented Stroheim became a film director, set designer, actor, and scriptwriter in the United States during the silent era and remained an international actor when the talkies appeared, working mostly in France between 1936 and 1939, and from 1945 until his death. The shift from behind the camera to the screen was not a matter of technique, but rather because Stroheim could not accept any compromise from the studios’ producers, having simultaneously an uncontestable genius, a strong ego, and a bad temper.

Studios refused to give new projects to Stroheim as a director, because he was an extravagant genius, ahead of his time. In other words, it was not Stroheim who freely decided not to direct anymore after 1929; it was just that doors were closed to him as a director. He remained on demand as an actor and adviser. As a director, Stroheim created all his masterpieces in just a decade. Among them are his debut Blind Husbands (1919), Foolish Wives (1922), Greed (1924), The Merry Widow (1925), The Wedding March (1928), and the unfinished Queen Kelly (1928). Sadly, many of these films were edited, mutilated, and shortened by their producers and U.S. censors, without Stroheim’s approval. The original version of Greed (1924) edited under Stroheim’s supervision was more than eight hours long; it was reduced by MGM to only two hours. His film Merry-Go Round (1922) was taken away by the producer and finished by director Rupert Julian; his film The Honeymoon (1928) was finished by Josef von Sternberg, and banned by censors in many states. After sixteen years in the United States and a conversion to Catholicism, Stroheim became a U.S. citizen and abandoned his Austrian citizenship in 1926. He remained in conflict with many Hollywood producers and studios. It was difficult for him to find new partners. His reputation made him an undesirable perfectionist who made no concessions. His movies were innovative, but also expensive and sometimes cruel, even scandalous; their shootings often took many months. As a director, Stroheim was more or less banished from the studios after 1929, but he could still work as a screenwriter, adviser, and actor (sometimes uncredited) in minor produc-

STRUBBERG, FRIEDRICH AUGUST

tions, although this unfair situation left him unsatisfied and frustrated. On November 26, 1936, Stroheim emigrated to France, where his talent was more respected. Fluent in French, he appeared in seventeen films in just three years. Oddly, he was one of the few Austrian-born artists to cross the Atlantic from America to Europe. As an actor often playing German characters, he appeared in various French classics: a German general from World War I in Jean Renoir’s La Grande Illusion (1937), but also as a magician for director Pierre Chenal (L’Alibi, 1937), and again as an Austrian officer in Ultimatum (1938), directed in France by German filmmakers Robert Wiene and Robert Siodmak. On November 26, 1939, von Stroheim returned to the United States, where he pursued his career exclusively as an actor. Back in France in 1945 with his beloved companion, the actress Denise Vernac, Erich von Stroheim appeared in a dozen French films and wrote three novels in French: Paprika (1949), followed by Veronika (1951), and Constanzia (1954), which are the two parts of a cycle set in Austria, titled Les Feux de la Saint-Jean. His appearance at sixty-four in Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard (1950), his last presence in a Hollywood movie, remains unforgettable, probably because the character of Max von Mayerling resembles in many points Stroheim’s own life. Possibly the only film he made in Germany, Stroheim played the scientist Jacob ten Brinken in a minor remake of an expressionist film, Alraune (1952), directed by Arthur Maria Rabenalt. His last participation in a movie was a small part for author Sacha Guitry; Stroheim played the role of Beethoven in Napoléon (1955). Yves Laberge

1017

See also Hollywood; Sternberg, Josef von; Wilder, Billy References and Further Reading Bergut, Bob. Erich von Stroheim. Paris: Le Terrain Vague, 1960. Henry, Nora. Ethics and Social Criticism in the Hollywood Films of Erich von Stroheim, Ernst Lubitsch, and Billy Wilder. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2001. Mitry, Jean. Dictionnaire du cinéma. Paris: Larousse, 1963.

STRUBBERG, FRIEDRICH AUGUST (PS. ARMAND) b. March 18, 1806; Kassel, Kurhesse d. April 3, 1889; Gelnhausen, Hesse German author of numerous novels set in the United States. Strubberg, after his return to Germany in 1854, used his firsthand experience of North America as a backwoodsman and settler in his successful popular novels. The son of a tobacco manufacturer, Strubberg allegedly escaped to North America after a duel in 1826. He returned in 1829, worked in his father’s company, and traveled again to America in 1841. In 1846 and 1847, he was director of the new colony of Fredericksburg, Texas, founded by the Adelsverein. He is said to have had medical training in St. Louis in 1843 and to have worked as a doctor in Camden, Arkansas, before his return. In Germany, he supposedly worked as a lawyer in a lawsuit between the House of Hesse and the Prussian state. Strubberg’s novels deal with life on the frontier (e.g., An der Indianergrenze oder treuer Liebe Lohn [On the Indian Frontier, or Faithful Love’s Reward], 1859; Bis in die Wildniss [Into the Wilderness], 1858), slavery, the Mexican war, and emigration (Alte und neue Heimath [Old and New Home],

1018

STÜBEL, MORITZ ALPHONS

1859). His Friedrichsburg, Die Colonie des deutschen Fürsten-Vereins in Texas (Fredericksburg: Texan Colony of the German Nobility Club, 1867) is a fictionalized account of his life there. Der Krösus von Philadelphia (The Croesus of Philadelphia, 1870), a historical novel that begins with the Haitian revolution, introduces the writer as narrator-witness, arriving in Philadelphia around the time of Strubberg’s first visit to the United States. Strubberg’s German protagonists are loners and frontiersmen, valuing friendship above love. Yet, his heroes are also a white Haitian and an American lawyer. There are black female heroines in his three-volume novel Sclaverei in Amerika oder Schwarzes Blut (Slavery in America, or Black Blood, 1862), which features female slaves in various shades of blackness. Strubberg’s predilection for “quadroon” women exudes from many of his novels. In Sclaverei in Amerika, it connects with the sentimental topos of the persecuted innocent female, which in the guise of the forsaken maiden returns in Krösus, but is not as relevant in his Western fiction. Strubberg’s novels are usually constructed around one central conflict and clearly divide between good and bad. Their main characters are increasingly complex and self-conscious; next to narrative descriptions of events and landscape, the characters’ reflections are skillfully depicted. In spite of his stereotypical representation of black people, Strubberg’s support of abolition is obvious. His description of Indians can be sympathetic, when they actively save or help the protagonists (see Krösus, Indianergrenze); yet, in instances of hostility to the protagonist, they are remorselessly killed. Hunting as a way of exploration and appropriation is

central in Amerikanische Jagd- und Reiseabenteuer (American Hunting and Travel Adventures, 1858) and prevails as a topic in his later novels. Annette Bühler-Dietrich See also Adelsverein; Forty-Eighters; Fredericksburg, Texas; Hecker, Friedrich; Heym, Stefan; Indians in German Literature; Kapp, Friedrich; Literature (German American) in the Nineteenth Century; Literature (German), the United States in; Novel, German American References and Further Reading Barba, Preston Albert. The Life and Works of Friedrich Armand Strubberg. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1913. Sammons, Jeffrey L. Ideology, Mimesis, Fantasy: Charles Sealsfield, Friedrich Gerstäcker, Karl May, and Other German Novelists of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1998. Woodson, Leroy Henry. American Negro Slavery in the Works of Friedrich Strubberg, Friedrich Gerstäcker, and Otto Ruppius. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1949.

STÜBEL, MORITZ ALPHONS b. July 26, 1835; Leipzig, Saxony d. November 10, 1904; Dresden, Saxony German geologist and explorer in South America, founder of a geographical museum in Leipzig. Stübel was the son of the lawyer and Leipzig city councilor Otto Moritz Stübel. His life has remarkable parallels with that of his future fellow traveler, Wilhelm Reiss. Like Reiss, Stübel studied mineralogy and geology, first at the University of Leipzig and then in Heidelberg, where he completed his doctorate in 1860. His studies were interrupted by two and a half years of travel in the Mediterranean to improve his weak constitution in a warmer climate, like Reiss. From 1856 to 1859 he

STÜBEL, MORITZ ALPHONS

traveled to Italy, Greece, Egypt, and Sudan, where his interests were already primarily directed toward volcanism. His inherited fortune enabled him to pursue his scientific interests on further journeys abroad. After a visit to Scotland he moved to Madeira in 1862. Here he observed nature (climate, vegetation, geology), surveyed and mapped the island, prepared panoramic drawings, and studied volcanism, to which end he also visited Cape Verde and the Canary Islands. He established contacts with other geologists for the purpose of scientific exchange, including Karl von Fritsch and Wilhelm Reiss, with whom he set out for the Aegean in 1865 to study the effects of the volcanic eruption on Santorini. On their return, Stübel and Reiss began to plan their great trip to America, their intended destination being the Hawaiian Islands, after a detour to South America. In January 1868 the two scientists started their journey, but they never saw the Hawaiian Islands, as their planned detour to the Andes turned into a nine-year stay. From Santa Marta on the Colombian coast they followed the Río Magdalena into the interior. They spent two years traveling in Colombia, sometimes separately, followed by four and a half years in Ecuador. Under difficult conditions, they ascended almost all the volcanic mountains over 4,000 meters (13,123 feet). While Reiss devoted himself mainly to trigonometric observations, Stübel drew large panoramic views, whose great accuracy gives them the appearance of perspective maps. In Quito Stübel became acquainted with the geologist Theodor Wolf, who taught at the local university. Wolf supported the two travelers in Quito and assisted Stübel with the analysis of his findings after the latter returned to Germany.

1019

Stübel trained the young Ecuadorian Rafael Troya as a landscape artist. Stübel sent several consignments of his own drawings, Troya’s paintings, geological samples, and other materials to Dresden. When Reiss and Stübel were forced to stay in Peru in 1874 because of political unrest, they undertook archaeological excavations in Ancon and found an old Peruvian burial ground. They opened about sixty graves and found splendidly arrayed corpses with burial gifts. They described the contents of the graves in detail and later published them in a handsome three-volume work with the support of the Berlin Museum of Ethnology (Das Todtenfeld von Ancon [The Burial Ground of Ancon] 1880–1887). From Peru Stübel and Reiss crossed the Andes and traveled through the tropical rain forest to the Atlantic. While Reiss was at the end of his strength and left from Rio de Janeiro to return home in 1876, Stübel spent a further year in South America. He traveled along the Paraná to Rosario via Montevideo and Buenos Aires and went on by rail to Mendoza. From here he crossed the Cordilleras. In Chile and in Bolivia he again pursued research into volcanism, studied the consequences of an earthquake in Arica, and examined the ruins of Tiahuanaco. He then left for home from Lima. He traveled by ship to San Francisco—where the equipment sent ten years previously for the planned Hawaii expedition was still in storage—crossed the United States, and sailed from New York to Europe on July 11, 1877. In Dresden Stübel analyzed the large collections of materials from South America. More than 200 boxes had to be sorted and evaluated. The work proceeded slowly; the first important publication was that on Ancon, appearing from 1880 onward, with

1020

STÜBEL, MORITZ ALPHONS

more than 141 colored lithographs. The analysis of the geological material took much longer. The great extent of the materials, the development of geological theory during his stay in South America (which caused him to question his own views), further expeditions (Stübel traveled to Syria and Palestine in 1882 and to Egypt in 1885), and a growing estrangement from Reiss hindered systematic study. Nevertheless, Stübel, unlike Reiss, succeeded in publishing a series of monographs (Die Ruinenstätte von Tiahuanaco im Hochlande des alten Peru [The Ruins of Tiahuanaco in the Highlands of Old Peru], together with Max Uhle 1892; Die Vulcanberge von Ecuador [The Volcanic Mountains of Ecuador], 1897). Stübel had by now developed a plan to present his collections to the public in the form of a museum of geography and volcanology. In 1891 Stübel addressed a memorandum to the city council of his birthplace, Leipzig, offering to present his collections to the city in return for a suitable museum space. The city council agreed to this and when a new building for the Museum of Ethnology was opened in 1896 the Stübel Collections found a home as the Abtheilung für vergleichende Länderkunde (Department of Comparative Regional Geography) in a separate room of 350 square meters (376.7 square feet). Stübel’s donation included 82 oil paintings by Troya, 100 drawings including more than 30 large-format Andean panoramas, about

2,000 photographs and 3,000 geological samples, as well as ethnological artifacts. He developed this unique geographical museum with his own funds, including a library with a map collection, also developed from his private collection. His expedition notes formed the basis of an Archiv für Forschungsreisende (Archives of Explorers) opened in 1902. An endowment made by his sister enabled the collections to be continued and expanded after Stübel’s death. Thus a unique museum, unparalleled in the world, developed from Stübel’s private gift and remained in Leipzig until the mid-1970s, before being dissolved in the course of the East German university reforms. The library was retained with its great nineteenth-century collection, as well as the archives with Stübel’s scientific estate and a large collection of photographs. Now these collections are part of the Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde in Leipzig. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Reiss, Johann Wilhelm References and Further Reading Brockmann, Andreas, and Michaela Stüttgen, eds. Spurensuche. Zwei Erdwissenschaftler im Südamerika des 19. Jahrhunderts. Ausstellungskatalog. Unna: Kreisverwaltung, 1994. Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol. V. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 2004, pp. 256–260. Mayr, Alois, ed. 100 Jahre Institut für Länderkunde 1896–1996. Entwicklung und Perspektiven. Festschrift. Beiträge zur Regionalen Geographie, 40. Leipzig: Institut für Länderkunde, 1996.

T TAYLOR, (JAMES) BAYARD b. January 11, 1825; Kennett Square, Pennsylvania d. December19, 1878; Berlin, Prussia Voluminous travel writer, journalist, poet, and lecturer. As a lecturer on German literature and translator of Goethe’s Faust, he earned a place as one of the earliest American Germanists and as a popularizer of what he called “the great age of German literature.” Taylor, whose father was of English Quaker lineage and whose grandmothers were both of south German descent, began his career as a writer in 1840 with an account of his visit to the battlefield at Brandywine that appeared in the West Chester Register. The following year his first poem, “Soliloquy of a Young Poet,” was published in the Saturday Evening Post of Philadelphia. His literary career, however, received its first important impulse from Rufus Griswald, an influential editor who encouraged him, and to whom Taylor dedicated his first book of poetry, Ximena, or, The Battle of the Sierra Morena, and Other Poems (1844). Leaving behind a position as a printer’s apprentice, the young author sailed for Liverpool in July 1844 , embarking on a two-year journey around Europe.

Upon his return, he published the widely popular Views A-Foot, or, Europe Seen with Knapsack and Staff, the first of many travel accounts that would highlight his writing career. Although he ventured into the publishing business briefly in 1846 with the joint purchase of a small weekly newspaper in Pennsylvania, Taylor gave this up after a year, moving to New York, where he would soon make a name for himself in the established literary and journalistic circles. A lifelong association with Horace Greeley and the New York Tribune began in 1848 when he was hired to manage its literary department. As its correspondent, he was sent to California to report on the gold rush, as well as to numerous countries all over the world, and from his pen came a prodigious number of articles, books, and poetry inspired by these travels. In 1850 he recounted his California experience in El Dorado, or, Adventures in the Path of Empire, and in the same year he married Mary Agnew, who would succumb to a longstanding illness two months later. The collection Poems of the Orient, containing his best-known poem, “The Bedouin Song,” appeared in 1854. In 1855 Taylor left for Germany, there meeting and marrying his

1021

1022

TEHRAN CONFERENCE

second wife, Marie Hansen of Gotha, and returning with her and their new daughter, Lilian, in 1857. The year 1859 saw the publication of Taylor’s varied accounts of travels, At Home and Abroad: A SketchBook of Life, Scenery and Men, the second series of that title appearing in 1862. In addition, he shared his experiences abroad in lyceums across the country, gaining a widespread reputation as a lecturer. A measure of Taylor’s esteem is evident from his appointment to a nonresident professorship of German literature at Cornell University in 1869, despite his lack of formal higher education. The period of his greatest professional accomplishments in the field of German literature now lay before him. Beginning in 1870, during his tenure at Cornell (until 1877), Taylor gave a series of lectures, published posthumously as Studies in German Literature, that focused on early German literature and especially the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century writers, including Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Christoph Martin Wieland, Johann Gottfried Herder, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and Friedrich Schiller. These lectures, which served to introduce an important period of German literature to the American public, further solidified Taylor’s role as a cultural intermediary between America and Germany. His greatest contribution, however, was his translation of both parts of Goethe’s Faust in original meters (1870–1871), accompanied by lengthy critical notes. Taylor himself viewed it as the English translation, and it was long considered the best. As a popular figure and respected German American, Taylor also saw public service that went beyond the lecture circuit to

include both poetry written for delivery at public occasions and diplomatic service. At the age of twenty-five he had been chosen to deliver the Phi Beta Kappa poem at Harvard University. In 1862 he was appointed secretary of legation at St. Petersburg, Russia, where the warmth of his personality won him many friends, in addition to securing support for the Union during the Civil War. The following year his brother Fred was killed at Gettysburg, and in 1869 he wrote an ode presented on the dedication of the monument to the battle there. On July 4, 1876, he delivered the national ode before an enthusiastic audience during the centennial celebrations in Philadelphia. Capping his service to his country, Taylor was chosen to be minister plenipotentiary to Germany in 1878 and departed in that year for Berlin. However, his health failed and he died there shortly after his arrival. Robert L. Kusmer See also Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, and the United States; Travel Literature, German-U.S. References and Further Reading Krumpelmann, John T. Bayard Taylor and German Letters. (Britannica et Americana, vol. 4.) Hamburg: Cram, De Gruyter, 1959. Smyth, Albert H. Bayard Taylor. (American Men of Letters.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1896. Wermuth, Paul C. Bayard Taylor. (Twayne’s United States Authors Series, vol. 228.) New York: Twayne, 1973.

TEHRAN CONFERENCE The conference at Tehran in November and December 1943 between Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin was the first major wartime meeting of the three Allied leaders at which

TEHRAN CONFERENCE

they decided key points of the grand strategy in the European theatre and the treatment of defeated Nazi Germany. Here Stalin settled a protracted dispute between the Americans and the British over the priority of a cross-channel invasion (Operation Overlord) versus continued Mediterranean campaigns in favor of the former. Stalin’s insistence on Overlord in May 1944 to be coordinated with a Soviet offensive thus created a united front with the Americans against the British, who had the most to lose from the failure of such an invasion. The two Western leaders agreed to Stalin’s demand for the 1941 border with Poland—which was to be compensated in the West by German territory (east of the river Oder)—and the surrender of the northern part of East Prussia, including the port city of Königsberg, to the Soviet Union. The Big Three moreover concurred on dismemberment for the remainder of amputated Germany. In particular for Roosevelt, partitioning was the point of departure for the indispensable political reorientation of Germany: the concept of the Reich had to be erased from the German mind and vocabulary. He proposed a division into five autonomous states, plus two internationalized regions. He also heartily agreed with Stalin’s demand for economic disarmament as a substitute for American troop stationing in Europe for which he foresaw little popular support. In the confidential exchanges at Tehran, Roosevelt expressed for the first time his hardened thoughts on the Third Reich. It was not a problem of Nazism or Prussian militarism, but one that involved the entire German people. Roosevelt and Stalin appeared to reach a fundamental meeting of minds over a punitive-restrictive policy toward Ger-

1023

many, while Churchill expressed his country’s interest in German economic recovery and eventual rehabilitation—a position that in the American administration was advocated by the State Department, whose representatives had been excluded from this conference. Beyond the European theater, Stalin formally pledged that Soviet forces would enter the war in the Pacific after the defeat of Germany, and Roosevelt sketched out his postwar vision of what was to become the United Nations Organization, with the predominant four powers being Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. Roosevelt was greatly pleased with his first personal encounter with Stalin and the convergence of their views on matters of vital importance to the conduct of the war. Whether for reasons of time-consuming rehashing of British American strategic differences or Roosevelt’s aversion to detailed postwar arrangements, the Tehran conference yielded few finalized plans for defeated Germany. These were left to be formulated by the newly created European Advisory Commission. In particular the Big Three’s agreement on German dismemberment was not formalized, leading to a smoldering intra-administrative American conflict, until in late summer 1944 Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau sounded the alarm over discrepancies that developed between the State Department’s postwar plans, which were against partitioning, and the president’s expressed intent to dismember Germany. Michaela Hoenicke Moore See also Casablanca Conference; Morgenthau Plan; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany; World War II

1024

TERMER, KARL FERDINAND FRANZ

References and Further Reading Casey, Steven. Cautious Crusade. Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Public Opinion, and the War against Nazi Germany. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 2001. Stoler, Mark. Allies and Adversaries: The Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Grand Alliance, and U.S. Strategy in World War II. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2000. Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms. A Global History of World War II. New York: Cambridge University, 1994.

TERMER, KARL FERDINAND FRANZ b. July 5, 1894; Berlin, Prussia d. April 15, 1968; Hamburg German geographer and ethnologist who explored Central America. Franz Termer studied from 1913 to 1920 at the universities of Berlin, Marburg, and Würzburg, interrupted by World War I. The founder of American Studies in Germany, Eduard Georg Seler (1849–1922), in Berlin and more especially the Central American specialist Karl Theodor Sapper were of considerable significance for his professional development. Termer completed his doctoral thesis on “Die Entwicklung der länderund völkerkundlichen Kenntnisse über Mittelamerika im 16. Jahrhundert” (The Development of Geographical and Ethnological Knowledge of Central America in the 16th Century) under Sapper in Würzburg and became Sapper’s assistant in 1921. He qualified to assume a professorship (Habilitation) in geography and ethnology in 1923 (with the dissertation “Wetterschäden und Landwirtschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika” [Weather Damage and Agriculture in the United States of America]), became an ex-

traordinary professor in 1929, and finally succeeded Sapper to the chair of geography at the University of Würzburg after the latter’s retirement in 1932. Termer had made his first great expedition to Guatemala with forays into the neighbouring countries and the United States from 1925 to 1929, commissioned by the Hamburg Geographical Society. His work was equally concerned with geography and ethnology. He reported on individual aspects of this expedition in almost 100 publications, ranging from geology and volcanism to settlement and economic geography, from archaeology and history to geopolitics. A two-volume regional geography of Guatemala (Zur Geographie der Republik Guatemala) brought all this knowledge together and appeared between 1936 and 1941. The second volume, dealing with human geography, included the results of a second expedition undertaken by Termer in 1938 and 1939, largely devoted to archaeological interests. During this trip Termer discovered various ruins (Ixpaco, Pueblo Nuevo, Palo Gordo). By that time (1935) Termer was professor of ethnology in Hamburg and director of the Museum of Ethnology there. These new positions took up much of his time and energy in the following years. He taught and researched in Hamburg until his retirement in 1962. More than 200 publications, dealing almost solely with Central America and Mexico, bear witness to his extraordinary productivity. Termer visited Central America for research purposes several more times, for example in 1949 and 1950, when he carried out an intensive study of the history and culture of the Maya in Mexico. This bore fruit in his book Die Mayaforschung (The Study of the Maya, 1952) and in a regional geography of the

TEXAS

Yucatán peninsula (Die Halbinsel Yucatán, 1954). In 1953 and 1954 he led a field trip to El Salvador, where archaeology was his central interest, but geographical issues were also addressed and several volcanoes (Guazapa, San Vicente, San Miguel) were climbed. Afterward Termer also visited Guatemala, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. After his retirement in 1962 Termer retreated into private life, but received many German and foreign honors, including the highest honor of the land in Guatemala, his second home, the Order of Quetzal in 1963. Franz Termer followed in the footsteps of Friedrich Ratzel and Karl Sapper and was probably the last representative of a broad concept of science where the boundaries between geography and ethnology were dissolved. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Ratzel, Friedrich; Sapper Family References and Further Reading Fischer, Hans. Völkerkunde im Nationalsozialismus. Aspekte der Anpassung, Affinität und Behauptung einer wissenschaftlichen Disziplin. Vol. 7. Hamburger Beiträge zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Berlin, Hamburg: Reimer, 1990. Haberland, Wolfgang. “Karl Ferdinand Franz Termer (1894–1968). Eine Würdigung zum 100. Geburtstag.” Ametas. Mitteilungen und Berichte für völkerkundlich Interessierte (Sebnitz) no. 10 (1993): 1–17.

TEXAS Texas played host to mass immigration from the German states throughout the nineteenth century. As a result, persons of German descent make up the third-largest ethnic group in the state. However, due to a process of enculturation that began with the outbreak of World War I, most Ger-

1025

man Texans do not consider themselves to be ethnic Germans today. German immigration to Texas began at roughly the same time as Anglo immigration from the United States. In 1821 the provincial government of Spain negotiated with Empresario Moses Austin to establish a colony in Texas. Spain was under tremendous pressure to secure the northern border of Mexico, protecting the frontier mining districts and preventing illegal colonization of Texas by squatters from the United States. Spanish officials believed that controlled, legalized immigration was a means of protecting Texas from jingoistic filibusterers from the north. Shortly after completing the negotiations over Austin’s colonization contract, the Spanish government of Mexico was toppled and replaced by a native regime. Moses Austin died at roughly the same time, passing responsibility for the colonization project to his son, Stephen F. Austin. The younger Austin, albeit reluctantly, moved the project forward, lobbying for the continuation of his father’s contract with the ascendant Mexican government. It was under the auspices of Stephen F. Austin’s colony that the earliest German settlers made their way to Texas. The first true pioneer of German immigration to Texas was Johann Friedrich Ernst. Ernst made his way to the United States, meeting another German immigrant, Charles Fordtran, in New York. Fordtran and the Ernst family initially planned to settle in Missouri, but upon hearing news of Austin’s colony, they decided to sail for Texas. Arriving in Texas on March 9, 1831, Ernst was granted a league of land as his allotment from the colony. This he located near the present site of the town of Industry. Soon after settling down,

1026

TEXAS

Ernst began writing pleasant letters home describing life in Texas. He described the territory as temperate of climate and as an excellent place to build a new life. These letters achieved wide circulation in Germany, and soon other would-be pioneers were making their way across the Atlantic to Texas. Most of these new Texans settled around Ernst and Fordtran’s property, establishing a small series of towns. This emerging ethnic enclave formed the basis of the “German Belt” that bisects central Texas. Mexican dominion over Texas came to an end in 1836 as a result of the Texas revolution. A litany of issues, ranging from attempts to outlaw slavery in Texas on the part of the Mexican government to the despotism demonstrated by President Antonio López de Santa Anna, contributed to the emergence of hostilities between Texans and the central government in Mexico City. Many German immigrants fought for the Texas cause. Notables included Johann Ernst Friedrich Gustav Bunsen, brother of the inventor of the Bunsen burner; photographic pioneer William Langenheim; and Herman Ehrenberg, well-known survivor of the Goliad Massacre. Sam Houston’s victory over the forces of General Santa Anna at the Battle of San Jacinto, followed by adroit political machinations on the part of the Texans, helped to forge an independent Republic of Texas in 1836. German immigration played a significant role in peopling this new nation. Texas was widely advertised in Germany and the continual influx of settlers caused many in Germany to begin thinking about a more structured immigration policy. In 1842 a group of twenty-one German noblemen met at Biebrich on the Rhine with the idea of creating a formal-

ized organization designed to facilitate German migration abroad. The noblemen saw this as a way to enhance their personal fortunes while at the same time expanding the prospects of their subjects. These nobles envisioned a satellite German homeland that could engage in mercantile trade with the Fatherland. On April 20, 1842, this clique of idealistic aristocrats organized the Verein zum Schutze deutscher Einwanderer in Texas (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas). It is varyingly referred to as the Adelsverein, the Texas-Verein, the Mainzer Verein, and the German Emigration Company. Its stated purpose was to assist Germans in making their way to Texas and providing them with land and support upon their arrival. The organization, acting through its members and agents, succeeded in negotiating a contract with the Republic of Texas. However, the colonial lands designated for the colonists proved to be on the frontier of settled Texas in a region dominated by the Comanche Indians. Many settlers simply chose not to settle within the cession, instead getting land from the Republic of Texas directly. Other colonists, ill equipped for life on the frontier, simply took up residence in the emerging German Belt towns and began practicing the trades they had trained for in Europe. The Adelsverein was a financial failure. Difficulties over rights to the colonial lands, as well as a lack of practical business acumen on the part of its leaders, caused the colony to fold under bankruptcy by 1853. Nevertheless, at the height of its success some 7,000 German immigrants made their way to Texas (Jordan1975, 45). Three major towns were established under the auspices of the society—the port of Indianola, New Braunfels, and

TEXAS

1027

Funeral of German Union soldiers at Comfort, Texas, August 1865. (Library of Congress)

Fredericksburg. Several smaller villages were also established along the Llano River within the Adelsverein’s cession. In 1847 the society’s commissioner-general, John O. Meusebach, successfully negotiated a treaty with the Comanche that further expanded the settled frontier of Texas. The end of the Adelsverein did not bring to a close the wave of German immigrants flooding Texas. By the 1850s the majority of those coming to the New World were from Nassau, southern Hanover, Brunswick, Hesse, and western Thuringia. These were the home provinces of the aristocrats that created the Adelsverein and the principalities in which the majority of the society’s advertising was targeted. Chain migration continued in these areas even after the Adelsverein folded, as exponentially greater numbers of letters and dispatches reached Germany.

Although disease and hunger were rampant during the first year of the Adelsverein’s experiment, the immigrants, primarily educated peasants, farmers, and skilled craftsmen, began work with all possible diligence. The towns of Industry, New Braunfels, and Fredericksburg, the loci of German settlement in Texas, very quickly became some of the most prosperous villages in the state. By 1860 the farms in the vicinity of New Braunfels alone were valued at more than half a million dollars (Biesele 1930, 137–138). The Confederate blockade during the Civil War halted German immigration to Texas for a brief time. On the eve of secession, some 20,000 residents of Texas were German-born. Hill Country Germans, who did not utilize slaves and relied heavily on federal government protection for their frontier settlements, tended to support the Union cause. Their counter-

1028

TEXAS

parts, clustered in the eastern half of the German Belt around Industry and more inclined to own slaves, leaned toward the Confederacy. While Germans fought for both sides during the war, the majority of the population either tacitly supported the United States or simply did not vocalize their opinion publicly. One notable group of German Unionists, calling themselves the Union Loyal League Militia, organized a fighting band with the purpose of taking up arms against the Confederacy. They were, however, unsuccessful in their first outing. Ambushed along the banks of the Nueces River by a Confederate unit, many of the men were killed and the survivors were forced to flee for their lives. Several survivors escaped to Mexico or U.S. territory, eventually joining the regular Union army. The end of the Civil War saw the return of German immigration to Texas. The end to hostilities and the lifting of the coastal blockade allowed the process of chain migration to continue. Further, the Reconstruction government of Texas provided many German Union loyalists with important state jobs. Jacob Kuechler, a veteran of the Nueces River fight, and Johann Jacob Groos achieved the powerful office of Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office. During Reconstruction, Germans played an important role in Texas government, in many cases turning their European education and training toward the benefit of their adopted homeland. The period between the end of the Civil War and the 1890s saw the emergence of German enclaves outside the German Belt. German settlements such as Muenster appeared in north-central Texas, while Germans were some of the first Texans to farm the High Plains and Trans

Pecos regions. Greater migration from east German provinces, coupled with an influx of Germans from other parts of the United States, served to swell the ranks of this population in Texas. The advent of World War I finally brought an end to wholesale German migration to Texas. The divisiveness of the war also forced Germans to assimilate into the broader culture, which to this point they had largely resisted. Enclaves such as Fredericksburg had remained relatively isolated, with German-language newspapers, schools, and church services continuing into the twentieth century. However, the war against Germany forced many Texas Germans to choose between loyalty to their adopted country and fealty to their native culture. Nonacculturated Germans were treated with suspicion; therefore, many made strident efforts to shirk the trappings of their Teutonic heritage. The majority of the Germans who migrated to Texas were motivated by the promise of land and greater prosperity. They were stimulated to action by the copious flow of letters, advertisements, and outright propaganda that flooded Germany from Texas. At least one group of settlers, the Wends of Lusatia, came to Texas in pursuit of religious freedom. With the exception of a brief burst of German immigration to Texas following World War II, the severing of Germany’s cultural ties to Texas during the Great War ended the mass influx of settlers. German immigrants made significant contributions to the tapestry of Texas culture. German music and instrumentation, mixed with the native Tejano sound, helped give birth to the modern Tejano music tradition. Singing festivals and dancing clubs became a staple of German life

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT

throughout Texas, many of which still survive in 2005. The artists Hermann Lungkwitz, Richard Petri, and Carl Iwonski were among the earliest painters to capture the Texas landscape on canvas. In the area of industry and technology Germans, through the likes of Adolphus Busch, brought the brewing industry to Texas and the greater Southwest. New Braunfels became an important industrial center, as Germans harnessed the flowing waters of the Comal River to construct mills and factories. Germans in Texas utilized important developments in agriculture, especially in the area of dry-land farming, before their counterparts in the rest of the United States adopted them. By the advent of World War I, German culture had established itself firmly in Texas. By the 1970s, with the shadow of two wars with the German nation fading, a new generation of Texas Germans began searching for the roots of their history. In places such as New Braunfels, Fredericksburg, and Muenster a German cultural revival developed. Paradoxically, many of these descendants of German immigrants, now unaware of the cultural traditions of their predominately central and north German ancestors, adopted the trappings of south Germany as a component of this revival. Towns in the German Belt, as well as in other former German enclaves, began celebrating Oktoberfest and Weihnachten, decorating their streets with the blue and white colors of Bavaria. Few truly ancient German cultural traditions, such as the Easter Fires Pageant in Fredericksburg, remain. Nevertheless, the modern Texas Germans have developed a powerful enthusiasm for their cultural heritage. Jerry C. Drake

1029

See also Adelsverein; Ernst, Friedrich; Fredericksburg, Texas; Meusebach, John O.; New Braunfels, Texas; Nueces, Battle of the; Sorbs (Wends); Texas German Dialect; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Benjamin, Gilbert Giddings. The Germans in Texas: A Study in Immigration. Austin, TX: Jenkins, 1974. Biesele, Rudolph Leopold. The History of the German Settlements in Texas, 1831–1861. Austin, TX: Von Boeckman Jones, 1930. Department of History, Southwest Texas State University. Fredericksburg: Guidebook to the Historic German Hill Country. San Marcos: Southwest Texas State University, 2003. Jordan, Terry G. “The German Settlement of Texas after 1865.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 73 (October 1969): 207–211. ———. German Seed in Texas Soil: Immigrant Farmers in Nineteenth-Century Texas. Austin: University of Texas, 1975. King, Irene Marschall. John O. Meusebach: German Colonizer in Texas. Austin: University of Texas, 1967. Underwood, Rodman L. Death on the Nueces. Austin, TX: Eakin, 2000.

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT Historical Background Texas German is a unique dialect spoken by the descendants of settlers who emigrated primarily from middle and northern Germany, starting with the first large wave arriving in the 1840s. Throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century, large patches of German settlements grew consistently across the central Texas “German Belt,” which encompasses the area between Gillespie and Medina counties in the west; Bell and Williamson counties in the north; Burleson, Washington, Austin, and Fort Bend counties in the east; and DeWitt, Karnes, and Wilson counties in the south. Prolonged contact between speakers of

1030

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT

different German dialects such as Hessian, Palatinate, Saxon, Thuringian, and Low German, among others, eventually led to the formation of a unique New-World dialect, Texas German, which has been—and still is—to a large degree mutually intelligible with Standard German. Established as the regional dominant language for upward of 100,000 speakers at its peak in the early 1900s, Texas German flourished particularly well in predominantly German enclaves such as New Braunfels, Fredericksburg, Schulenburg, La Grange, and Giddings, among many others. Texas German was not only the language of the domestic sphere, but also an official prestige language used at local public institutions such as schools, churches, newspapers, and businesses. Literature, laws, congressional proceedings, the Texas Constitution, and the Constitution of the Confederacy were all printed in German. As such, it was possible for at least three generations of native-born Texans to live their entire lives without speaking a word of English. While English was taught as a foreign language in school, non-German-speaking newcomers were often assimilated linguistically. It is important to keep in mind that in many settlements of the “German Belt” the population was almost exclusively of German descent, whereas in other areas German speakers lived in communities with speakers of other languages, such as English, Spanish, Czech, and Polish. During World War I, the stable linguistic state of Texas German changed drastically due in part to extensive antiGerman sentiments that triggered the establishment of English-only laws. By requiring that public schools and all official transactions be held in English, this legisla-

tion contributed to the loss of public institutional support for the widespread maintenance and use of German in the public domain. As a result, English was established as the official prestige language, while Texas German was relegated to the private domain (e.g., home, friends, shooting and singing clubs, neighbors, and church). Between the two world wars, many Texas German children thus learned German as their first language at home and English at school. Concomitantly, a significant number of Texas Germans did not pass on their mother tongue to their children for fear of anti-German sentiments and discrimination. These children were thus raised with English as their first language, while only acquiring a passive knowledge of Texas German by being exposed to conversations among members of the older generations. As a result of World War II, the prestige of Texas German decreased even more, which in turn induced even more Texas German parents to raise their children in English-only homes. Children schooled in English in between the two world wars were more likely to identify with the more prestigious English than with the traditional Texas German of their parents and grandparents. Further, many servicemen returning from their duty in World War II had not spoken Texas German for an extended period and spoke primarily English on their return to Texas. In the post–World War II years, the demographics of the “German Belt” began to change. The increased migration of nonGerman speakers to the traditional German enclaves resulted in most public transactions taking place in English. The predominant use of English in the public domain pushed the use of German even

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT

further into the private domain. This declining use of German led most Texas German newspapers and church services to switch to English at the end of the 1940s. At the same time, young Texas Germans left the traditional German-speaking areas for employment in larger cities such as Austin, San Antonio, and Houston, or to enroll in college or the military. For this group, speaking primarily English had a number of practical and economical advantages, eventually leading to a linguistic decline in their command of Texas German. Another factor contributing to the shrinking number of German speakers in the post–World War II years was the increase in marriages between German and non-German speakers. In these cases, English typically became the language of the household, which led to children being raised exclusively with English. By the 1960s about 70,000 Texas German speakers lived in the central Texas area (Gilbert 1972). Whereas German was the principal language for most Texas Germans as late as the 1940s, and German monolinguals anchored the community’s language uses well into the 1960s, English became the primary language for most Texas Germans in both private and public domains in the 1970s, when the language shift from German to English reached its final stage. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, only an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 fluent speakers of Texas German remain. The number of semifluent speakers using a drastically reduced inventory of phrases based on the language of their forebears is estimated to be 4,000 to 6,000. Because the great majority of the remaining fluent and semifluent speakers of Texas German in 2005 are sixty years and older and Texas German is not learned by the younger gen-

1031

erations, it is considered a critically endangered dialect. This sharp decrease in speakers puts Texas German on the list of about 3,000 languages and dialects worldwide that are expected to become extinct by the end of the twenty-first century.

Some Linguistic Properties of Texas German Texas German differs from Standard German and other German dialects in a number of significant ways. These differences have led many speakers of Texas German to believe that their dialect is a substandard or somewhat inferior variety vis-à-vis other dialectal variants of German. However, this view lacks any scientific evidence, as linguists have repeatedly demonstrated that nonstandard varieties have their own sets of rules and exceptions that equal those of standard varieties in complexity and regularity. The first and most obvious area in which Texas German differs from other German dialects is its lexicon. While the basic vocabulary brought over from Germany remains virtually unchanged, the Texas German lexicon consists of approximately 1 to 3 percent of words that are borrowed from English. Among the nouns borrowed from English, many refer to agricultural, technical, or cultural concepts that did not exist at the time when German settlers first arrived in Texas. They include, for example: das Antifreeze, die Battery, die Car, der Carburetor, der Dime, die Electricity, die Exhaustpipe, der Fanbelt, der Gastank, die Homeplate, der Longhorn, der Mesquitebaum, der Muffler, der Norther, der Peachbaum, der Pitcher, der Radiator, der Sheriff, die Truck, die Vierbits, das Windshield, and die Zweibits, among many others. At the same time, there are a sig-

1032

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT

nificant number of English nouns for which there existed perfect German counterparts at the time of German immigration. Over time, the original German nouns dropped largely out of use and were replaced by their English counterparts. Sometimes, individual speakers use both German and English nouns interchangeably. Examples are nouns such as die Blackberry, der Butcher, der Candy, das Courthaus, die Fence, das Game, der Mule, die Napkin, die Pickle, die Postoffice, das Property, der Recess, die Road, das Rope, der Shelf, and die Whip, among others. Besides nouns, Texas German has also borrowed a significant number of verbs from English. Among them are verbs such as arresten (to arrest), aufpicken (to pick up), batten (to bat a ball), cannen (to can food), cultivaten (to cultivate), einfencen (to fence in a field), fighten (to fight), jumpen (to jump), lynchen (to lynch), meeten (to meet), paven (to pave), picken (to pick cotton), scrapen (to scrape), smoken (to smoke meat), spellen (to spell), trappen (to trap animals), and yellen (to yell). An interesting fact about English verbs borrowed into Texas German is that they conform to regular inflectional patterns of German. That is, when a verb such as paven (to pave) occurs in the present perfect tense in sentences such as Sie haben die Road gepaved (They have paved the road), then the verb paven takes on the regular German ge- prefix that marks it as a past participle. Similarly, so-called particle verbs such as aufpicken (to pick up) insert the gein between the particle and the verb when the participle is formed: Gestern haben wir die Cotton aufgepickt (Yesterday, we picked up the cotton). Besides adhering to Germanlike word formation patterns, the borrowing of English verbs into Texas German

may sometimes lead to ambiguities and misunderstandings. For example, a sentence like Montag habe ich abgenommen (word-by-word translation: Monday have I off-taken) can be interpreted in two different ways. The first interpretation relies on the meaning of the Standard German verb abnehmen (to lose weight), yielding “On Monday I lost weight.” The second interpretation involves the calque abnehmen based on the English verb “to take off ” (time), yielding the interpretation “I have taken off Monday.” Another area in which Texas German differs from other varieties of German is its phonetics and phonology; that is, the way sounds are pronounced. English words borrowed into Texas German often exhibit a distinct German-sounding pronunciation. For example, the Texas German pronunciation of store, smokehouse, sink, and road are “shtohr,” “shmokhaus,” “zink,” and “rohd.” Texas German pronunciation differs from that of Standard German in a variety of ways. The most obvious one is the near absence of umlauted vowels. Whereas Standard German displays the umlauts /ä/, /ö/, and /ü/, Texas German substituted these sounds with /e/, /e/, and /i/, respectively. To illustrate, we find Standard German er schlägt (he hits) becoming er schlegt in Texas German, and Standard German schön (beautiful) and über (over) are realized in Texas German as schen and iber, respectively. Texas German also differs from Standard German in the way that /r/ is pronounced. For example, the words Regen (rain), dreissig (thirty), and hier (here) are pronounced with a trilled /r/ in Standard German, but with an American English retroflex /r/ by many Texas Germans, particularly by the younger speakers. This example illustrates how prolonged

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT

contact with English has led to substantial sound substitutions in Texas German. One of the most important characteristics in Texas German morphosyntax is its reduced case system. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, linguists are in the unique position of being able to observe the evolution of the Texas German case system because of prior research conducted in the 1950s on the different uses of cases by members of different generations. These historical records are compared and contrasted with current data, thereby providing valuable insights into how the Texas German case system has evolved vis-à-vis other German dialects. That is, whereas Standard German has a four-case system consisting of nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive cases, Texas German has basically lost the genitive case and retained the dative case only in selected environments. As such, Texas German shows a development that is similar to that of many other German dialects, which have lost the genitive and dative cases over the centuries. For example, possessive genitives such as in Dies ist Wilburs Schmokhaus (This is Wilbur’s smokehouse) are replaced by possessive datives such as Dies ist dem Wilbur sein Schmokhaus (literally, This is the Wilbur his smokehouse), or what looks like a possessive accusative such as Dies ist den Wilbur sein Schmokhaus (literally, This is the Wilbur his smokehouse). Similarly, dative case marking on personal pronouns has given way to accusative case marking, replacing the dative pronoun mir (to me) as in Bernice gibt mir das Geld (Bernice gives the money to me) with its accusative counterpart mich (me) as in Bernice gibt mich das Geld (Bernice gives the money to me). Another example of case coalescence in Texas German can be found with prepo-

1033

sitions such as über (over) and unter (under) that typically mark the following noun with dative case when indicating a location instead of motion or a change of state. To illustrate, sentences such as The picture hangs over the bed would be translated into Standard German as Das Bild hängt über dem Bett where dem Bett is marked with dative case following the preposition über. Instead, most Texas Germans translate this sentence as Das Bild hängt über das Bett where das Bett is marked with accusative case. In 2005, it is not clear whether the developments in the Texas German case system are caused by external or by internal factors. An analysis focusing on external factors would attribute the development in the Texas German case system to the influence of English, which has a drastically reduced case system. Adherents of such an analysis would argue that Texas German has changed due to its prolonged contact with English, eventually leading Texas German speakers to adopt a reduced case system. Proponents of an analysis favoring internal factors would suggest that these developments are part of a naturally occurring process that proceeds at different speeds depending on a speech community’s structure. As such, Texas German is finally undergoing a natural development that has already taken place in other German dialects.

Variation in Texas German Whereas the term Texas German evokes the idea that one is dealing with a clearly definable dialect, this classification is difficult to support. This is because a great number of different donor dialects brought to Texas in the middle of the nineteenth century intermingled and mixed to various degrees in

1034

TEXAS GERMAN DIALECT

the German enclaves throughout the German Belt. Depending on factors such as geographic isolation, variety of different donor dialects, availability of school instruction in Standard German, and contact with non-German speakers, distinct subvarieties of Texas German evolved over the past 150 years. Thus, based on the regional flavoring of Texas German one can often identify even into the twenty-first century the particular region of Germany from which the original settlers came to Texas. For example, linguists agree that there are a number of differences between the Texas German varieties spoken in the Hill Country to the west of Austin (Fredericksburg, New Braunfels, and Mason), as opposed to those spoken to the east of Austin (Giddings, La Grange, Schulenburg). The western area was predominantly settled through the efforts of the Adelsverein. The majority of immigrants came from the west duchy of Nassau (located in the presentday German states of Nordrhein-Westfalen, Hessen, and Rheinland-Pfalz). In contrast, the settlers in the eastern area came predominantly from northern Germany and Saxony, speaking different varieties of Low German and Saxon. These differences in settlement patterns are reflected by differences in the pronunciation and choice of words from different dialectal regions in Germany. Aside from this general split in settlement patterns, there are other linguistic groups that have influenced the formation of Texas German to various degrees. One group is the Sorbs (Wends), which settled in Lee County. Being surrounded by German settlements in Texas led to gradual assimilation and to giving up their Wendish language in favor of German within two generations. Subsequently, the Wends, too,

underwent the gradual assimilation from speaking Texas German to English. As little research has so far been conducted on the influence of Wendish, the full scope of its influence on the Texas German spoken in Lee County is rather unclear. The most obvious influence is the borrowing of the words der Braschka (the man in charge of the food at a wedding) and der Bobbak (boogie man). The other large Texas German-speaking group different from the two general east- and west-Texas German groups are the descendants of settlers who immigrated to Medina County, to the west of San Antonio. These settlers came from Alsace, on the western bank of the Rhine River in present-day France. As such, their Alsatian dialect differed from most of the other German dialects brought to central Texas in that it exhibited features characteristic of south German dialect varieties. The influence of Alsatian on present-day Texas German in Medina County is most obvious in the pronunciation of words. To illustrate the broad regional variation between different subvarieties of Texas German, consider the different translations of the verb to die in the past tense in a sentence such as The animal died out in the pasture (Gilbert 1972). The different Texas German translations include, among others, ist tot gegangen (went dead), is tot (is dead), ist tot (is dead), ging tot (went dead), ist verreckt (literally “kicked the bucket”), ist gestorben (died), and ist kaputt gegangen (went broken). Despite the multitude of donor dialects that have provided the base for Texas German, some scholars have argued that the dialect is primarily formed from a middle-northern base, which over time has assimilated other dialectal varieties. In this view, Texas German is a modified Standard

THOMPSON, DOROTHY

German with strong regional colorations depending on the location. As Texas German is spoken only by a few thousand elderly speakers at the beginning of the twenty-first century, there is little time left to research the exact linguistic makeup of this unique dialect. To tackle this problem, the Texas German Dialect Project at the University of Texas at Austin (http://www .tgdp.org) is interviewing as many remaining Texas German speakers as possible. These interviews are permanently stored in a digital archive of Texas German as a resource for future generations to study Texas German culture, language, and history well beyond the eventual death of this distinctive dialect. Hans C. Boas See also Adelsverein; Fredericksburg, Texas; Iowa, German Dialects in; Kansas, German Dialects in; New Braunfels, Texas; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) Language; Sorbs (Wends); Texas; World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Boas, Hans C. “Tracing Dialect Death: The Texas German Dialect Project.” In Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Eds. Mary Larson and Louise Paster. Berkeley Linguistics Society—Linguistics Department of the University of California, Berkeley, 2003, pp. 387–398. Crystal, David. Language Death. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2000. Eikel, Fred. The New Braunfels Dialect. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1954. Gilbert, Glenn. Linguistic Atlas of Texas German. Austin: University of Texas, 1972. Guion, Susan. “The Death of Texas German in Gillespie County.” In Language Contact across the North Atlantic. Eds. Per Sture Ureland and Iain Clarkson. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1996, pp. 443–463. Jordan, Gilbert. “The Texas German Language of the Western Hill Country.” In Texas and Germany: Crosscurrents (Rice University Studies 63). Ed. J. Wilson. Houston: Rice University, 1977, pp. 59–71.

1035

Nicolini, Marcus. Deutsch in Texas. Münster: LIT-Verlag, 2004. Salmons, Joe. “Issues in Texas German Language Maintenance and Shift.” Monatshefte 75, no. 2 (1983 ):187–196. Wilson, Joseph. “The German Language in Central Texas Today.” In Texas and Germany: Crosscurrents (Rice University Studies 63). Ed. J. Wilson. Houston: Rice University, 1977, pp. 47–58.

THOMPSON, DOROTHY b. July 9, 1893; Lancaster, New York d. January 31, 1961; Lisbon, Portugal Most knowledgeable and influential American public commentator on German affairs in the middle of the twentieth century. She was the first prominent American journalist to warn of developments in Germany during the final phase of the Weimar Republic. Her syndicated column, alternating with that of Walter Lippmann, reached the largest audience among early anti-Nazi reporters and quickly gained her the reputation of a “Cassandra”—subsequently also of being a warmonger due to her relentless calls for U.S. intervention in Europe. Even though she was best known as a vocal and persistent critic of the Third Reich, she was also a tireless advocate of the “other Germany,” a great admirer of German culture, and during the later part of World War II a forceful proponent of a constructive peace with defeated Germany. In addition to her regular column, Thompson wrote for a wide range of American newspapers and magazines, including the New York Herald Tribune and the New York Post, the Saturday Evening Post, the Ladies’ Home Journal, and Foreign Affairs. She was an untiring public speaker, radio commentator, and organizer of several public interest groups,

1036

THOMPSON, DOROTHY

among them the wartime American Association for a Democratic Germany, which she chaired together with Reinhold Niebuhr, advocating American support for the democratic elements in Germany. Thompson shaped several central interpretations that characterized American reactions to Nazism: the dictator as buffoon, the masses as the problem, the early recognition that Nazism meant war, the need for outside intervention, the faith in “the other Germany,” the concern over antisemitism at home. Thompson’s first contacts with Germany and its people dated back to her early days as a foreign correspondent in central Europe soon after World War I. A curious and vivacious young woman, she quickly established herself as one of the bestknown foreign journalists in Berlin with excellent sources in high places, but also deeply immersed in the Weimar Republic’s literary and cultural life. During this time she formed lasting friendships with Carl Zuckmayer, Helmuth James Count von Moltke, and Heinrich Brüning. Thompson originally sympathized with German grievances over the Versailles Treaty, but then became increasingly troubled by a German obsession with “injustices” perpetrated by Germany’s alleged enemies, including Jews, Communists, and the Allies. This notion of German victimhood gained prominence long before the Nazi seizure of power, but clearly prepared the ground for it. In the first half of the 1930s her articles focused on internal reasons for the collapse of democracy and the Nazis’ success at forceful coordination, which included deepseated authoritarianism and militarism as well as democratic cowardice. She denied that the Germans had Hitler thrust upon

them—he recommended himself and they bought him. Her 1931 interview with Adolf Hitler (I Saw Hitler!) was a somewhat sensational lapse—Thompson emerged convinced of the insignificance and ridiculousness of the führer—but she also introduced him as the “apotheosis of the little man,” thus shifting attention to the sociopolitical problem of the masses that would continue to cheer and support him. By the time the Nazis expelled Thompson from the Third Reich in 1934 she had grown convinced that Nazism meant war and divided her efforts back home between educating her countrymen about this threat and organizing rescue operations for European refugees. She was among the first to grasp and publicize the murderous intentions that awaited the Jews of Europe. Her intense firsthand experiences and wide-ranging personal contacts in prewar Germany might account for a central difference between her views on the Third Reich and those of most of her professional colleagues. Thompson never characterized Germans as a people apart, counting many of her closest friends among them. During the war the notion of “the other Germany”—highly cultured, democratically oriented, and open minded—was for her a reality she knew and understood personally. Thompson defined Nazism as an ideology with universal implications and challenges. Her second husband, the author Sinclair Lewis, further expanded on this theme in his popular novel, later turned into a play, It Can’t Happen Here (1935), which transposed an increasingly successful Fascist organization and its policies into the American heartland. To Thompson Nazism was a break with Western civilization and a state

TICKNOR, GEORGE

of mind not limited to Germany. Her fight against it was two pronged: it had a foreign policy as much as a domestic dimension. In spite of her own conservative political preferences, Thompson advised the Roosevelt administration in particular from 1940 on. There was a noticeable change in her public message after the Germans started World War II: she began to characterize the same people she had earlier held responsible for facilitating the establishment of a cruel dictatorship as its helpless victims. Closely related to this new interpretation was the job that the journalist outlined for her fellow countrymen: intervention and liberation. Her mission now was to rally American support for a democratic revolution in Germany, even in the near absence of evidence for such an outcome. By 1943 and 1944 Thompson found herself again on the unpopular side of the “German problem.” She criticized the Roosevelt administration for its policy of unconditional surrender, Lord Vansittart for his unforgiving stance against Germany, and Henry Morgenthau for his dire postwar plans. After the war she liberally offered her advice to Allan Dulles and Lucius D. Clay during the early part of the military occupation of Germany where she saw little cause for praise or self-satisfaction. During the cold war, as Thompson’s focus as a political journalist shifted to new areas such as the Middle East, she kept her personal interest in Germany and worked at promoting the memory of the resisters against Hitler, in particular of Moltke. Michaela Hoenicke Moore See also Brüning, Heinrich; Lewis, Sinclair; Morgenthau Plan; Treaty of Versailles; Vansittartism; World War II; Zuckmayer, Carl

1037

References and Further Reading Hoenicke Moore, Michaela. “Know Your Enemy”: American Responses to Nazism. New York: Cambridge University, 2006. Kurth, Peter. American Cassandra: The Life of Dorothy Thompson. Boston: Little, Brown, 1990. Sanders, Marion K. Dorothy Thompson: A Legend in Her Time. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973. Thompson, Dorothy. Let the Record Speak. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1939. ———. Listen, Hans! Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942.

TICKNOR, GEORGE b. August 1, 1791; Boston, Massachusetts d. Janary 26, 1871; Boston, Massachusetts First professor of Spanish and French language and literature at Harvard University from 1819 to 1835, Ticknor was one of the first Americans to undertake graduate study at a German university and sought to introduce some elements of German education to Harvard. After graduating from Dartmouth, Ticknor prepared for a legal career in Boston. However, he found literature more fulfilling, and devoted much time to Boston’s Anthology Society. In 1814, after a year of legal practice, Ticknor decided to make literature his career, and began to prepare himself for study in Germany. He later recalled that he was particularly inspired by Charles Viller’s description of the University of Göttingen as the finest university in Europe. In the fall of 1814 Ticknor learned German. The next year he set out for Germany, along with Edward Everett, George Bancroft, and Joseph Cogswell. Ticknor arrived at Göttingen in August 1815. The most striking feature of

1038

TICKNOR, GEORGE

the university was its library, which held 200,000 volumes, dwarfing Harvard or any other library in the United States. Ticknor considered the library one of the most important parts of any university and believed that scholars could be produced only with an adequate library supported by museums and laboratories. He was also impressed by the method of instruction; private tutorials supplemented by lectures. Ticknor believed this system made the best use of both the professor’s and the student’s time. Ticknor saw that the professors at Göttingen constituted an intellectual community unlike any in the United States. Yet the system could not simply be copied. In Germany, the Gymnasium prepared students for university studies. No similar system existed in the United States. To Ticknor, German universities had significant drawbacks as well as advantages. The faculty was cut off from the rest of society and played no public role. Ticknor admired his professors as scholars, but found their private conduct immoral. He found the students largely ill-mannered. Freedom of inquiry, Ticknor believed, contributed to the spread of religious skepticism and outright unbelief. Ticknor did not confine his studies to Göttingen’s library. He and Everett actively sought out intellectual celebrities, particularly Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Ticknor and Everett also joined Göttingen’s only literary society. Ticknor left Göttingen in the spring of 1817. Together with Everett, Ticknor embarked on a trip through Leipzig, Dresden, Jena, Weimar, Halle, and Berlin. During his stay in Dresden, Ticknor was introduced to the royal family, visited Dresden’s famous art gallery,

and spent ample time in the famous Royal Public Library. He rounded out his education in France, Italy, and Spain before assuming his duties at Harvard College in August 1819. Beginning in 1821, Ticknor advocated reforms at Harvard that would reorganize the institution along German lines. The student revolt of 1823 convinced President John Kirkland that some sort of change was necessary, and gave Ticknor his opportunity. On July 23, 1823, a group of overseers of the Harvard Corporation and tutors from the college (but no other faculty) met with Ticknor at his home to discuss a course of reform. Ticknor proposed two major reorganizations. First, the students should be grouped by ability. Second, traditional classes should be abolished and the college should be organized by departments. As at Göttingen, students could advance at their own pace through examination, rather than as a group by recitation. Justice Joseph Story, Ticknor’s best ally among the overseers, issued a report endorsing Ticknor’s proposed changes on May 4, 1824. Final approval was delayed until January 6, 1825, owing to a dispute over whether the overseers or the faculty should control the college. The corporation issued 153 new rules in June 1825. Rule 61 was at the heart of Ticknor’s agenda. It retained division by freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior classes, but then grouped students by ability. Ticknor saw Rule 61 as at best a partial victory, but realistically the only victory that could be obtained. Faculty resentment and student resistance blocked the reforms. Only Ticknor’s Department of Modern Languages fully implemented the new rules.

TOMUSCHAT, CHRISTIAN

Ticknor left Harvard in 1835 and divided the rest of his life between his home in Boston and travels in Europe. Ticknor visited Germany again in 1835 and 1836, making a pilgrimage to Goethe’s home and meeting with the leading intellectuals, including Alexander von Humboldt. The most important acquaintance for Ticknor, however, was Johann, king of Saxony, who repeatedly invited Ticknor during his stay in Dresden to his residential quarters to converse with him on literary matters or to discuss various subjects of common interest. This was the beginning of an acquaintance that ripened into friendship and produced frequent correspondence that lasted until Ticknor’s death in 1871. Ticknor returned to Germany in 1856 to purchase books for the newly formed Boston Public Library. He envisioned a library on the scale of those in Germany and throughout Europe. A gift of $50,000 from Boston-born banker Joshua Bates made Ticknor’s mission possible. Ticknor set up an agency in Leipzig and personally bought 2,000 books in Brussels and Berlin. Robert W. Smith See also American Students at German Universities; Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward; Göttingen, University of; Humboldt, Alexander von; Johann, King of Saxony References and Further Reading Adams, Henry M. Prussian-American Relations 1775–1871. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University, 1960. Hilliard, George S., ed. Life, Letters and Journals of George Ticknor. 2 vols. Boston: Joseph Osgood, 1876. Morison, Samuel Eliot. Three Centuries of Harvard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1936. Tyack, David B. George Ticknor and the Boston Brahmins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1967.

1039

TOMUSCHAT, CHRISTIAN b. June 23, 1936; Stettin (Pomerania), Prussia Before being appointed head of the Guatemalan Truth Commission in 1997, Christian Tomuschat already looked back on a considerable career in the realm of law. Tomuschat studied law in Heidelberg and Montpellier, France. He held visiting professorships in Mainz and Tübingen, was professor for public law and in particular international and European law in Bonn, before becoming professor for public law at Humboldt University, Berlin. He was involved in work for the German federal government and the European Union, and repeatedly participated in United Nations activities like the Human Rights Committee under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1977–1986) and the International Law Commission (1985–1996). In 2003 he was awarded a doctor honoris causa from the law school at the University of Zürich. Tomuschat has authored a number of books and articles, among them Human Rights— Between Idealism and Realism (2003). The Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification (Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, CEH), which Tomuschat headed, was established by virtue of what has become known as the Oslo Agreement of June 23, 1994. Its mandate was to undertake the clarification of human rights violations and acts of violence that occurred during over thirty years of armed confrontation between government forces and guerilla insurgents. Based on its findings, the CEH was supposed to formulate recommendations with the objective of promoting peace and national

1040

TOMUSCHAT, CHRISTIAN

harmony in Guatemala. Tomuschat, who had previously served as UN special rapporteur to Guatemala, was chosen to head the CEH. In addition to Tomuschat, the truth commission was made up of two Guatemalans, a lawyer and a social scientist. Choosing a mixed composition of Guatemalans and a foreigner for the commission was intended to guarantee an element of independence and impartiality to shield the CEH from any suspicion of bias. A foreigner like the German Tomuschat was considered unlikely to be pursuing political objectives; the two Guatemalans were to represent the ladino and indigenous communities. According to the Oslo agreement, the CEH was supposed to start its work on the day of the conclusion of the Agreement for a Firm and Lasting Peace, the final agreement of the peace process. It was given a period of six months from that date, as well as an option to extend its mandate once for another six months. This time frame was an unrealistic one, especially because the members of the future CEH had to be chosen after the conclusion of the final peace agreement, which was not concluded until December 29, 1996. Therefore, it was impossible for the commission to begin its work on that same day. Tomuschat was named as the commission’s coordinator on February 8, 1997. He then proceeded to appoint the two Guatemalan members, Otilia Lux de Cotí and Alfredo Balsells. Staff and work spaces were also needed, because by themselves the three members of the CEH could not fulfill the task assigned to it. As a consequence, actual work did not start until mid-April 1997. It was therefore very unlikely that the truth commission would be able to accomplish its task within the set time frame. Another reason for this was the broad mandate to

investigate the human rights violations and acts of violence connected with the armed confrontation. Out of necessity the CEH decided to prioritize attacks on life and personal integrity, especially extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, and sexual violations. Yet even though the CEH limited its investigations and drew on data from other organizations, it still took about two years to complete the work. The CEH was created without any kind of budgetary resources, so that until the end of July 1997 it was mostly concerned with raising funds. The investigative work in the countryside began on September 1, 1997. The CEH conducted over 7,000 interviews, sometimes with individuals and sometimes with groups. These were complemented by secondary research. The hearing of witnesses took place confidentially, partly to reassure and protect witnesses. Very few members of the military and the police forces volunteered statements and the CEH was not given the right to compel them. Though it initiated a campaign inviting most of the military and police officers who had held high posts during the subsequent dictatorial regimes to appear before it, on the whole the Guatemalan government and its various organizations proved very uncooperative and pursued a deliberate strategy of obstruction. The CEH lacked subpoena powers and was not authorized to undertake searches. The guerillas cooperated with the truth commission but left questions unaddressed as well. The investigative work was completed at the end of April 1998. The report itself included broad statistical findings documenting deaths and disappearances. It identified the violence as fundamentally originating with the state. The historical section of the report ana-

TRANSCENDENTALISM

lyzed specific kinds of human rights violations, using illustrative cases. The report stated that, according to the CEH’s judgment, genocide had been perpetrated at times and in places during the period of armed confrontation. In accordance with its mandate, the truth commission did not assign individual blame. This was the case even though several of the acts of violence described in the CEH report did not fall under the Law on National Reconciliation, an amnesty adopted a few days before the conclusion of the final peace agreement. The report was not to convict anyone, not even in an indirect fashion. Because some crimes were excluded from the amnesty, penal prosecution was reserved regarding these most serious of crimes. The CEH report did, however, determine that the origin of the conflict, as well as the majority of the violence, could be attributed to the Guatemalan state. Claudia Haake References and Further Reading Chapman, Audrey R., and Patrick Ball. “The Truth of Truth Commissions: Comparative Lessons from Haiti, South Africa, and Guatemala.” Human Rights Quarterly 23 (2001): 1–43. Commission for Historical Clarification. Commission for Historical Clarification Report. At http://hrdata.aaas.org/ceh (cited January 12, 2004). Jonas, Susanne. Of Centaurs and Doves: Guatemala’s Peace Process. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2000. Tomuschat, Christian. “Clarification Commission in Guatemala.” Human Rights Quarterly 23 (2001): 233–258.

TRANSCENDENTALISM Term used to refer to the social thought of a loose circle of liberal theologians, romantic writers, and social reformers based

1041

in and around Boston from the 1830s through the 1850s. This diverse group of intellectuals who sought to balance individual protest with social commitment included Ralph Waldo Emerson, Theodore Parker, Margaret Fuller, Henry David Thoreau, George Ripley, and Bronson Alcott, among others. The term comes from Immanuel Kant, who argued that our knowledge of the world does not come from sensory experience, as John Locke had claimed, but from “transcendental” intuitions in the mind itself. Like Parker, who poked fun at the label, arguing that it was a term of derision used by critics who worried that the antinomian impulse in transcendentalism was “a very naughty” import from Europe, Emerson did not much care for the term. However, despite Emerson’s insistence that “there is no such thing as a Transcendental party” (Emerson 1842, 197) he did find the term handy insofar as it referred to an idealist alternative to materialism. Drawing inspiration from Plato, German idealism, English Romanticism, and Asian spirituality, Emerson and his fellow transcendentalists argued for the sanctity of the individual by insisting that truth is found in individual consciousness and not in the external world. Though popular perception of the time viewed transcendentalism as radical and antiestablishment, Emerson insisted that their ideas were “not new, but the very oldest of thoughts cast into the mould of these new times” (Emerson 1842, 193). According to Emerson, transcendentalism was “Idealism as it appears in 1842” (Emerson 1842, 193). Despite the limitations of the label, the intellectuals and ideas associated with the movement articulated a number of shared concerns growing out of their backgrounds

1042

TRANSCENDENTALISM

Emerson and his fellow transcendentalists argued for the sanctity of the individual by insisting that truth is found in individual consciousness and not in the external world. (Library of Congress)

in Unitarianism, a strand of liberal Protestantism that had become dominant in Massachusetts in the early nineteenth century. Though they shared the Unitarian emphasis on the human capacity for good and likewise its interest in biblical criticism and secular literature and sciences, the transcendentalists were critical of Unitarianism’s “corpse-cold” rationalism, which they believed placed too great an emphasis on form over spirit and too easily accommodated itself to the pecuniary interests of the commercial class. Trained as Unitarian ministers, Emerson, Parker, and Ripley ultimately broke with Unitarianism during the “miracles controversy” of the 1830s, which signaled the increasingly generational divide between the young ministers

and mainline Unitarianism. The transcendentalist ministers rejected the mainline Unitarian belief that the miracles in the New Testament were proof of the divinity of Jesus Christ. Instead they held that Christian doctrine was true not because it was proven by a few divine parlor tricks eighteen hundred years before, but because it was true self-evidently, universally, and timelessly. The gospels, in their estimation, required no supernatural intervention in order to be justified. Likewise, the transcendentalist ministers downplayed the unique divinity of Christ, arguing that all people were equally divine. Overall, the young ministers collectively criticized the ministerial profession for its undue emphasis on formalism and historical Christianity, rather than promoting its living spirit. This insistence on spirit over form, on divinity as a living intuition animating all individuals, and on individual responsibility would form the basis of the transcendentalist impulse. Though the central ideas of transcendentalism come out of Unitarianism, much of its inspiration comes from trends in European thought. Indeed New England transcendentalism is often viewed as the American corollary to European Romanticism. While Enlightenment ideals had provided Americans a revolutionary force to break with England in the eighteenth century, they failed to animate the moral imagination of this younger generation of intellectuals in the first half of the nineteenth century. Eager for new intellectual sources to guide the American democratic experiment and to inspire a new liberal personality, the transcendentalists turned to a variety of early nineteenth-century European thinkers for ideas that were conge-

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

nial to their project. The more literary of the writers gravitated to the beauty and emotional range found in the poetry of the British Romantics including Carlyle, Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Shelley. Transcendental social reformers turned to the post-Kantian empiricism of Victor Cousin and to the communitarian ideas of French socialist Charles Fourier for his science of social perfection. Though critical of the pantheism and subjectivism they detected in German philosophy, a number of transcendentalists nevertheless discovered a wide range of confirming ideas in German thought. They discovered in Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi and Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher insights on the intuitiveness of religion; in Jakob Böhme mystical theosophy; in Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling a philosophy of nature as the artwork of God; and in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe a model of linguistic artistry and moral self-reliance. Though the transcendentalists read widely in European texts, their interest in European ideas was cultivated by their deep connections to their New England heritage. They creatively appropriated only those ideas from European authors that confirmed and strengthened their commitment to finding a middle course in American life between individual independence and social responsibility at a time when American democratic culture was still beginning to take root. Indeed, the legacy of transcendentalism is as an indigenous movement aimed at finding a new literary voice and social vision for the young nation. Originating in discontent with the social atomism engendered by the market revolution, coupled with the social conformity caused by outworn religious be-

1043

liefs, transcendentalism’s lasting significance is its vision of a harmonious relation between God and man, independence and obligation, and innovation and history. Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen See also Bancroft, George; Fuller, Margaret References and Further Reading Cromphout, Gustaaf van. Emerson’s Modernity and the Example of Goethe. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1990. Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “The Transcendentalist.” In Essays and Lectures. New York: Library of America, 1842, 1983. Pochmann, Henry A. German Culture in America. Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1957. Richardson, Robert D., Jr. “Schleiermacher and the Transcendentalists.” In Transient and Permanent: The Transcendentalist Movement and Its Contexts. Eds. Charles Capper and Conrad Edick Wright. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1999. Rose, Anne C. Transcendentalism as a Social Movement, 1830–1850. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1981. Wellek, René. Confrontations: Studies in the Intellectual and Literary Relations between Germany, England, and the United States during the Nineteenth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1965.

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S. Travel literature encompasses a broad range of genres, such as emigration brochures, magazines, letters, diaries, and reports of personal experiences. A series of generic modalities has developed that are aligned to specific reader expectations and include everything from researchers’ descriptive accounts of the country to personal impressions of a foreign culture. Accordingly, the ethnological view dominant in travel literature is primarily bound by the requirement to provide information and satiate

1044

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

curiosity. Additionally, travel literature describes a process of self-reflection and a hermeneutic differentiation of culture. Irrespective of whether such literature is authentic or fabricated, it invites the reader to participate in the foreign and self-perception of cultural, social, and political processes, even though the self-prescribed demand for objectivity prevalent into the eighteenth century increasingly bows to a more personal perspective. This is partially linked with a functional change of paradigms sparked in the first half of the nineteenth century, in which the information contained in travel literature becomes a means of enhancing understanding. Travel literature thus no longer serves a solely descriptive purpose, but attempts to help the reader understand processes and foreign behavior. This functional change arises partially from the context of the exodus to the United States in which travel literature is increasingly set. From a literary and sociological point of view, it is also rooted in the phenomenon of mass tourism and optimized transport, which broadens the cross section of authors of travel literature from scientists, military personnel, and missionaries to businesspeople, journalists, the aristocracy, and writers. This process brings about a cultural transfer that has been fostered by the Germans with greater intensity than by the Americans. With the exception of the European tours undertaken by American intellectuals of the nineteenth century, German American travel literature chiefly comprises German-language texts. Travel reports by American authors are less common and their experiences tend to be channelled into fictional texts. From the time of America’s discovery to the seventeenth century, exclusively soldiers

(Nikolaus Feldmann, Ulrich Schmidel, Hans Staden), missionaries, and scientists described the New World in travel and research reports. In line with the “curiosity” figure of speech, the focus mainly falls on exotic elements such as tobacco, animals and unfamiliar plants, and observations of a mythological and religious ritualistic ilk, such as the “vitzliputzli” cult, remembering the demon-god and culture-hero of the Aztecs “Huitzilopochtli.” (Vitzliputzli is an archaic form of Huitzilopochtli.) The assessments of America, both South and North (Theodor de Bry’s America, Levinus Hulsius Schiffahrten [Voyages]), diverge considerably. The accounts, in the main translations of the travel reports written by Jesuits and Spanish conquerors on the topics of cannibalism, child sacrifice, and disease, trigger a Christianization process, the excesses of which are criticized by humanist missionaries such as Bartholomé de Las Casas. When the Palatine pietists settled in Germantown near Philadelphia in 1693 and subsequently in North Carolina, North America became a topic of growing interest. The exodus fueled by religious and political intolerance gained momentum, as did the foundation of German colonies based on the idea of an ahistoric continent ready to be acculturated. At the same time, disappointed emigrants and concerned clerics warned of the difficulties of emigration in pamphlets and writings. In the eighteenth century, travel literature received a political slant. America became the fate of the 30,000 soldiers who, like Johann Gottfried Seume (Mein Leben [My Life], 1813), were sold to England and dispatched to America (cf. also Bruno Frank, Zwölftausend [Twelve Thousand], 1927). The subsidy treaties (1776–1778) between German princes and England,

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

which were recognized in the eighteenth century as a legitimate right of the princes, were interpreted as despotism by several poets (Christoph Friedrich Bretzner, Das Räuschgen [Tipsiness], 1786; Joseph Marius Babo, Das Winterquartier in Amerika [The Winter Quarters in America], 1778). The officers’ reports recorded that the absence of a state church promoted the disintegration of morality and the rise of avarice. The appropriated reports of officers, missionaries, and settlers were joined by merchant reports, a novelty in German American travel literature. Under the influence of Johann Gottfried Herder, trade relations and industry were portrayed in travel literature as a means of promoting humanity through which America’s image received a lift. The image of Germany in the eyes of American authors at the end of the eighteenth century was consistent and shaped largely by the efficiency of the Pennsylvania Dutch (Michel St. Jean de Crèvecoeur, Letters from an American Farmer, 1782) and the respect that German officers and soldiers enjoyed in the American War of Independence. Admiration for the Prussian sense of duty and the state of the “Hohenzollern,” stemming from their mythicization by Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, resulted in a positive view of Germany, prompting numerous Americans to study at German universities in the nineteenth century and to familiarize themselves with the German intellectual and cultural world. Henry W. Longfellow records his experiences during his second trip to Europe in 1835 and 1836 in Hyperion, which features a sound analysis of German literature. Washington Irving’s predilection for German legends and fairy tales, which he collected for The Legend of Sleepy Hollow

1045

and Rip van Winkle, also arise from this cultural exchange. Surprisingly, many travelers in Germany, such as Hermann Melville, James Russel Lowell, and Charles Eliot Norton, showed considerable reserve toward Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, quite in contrast to the theologian Edward Robinson, the botanist Lewis David von Schweinitz, and the scientist Joseph Green Cogswell, all of whom spent time in Weimar. Although transcendentalists, such as Margaret Fuller and Ralph Waldo Emerson, who devoted an essay to Goethe in Representative Men and always carried a volume of Goethe’s works with him, productively assimilated German philosophy, they never visited the country of poets and thinkers. In American texts of the nineteenth century the romantic image of Germany appeared with its breathtaking landscapes, such as in James Fenimore Cooper’s second volume of the European Trilogy, which is set in the Palatinate of the sixteenth century. In his impressions and vignettes Bayard Taylor reinforces the image of a country of castles and ruins (Views A-foot, 1846). Moreover, through the accounts of the political refugees following the Karlsbad decrees of 1819 (Francis Lieber), Germany was considered a country of academic ideals and the sciences. More than 10,000 American students enrolled at German universities in the nineteenth century. Göttingen alone attracted students such as the theologian Edward Everett, the Germanist George Ticknor, the philologist George Bancroft, the philosopher Joseph Green Cogswell, and George Henry Calvert, who went on to shape Goethe’s reception in, among others, Life and Works of Goethe, appearing in 1875. Information on student life in Göttingen, Berlin, and Heidelberg, and on

1046

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

traveling academics was provided by Henry Edwin Dwight’s Travels in the North of Germany (1829), William Howitt’s The Student-Life of Germany (1842), and Ralph Keeler. The education-oriented and cultural interest of the nineteenth century was specific to American intellectuals and also defined by works such as John Murray’s travel Handbook for North Germany and John Russel’s Tour in Germany, in which a specific route and sights are described. The Rhine became a favorite location as well as a source of inspiration (Thomas Hood, Up the Rhine, 1839), above all in the books on Germany by William Howitt. One of the great nineteenth-century travelers of Germany was Mark Twain, who in A Tramp Abroad (1880) summarized his stays in Vienna, Berlin, Bayreuth, and Bad Nauheim by depicting a personal romantic image of Germany, featuring descriptions of the landscape and architecture. His measured description of political and social aspects went hand in hand with his admiration of technical progress, which prompted him to describe Berlin as the “German Chicago.” The visits of German authors and intellectuals to America multiplied after 1830. The period of emigration created a market for emigration literature, in which emigration brochures with log books competed with propaganda texts containing fabricated reports of America, such that their readers could barely distinguish between fact and fiction. Between 1815 and 1850 more than fifty travel reports were written in which motifs, procedures, and personal experiences of emigration were described, such as in Ludwig Gall’s Meine Auswanderung nach den Vereinigten Staaten in Nordamerika (My Emigration to the

United States of North America, 1822). A literature market for a German audience also emerged in the United States in general and Chicago, New York, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee in particular and featured a broadly based printed press. Many authors filled posts in American education and cultural fields (Francis Lieber, Charles Follen, Otto Ruppius, Julius Fröbel). These authentic reports on social and political conditions are flanked by many travel accounts that focused less on fact, but pandered to the reader’s imagination by magnifying the image of the American El Dorado. A famous example was the travel report by physician Gottfried Duden (Bericht über eine Reise nach den westlichen Staaten Nordamerikas [Report on a journey to the Western States of North America and a stay of several years along the Missouri], 1829), extensive passages of which were taken from travel manuals and embellished with fabulous notions. The travel reports born of curiosity and a sense of adventure (Friedrich Gerstäcker, Streif- und Jagdzüge durch die Vereinigten Staaten Nord Amerikas [Expeditions and Hunts through the United States of North America], 1844) and others arising from specific objectives, such as military or scientific stays in the United States (Duke Bernhard von Sachsen-Weimar, 1828, Duke Paul Wilhelm, Erste Reise nach dem nördlichen Amerika [First Journey to North America], 1835) proved highly popular. These reports were written with a view to shedding light on American society, and were diametrically opposed to Charles Sealsfield’s concepts of moralities and his studies of the period, which were to a larger extent motivated by collective psychology (Neue Land- und Seebilder [New Images of the Land and Seas], 1839).

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

The Austrian Karl Postl (alias Charles Sealsfield) visited the United States four times for several years at a time (Transatlantische Reiseskizzen [Transatlantic Travel Sketches], 1834; Morton oder die große Tour [Morton or the Great Tour], 1844) and held an American passport. Writing many of his novels also in English (Tokeah, or the white nose, 1828 [Der Legitime und die Republikaner 1833]), he recorded his observations in the essay entitled The United States of North America as They Are (1827), in which he clearly shared Andrew Jackson’s political views and discussed the displacement of the Indians. Sealsfield saw America, with which he associates the republican political system, in direct contrast to Metternich’s Europe. Several of the authors of the prerevolutionary Vormärz period sought political asylum in America, leading to greater coverage in travel literature of America’s role as a country of exile. The experiences of Charles Follen, Franz Lieber, and Karl Beck, portrayed in republican freedom songs and reports, were designed to trigger revolutionary upheavals in Germany. Whereas the majority of these authors saw the United States as a political and military base for instigating Europe’s renewal (Friedrich Hecker, Amand Goegg, Gottfried Kinkel), others such as Wilhelm Weitling attempted to impose European social models on America. The German Americans became increasingly assimilated (Carl Schurz), committing themselves to the republican camp in the American Civil War (Ernst A. Zündt, Reinhold Solger, Franz Sigel, Friedrich Kapp, Karl Heinzen). The interests of German visitors to America, therefore, left their mark on do-

1047

mestic politics. Thus, the issue of slavery and calls for political and social justice for the North American Indians, such as in the writings of Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben and Friedrich Freiherr von Gagern, emerged as politically controversial topics in the United States. Around this time, the Socialist movement and unionized workers gained ground largely under the influence of German Socialists (Joseph Weydemeyer, Adolf Strodtmann), paving the way for numerous authors such as Wilhelm Hasenclever and Leopold Jacoby to seek refuge in the United States, following Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law of 1878. In the travel reports from the Gründerzeit (period of rapid industrial expansion in Germany starting in 1871) by Friedrich Ratzel (1876) and Friedrich Bonstedt (1882), the political and social aspects fell by the wayside, as these accounts chiefly targeted the bourgeois reader. The travel report was now no longer considered a medium for promoting political and social understanding. At the turn of the twentieth century, the phenomenon of americanism emerges, in which the United States is either admired or criticized as the country of the future (Wilhelm von Polenz, 1903) and the “Land of unlimited opportunity” (Ludwig Max Goldberger, 1903), stemming from America’s military and economic clout. At the same time the travel literature on America from the Wilhelminian period, such as by Ernst von Wolzogen (Der Dichter in Dollarica [The Poet in Dollarica], 1912), demonstrated national self-importance and a feeling of superiority. This was partially rooted in the fact that many German authors visited the United States only for short periods. These tourist concerns were expressed in travel re-

1048

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

ports describing encounters with a foreign culture and differences in daily life. Kaleidoscopic snapshots were created in descriptive reportages. Arthur Holitscher’s Amerika heute und morgen (America Today and Tomorrow, 1912) was typical for the unsystematic method of perception and representation. Various works followed in its wake, such as Alfred Kerr’s Amerika (1914), Newyork und London (1923), and Yankee Land (1925); Egon Erwin Kisch’s ironic portrayal in Paradies Amerika (Paradise America, 1930); and Ernst Toller’s Quer durch (Crossing Through, 1930). The cultural exchange thus intended also functioned in the Weimar Republic at a cultural-political level, such as in successful anthologies of American literature (Claire Goll, Die Neue Welt [The New World], 1921). During the Gründerzeit, the image of Germany as perceived by American travelers changed after the Franco-German war of 1870. The appreciation of Protestant culture and the obliging sympathy for cozy German family life (John Ross Browne, An American Family in Germany, 1866; Louisa May Alcott, Little Women, 1869) was tarnished by the criticism of the militarism and reckless arrogance of the German Empire as found in the works of the “moral realist” Henry James and W. E. B. Du Bois (Crisis, 1916). In their eyes Germany developed into the puppet of pan-Germanism. The philosophy professors, who were still held in high regard in the nineteenth century, were made responsible for triggering this transformation, receiving part of the blame for World War I (George Santayana, Poultney Bigelow, Harold Frederic, Frederic Jessup Stimson). Despite the mediatory attempts of Hugo Münsterberg, whose studies endeavored to unveil the mechanisms

leading to the formation of national stereotypes and revive the dialogue between Germany and the United States (American Traits, 1901; The Americans, 1904), and despite Germanophile authors (H. L. Mencken, Theodore Dreiser), the thoughtless comments of the German emperor regarding American politics made it impossible to reverse the demonization of Germany (William Roscoe Thayer, Germany vs. Civilisation, 1916). This led to the hate propaganda of the “Creel Committee,” which was gradually rescinded in the 1920s and 1930s. The Weimar Republic enjoyed political credit in the United States and reemerged as a travel destination (Sinclair Lewis, Louis Untermeyer), during which time the country’s romantic landscape was rediscovered (Thomas Wolfe). Above all, Berlin’s cosmopolitan flair and the capital’s popular culture (Joseph Hergesheimer, Berlin, 1932) became the leitmotifs of Germany’s modern image, described by expatriates and avant-garde elitists as decadent, morally depraved, and excessive (Robert McAlmon, Josephine Herbst). The beginnings of National Socialism were barely detected by some authors on their travels, which was not perceived as blindness until considerably later (Kay Boyle, Thomas Wolfe, Kathrin Anne Porter, Walker Percy). The American reporters (Dorothy Thompson, I Saw Hitler, 1933; Edgar Ansel Mowrer, William L. Shirer, John Gunther) recognized the Fascist leanings of the Third Reich more clearly. Sinclair Lewis extrapolated them in his dystopia It Can’t Happen Here (1935), superimposing them on the United States. This self-reflection (Albert Maltz, The Cross and the Arrow, 1944) was, however, retracted in favor of a revival of the image of Germany from World War I, fueled by

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

the continuing arrival of emigrants to the United States (Louis Bromfield). Led by the political science study of Franz Neumann (Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of Social Nationalism, 1942), the analyses by the emigrants in the United States molded Germany’s image in the 1930s and 1940s. The authors-in-exile made a significant contribution to the cultural transfer that, though tense and full of misconceptions, was in fact highly effective. Innumerable reports reversed the critical stance toward America (Thomas Mann, Vom kommenden Sieg der Demokratie, Dieser Friede [The Coming Victory of Democracy, This Peace], 1938), which was widespread in the Weimar Republic and still shared by many. The bourgeois authors saw America as their savior and the land of the political future. This also applied to Georg Kaiser who sang the United States’ praises in Napoleon in New Orleans (1938), although he was refused political asylum in the United States and wrote from his external perspective in Switzerland. Reports of journeys into exile and everyday life in the authors’ new surroundings (Oskar Maria Graf, Flucht ins Mittelmäßige [Flight to Mediocrity], 1959; Carl Zuckmayer, Amerika ist anders [America Is Different], 1948; Walter Mehring, Die verlorene Bibliothek [The Lost Library], 1952) as well as the literary considerations (Hans Sahl, Die Wenigen und die Vielen [The Few and the Many], 1959; Stefan Heym, Kreuzfahrer von heute [Crusaders], 1950; Thomas Mann, Joseph und seine Brüder [Joseph and his Brothers], 1948) primarily constituted explorations of the authors’ own lives, reflections on Nazi Germany, and debates about the political and aesthetic positions within the emigrant groups, such that America and its society

1049

are barely featured. The fascination for and appreciation of America and a simultaneous preoccupation with the author’s own life climaxed in Klaus Mann’s English-language autobiography The Turning Point (1942). After 1945 an exchange, promoted by cultural politics, took place between American and German authors. Numerous authors were invited to readings at U.S. universities, and subsequently recorded their experiences in reports. The glorification and admiration of and gratitude for America’s generosity (Josef Enerle, Die Reise nach Amerika [The Journey to America], 1949; Bruno Erich, Kannst Du Europa vergessen? [Can You Forget Europe?], 1952) were contrasted with humorous and more critical reports (Rudolf Hagelstange, How do you like America? 1957; Wolfgang Koeppen, Die Früchte Europas. Amerika westwärts–Amerika ostwärts [The Fruit of Europe. America Westwards–America Eastwards], 1958, and Amerikafahrt [Journey to America], 1959; Hans Egon Holthusen, Indiana Campus, 1969). Ingeborg Bachmann, Horst Bienek, and Horst Krüger also embarked upon the obligatory trip to America, passing on their impressions of life in a democracy and a socially Darwinistic consumer society, while also emphasizing the architectural splendor and their yearning for America. This was coupled with mounting criticism of American politics. In 1968, based on the cultural and industrial theories of Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Hans Magnus Enzensberger accused the government of betraying the country’s founding myth. In an act of protest, Enzensberger left Wesleyan University for Cuba. The travel literature of this period moved the focus away from the landscape

1050

TRAVEL LITERATURE, GERMAN-U.S.

and cultural differences to the politicians and government issues. The politically motivated shift of America’s image also had an influence on Jürg Federspiel, who recorded his thoughts during his stay in Manhattan from 1967 through 1969 in a collection of diary notes, essays, and sceneries (Museum des Hasses [Museum of Hate], 1969). In the 1970s travelers to America also embarked upon autobiographical approaches in which they explored their inner selves during their travels (Peter Handke, Der kurze Brief zum langen Abschied [Short Letter, Long Farewell], 1972; Langsame Heimkehr [Returning Home], 1979). This strain of travel literature was characterized by journeys in search of one’s own subjectivity (Ulrich Pothast, Die Reise nach Las Vegas [Journey to Las Vegas], 1977; Max Frisch, Montauk, 1975). Martin Walser, who taught at several colleges from the 1950s onward, initially experienced America as a release from daily routines and then as a location for projecting his effusively felt idea of home. The year 1986 saw the appearance of Brandung (Breakers), Walser’s novel set in California, and his travel report Die Amerikareise (Travels in America), in which he attempts to understand a “feeling.” This individualization of the American experience found in personal travel reports has continued into the twenty-first century, and is particularly evident among authors who grew up in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and used their newly found freedom to travel to America, the country of their dreams. This prompted the creation of travel reports (Adolf Endler, Warnung vor Utah [Warning about Utah], 1996) and fiction in which clashes with a foreign culture were portrayed as an enrichment of one’s experience and perception (Angela Krauss, Milliarden

neuer Sterne [Billions of New Stars], 1999; Antje Ravic Strubel, Offene Blende [Open Blind], 2001). These were diametrically opposed to the politically motivated travel reports written during the GDR, such as those of the emigrant Walter Kaufmann (American Encounter, 1966; Hoffnung unter Glas [Hope under Glass], 1967) and Günter Kunert, who, in his travel notes entitled Der andere Planet (The Other Planet, 1976), searched for the reasons for what he perceived as America’s departure from its ideals. Whereas many German authors travel to the United States, the visits by American authors to Germany are relatively sparse. This chiefly stems from the modernization processes that gained momentum in Germany after the economic miracle and as a result of the cold war, which are also perceived as forms of americanization. Because many German products are exported to the United States, the incentive to discover something foreign is not as great. Typically Walter Abish’s How German Is It (1980) primarily comprised a debate on German stereotypes. This is exacerbated by the skepticism toward Germany that prevailed in America after World War II and also by German reunification (Henry Miller). Despite academic exchange programs (James William Fulbright), guidebooks, and foreign correspondents, Germany’s post-1945 image in America largely remains fixed on National Socialism and the Third Reich (Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow, 1973). This can be attributed to the origins of the majority of texts, written in the main by GIs describing their impressions as occupying soldiers (David Davidson, John Hawkes, James Cross, James McGovern, William Gardner Smith; Thomas Berger, Crazy in Berlin, 1958).

TRAVEN, B.

The far-reaching consequences a trip can have is illustrated by Kay Boyle. After struggling with herself, she followed her husband to Marburg as a journalist where she described everyday life and the treatment of history in narrative texts (The Smoking Mountains, 1951). The cultural exchange, above all the memory of author Wolfgang Borchert and her friendship with journalist Siegfried Maruhn, found expression in her novel Generation without Farewell (1960), in which she enhanced her previously negative image of Germany. As in the case of Boyle, Kurt Vonnegut found Germany a stimulus for self-reflection, triggering also an analysis of American history and society (Slaughterhouse-Five, 1969; Bluebeard, 1987). Claude D. Conter See also Adorno, Theodor; American Students at German Universities; Bancroft, George; Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Duden, Gottfried; Everett, Edward; Films and Television (American) After World War II, Germany in; Follen, Charles; Fulbright Program; Fuller, Margaret; GIs in West Germany; Hecker, Friedrich; Heym, Stefan; Horkheimer, Max; Intellectual Exile; Kapp, Friedrich; Kisch, Egon Erwin; Lewis, Sinclair; Lieber, Francis; Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth; Mann, Thomas; Münsterberg, Hugo; Neumann, Franz L.; Paul Wilhelm, Duke of Württemberg; Ratzel, Friedrich; Ruppius, Otto; Schmidel, Ulrich; Schurz, Carl; Sealsfield, Charles; Seume, Johann Gottfried; Sigel, Franz; Staden, Hans; Steuben, Frederick Wilhelm von; Taylor, (James) Bayard; Thompson, Dorothy; Ticknor, George; Transcendentalism; Twain, Mark; Weitling, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Adams, Willi Paul. Deutschland und Amerika. Perzeption und historische Realität. Berlin: Colloquium-Verlag, 1985. Brenner, Peter J. Reisen in die Neue Welt. Die Erfahrung Nordamerikas in deutschen Reiseund Auswanderungsberichten. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991.

1051

Galinsky, Hans. Amerikanisch-deutsche Sprachund Literaturbeziehungen. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1972. Hammond, Theresa Mayer. American Paradise. German Travel Literature from Duden to Kisch. Heidelberg: Winter, 1980. Mikoletzky, Juliane. Die deutsche AmerikaAuswanderung des 19. Jahrhunderts in der zeitgenössischen fiktionalen Literatur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1988. Neuber, Wolfgang. Fremde Welt im europäischen Horizont. Zur Topik der deutschen Amerika-Reiseberichte in der frühen Neuzeit. Berlin: Schmidt, 1991. Ott, Ulrich. Amerika ist anders. Studien zum Amerika-Bild in deutschen Reiseberichten des 20. Jahrhunderts. Frankfurt am Main, Bern: Peter Lang, 1991. Stowe, William W. Going Abroad. European Travel in Nineteenth-Century American Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1994. Zacharasiewicz, Waldemar. Das Deutschlandbild in der ameríkanischen Literatur. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998.

TRAVEN, B. b. (?) 1890; (?) d. (?) 1969; Mexico City, Mexico B. Traven is the pseudonym of the man called “the greatest literary mystery of this [the twentieth] century” by Paul Theroux. Conflicting stories about his life persist into the twenty-first century, despite the publication of several biographies that claim to tell the real story of his life. The author himself remained secretive and added new and contradictory versions of his life. Many critics agree that he was born of low origin in Germany in 1890. While he himself always claimed to be of U.S. origins, biographers have assumed a range of possibilities. Some claim that he was the son of workers from Schwiebus, Brandenburg; others assert that

1052

TRAVEN, B.

he was an illegitimate son of German emperor Wilhelm II. Yet others claim that he was born Hermann Albert Otto Maximilian Feige, and that he led a life as an actor and writer before he came to Mexico in 1924. According to that version, he left Germany as a political refugee after his participation in the Munich Soviet Republic in 1919 in which he edited an anarchist journal under the pseudonym Ret Marut. Sentenced to death, he escaped and later went via London to Tampico, Mexico. In Tampico, a port city and stronghold of anarchist trade unions, Feige seemed to have found the realization of the shattered dreams of the Munich Soviet Republic. He began using the pen name B. Traven in 1925 when he published the novel Die Baumwollpflücker (The Cottonpickers). This novel was published by the Büchergilde Gutenberg in Germany, which henceforth remained his publisher. While Traven refused to give any details of his life, he asserted the autobiographical nature of Die Baumwollpflücker, a book that details the attempt of an American worker to find work in Mexico. In this manner, Traven continued to invent numerous contradictory life stories, at one point even representing himself as his own literary agent under the name Hal Croves. Despite the mystery surrounding Traven, he has a firm place in German expatriate literature. He wrote in German in such an idiomatically masterful way that one cannot deny that German was his primary language. In his second year in Mexico, Traven experienced the life of the Chamula Indians in Chiapas when he went on an expedition into that area as a photographer. As a result of this journey, he published Land des Frühlings (Land of Spring) in 1928. This travel account is the only one of his

works that was never translated. It shows Traven’s infatuation with the Mexican Revolution and misguided admiration of the postrevolutionary government of Plutarco Elías Calles, whom he then considered a true Socialist president. However, all his illusions were to be destroyed on two subsequent trips to Chiapas, when he observed firsthand the abuse and misery of debt peonage that continued unbroken despite the revolutionary promises. His subsequent five novels, collectively dubbed Dschungel Zyklos (The Jungle Cycle), strongly attacked such abuses, as well as local figures of authority and the corrupt Mexican government. He pointed to continuities from the Porfirian dictatorship to Calles’s government, and he criticized the continuing lack of social justice in Mexico. In the early 1940s, having retreated to a cashew farm near Acapulco after the publication of the Jungle Cycle, Traven worked on shrouding his life from view. His secrecy was partly due to the fact that some of the local figures of authority thinly veiled as characters in his novels were threatening him. Moreover, he believed that the Mexican government was preparing to extradite him to Nazi Germany, where his books were being burned. However, those fears were unfounded and he lived the rest of his life in Mexico City. Traven became a Mexican citizen in 1951 and married Rosa Elena Luján of Mexico City shortly thereafter. The latter part of his life did not produce the same kind of evocative works he had written earlier. With the end of World War II and the beginning of the cold war, his ideological convictions seem to have lost their world of reference and became irrelevant. Traven died in 1969 in Mexico City. Anabel Aliaga-Buchenau

TREATY See also Mexico References and Further Reading Goldwasser, James. “Ret Marut: The Early B. Traven.” Germanic Review 68, no. 3 (1993): 133–142. Guthke, Karl S. Traven: Biographie eines Rätsels. Frankfurt am Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg, 1988. Schürer, Ernst, and Philip Jenkins. B. Traven: Life and Work. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1987. Wyatt, Will. The Man Who Was B. Traven. London: Cape, 1980. Zogbaum, Heidi. B. Traven: A Vision of Mexico. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, 1992.

TREATY OF 1785 (PRUSSOAMERICAN TREATY) The Treaty of 1785 was the first commercial treaty between the United States and Prussia and represented a triumph for the principles of neutral rights. For nearly a decade before the treaty, the United States and Prussia each showed great interest in a formal commercial arrangement. In December 1776 Congress advised American diplomats to seek commercial agreements with a number of nations, including Prussia. In March 1776 William Carmichael informed Congress that a Prussian agent had approached him to discuss a commercial treaty, and Carmichael recommended that Congress send a minister to Berlin. On February 14, 1777, Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane sent Friedrich II a copy of the Declaration of Independence, in hopes of advancing negotiations. Friedrich II was intrigued by the idea of trade with the new republic and closely followed the developments of the American Revolution. However, formal contact would mean conflict with Great Britain. Friedrich II therefore

OF

1785

1053

instructed his diplomats to negotiate with American envoys but delay any formal arrangements. He preferred to treat American diplomats as private citizens. On June 4, 1777, Arthur Lee arrived in Berlin to discuss articles of trade. Prussia wanted to buy tobacco and sell Silesian linens. Despite Lee’s attempts to remain incognito, the entire diplomatic corps in Berlin knew Lee was an official envoy. Lee hoped that the American victory at Saratoga would move negotiations along, but Friedrich II still held off from official recognition. Through the end of the war, relations remained at the level of unofficial goodwill and official silence. The end of the war removed any hesitation Prussia had about formal relations with the new American confederation of states. In May 1783 Friedrich II directed Baron von der Goltz, the Prussian minister to France, to discuss the possibility of a commercial treaty with Franklin. Negotiations began in earnest in early 1784. On February 18, Baron von Thulemeier, the Prussian envoy in the Netherlands, visited John Adams and told the American that the king asked him to open negotiations for a commercial treaty. Adams replied that he would have to consult with the other commercial commissioners, Franklin and John Jay, but expected a favorable reaction. Adams was correct, and Franklin and Jay advised him to begin negotiations. Adams and Thulemeier met again on March 8, at a celebration of the prince of Orange’s birthday. Thulemeier showed Adams his instructions from the king. Thulemeier was to ask for the importation of Virginia tobacco, rice, and indigo, and the export of Saxon porcelain. Adams suggested using the commercial treaties with Sweden and

1054

TREATY

OF

1785

the Netherlands as a model. Thulemeier consulted with Berlin and the king agreed. At the end of March, Adams sent Thulemeier’s letters to Congress. In April, Adams sent a draft treaty. Slow communication across the Atlantic prevented faster progress. Congress approved new instructions to the commercial commissioners on May 7, 1784, and they sent a new treaty project to Thulemeier on November 10, adding articles defining contraband of war and providing for the free passage of farmers, artisans, and fishermen in the event of war. In March 1785 Friedrich II agreed to a provision allowing each party to bring prizes into the other’s ports. All parties began to sign the final treaty in July; Franklin on July 9, Thomas Jefferson (who replaced Jay) on July 28, Adams on August 5, and Thulemeier on September 10. Prussia ratified the treaty on September 24, 1785, and the Confederation followed on May 17, 1786. The Treaty of 1785 marked a triumph for the principles of neutral rights expressed in the Model Treaty of 1776. The second and third articles provided for reciprocal trade, granting each party mostfavored-nation status. The fourth article allowed each nation to carry its own goods to the other’s ports. Article 12 was at the heart of the idea of neutral rights. It endorsed the principle that free ships make free goods and that enemy property was considered neutral if carried in a neutral vessel. The article extended this principle to citizens of a belligerent power, with the exception of soldiers on active duty. Article 26 stated that if either party granted commercial privileges to another nation, they would automatically apply to the other party. Article 13 further advanced the cause of neutral rights regarding contraband of war. If

one of the parties was at war with another power, the other party could not trade in arms and munitions with the third power. However, the first party would have to compensate the second party for any property seized. Furthermore, the vessels carrying contraband would be allowed to proceed after surrendering the prohibited cargo. Article 19 allowed each party to bring prizes into the other’s ports without paying duties or being subjected to search or seizure. The only exception was that prizes made of French ships could not be sold in American ports. The treaty also included humanitarian articles. Article 11 provided for freedom of worship for the citizens of each party in the other nation. Article 20 allowed sailors of each nation to take refuge from storms, pirates, or enemies in the ports of the other, and allowed those sailors to obtain supplies and conduct repairs. Article 23 represented an ambitious attempt to lessen the destruction of war. In the event of war between the new American nation and Prussia, merchants of each nation would be able to collect debts, settle their business, and leave freely. Women and children would be unmolested. Farmers, manufactures, and merchants in unfortified towns would be allowed to continue their activities without interference or seizure of property. The treaty would be in effect for ten years after the exchange of ratifications. The Treaty of 1785 served as the basis for similar treaties between the United States and Prussia in 1799 and 1828. Robert W. Smith See also Adams, John Quincy References and Further Reading Adams, Henry M. Prussian-American Relations 1775–1871. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University, 1960.

TREATY Arndt, Karl J. R., ed. The Treaty of Amity and Commerce of 1785 between His Majesty the King of Prussia and the United States of America. Munich: Heinz Moos Verlag, 1977. Scott, James Brown, ed. The Treaties of 1785, 1799 and 1828 between the United States and Prussia. New York: Oxford University, 1918. Setser, Vernon G. The Commercial Reciprocity Policy of the United States 1774–1829. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1937.

TREATY

OF VERSAILLES The rise of Nazism in Germany is sometimes attributed to the signing of one of the most significant documents in history: the Treaty of Versailles (June 28, 1919). Eight months after the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson formulated his famous Fourteen Points. A few months later the German government, facing heavy losses on the battleground, appealed to Wilson to start negotiations on the basis of these principles. Following intense U.S. consultations with the other Allied and Associated Powers, first an armistice was concluded with Germany on November 11, 1918, then a yearlong comprehensive peace conference was organized in Paris between January 1919 and January 1920. The Treaty of Versailles was a product of the Paris process. Though the treaty marked the conclusion of fighting between the Allies and Germany, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it. Technically, the United States would remain at war with Germany until the Treaty of Berlin in 1921. The Treaty of Versailles consisted of 15 parts and 440 articles. Its provisions in-

OF VERSAILLES

1055

cluded, among others, the return of nearly 15 percent of German-held territory to neighboring states: namely, France, Belgium, Poland, and Czechoslovakia (Parts II and III); special administrative arrangements or plebiscites for the Saar (Articles 49–50), Memel (Article 99), Danzig (Articles 100–108), and Schleswig (Articles 109–114); prohibition of union (Anschluss) between Germany and Austria (Article 80); reallocation of all German colonies under a system of mandates (Article 22; Part III; and Part IV, Section I); termination of German rights, titles, and privileges in China, Thailand, Liberia, Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Bulgaria, and Kiaochow (Part IV, Sections II–VIII); limitation of the German army to 100,000 men with no general staff, no conscription, no heavy artillery, no tanks, no aircraft, no ships over 10,000 tons, and no submarines (Part V); and establishment of a reparation commission to ensure Germany’s payment of a heavy compensation (Part VIII). In addition, Germany was declared the “aggressor” (Article 231), and provision was made for the creation of a special tribunal to put on trial German war leaders, including Wilhelm II (Part VII). The fairness and implications of these provisions remained the subject of intense debate in the following years. Naturally, the Germans found the treaty extremely unjust. Perhaps more importantly, public opinion in the Allied states was divided, especially in Britain and France. While some groups expressed concern that such a harsh treaty could justifiably provoke further German aggression in the years to come, others employed a reverse logic and insisted that the treaty’s provisions were weak and far from securing a pacific Germany in the long term. Unlike other Allies, the United States

1056

TREATY

OF VERSAILLES

was not so much concerned with the German-related provisions of the treaty as it was with another, highly original, aspect of it. The Versailles document contained, in Part I, the covenant of the first universal political organization in history; namely the League of Nations. As such, it was something more than a typical peace treaty. Although the league idea was in conformity with the president’s fourteenth point, the U.S. Senate (then under Republican control) was hostile to the League of Nations, in part, precisely because this was Wilson’s idea. More importantly, however, Congress had serious reservations about what it perceived to be an attempt at supranationalism. Two articles in particular reinforced U.S. skepticism: Article 5, which prescribed the rule of unanimity in substantive decision-making; and Article 10, by which all league members would undertake to protect other members against external aggression. From a formal, legal perspective, the Treaty of Versailles did not establish any special bilateral relationship between the United States and Germany. In general, the treaty’s provisions made reference to the United States in its capacity as one of the principal Allies. According to Article 88, for instance, the United States would be one of the four members of an international commission in charge of boundary matters. Similarly, the United States was one of the four major powers in the Reparation Commission, who would enjoy full voting privileges (Article 244). One of the five judges in the special war crimes tribunal would be appointed by the United States (Article 227). Perhaps more important for direct German American interaction were the provisions in Part XII of the treaty entitled “Ports, Waterways and Railways.” In accordance with Articles 339,

357, and 374 under Part XII, the amount and specifications of the material ceded from Germany would be determined by U.S.-appointed arbitrators. So far as German American relations were concerned, the most significant implications of the treaty could be found in its financial provisions (Parts VIII, IX, and X)—which is not to deny the wider consequences of these provisions for the evolving international system in general. There were no historical precedents for the indemnity imposed on Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. While, in principle, Germany was required to compensate no more than the damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and to their property as a result of its aggression, a provision had been added to the armistice to the effect that any future claims and demands of the Allies and the United States would not be prejudiced by ongoing financial settlements. In previous wars, reparations had consisted of determinate amounts, and had been measured in lump sums of money. As long as the defeated parties were meeting the annual installments of cash, no further interference had been necessary. In the Treaty of Versailles, however, the amount was not determined. The sum, which might well change depending on new claims, could prove not only in excess of what could be paid in cash, but also in excess of what could be paid at all. In the final analysis, this could be interpreted as potential U.S. domination over postwar Germany arising from the Treaty of Versailles. After all, as John Maynard Keynes put it in a nutshell, the war had ended with everyone owing everyone else immense sums of money, with the United States being the only exception. Germany owed a large sum to the Allies; the Allies owed a large sum to

TSCHUDI, JOHANN JAKOB

Britain; and Britain owed a large sum to the United States, which had acquired the status of the “first among equals.” Coupled with the Reparation Commission’s enormous powers, this fact meant that the United States was in effect put in charge of Germany’s socioeconomic future. Esref Aksu See also Dawes Plan; World War I References and Further Reading Carr, Edward H. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919–1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. Hurst, Cecil. Memorandum on the American Reservations to the Peace Treaty, 18 November 1919. London: Documents on British Foreign Policy, Series I, vol. V, no. 399. Keynes, John M. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1920. Lodge, Henry C. Reservations with Regard to the Treaty [of Versailles] and The Senate Debate on the Treaty of Versailles. Official Records, 66th US Congress. Nye, Russel B., and J. E. Morpurgo. A History of the United States. Vol. 2. Harmondsworth, Middlessex, UK: Penguin Books, 1955. Treaty of Versailles. Full text available online at the Yale University Avalon Project website at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/ imt/menu.htm (cited June 11, 2003).

TSCHUDI, JOHANN JAKOB b. July 25, 1818; Glarus, Switzerland d. October 8, 1889; Jakobshof, near Wiener Neustadt, Austria Swiss naturalist, diplomat, and travel writer. Tschudi came from an old, respected family, whose family tree goes back to the tenth century. He studied zoology and other natural sciences under Lorenz Oken at the

1057

University of Zurich. He then went on to study under the famous naturalist Louis Agassiz in Neuenburg (Neuchâtel), which was then still under Prussian rule. In 1837 the Natural History Museum in Neuchâtel commissioned him to create a collection of exotic animals. After brief periods studying in Leiden and Paris he sailed from Le Havre in February 1838 and reached Callao, the port of Lima, in August. Peru had gained independence 13 years previously, but was politically highly unstable. The young state was at war with Chile, and various political groups were fighting in the interior. In spite of this situation, which endangered his life at times, Tschudi prepared for a long stay. He traveled large sections of the coastal region, the Andes, and the jungles on the eastern face of the Cordilleras; he earned his way by practicing as a doctor. Tschudi remained in Peru for 4 years and completed his task: 600 bird skins, 70 skins of mammals, 2,000 insects, and other zoological objects reached the museum in Neuchâtel. After his return at the beginning of 1843, he completed his doctorate (Dr. med.) and published the scientific findings of his journey. First to appear were five volumes on the fauna of Peru (Untersuchungen über die Fauna Peruana, 1844–1846), followed shortly afterward by a two-volume account of his travels (Peru. Reiseskizzen aus den Jahren 1838–1842, 1846), which was translated into English in 1847 and 1849 (Travels in Peru, during the Years 1838–1842 on the Coast, in the Sierra, across the Cordilleras and the Andes, into the Principal Forests). In 1851, together with Mariano de Rivero, he published an illustrated work on archaeology and ancient Peruvian art (Antigüedades Peruanas; translated into English in 1853 as Peruvian

1058

TURNER SOCIETIES

Antiquities), followed by the linguistic study Die Kechuasprache (The Kechua Language, 2 vols., 1853; a third volume on grammar came out in 1884). The breadth of the topics covered by these publications pays tribute to the wide range of his knowledge. In 1857 Tschudi sailed from Hamburg to begin his second South American journey. From Rio de Janeiro he visited the town of Petrópolis, settled by Germans, which had been founded in 1843 and then the provinces of Minas Gerais and São Paulo, reached the territory of the Botokudi, and then returned to Rio. He then traveled through the southern Brazilian provinces to Buenos Aires. Here he began his most dangerous undertaking: the east-west crossing of the Andes in sixty-six days (June 18–August 13, 1858). He was the first to follow this route via Rosario, Córdoba, Catamarca, and Santa María to Molinos. Here he began the difficult mountain crossing in the Atacama desert, before reaching the Pacific coast at Cobija. The account of this journey (Reise durch die Andes von Süd-Amerika, von Cordova nach Cobija im Jahre 1858 [Journey through the Andes of South America, from Cordova to Cobija in the year of 1858], 1860) was accompanied by a map showing his itinerary, drawn by August Petermann at a scale of 1:1,000,000. Tschudi visited the American continent a third time, living in Brazil as the Swiss envoy from 1860 to 1862. The purpose of this stay was to regulate the conflicts that had developed between Swiss settlers and Brazilian landowners because of the half-lease system (parceria). Tschudi visited all the important colonized areas and achieved a consular treaty. He published an account of his many years in South America in five volumes, which ap-

peared from 1866 to 1869 (Reisen durch Südamerika [Journeys through South America]) and became one of the classics of nineteenth-century travel writing. Tschudi’s last position was as Swiss ambassador in Vienna from 1872 to 1883. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Brazil References and Further Reading Giesel, Elisabeth. “Johann Jakob von Tschudis Reiseskizzen aus Peru.” Wiener ethnohistorische Blätter No. 28 (1985): 43–57. Graf, Robert. “Nachwort.” In Tschudi, Johann Jakob: Reiseskizzen aus Peru. Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1988, pp. 176–187. Schazmann, Paul-Emile. Johann Jakob von Tschudi. Forscher, Arzt, Diplomat. Zürich: Verlag Mensch und Arbeit, 1956. Troll, Carl, and Hanno Beck. “Johann Jakob Tschudi. Zu seinem Leben und Werk.” In Tschudi, Johann Jakob: Reisen durch Südamerika. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Geographie und des Reisens; 9.) Stuttgart: Brockhaus, 1971, pp. 5–26.

TURNER SOCIETIES The Turner societies (Turnvereine) are among the most important societies founded by Germans in the United States. As of 2005 about 700 American Turnvereine once existed. In 1998 the first American Turner societies celebrated their 150th anniversary, and one year later the 50th National Turnfest was organized. In 2002 there were 58 societies with approximately 12,000 members left that belonged to the umbrella organization, American Turners. The Turner movement had its origins in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Germany and was closely connected to intellectual developments and such political, social, and economic changes as the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the

TURNER SOCIETIES

1059

The Turner societies are among the most important societies founded by Germans in the United States. Cincinnati, 1850. (Library of Congress)

new political order in Europe, and technical advancement. In this context ideas and concepts of the education of the masses arose, in which national unity, patriotism, and the readiness to fight for one’s fatherland played a special role. Among these ideas was the concept of German Turnen, largely developed by Turnvater (Turnfather) Friedrich Ludwig Jahn (1778–1852). In the beginning, the goals of the Turners were the liberation from the French occupation that followed the defeat of the Prussian army in the Napoleonic Wars, the overthrow of the feudal order, and an end to the division of Germany into many small states in favor of a single nation-state. The cradle of Turnen was Berlin, where Jahn and his followers set up the first gymnastic ground (Turnplatz) in 1811 on the Hasenheide. The Turner movement spread

throughout the states of the German Confederation, and Turner societies were founded from 1815 on. Jahn’s Turnen, which accommodated only male Germans, included—besides political engagement— exercises on apparatus, games, and volkstümliche Übungen (traditional exercises) like running, jumping, lifting, and climbing—as well as fencing, swimming, and wrestling. Over the years Turnfeste, Turnfahrten, and social gatherings became popular components of the movement. In 1819, however, during the era of restoration after Napoleon’s defeat, Turnen was banned in Prussia because it was associated with the nationalist movement that was now considered a threat. Under the Carlsbad Decrees the German rulers were required to suppress any opposition movement whatsoever. The Turners, too, along

1060

TURNER SOCIETIES

with nationalistic student associations (Burschenschaften), were classed as forces of opposition because they were against German particularism and thus against the new political order of the German Confederation. In other German states, too, Turnplätze were closed and a period ensued in which Turnen was completely banned (Turnsperre). Jahn, accused of having links with persons suspected of disloyalty and subversion, was arrested in July 1819 and incarcerated for five years. In 1842 the Turnsperre was officially lifted and Turnen experienced a revival. It was accepted as a “necessary and indispensable part of male education” in the curriculum of boys’ secondary schools in Prussia. In the 1840s demands for political rights and national unity arose in all thirty-nine German states. In this period many democratic societies were founded, among them Turner societies, which became centers of political discussions and activities. The growth of the Turner movement resulted in the desire to found a nationwide federation, and various attempts to establish a Turnerbund were made. The Turner movement played an important role in the Revolution of 1848 and 1849 that strove for freedom, equality, and fraternity of the united German people. In many societies Turner militia were established to maintain law and order and uphold republican ideals and the constitution. In the summer of 1848 various crises, upheavals, and armed conflicts weakened the revolutionary movement. After the failure of the revolution, many Turners who had defended the constitution with weapons had to leave their home country because imprisonment or the death penalty awaited them if they stayed. Thus, some emigrated to Switzerland, and some left

from there to settle in England or the United States. This led to an end of the revival of Turnen in Germany, and antigovernment activities were abandoned. Due to the assembly and association laws passed in 1850, some Turnvereine were prohibited; others were closely watched by the police; and still others disbanded. The German Revolution of 1848 and 1849 was the hour of birth of Turnen in the United States. First attempts to introduce Turnen to educational institutions in New England in the early 1820s by the German political exiles Karl Beck (1789–1866), Karl Follen (1796–1840), and Franz Lieber (1800–1872), who had been followers of Jahn, were unsuccessful. Turnen was performed in the form of physical exercises for only a few years and forgotten until the political refugees of the German Revolution of 1848 and 184 , the Forty-Eighters, founded the first Turner societies in 1848 on the American continent, which then spread all over the country. The umbrella organization Socialistischer Turnerbund von Nordamerika (Socialist Turner Union of North America) was founded in 1851. The Turners’ Socialist political orientation was also reflected in the names of some of the first American Turnvereine founded in the late 1840s and early 1850s that added the adjective social to their names. According to the Convention Protocol of the Socialistischer Turnerbund from 1859 to 1860, the Turner movement was to be a “planting school for all revolutionary ideas which have their origin in a natural and rational world conception” (Hofmann 2001, 14). The Turners promoted a socialism that concentrated on the rights and freedom of the individual. In terms of the sociopolitical circumstances in the United States, this meant that they

TURNER SOCIETIES

fought American nativism and the system of slavery, as well as temperance and Sabbath-day laws, and they protected the rights of the working class and opposed monarchy and religious indoctrination of the people. These political attitudes reflected those of the freethinkers, an antireligious movement that advocated rationalism, science, and history, and considered itself part of the tradition of American intellectuals such as Thomas Paine, who embodied political and religious freedom in an enlightened America. The close connection between the Turners and the freethinkers held until the twentieth century. Following their motto, mens sana in corpore sano (a sound mind in a sound body), the Turnvereine offered physical education classes, in the beginning only for men, boys, and girls, and functioned as vehicles for German immigrants to continue their cultural endeavors in North America through preserving German traditional customs, language, and celebrations. They established a bridge between the old and the new culture by offering English-language classes and demanding American citizenship of their members. The Turner Halls were social centers in which political debates, lectures, and theater plays took place. The Turners’ Sunday schools and libraries provided further education for German immigrants and their children. Supported by the Turnerbund, the majority of Turners were on the Republican side during the 1850s and 1860s. This support resulted in the establishment of Lincoln’s bodyguard during his first inauguration and the defense of abolitionist meetings, as well as the forming of different Turner regiments at the beginning of the Civil War in 1861. Some 1,000 Turners fought in different military units for the

1061

North. The Turners in the southern states were of divided opinion: some decided to defend the Confederacy; others left to fight for Lincoln’s army. Before the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 there were over 130 Turner societies in the United States. After the Civil War, in 1865, the Turner union renamed itself Nordamerikanischer Turnerbund (Turner Union of North America). Although the importance of politics generally diminished, political and educational topics continued to be discussed on the national level, such as the prohibition of child labor and the introduction of compulsory school attendance. On the local level some societies were active in the American workers’ riots during the 1870s and 1880s. In these postwar years the activity of Turnen was introduced in public schools. Some Turners and their societies were active in the playground movement, and in 1866 a Turnlehrerseminar (Turn Instructor Training Institution) was opened that later became the Normal School of the American Gymnastic Union. Classes in Turnen for women were introduced from the 1860s on and many societies established a ladies auxiliary during that time. In 1909 the number of women participating in turn classes exceeded that of the males for the first time. During the postbellum years the number of German immigrants increased; thus in many American cities new Turner societies were founded while established ones enlarged their membership. The peak of the American Turner movement was reached in 1894 with 317 societies, including approximately 40,000 members and more than 25,000 children and 3,000 women participating in the activity classes (Hofmann 2001, 314). This boom ceased

1062

TURNER SOCIETIES

by World War I, a time when the radical and Socialistic tendencies in the Turner movement had declined. Around the turn of the century the American Turners held controversial debates on whether women should be taken up as full members in their societies or not. At the beginning of the twentieth century women received the right to vote in some societies. However, not until the end of the twentieth century did all societies accept women as full members. The national president in 2005, Daisy Leidy, is the first female president of the American Turners. Over the years an assimilation process became visible among the German population, especially with the growth of the American-born generations. The second and third generations were no longer fluent in German and to a certain extent had lost their cultural affinity to, and interest in, the land of their ancestors. This development toward assimilation—americanization—was also intensified by the anti-German politics of the American government in the years 1914–1918. Many German Americans were accused of lacking loyalty to the American nation. However, despite minor local problems the Turner movement and its societies survived World War I, unlike other German American societies. The statistical reports of the Turner union show that the number of societies and membership remained constant during the war years. The union had around 200 societies with approximately 38,000 members (Hofmann 2001, 238). The decline started after the war in 1918 and did not stop until 1943 when fewer than 100 societies with only 16,000 Turners were affiliated with the American Turners (Hofmann 2001, 238).

Although the Turner movement survived, americanization and anti-German sentiment during both world wars led to a decrease in the numbers of Turner societies and their members. Gradually Turnvereine and the union adopted English as their language and americanized their names. The Nordamerikanischer Turnerbund kept its name until 1938, and then changed it to American Turners. The national convention proceedings and the national organ, the Amerikanische Turnzeitung (American Turner Newspaper), also adopted the English language in the 1920s and 1930s. In 1936 the American Turner Topics took the place of the Amerikanische Turnzeitung. This journal still appears bimonthly in 2005. After World War II new members could be recruited from the new wave of German immigration. Thus, the membership numbers of the Turner societies reached 25,000 again, organized in approximately 80 societies (Hofmann 2001, 256). In 1948 the American Turners also adopted a new set of principles. They now put their emphasis more on athletic, cultural, and social programs and less on political goals. This is also reflected in twenty-first-century Turner societies. The traditional American Turner society no longer exists. Instead, each society presents an individual picture, resulting from the wide range of membership numbers, which vary between a little more than 10 to over 2,000; its heterogeneous ethnic backgrounds; and the different programs. Because individual societies emphasize different programs it is not possible to make general statements about these Turner societies. Because of the shift of the programs and the ethnically mixed membership, a

TWAIN, MARK

transition from ethnic German to European American organizations can be noticed in the majority of the Turner societies. Although certain Turner symbols and traditions recall German heritage, American values and customs have been adopted and integrated into Turner life in North America. Turnen was never able to develop into a national movement in the United States as it did in Germany. But the Turners and their societies have contributed to American culture and history and to American sporting heritage. In some states they were the first to introduce physical education in public schools. The former Normal School of the Nordamerikanische Turnerbund is today integrated into the Indiana University–Purdue University at Indianapolis as the School of Physical Education. Moreover, the Turners participated successfully on American gymnastic teams in the Olympic Games until the 1960s. The national Turnfest of the American Turners remains the longest-standing national sport competition in the United States; it has been continuously organized since 1851. In 2005 the American Turners are a member of the sport federations USA Gymnastics and USA Volleyball; they still maintain some contact with the German Turner Federation (Deutsche Turner-Bund). Annette Hofmann See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Follen, Charles; FortyEighters; Lieber, Francis References and Further Reading Hofmann, Annette: Aufstieg und Niedergang des Deutschen Turnens in den USA. Schorndorf: Hofmann Verlag, 2001. Hofmann, Annette, ed. Turnen and Sport: Transatlantic Transfers. Münster and New York: Waxmann, 2001.

1063

Pumroy, Eric, and Katja Rampelmann. Research Guide to the Turner Movement in the United States. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. Ueberhorst, Horst: Turner unterm Sternenbanner. München: Heinz Moos Verlag, 1978.

TWAIN, MARK b. November 30, 1835; Florida, Missouri d. April 21, 1910; Redding, Connecticut The one language besides English that Samuel L. Clemens understood well and apparently also spoke tolerably well was German. Growing up in northern Missouri and working in the West, he had been exposed to German and encountered Germans every inch of the way: from German classmates and German employers (typesetting for Heinrich Boernstein’s Anzeiger des Westens [Western gazette]) to the German maid the Clemenses hired in 1874. He also saw—and heard—them arriving as immigrants on the boats he piloted on the Mississippi. As far as Germany itself was concerned, several of his friends and acquaintances—William Dean Howells, John Ross Browne, Charles Dudley Warner, and Charles Godfrey Leland–had visited and traveled in the German states before Twain and his family started on their famous European sojourn of 1878 and 1879; in fact, the Clemenses stayed with a landlady in Munich (“Fraülein (sic) Dahlweiner”) with whom the Warners had also stayed. Already in 1871, Olivia Clemens had started taking German lessons, and long after

1064

TWAIN, MARK

their European journey, German remained a “household” language of sorts. The family employed German nursemaids, and Olivia Clemens saw to it that their daughters learned at least some German. Twain himself used German in his notebooks occasionally to camouflage bawdy or scatological humor, German appearing to him also as an almost ideal language to swear in. His most well-known contribution to German American relations of course are those chapters in A Tramp Abroad (1880) covering the journey through Germany, and his essay “The Awful German Language,” originally appearing as Appendix D in the same book. Representing Germany and the German language in American letters was not without problematic edges. The publishers of A Tramp Abroad wanted a primarily comical book (like The Innocents Abroad). Now the American public image of the German language was strongly informed by Leland’s popular “Hans Breitmann” poems written in hybrid “Lengevitch” to which Twain’s essay became a mocking companion piece. Germany and its inhabitants were also subject to a considerable amount of stereotyping, from the supposedly lop-eared, beer-swilling “damned Dutch” of the Civil War period to the comical immigrant types on the contemporary stage—two negative images that were not balanced out by the remnants of the early nineteenth-century image of Germany as the land of scholarship and

philosophy. Still, Twain managed to convey largely positive (if not always complimentary) images of Germany and Switzerland. The connection with German and Germans remained, though Twain never set foot on German soil again. The medieval England in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court (1889) bears some semblance to sights he had seen on the continent, and one of the few politicians he trusted later in his life was the German Forty-Eighter Carl Schurz, whom Twain called a fellow “pilot” in the obituary he wrote for Harper’s Weekly. Finally, German was an occasional language of magic to Twain: Hank Morgan uses it (“Mekkamuselmannenmassenmenchenmördermohrenmuttermarmormonu-mentenmacher!” [sic]) to impress King Arthur’s Court, the family ideolect contained several German “spells” (“Unberufen!”), and Livy Clemens’s tombstone bears the inscription “Gott sei dir gnädig, O meine Wonne!” Wolfgang Hochbruck See also Schurz, Carl References and Further Reading Kersten, Holger. Von Hannibal nach Heidelberg: Mark Twain und die Deutschen. Eine Studie zu literarischen und soziokulturellen Quellen eines Deutschlandbildes. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 1993. ———. “Mark Twain and the Funny Magic of the German Language.” In New Directions in American Humor. Ed. David E. E. Sloane. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama, 1998, pp. 199–209.

U UNABHÄNGIGER ORDEN TREUER SCHWESTERN American Jewish fraternal order, supposedly America’s first order for women only. The Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern (UOTS) (Independent Order of True Sisters) was founded on April 15, 1846, by a group of young German Jewish women of the newly founded Temple Emanu-El in New York City. The initiative was launched by Henriette Bruckman, the wife of a German Jewish medical doctor in New York’s Little Germany. The founding of the UOTS was the result of the young women’s fascination with the mission, work, and self-awareness of the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, founded only three years earlier by several of their husbands and fathers. Encouraged by the success of early Reform Judaism and the B’nai B’rith, these women sought to pioneer a new role as Jewesses in the American public sphere. The issue of women’s role in modern Judaism had been an important but hotly contested issue within the German Reform movement, which separated moderate and radical reformers from each other. Although the Reform movement wanted to integrate Jewish women into synagogue life, radical and moderate reformers dis-

agreed over the appropriate role for Jewish women within the public sphere. When Bruckman attempted to establish a Jewish women’s order similar to the B’nai B’rith within the congregation, it was first rejected. Only after radical reformers, who were members of the congregation and the local B’nai B’rith, supported this idea, were women able to found an equivalent order as a secret organization: the Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern. Unlike existing Jewish women’s organizations, such as the chevrot, or local benevolent societies, the UOTS was from the outset not limited to the local level, focused on the women’s character building and Bildung, stressed the effort to transform them into new moral personalities, and sought a new role for Jewish women in the public sphere. Although Jewish in outlook, the UOTS stressed its universalism as well as confessional and political independence. During its first years, the order was guided by a small group of male supporters. In 1851 when women had gained enough management and organizational skills, men retreated from the order. Women, who had already founded lodges in New York City, Philadelphia, Albany, and New Haven, had enough experience to

1065

1066

UNITED STATES, EAST GERMAN PERCEPTION

form a Constitution Grand Lodge and their own jurisdiction. In 1874 the founding of a lodge in Chicago was a first step toward larger national growth and a national role. In the same year, the order was officially acknowledged as the “equivalent” women’s organization to the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, which added to its growth and importance. In 1882 the UOTS members founded the first suborganization, the Cäcilie Lorsch Fortbildungsverein, a special educational league that prepared women for public appearances—for example, with speech training. In 1888 the UOTS members organized the New York Philanthropic League, in which they coordinated the charitable work of its many New York lodges. Both in New York and Chicago the order became a key player in the wider Social Gospel and Settlement House movements. Most notably, the UOTS edited and published the first German Jewish women’s newspaper Der Vereinsbote (The Association Messenger) under the guidance of Dr. Emanuel Friedlein in 1884. After Friedlein’s death in 1897, it was continued as Das Ordens Echo (The Order Echo). When the B’nai B’rith officially acknowledged the formation of women’s auxiliaries in 1894, the UOTS cut its official ties with the men’s order. The UOTS supported the founding of the first national Jewish women’s mass organization at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893 but did not merge with it. In 1918 the organization switched to English as its official language and since then carries the misleading anglicized name of United Order of True Sisters. In 2005, the order is open to members of all denominations. Cornelia Wilhelm

OF THE

See also B’nai B’rith References and Further Reading Ratner, Sadie Platcow. “United Order True Sisters, New Haven Number 4: 117 Years of Sisterhood and Beneficience.” Jews in New Haven. Vol. III. Eds. Barry E. Herman and Werner S. Hirsch. New Haven, CT: Jewish Historical Society of New Haven, 1981, pp. 50–63. Wilhelm, Cornelia. “The Independent Order of True Sisters: Friendship, Fraternity and a Model of Modernity for 19th-century American-Jewish Womanhood.” American Jewish Archives 54 (2002): 37–63.

UNITED STATES, EAST GERMAN PERCEPTION OF THE The East German perception of the United States was always interconnected with the political relations between the two countries: It depended on confrontations in the cold war period and in times of détente, on ideological disputes, on cultural and scientific exchanges, and, especially, on relations between the two German states. However, it would be inadequate to state that there was only one perception of America. On the contrary, a plurality of positive and negative images existed in the country. First, there was an official perception of America, defined by the East German government and ruling Socialist Party (SED). A second, private and less politicized view was held by most East German citizens, which could differ quite profoundly from the official line. The country’s intellectuals, on the other hand, thought of the United States in yet another way. These perceptions, however, underwent changes during the forty years of the German Democratic Republic’s (GDR’s) existence, usually depending on

UNITED STATES, EAST GERMAN PERCEPTION

the country’s political relations with the United States. The GDR’s official perception of the United States was based on five principles, largely influenced by Socialist ideology. First, the United States was viewed as the world’s leading capitalist country, which stood in sharp contrast to the GDR’s Socialist ideals. Second, the American monopolistic situation was regarded as creating a threat of fascism. Third, there was the theory of “two nations,” meaning that the United States was not only a country of capitalists, but also one of exploited workers, who had to be supported in their fight against their oppressors (SED party officials kept in close contact with the Communist Party of the United States). Fourth, the old European stereotype of America being a land without culture was still existent. And fifth, it was recognized by GDR officials that the United States had contributed to the liberation of Germany from the Nazi dictatorship. Yet, it was declared to be the fault of the United States that the former anti-Hitler coalition had not lasted, which in turn had led to the cold war. These official negative perceptions of America were supported by the state-controlled media. A stereotypical Uncle Sam was portrayed as holding a bomb in his hand or as strangling an unarmed worker. In the 1970s, however, when the GDR used its diplomatic channels in order to gain international recognition as an independent state, state officials tried to tone down the anti-American propaganda in the country. For the first time, citizens were allowed to read Western literature and magazines. The private perception of America was less politicized and more a reflection of the people’s wishes and hopes. Many people,

OF THE

1067

especially younger ones, thought of the United States as the “Land of the Free,” of affluence, and individuality. East Germans who had lived in Berlin before the wall was built in 1961, had been able to see for themselves the consumer goods that were available to people living in the western half of the city. Many of them wanted to participate in the economic upswing and left the GDR, which in turn led to the building of the wall. From then on, televisions and radios picking up West German programs were used to keep track of American music, TV shows, and films. The most influential of these radio stations was RIAS (Radio Inside the American Sector) based in West Berlin. East German state officials believed it to be an American propaganda station determined to undermine the GDR (especially during the uprising in East Germany in 1953). They tried to prevent their citizens from receiving this station and West German television, but were mostly unsuccessful in these efforts. The private perception of America was shaped by rock music, jeans, and TV series such as Bonanza and, in later years, Dallas. State officials tried to stop this “imperialistic influence” in the 1960s; young adults, however, viewed it as an opportunity to escape to another, highly idealized world. All efforts to prohibit jeans, Mickey Mouse comic books, and long hair on boys were hopeless. The GDR experienced a cultural Americanization from below, which became part of the youths’ everyday life. After 1971, officials used some of the “American ideals” for their own purposes and somewhat opened society to Western culture. Books by Upton Sinclair and Jack Kerouac became popular among the young, and in 1971, a GDR “Woodstock” festival was

1068

UNITED STATES, EAST GERMAN PERCEPTION

held where thousands of young citizens wore jeans and sang peace songs. This peaceful event was considered to coincide with Socialist ideals. The same was true for any show of solidarity with the civil rights movement in the United States (see for example the thousands of letters written by East Germans to protest the imprisonment of Angela Davis in 1971, who in return came to East Berlin two years later) and a sympathetic attitude toward Native Americans. The latter was based on a traditional positive German view of “Indians” (in East and West Germany), which had been created in the late nineteenth century through adventure stories by widely read authors like Karl May. Several movies were made in East Germany in the 1960s and 1970s that focused on the cruel mistreatment of Native Americans in the settlement of the West. “Indian novels” were immensely popular, the best-known author being Liselotte Welskopf-Henrich, who even went to the United States to get herself acquainted with living conditions on the reservations and spent a night in prison for doing so. The best-known American in East Germany was Dean Reed, the socalled American rebel, who had come to live in the country in 1973. Using his popularity as a singer, songwriter, and goodlooking actor, he became an outspoken critic of U.S. policy in East Asia and attended several international peace conferences. The realization that some groups were being discriminated against in the United States and that the United States had invaded Vietnam led to a more critical perception of America. But whenever officials tried to strengthen the negative image of America, many people in the GDR took a contradicting position: it was precisely

OF THE

this officially ordered anti-Americanism that led to a defiant belief that there must be something good about America. The intellectual perception of America had three components, which were a combination of the official and the privately held images of the United States. First of all, many intellectuals and scientists were members of the SED and supported the official line toward America. The second perception was based on the old European stereotype of America being a land without culture, which was also in accordance with the official view. Yet many artists, authors, and scientists missed the liberty to work independently of governmental control and regarded the United States as the beacon of individual rights. In the 1950s and 1960s, any scientific study of the United States was allowed as long as it supported the view that the United States was a capitalistic and exploitative country. Books written in English that were critical of America were translated and published in the GDR. In the 1970s and 1980s, after the country had been officially recognized by the United States, the discussion about America became more relaxed and open. Exchange programs for students and scientists were initiated, which led to a more pluralistic and realistic view of the United States. However, these exchanges were only available to those persons who were regarded as truly loyal, Socialist citizens and who would, therefore, not use the opportunity to flee the country. Many qualified academics were thus never allowed to attend international conferences in Western countries. The same can be said for artists and athletes. Sports were basically the only field in which the GDR gained international acknowledgement—often at the cost of their

U.S. BASES

athletes’ health. But sports competitions were also used for political statements, as can be seen by the boycotts of the Olympic Games in Moscow and Los Angeles. Many intellectuals’ perceptions of America were thus more politicized and more critical than those held by most citizens in the GDR. The perception of America took various shapes during the existence of the GDR. It proved to serve a very flexible ideology and was tied to many different ideas, such as the peace discourse or the comparison between the United States and the Soviet Union. Most of these discourses, however, disappeared in the 1970s. East German official and intellectual antiAmericanism contained traditional motifs of German anti-Western thought in general, but also a type of Sovietized antiAmericanism, which used images imported from Soviet propaganda. But although these attempts failed and American culture was just as successful in everyday life in East as well as in West Germany, it can be argued that the regime did succeed in instilling deep skepticism or even distrust toward American politics and society in large segments of the East German population. This could still be observed in Germany’s reaction to the Iraq war in 2003: A majority of Germans was against the war, but the rejection of U.S. policies and the distrust of American motives were a great deal stronger in the eastern part of the country than in the west. Katja Wuestenbecker See also Americanization; Berlin Wall; Davis, Angela; Indian Films of the Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft; Indians in German Literature; May, Karl Friedrich; Olympic Games; Radio Inside the American Sector; Reed, Dean; Welskopf-Henrich, Liselotte

IN WEST

GERMANY

1069

References and Further Reading Ettrich, Frank. “Feindbild Amerika in der DDR? Alltagskultur versus Ideologie.” Die politische Meinung 405 (August 2003): 42–46. Grosse, Juergen. Amerikapolitik und Amerikabild der DDR 1974–1989. Bonn: Bouvier, 1999. Hoerningk, Therese, and Alexander Stephan, eds. Jeans, Rock und Vietnam: amerikanische Kultur in der DDR. Berlin: Theater der Zeit, 2002. Spanger, Hans-Joachim. The GDR in EastWest Relations. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1989.

U.S. BASES GERMANY

IN WEST

The military base system in West Germany during the cold war was the linchpin of a system designed to defend Western Europe and the United States against a massive attack from the Soviet Union to the east. Until the mid-1990s approximately 60 percent of all U.S. bases outside the United States were located in West Germany. United States Air Force bases in West Germany, known as “forward-deployed bases,” were designed to support air campaigns over central or Eastern Europe, while receiving logistical support from air bases in the United Kingdom, Spain, and, until 1966, France. United States Army installations in West Germany housed ground troops and equipment intended to defend against a ground attack by numerically superior Soviet forces advancing through the Fulda Gap, a flat plain on the inter-German border. While the U.S. base system was conceived in strategic terms, it also was limited by historical and political realities, which considerably complicated NATO planning.

1070

U.S. BASES

IN WEST

GERMANY

United States bases were established in Germany in the 1940s, as American forces occupied the U.S. Zone at the end of World War II. All installations of the German armed forces or Nazi security apparatus were immediately confiscated by the occupiers, and the network of confiscated property became the foundation for the system of U.S. bases during the cold war. Former Wehrmacht garrisons, Luftwaffe airfields, training grounds, and military hospitals were renovated and used by the U.S. forces, as were other smaller properties in a somewhat haphazard manner. In addition, many new installations were built, especially in the 1950s, including a large number of housing areas, recreation facilities, and storage depots. The renovation of existing installations or construction of new ones—in fact, all costs connected with the occupation— were paid for by the West German government until 1957. Properties, however, were usually owned by federal, state, or local governments. The Convention on Relations between the Three Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany, put into force in May 1955, laid out the rationale and circumstances of the deployment of Allied troops in Germany. The document declared that the Allied powers had the right to station troops in Germany, and, although the Americans often stated that they would return a property if the Germans insisted, such events rarely occurred. In the immediate postwar years, the United States held bases in virtually every nation in Western Europe, but as demobilization progressed and bases were closed, their functions transferred to surviving bases, mostly in West Germany. In addition, the function of U.S. bases in Ger-

many changed from that of centers of military government administering postwar Germany to a web of NATO defensive installations whose locations were determined by strategic necessity. Until the mid1960s, the U.S. base system was supported by a logistics and supply corridor from West Germany through the huge U.S. depot at Chateauroux in France and across the Atlantic to the United States. In 1966, however, when French president Charles de Gaulle withdrew from NATO and expelled foreign troops from French soil, this supply line was cut, and the functions of French bases were taken over by bases in Belgium, the Netherlands, and West Germany. The new supply line was more vulnerable to Soviet attack than the original one had been, so in the 1970s the United States established part of a new combat corps in northern Germany at Garlstedt. Another result of the withdrawal of France was the decision of the U.S. Air Force, Europe (USAFE) to move all major airfields to sites on the left bank of the Rhine. This decision resulted in a network of airfields in relatively rural areas, including Zweibrücken, Hahn, Bitburg, Ramstein, Sembach, and Spangdahlem. Rhine-Main, on the outskirts of Frankfurt, was the only air base located near a large urban center; it not only served as a central hub for travel to and from the United States, but also as the first stop for Americans evacuated or rescued from crisis areas. Freed American hostages held captive in the Middle East flew to Rhine-Main, then were taken to the Wiesbaden Medical Center for care. In the 1970s, the number of U.S. personnel in West Germany decreased and U.S. installations suffered considerable neglect, a result of cuts in defense spending and upheaval in the wake of the Vietnam

U.S.-GDR RELATIONS

War. By the 1980s, however, the U.S. forces and NATO had developed the “Airland Battle” concept, a plan to counter a Warsaw Pact attack coming through the Fulda Gap in central Germany with a massive armored defense on the ground and destruction of rearguard command-andcontrol functions from the air; the plan required upgrades and expansions. Major army bases (properly known as posts) tended to be grouped somewhat closer to the border than air bases, and the largest number of them were located in the state of Hesse. Army hubs included Heidelberg, Kaiserslautern, Darmstadt, Hanau, Wiesbaden, Frankfurt, Würzburg, Fulda, Nuremberg, Ansbach, and SchwäbischGmünd. The training area at Grafenwöhr was familiar to virtually all army personnel in West Germany, who were deployed there for months of war games exercises and training. The army and air force bases in Germany received a needed infusion of money in the early 1980s, so that base facilities and housing were renovated and new structures were constructed. According to Department of Defense figures in the mid-1980s, U.S. facilities in West Germany were worth over $2 billion. In the decade after the cold war ended in 1989, most U.S. bases closed and were returned to their German owners. Those remaining were reorganized into Area Support Groups (ASGs) for purposes of organization, and units were consolidated on them. As of 2004 a plan is underway to close almost all the U.S. bases in Germany and move the personnel to the United States, where they will be deployed for short periods of training to new ForwardOperating Bases (FOBs) in Poland, Romania, or Hungary. Anni Baker

1071

See also American Occupation Zone; Canadian Military Forces in West Germany; Foreign Policy (U.S. 1949–1955), Influence of West Germany on; World War II References and Further Reading Duke, Simon. U.S. Military Forces in Europe: The Early Years, 1945–1970. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1993. Harkavy, Robert E. Bases Abroad: The Global Foreign Military Presence. New York: Sirir Publications, 1989.

U.S.-GDR RELATIONS During the cold war period, bilateral relations between the Unites States and the German Democratic Republic (GDR) were mostly defined as “nonrelations.” Washington’s policy toward the East German state was frequently characterized as “nonpolicy.” From October 1949, when the GDR was proclaimed following the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany in May of that year, until at least 1955, the United States perceived the East German state as an artificial, and temporary, entity governed by a Soviet “puppet regime.” The United States refrained from any direct contacts with the East Berlin government, communicating only indirectly through Soviet political and military authorities. Until 1953 bureaucracies of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, as well as the U.S. High Commissioner’s offices in West Germany, mostly toyed through strategic memoranda with psychological warfare to undermine the East German regime, guided by a vague hope of its eventual removal and the “rollback of communism.” To this effect, the Radio Inside the American Sector (RIAS) of West Berlin broadcasted into wide parts of the GDR and played a major role in disaffecting East Germans with their regime.

1072

U.S.-GDR RELATIONS

After the failed 1953 uprising in the GDR, the aborted 1955 Geneva conference and its consequences for respective military integration of both German states into antagonistic blocs, and finally in light of the fate of the Hungarian revolution of 1956, Soviet–supported East Germany was at least taken into account by the United States as a political player. Ambitious rollback schemes through covert operations were phased out gradually and subsequently shelved. After all, the United States had seen no alternative to being just a bystander to the Soviet crackdown of the June 1953 uprising in East Germany. Only after the events, it came up with some inconsistent psychological warfare activities disguised as economic aid for East Germans. During the Berlin crisis between 1958 and 1961, the GDR under Walter Ulbricht pursued its own political course, which was not always in full congruence with Moscow. For the Western powers, East Berlin evolved willy-nilly into a political factor to be reckoned with. In practical terms East German border police became involved as “Soviet agents” in controlling transportation routes to and from West Berlin via land and water. To the dismay of the conservative government in West Germany, from 1961 the Kennedy administration intensely weighed the pros and cons of recognition of the GDR and intra-German negotiations in a context of wider international détente with the Soviet Union. Lessening of tensions concerning Berlin and the less-determined new Johnson administration relieved some pressure from the West German government. Nonetheless, Washington further encouraged West German initiatives to establish some relationship with the GDR and minimize tensions around Berlin and in Europe.

During all those years, the GDR and its leader Ulbricht did not undertake any serious attempt to reach out to, or even just deal with, the United States beyond propagandistic statements. When Willy Brandt became chancellor in West Germany, however, and his Ostpolitik entered its operational phase, the GDR soon realized that it was in danger of becoming merely an object of Western and Soviet policy interests. The Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin of September 1971, for instance, was in fact negotiated between Washington, Bonn, and Moscow, almost fully excluding the GDR, which relied only on Moscow’s volatile intentions to inform and consult. Eventually, the intra-German Basic Treaty of December 1972 allowed for the GDR’s worldwide diplomatic recognition, and as a result the United States entered into a most basic bilateral relationship with East Berlin. Washington deliberately took its time in establishing embassies and waited until September 4, 1974, to sign a respective agreement. Questions of GDR compensation for Jewish claims and former U.S. properties on East German territory remained largely unresolved. Only between 1983 and 1986—that is, during the crisis of Soviet leadership and the advent of Mikhail Gorbachev as Moscow’s new leader—did the GDR incite some interest and curiosity among Washington’s executive and legislative branches. After the missile deployment in Western Europe, with U.S.-Soviet relations reaching new low points, the “peace policy” of the GDR and its leader, Erich Honecker, seemed to indicate East Berlin’s interest to stay a reasonable course of mediation beyond cold war confrontation. Even larger loomed Honecker’s desire for international recognition and an official visit to the United States, ig-

U.S.-GERMAN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE

noring President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 Brandenburg Gate appeal to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall” in Berlin. During the late 1980s, the GDR reached out to the Jewish World Congress and U.S.-based churches operating small branches in East Germany, first and foremost the Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints (Mormons). Honecker intended to have Salt Lake City, Utah, the center of this church, included in any potential visit. High–ranking East German politician Hermann Axen visited New York and Washington in May 1988 to explore the chances of a Honecker visit, but left his hosts rather unimpressed. The GDR’s resistance against Gorbachev’s reforms significantly diminished the interest in East Germany in Washington. Mostly private contacts notwithstanding, U.S.-GDR relations in the economic and cultural sector were very modest in quantitative terms. A 1983 agreement between the GDR and the International Research and Exchange Board (IREX) in Washington facilitated the exchange of academics between both countries, but was clouded by the GDR’s intention to send primarily natural and engineering scientists to obtain technological knowledge banned from trade with Western countries. Less formalized contacts between Protestant church officials from the GDR and the United States proved more palpable. Riding those coattails, the GDR state secretary for the churches, Klaus Gysi, even managed to attend National Prayer Breakfasts at the White House. In 1989 the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the East German regime was welcomed enthusiastically in the United States. The administration of President George H. W. Bush, in particular Secretary of State James

1073

A. Baker, participated actively and successfully in safeguarding the foreign policy aspects of the German unification process until October 3, 1990. Bernd Schaefer See also Berlin Wall; Radio Inside the American Sector References and Further Reading Buckow, Anjana. Zwischen Propaganda und Realpolitik. Die USA und der sowjetische besetzte Teil Deutschlands 1945–1955. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 2003. Gray, William G. Germany’s Cold War. The Global Campaign to Isolate East Germany. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2003. Grosse, Jürgen. Amerikapolitik und Amerikabild der DDR 1974–1989. Bonn: Bouvier, 1999. Ostermann, Christian F. “Im Schatten der Bundesrepublik: Die DDR im Kalkül der amerikanischen Deutschlandpolitik (1949–1989/90).” Eds. Klaus Larres and Torsten Oppelland. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1997. 230–255.

U.S.-GERMAN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE Although German American intellectual relations can be traced back to the early years of the American Republic, they remained a rather loose and noninstitutionalized transatlantic network of scholarly collaboration throughout the nineteenth century. Distinguished scholars such as Charles Follen, Francis Lieber, and Carl Schurz, who emigrated to the United States, and scientists such as the chemist Justus Liebig were instrumental in the intellectual exchange between German and American academic cultures. In addition, German universities, especially those in Göttingen, Berlin, Leipzig, and Munich, attracted thousands of American students

1074

U.S.-GERMAN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE

since the 1830s. Their number rose from just 4 in 1835 and 1836 to 450 in 1895 and 1896. In the academic year of 1880 to 1881 as many as 15.5 percent of all foreign students at German universities came from the United States (Drewek 1999, 201). These students were to become an important segment of the American intellectual elite, and it was they who championed university reform in the United States around 1900. For instance, twenty-eight of the forty-four founding members of the American Physiological Society (founded in 1887) had received their degrees from a German university (Frank 1987, 11–46). The reform of higher education in the United States was certainly influenced by the German experience of these university reformers, but it did not lead to a simple replication of the German university model. Although both countries experienced a tremendous expansion of research institutions and scientific research, Germany and the United States took different paths in the institutional structure of the universities and in the financing of new academies and institutes. Despite the large number of German emigrants who facilitated the spread of German culture to the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, to German scientists and scholars the New World initially appeared simply uninteresting. Only after the American Civil War and the founding of the German Empire, when both countries experienced significant industrialization and modernization and advances in transportation and communication made contacts and exchanges much easier, did German academics develop an interest in North America. At the same time the sheer number of scholars working at research institutes, laboratories,

technical institutes, and universities increased. The mutual interest of German and American academics in each other’s research and teaching peaked at the world exhibitions in Chicago (1893) and St. Louis (1904), especially at the latter’s International Congress of Arts and Science with more than thirty leading German representatives of nearly all academic disciplines. The German Empire participated in both exhibitions with a large number of German experts and extensive displays of its academic and scientific accomplishments. In the decade prior to World War I, informal relations between German and American research institutes and universities were transformed into officially recognized partnerships. The most important exchange programs were the ones initiated by German American professors, such as Kuno Francke, Hugo Münsterberg, and Franz Boas, and by American professors who had received their doctoral degrees in Germany with Wilhelm Ostwald (chemistry) and Felix Klein (mathematics), just to name a few. But soon after the turn of twentieth century, the share of American students among the foreign students at German universities dropped from about 15 percent to about 5 percent (Drewek 1999, 210). Structural changes in the sector of higher education and intensive debates about the reform of education and research institutions resulted in a sharp decrease in Germany’s influence in American higher education. Scholars at the new universities in Chicago and Baltimore rejected the German university model, and American research institutions such as the Rockefeller Medical Institute inspired similar projects in Germany, such as the Kaiser-WilhelmGesellschaft (Kaiser Wilhelm Society). The establishment of graduate departments was

U.S.-GERMAN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE

the last piece of the puzzle. Because students could acquire high-quality academic training in the United States, the need to go abroad diminished. Large donations enabled American universities to create structures that put them on the same footing as their European counterparts and contributed to the emancipation of American academia from its European predecessor. American universities, which were considered modern research centers, entered into a fierce competition with German universities. Strangely enough, international exchange programs gave American universities an edge. The department responsible for higher education within the Prussian Ministry of Education and Culture closely observed the reorganization of higher education in the United States from the 1890s onward and worked toward a closer relationship with American institutions of higher education as part of a foreign cultural diplomacy that aimed at increasing the influence of German culture and Bildung throughout the world. The most important element of this policy was the German American professorial exchange program between Harvard and Berlin universities, which was later broadened to include Columbia University, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and Cornell University. Until 1914, eighteen German and seventeen American professors were sponsored under this program to teach and research on the other side of the Atlantic. Even if some scholars denounced these exchange programs as part of a nationalistic and expansionist German foreign policy, they provided the foundation for an extensive academic network that allowed German and American scholars to invite each other for lectures and to col-

1075

laborate in international associations and conferences before 1914. The lecture tours of the physicist Wilhelm Wien and the psychologist Sigmund Freud demonstrated the advantages of such close contacts. Such arrangements allowed American and German scientists to have quick access to the newest scientific inventions and explorations within the two countries. In 1904 alone, four German professors received honorary doctoral degrees from the University of Chicago. The creation of the Amerika Institut in Berlin under the directorship of Hugo Münsterberg in 1910 provided a coordination center for the German American intellectual exchange. World War I interrupted the well-established avenues of German American academic exchange. The nationalistic attitude of German scientists, who often occupied important positions in the German war economy (for instance Fritz Haber, who did research on poisonous gas), spurred a wave of “Germanophobia” in the United States and a postwar boycott of German academia by the Allies, which in turn caused a German counterboycott. However, immediately after the end of the war, German American academic relations improved again. Because France and England were not as forgiving toward Germany as the United States and insisted on its isolation, these contacts had to be kept on an informal and private basis. Franz Boas organized American financial support for German scientists, research institutions, and libraries. German scholars, furthermore, received invitations to give talks at American universities. Between 1921 and 1926, the physicists Albert Einstein, Arnold Sommerfeld, and Max Born were invited by Robert Millikan to lecture

1076

U.S.-GERMAN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE

at the California Institute of Technology and thus contributed to the German American transfer of their theories and concepts on quantum physics and atomic theory. Large American foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation, provided financial aid for the renovation of laboratories, such as the Mathematical and Physical Institute at the University of Göttingen and the German Research Institute for Psychiatry in Munich, as well as the purchase of equipment. Furthermore, they provided the necessary funds for the acquisition of scientific publications and research projects (such as the biochemical research of Otto Warburg in 1923), and supported the democratic reform of higher education after the downfall of the monarchy. In collaboration with the New York Institute of International Education, a student exchange program was reestablished in 1925 that brought more German students to American universities than American students to German universities. American foundations played an important role in this exchange by sponsoring German students at American universities. The professorial exchange program was revived when the Munich physicist Arnold Sommerfeld was appointed Carl Schurz Professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison for the academic year 1922 and 1923. In 1927 the art historian Adolph Goldschmidt was invited to join Harvard University for one academic year as the Kuno Francke Professor of German Culture and Art. In 1931 and 1932 the exchange with Columbia University restarted, although only American professors were sent to Berlin University over the next three years to serve as Roosevelt professors.

Just as before World War I, German American Jewish industrialists and bankers were the most important sponsors of these bilateral intellectual relations. The German American professorial exchange before 1914 was mostly financed by Jacob Schiff and James Speyer. Adolphus Busch and Hugo Reisinger were behind the founding of the Germanic Museum at Harvard University in 1903. This did not change during the 1920s. American foundations, such as the International Education Board of the Rockefeller Foundation, footed the remaining bill. The Rockefeller Foundation had contributed to the funding of medical research institutes in Berlin and Frankfurt am Main already before World War I and throughout the Great Depression. It provided essential financial support for the medical institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, various research institutes at German universities, and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes of Cell Physiology and Physics, founded in Berlin in 1930 and 1937. In addition, donations made by individual Americans supported German science, as in the case of the American ambassador in Germany, Jakob G. Schurman, who helped to finance the construction of a new main building for the University of Heidelberg. After the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) gained power in Germany and after many German Jewish scientists were forced to leave Germany after 1933—altogether hundreds of academics, among them twelve Nobel Prize winners—German American academic relations did not suffer. In spite of the new political circumstances and the fact that the Nazi regime maintained not much interest in cultivating international scientific relations, the exchange of professors and stu-

U.S.-GERMAN INTELLECTUAL EXCHANGE

dents continued until the beginning of the 1940s. The German Academic Exchange Service awarded a total of 472 exchange fellowships for the time period from 1935 to 1937, 184 of which were granted to German researchers for study in the United States (Laitenberger 2000, 20–49). Political criteria, however, then replaced scholarship in the selection of candidates. Even official relations between universities remained intact and American foundations continued to finance research in Germany. Although the Rockefeller Foundation officially ended its financial support of German institutions in favor of awarding fellowships and additional research and travel allowances after 1933, two years later it still stood by its decision (made in 1930) to contribute funding to the construction of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics (1935–1939). At the same time, the Rockefeller Foundation supported German Jewish emigrants in their attempt to integrate into American academia after they had been expelled from Nazi Germany. Many of these refugees who had been employed by the Kaiser Wilhelm Society could also rely on American aid societies such as the Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced German Scholars, which had been founded by Felix M. Warburg and Alfred E. Cohn in 1933. But it can be said that German American academic relations decreased gradually beginning in 1933, until the entry of the United States into World War II ended all cooperation. Eckhardt Fuchs See also American Students at German Universities; Amerika Institut; Bloch, Felix; Follen, Charles; Francke, Kuno; Fulbright Program; Göttingen, University of; Intellectual Exile; Jewish Refugee Scientists; Lieber, Francis;

1077

Münsterberg, Hugo; Schurz, Carl; Warburg, Felix M. References and Further Reading Barclay, David E., and Elisabeth GlaserSchmidt, eds. Transatlantic Images and Perceptions: Germany and America since 1776. Washington, DC, Cambridge, UK, New York: German Historical Institute/Cambridge University, 1997. Diehl, Carl. Americans and German Scholarship, 1770–1870. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1978. Drewek, Peter. “Die ungastliche deutsche Universität.’ Ausländische Studenten an deutschen Hochschulen 1890–1930.” Jahrbuch für Historische Bildungsforschung 5, (1999): 197–224. Frank Jr., Robert G. “American Physiologists in German Laboratories, 1865–1914.” In Physiology in the American Context, 1850–1940. Ed.Gerald L. Geison. Bethesda, Md: American Physiological Society, 1987. 11–46. Geitz, Henry, Jürgen Heideking, and Jürgen Herbst, eds. German Influences on Education in the United States to 1917. Washington, DC, Cambridge, UK, New York: German Historical Institute/ Cambridge University, 1995. Heideking, Jürgen, Mark Depaepe, and Jürgen Herbst, eds. Mutual Influences on Education: Germany and the United States in the Twentieth Century (Paedagogica Historica 23:1). Gent: Paedagogica Historica, Universiteit Gent, 1997. Laitenberger, Volkhard. “Der DAAD von seine Anfängen bis 1945.” In Der DAAD in der Zeit. Geschichte, Gegenwart und zukünftige Aufgaben – vierzehn Essays. Ed. Peter Alter Bonn: DAAD, 2000. 20–49. Röhrs, Werner. The Classical German Concept of the University and Its Influence on Higher Education in the United States. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Peter Lang, 1995. Rust, Val Dean. German Interest in Foreign Education since World War I. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, School of Education, 1965. Thwing, Charles Franklin. The American and the German University: One Hundred Years of History. New York: Macmillan, 1927.

1078

U.S. PLANS

FOR

POSTWAR GERMANY

U.S. PLANS FOR POSTWAR GERMANY (1941–1945) American policies for defeated Nazi Germany were shaped by domestic, military, and international—in particular alliancepolitical—considerations. The planning process moved between the poles of a liberal democratic commitment to self-determination, peaceful international cooperation, and renunciation of retribution as expressed in the Atlantic Charter (1941), and the insistence on unconditional surrender as well as the intent to eradicate Nazism as announced at the Casablanca Conference (1943). Within the Roosevelt administration conflicts arose between those arguing that punitive measures would provoke bitterness and hatred among the Germans, thus undermining the prospects for peace, and others who objected to swift reconstruction and rehabilitation as inappropriate both in view of

German war crimes but also as safeguards against renewed aggression. This intra-administrative ambivalence was resolved only when perceived cold war exigencies after 1945 gave an additional boost to those favoring Germany’s integration into the West as part of a double containment policy. Contrary to persistent myths a “Carthaginian peace” was not envisioned at any point. Instead, the various plans were guided by the same intense desire to avoid the “mistakes of the past” (e.g., the Versailles Treaty and interwar policy) and by a strong commitment to reform Germany in order to “prevent World War III.” All postwar planning had as its point of departure more or less explicit, yet conflicting, assumptions about the nature of the National Socialist regime and its place in German history. In order to solve the German problem, it first had to be properly understood. Competing political philosophies

U.S. PLANS

regarding America’s own domestic situation translated into different visions for a peaceful international world order and contributed further to conflicting ideas for Germany. A pronounced sense of responsibility and anxiety about this “second chance” at peacemaking competed with concerns over how much overseas postwar engagement an exhausted American public would tolerate. Soon after the United States entered the war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt entrusted the State Department under Cordell Hull with planning for defeated Germany’s political future. In the following three years, the State Department’s Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy undertook the most comprehensive effort at outlining programs for Germany, Europe, and a cooperative international order. The committee drew in part on studies prepared by the Council on Foreign Relations with which it also shared advisers (Hamilton Fish Armstrong, Norman Davis). Even though there were differences in opinion, broadened by the participation of high-ranking media and academic experts on the committee (Anne O’Hare McCormick of the New York Times, Johns Hopkins University president Isaiah Bowman), this group of planners was largely guided by their faith in international free-market solutions and European economic integration as a guarantee for peaceful postwar cooperation. Germany’s swift economic reconstruction and eventual political rehabilitation were prerequisites for the success of this vision. Rather than overly restricting or even impeding German industrial production, because it served as the foundation of that country’s military might, the foreign policy experts intended to integrate the Ger-

FOR

POSTWAR GERMANY

1079

man economy into a larger European multilateral framework, using it as a powerhouse for European reconstruction and prosperity, thus also increasing German dependence on other markets. In political terms it was understood that democracy would have to be reestablished and that a reformed Germany would eventually be accepted by the family of nations on equal terms. The State Department’s memoranda moreover reveal the conviction that the Versailles Treaty, in particular the reparations issue, had been ill conceived and that it was of great importance that the Germans this time be reconciled with the peace settlement. Reparations should ultimately serve the purpose of reintegrating Germany into a multilateral economic system. The planners assumed that the democratization and peaceful reorientation of Germany required economic prosperity: living conditions had to be attractive enough for the Germans to accept the new political order. For all these reasons the State Department planners were adamantly opposed to dismemberment, which they feared would only provoke resentment and give rise to new forms of extreme nationalism. These foreign policy experts understood Nazism to have arisen out of nationalistic grievances and economic collapse, exploited by the Nazis, but partially caused by the earlier peace settlement. Leading State Department officials, however, also suggested that the implementation of these plans required the continued collaboration between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union in establishing and maintaining a system of international security, which would further contribute to preventing a recurrence of German aggression.

1080

U.S. PLANS

FOR

POSTWAR GERMANY

In the meantime the inter-Allied wartime planning among the Big Three took a different turn. At the conference in Tehran in November 1943 Roosevelt was gratified by Joseph Stalin’s ready accession to his ideas for Germany’s partitioning (into five autonomous states and two internationalized regions) over Winston Churchill’s objections. Good working relations with the Soviet Union formed the basis for the president’s postwar vision. In general, Roosevelt—in contrast to his diplomatic experts—did not view rehabilitation and reconstruction as adequate solutions, and assumed that Stalin, too, was looking forward to a stern peace with the country that had brought so much devastation. The president was wary of Germany’s record of repeated aggression and of the Nazis’ extraordinary ambitions for

reordering the world, politically and ethnically. By late 1943 he publicly expressed his view that the German problem was not just one of bad leaders, but instead included the German people itself. Overall, however, Roosevelt was not of one mind as to what measures would render Germany more peaceful in the future. His own ambivalence reflected the larger picture of American wartime thinking. From the fall of 1943 on, the European Advisory Commission (EAC), where Ambassador John G. Winant represented the United States, served as the official inter-Allied agency of the Big Three to discuss and determine common postwar policies for Europe, including defeated Nazi Germany. But Roosevelt left American interagency conflicts over Germany unresolved and thus contributed to the paraly-

U.S. PLANS

sis and eventual failure of the EAC. From 1943 through the summer of 1944, questions relating to Germany’s future were pursued seemingly in isolation by various U.S. government agencies. Democratization, demilitarization, denazification, economic restructuring, and restitution were generally accepted aspects of any postwar plans. Disagreement existed over degrees, mechanisms, and extent of outside intervention and control and finally came to a head in the public éclat over the so-called Morgenthau Plan. The secretary of the treasury reacted sharply to State Department documents in the summer of 1944 reflecting a preference for reconstruction and pragmatic leniency. Part of this set of documents was the final draft of the military handbook for occupation. For reasons different from those of the diplomats, the military also favored quick stabilization, a functioning economy, and, moreover, the retention of German specialists and administrators. In general, the military was intent on a short occupation period and worried over such practical aspects as its responsibility for feeding the defeated enemy population. As early as November 1943 the War Department’s Civil Affairs Division objected to certain aspects of the envisioned disarmament plans, pointing out that the material might still be needed in the war against Japan. Morgenthau feared that this pragmatism and military expediency of “keeping the machine running” would prejudice the political goals of dismantling Germany’s industrial base as a step toward curbing its aggressive potential. In the fall of 1944 the Treasury Department prepared its critique of the State Department’s work and submitted its own

FOR

POSTWAR GERMANY

1081

“Program to Prevent World War III.” Morgenthau’s intervention was motivated by an overriding concern with security, in the formula of his assistant secretary, Harry Dexter White, “we want peace, not reparations.” Morgenthau emphasized in his memorandum to the president that the latter’s ideas, in particular regarding partitioning, had been entirely ignored by the foreign policy experts. Roosevelt, in turn, was impressed by the Treasury’s bold statement that it was a fallacy that European reconstruction required a strong industrial Germany. The president also was interested in the economic advantages of the Treasury plan for both Britain and the Soviet Union. Yet eventually, and for different reasons, both Allies opposed any plans of deindustrialization. Morgenthau and his advisers saw decartelization, a farreaching reduction of the heavy industry in the Ruhr region, and comprehensive denazification as preconditions for a new democratic orientation of Germany. Moreover, in explicit contrast to the earlier draft of the military handbook, they wished to release the Allied Military Government of any responsibility for economic problems. The Treasury plan would have allowed the Allies to effect dramatic changes early on in the occupation, but to withdraw soon thereafter. The idea of turning Germany into a predominantly agrarian country did not lie at the heart of the Treasury plans; the envisioned partial deindustrialization served security purposes; the anticipated resulting sociomental reorientation owed itself more to a New Deal version of Jeffersonian agrarian idealism than to revenge. In the aftermath of the Quebec Conference of September 1944, where Roosevelt and Churchill had

1082

U.S. PLANS

FOR

POSTWAR GERMANY

initialed a version of the Treasury plan, Roosevelt began to backpeddle in the face of opposition from different quarters. Fundamentally, however, Roosevelt shared with Morgenthau a “Vansittartist” understanding of Nazism: they had little faith in German self-reformation and were deeply disturbed both by Germany’s record of military quests as well as by the broad popular support that the Nazis enjoyed. Morgenthau saw Germany’s economic structure, its cartels and heavy industry, as crucial tools for any German government to carry out a program of a century-old militaristic tradition, deeply rooted in German society. In the ensuing debate, the Department of War played a significant role, with Secretary Henry L. Stimson emerging as the most effective and eloquent advocate of plans for reconstruction and leniency, labeling Morgenthau’s ideas “a crime against civilization itself ” that would breed another war. Stimson belonged to that school of thought that held that Germany had temporarily been captured and led astray by a band of gangsters. His admiration for the German people themselves, their energy, vigor, and progressiveness, as well as their outstanding contributions in the arts and sciences, was obvious. Thus, Stimson stressed limited culpability and helped lay the legal procedures for prosecuting major war criminals. Beyond that, he was primarily concerned with German responses to measures they might regard as humiliating, such as partitioning or the restructuring of their economy. His assistant secretary, John J. McCloy, while maintaining close cordial relations with Morgenthau, worked behind the scenes to shift official wartime planning in a more constructive

direction and to reach a compromise. As a result, U.S. occupation policy emerged with seemingly greater clarity in the fall of 1944 in JCS 1067, a postsurrender interim occupation directive. Its language recalled the rhetoric of the Treasury papers, prohibiting any steps toward Germany’s economic rehabilitation and clarifying that the country had not been liberated but defeated. Yet, the same text gave the U.S. military commander substantial leeway to determine actual occupation policies, further enhanced through provisions granting him the explicit authority to ensure the production of goods and services essential for the prevention of disease and civil unrest. The diplomacy of the Big Three continued at meetings in Yalta in February and at Potsdam, with Harry S. Truman as the new U.S. president, in August 1945, transferring a fourth occupation zone to France and accommodating the Soviets on the reparations issue. Germany was to be treated as an economic and administrative unity under the supervision of the Allied Control Council. In reality, however, the de facto autonomy of the respective military governors became increasingly apparent. The recurrent theme in much of the historiography on American official planning for Germany is the complaint about intra-administrative muddle, Roosevelt’s postponement tactic, and consequently the absence of a coherent plan. American wartime thinking was indeed plagued by conflicting impulses of finding an adequate safeguard against an enemy whose aggression appeared unquenchable and the sincere intention to integrate Germany into a peaceful world order. Roosevelt’s insistence that the war first had to be won was in part

U.S. PLANS

motivated by his recognition of the many postwar contingencies. His prediction that a period of “trial and error” would characterize the occupation revealed a deeper understanding that there was an inherent tension in the project of “imposing democracy,” a conflict between military means and political ends, between outside intervention and the need for internal reform. By necessity this conflict could not be entirely resolved, but the partly piecemeal approach, both in Washington and by the military government in Germany under the direction of General Lucius D. Clay, opened the opportunity for corrective justice and reform as well as reconciliation. It also provided postwar Germans with a chance to engage in both spiritual and physical reconstruction. Michaela Hoenicke Moore

FOR

POSTWAR GERMANY

1083

See also Casablanca Conference/ Unconditional Surrender; Denazification; Morgenthau Plan; Tehran Conference; Treaty of Versailles; Vansittartism; World War II References and Further Reading Eisenberg, Carolyn. Drawing the Line. The American Decision to Divide Germany, 1944–1949. New York: Cambridge University, 1997. Gaddis, John L. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947. New York: Columbia University, 1972. Hammond, Paul Y. “Directives for the Occupation of Germany: The Washington Controversy.” American Civil-Military Decisions: A Book of Case Studies. Ed. Harold Stein. Birmingham: University of Alabama, 1963. Mausbach, Wilfried. Zwischen Morgenthau und Marshall: Das wirtschaftspolitische Deutschlandkonzept der USA, 1944–47. Düsseldorf: Droste, 1997. Snell, John. Wartime Origins of the East-West Dilemma over Germany. New Orleans: Hauser Press, 1959.

V VAGTS, ALFRED b. December 1, 1892; Baskeck, Hamburg d. (?) 1986; New Haven, Connecticut German American historian who was driven into exile after Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933. Vagts became an important channel of historiographical exchange between the United States and Germany. From 1912 to 1914, Vagts studied at the University of Munich where he made friends with expressionistic authors who stimulated his own literary production as a poet. In World War I, he served as an infantry officer and actively participated in the November revolution of 1918 and 1919. After his retirement from the army, Vagts resumed his studies in Munich and changed his major to history. Repulsed by the lectures of right-wing historians, Vagts sought contact with more critical scholars such as Eckart Kehr, George Hallgarten, and Albrecht Mendelssohn Bartholdy. Through the influence of Mendelssohn Bartholdy, Vagts received a teaching position at the fledgling University of Hamburg and in 1924 was one of the first German exchange students to the United States. At Yale he prepared his dissertation on Mexican oil policy in the context of rivalries between the United States and European powers. In 1927 he received

his doctorate at the University of Hamburg. His study was based on the claim of the primacy of economic factors in international relations—a controversial claim in the German historical profession at that time. Thereafter, Vagts began a work on the relationship between Germany and the United States in the period from 1890 to 1906. A grant from the Rockefeller Foundation facilitated research in the National Archives from 1927 to 1930. During his stay in the United States, he married Charles A. Beard’s daughter Miriam. After Hitler’s rise to power, Vagts left for the United States in 1934. Three years later, the Nazi government deprived him of his German citizenship after he had publicly criticized Nazism in a talk at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Vagts’s academic endeavors in the United States stood in the context of the fruitful exchange with his father-in-law, Charles Beard, whom he introduced to the latest trends in German historical thinking. In 1935 Vagts published his extensive work Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten in der Weltpolitik (Germany and the United States in World Politics), which immediately gained him unanimous praise in the United States, while it was ignored in Germany. This book dealt with the emergence of the rivalry

1085

1086

VANSITTARTISM

between the United States and the German Empire and the character of imperialism in general. It remains a landmark in the critical historiography on German American relations. In the later 1930s, Vagts started to work in the field of military history and wrote his influential A History of Militarism (1937), the scope of which extended from the Middle Ages to his time. Soon thereafter, Vagts became a member of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University. After the United States entered World War II, Vagts was appointed to the Board of Economic Warfare. In spring 1945, the Office of Strategic Services offered him a position participating in the elaboration of the charges against the German General Staff at Nuremberg, but Vagts declined. In return, his application for participation in the official military history of the war was rejected. Thanks to the legacy of his father-inlaw, Charles Beard, Vagts was able to lead a life of financial independence in the vicinity of New Haven publishing a number of essays and books on military history and on the history of international relations. Stefan Rinke See also Intellectual Exile; U.S.-German Intellectual Exchange References and Further Reading Berghahn, Volker R. Militarism: The History of an International Debate, 1861–1979. New York: St. Martin’s, 1982. Rinke, Stefan. “Clio in Exile: The Works of Alfred Vagts.” Yearbook of GermanAmerican Studies 26 (1991): 267–281. Vagts, Alfred. “Erinnerungen an Hamburg, 1923–1932.” In Kolonialrechtswissenschaft, Kriegsursachenforschung, Internationale Angelegenheiten. Ed. Hans-Jürgen Gantzel. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1983, pp. 97–111. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich. “Einleitung.” In Alfred Vagts. Bilanzen und Balancen: Aufsätze zur internationalen Finanz und internationalen Politik. Ed. Hans-Ulrich Wehler. Frankfurt: Syndikat, 1979, pp. 7–11.

VANSITTARTISM Influential minority position in American public discourse during World War II offering the most unabashedly negative view of the German enemy by defining Nazism as arising out of that country’s history and national character. It took its name from Robert Gilbert Vansittart (1881–1957, a Lord beginning in 1941), a high-ranking British foreign policy adviser whose 1941 book, Black Record: Germans Past and Present, warned of a pattern of German aggression so deeply rooted in that country’s history as to make Hitler not an aberration but a logical outcome of it. A year after its publication the dispute over Lord Vansittart’s views also heated up in the United States, which had now officially joined the war against Nazi Germany. The term was used in a derogatory sense, primarily by opponents of this view who defined it by exaggerating it and wrongly likened it to the Nazi stereotyping of Jews. Stripped of its wartime polemics, Vansittartism emphasized several key facets: cultural and political conditioning toward authoritarianism and militarism, popular support for the Nazi regime, and the weakness of the German opposition. Four points characterized the Vansittartist position. First, its proponents rejected the notion of a dichotomy between Nazi leaders and an innocent German people who had become their first victim. Instead they found that the Nazis drew on much popular support for their foreign policy aims, racist views, and excessive nationalism. The lawyer Louis Nizer, whose What to Do with Germany (1944) was the American equivalent of the Black Record, postulated the primacy of pan-Germanism over the role of leaders: the current führer only expressed deep-seated popular yearn-

VANSITTARTISM

ings. The role that ordinary Germans played in the creation and maintenance of the Nazi regime thus lay at the core of the controversy over Vansittartism. Second, Vansittartists voiced serious reservations about the notion of “the other Germany” or the “good Germans” whose existence was not denied but whose political relevance and efficacy was severely doubted. A third central characteristic was the postulation of intellectual, cultural, and political precursors to National Socialism in German history. Phenomena like militarism, authoritarianism, an ideology of national arrogance rooted in self-pity, discontent, and insecurity were oft-cited elements of continuity since the 1870s. Fourth and finally, Vansittartists turned Germany’s selfproclaimed, positively connoted anti-Western “special path” into an indictment: Germans had consciously left the path of civilization. The sum of these views stood in irreconcilable contrast to the notion that the Third Reich was an aberration in German history, that Nazism had no popular support, but had been imposed on an unwilling, sullen people. Vansittartism was a highly contested position in the American wartime debate. Opponents of this view (like Dorothy Thompson) misrepresented Vansittartist arguments until they turned into accusations of collective guilt, suggesting the image of an incorrigibly aggressive people. Vansittartists argued that German culture had produced the current regime and national behavior; their critics cited them as claiming that Germans were militaristic by nature. The equation “Hitler is Germany” became total, just as the continuity of certain strands in German history turned into the constancy of a national character in the critics’ rendition. But Vansittartism was de-

1087

cidedly not a racist or essentializing explanation, as these commentators stressed repeatedly that Germans as individuals were no different from other people. The Vansittartist argument for the continuity in German aggression was a cultural-historical one, which could only be addressed through reeducation. However stern the postwar treatment for defeated Germany that the Vansittartists proposed, it was never “annihilation” or “enslavement” as their opponents implied. In the United States the Vansittartist position was most effectively represented by the Society for the Prevention of World War III (SPWWIII). Headed by the crime novelist Rex Stout, the group included a number of well-known and outspoken public commentators such as Friedrich Tete Harens Tetens; the journalists Edgar A. Mowrer and Sigrid Schulz; the emigrants Emil Ludwig and Friedrich Wilhelm Foerster; and historians such as Walter Johnson, Allan Nevins, and Douglas S. Freeman. Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had recommended Vansittart’s Black Record to his psychological warfare coordinator, Colonel William J. Donovan, shared in particular the Vansittartist notion that the German people were deeply implicated in the crimes of the Nazi regime and that the Third Reich itself had important antecedents in German history. Even though several members of the American wartime government held these views, they seldom aired them publicly, mindful of both popular sentiment against a national characterization of this enemy as well as the critics’ unfounded but effective claim that Vansittartism equaled Nazism in its racial stereotyping. During the public debate over the Morgenthau Plan in late 1944, members of the SPWWIII who also dominated the

1088

VATER, JOHANN SEVERIN

War Writers’ Board were among the few who publicly sided with the Department of the Treasury. At the heart of the argument between Vansittartists and their critics was the question of German peculiarities versus human universality. How much of the Third Reich’s racist and militarist policies were peculiar to Germany and could be attributed to a specific national-cultural heritage? And what were the implications if this war and genocide were described as part of modern civilization, explained within a European historical context and understood with reference to the human capacity for evil? In the American wartime debate on Nazi Germany, Vansittartism quickly became a straw man argument, a commonly and polemically used slogan to denounce a view with which one does not agree, fraught with mistaken associations of racism, collective guilt, and annihilation. Contrary to what the critics of Vansittartism argued, those authors who held Germans to be inherently and irredeemably aggressive represented rare exceptions in American wartime thinking on the Third Reich. Instead, this wartime position that understood National Socialism within the larger context of German history, emphasizing continuity, comprised many features of what became known as the postwar historiographical paradigm of Germany’s “special path.” Michaela Hoenicke Moore See also Morgenthau Plan; Thompson, Dorothy; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany (1941–1945); World War II References and Further Reading Hoenicke Moore, Michaela. “Know Your Enemy”: American Responses to Nazism. New York: Cambridge University, 2005. Nizer, Louis. What to Do with Germany. Chicago: Ziff Davis, 1944.

Reuther, Thomas. Die ambivalente Normalisierung. Deutschlanddiskurs und Deutschlandbilder in den USA, 1941–1955. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2000. Später, Jörg. Vansittart. Britische Debatten über Deutsche und Nazis 1902–1945. Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2003. Vansittart, Robert Gilbert. Black Record. Germans Past and Present. London: Hamish, 1941.

VATER, JOHANN SEVERIN b. May 27, 1772; Altenburg,Thuringia d. March 15, 1826; Halle, Prussia German linguist and theologian with works on Bible interpretation, church history, and general and comparative linguistics, including the first comprehensive analysis and reference work of the known American Indian languages (Mithridates, 1806–1817). Vater completed the Mithridates after the death of the editor Johann Christoph Adelung (1732–1806), partly building on Adelung’s data, but also collecting and presenting his own data about American and African languages. Vater was a professor of theology and oriental languages at the universities of Halle and Königsberg. As a theologian, he published works on Bible interpretation and church history. As a linguist, he published works on several languages, including German, Russian, Polish, Hebrew, Arabic, Sanskrit, and several regional languages. Vater also edited with Friedrich Justin Bertuch a journal linking ethnology and linguistics (Allgemeines Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik [General Archive of Ethnography and Linguistics]). From 1808 on, Vater conducted intensive research on American Indian languages to add the third volume on African and American

VATER, JOHANN SEVERIN

languages to the Mithridates, a work that compared all known languages of the world by analyzing translations of the Lord’s Prayer. For volume three, Vater collected all accessible language samples, linguistic information, and ethnographical data concerning Africa and America. The volume, finally published in 1812, described more than 500 American languages and included ethnographic information. Prior to the third volume of the Mithridates, Vater published the first results of his studies about American languages. He included two samples from Central American Indian languages (Mexico) of the Lord’s Prayer with grammatical and etymological analyses in 1808 (Proben Amerikanischer Sprachen [Samples of American Languages]). In 1810, he added further samples, a summary of research results, and theoretical and methodological considerations (Untersuchungen über Amerika’s Bevölkerung [Analysis of America’s Population]). Vater identified several language groups and dialects on the American continent and concluded that the American languages were not only related to each other, but also had a common root with some Asian languages. Vater’s language concept was, like that of his predecessor Adelung, embedded in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Vater saw languages as key to understanding different cultures and sought to provide practical knowledge about languages for a broad range of readers with his works. Because Vater assumed that language and culture are intertwined, he considered historical and ethnographical data as crucial for the understanding of languages. Building on this theory, he introduced sociolinguistic factors in his studies. Vater, like many scientists at the time, also assumed a con-

1089

nection between language science and natural science, especially biology and comparative anatomy. He supported a symbiosis of these disciplines. In the Mithridates he expressed his conviction that comparative anatomy would provide crucial information about the relationship between American peoples in the future. For the analysis of languages, Vater considered grammatical structure as crucial. Therefore, he rejected simple comparisons of word lists, which had been the main methodology of many other studies. For the third volume of the Mithridates, Vater relied more on the comparison of grammatical structures than Adelung. The focus on grammatical structures was the reason why Vater did not support Adelung’s choice of the Lord’s Prayer as a main source for the Mithridates. He considered the text to be too short and too formulaic. Nevertheless, Vater used the Lord’s Prayer for his contribution about African and American languages, wanting to hold to Adelung’s structure for the Mithridates. Vater insisted on a higher standard than he had observed in many contemporary studies regarding the method of linguistic comparison. He considered small numbers of lexical similarities not to be sufficient to allege relationships between languages. He also referred to the difficulties of proving similarities between languages with restricted grammatical systems, such as the languages found in Africa and America. Like Adelung, Vater relied on a large number of sources to support his descriptions and therefore collected as many language samples and as much linguistic data as he could find. Vater also used all accessible published material, especially reports of explorers such as Adam Johann von Krusenstern, Zebulon Pike, and

1090

VATER, JOHANN SEVERIN

Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (the latter translated by Adelung in 1809). Other important sources were grammars by missionaries and unpublished information he received from fellow researchers. Vater communicated intensely by letters with Friedrich von Adelung as well as with Alexander von Humboldt. Von Adelung provided Vater with information and samples of non-Russian languages in the Russian Empire. That data was important for Vater to prove a linguistic relationship between East-Asian languages and languages in America. In the Untersuchungen über Amerika’s Bevölkerung and in the Mithridates, Vater concluded that American and Asian languages have a common root. However he was not able to identify this root. Vater drew the conclusion that many American people were not the first inhabitants of their area, but migrated from Asia to northwestern America and continued their migration further south. According to Vater, this theory was supported by anthropological data that showed a relationship between American and Asian peoples. In spite of this connection and the many differences between languages within the American continent, Vater considered American languages to be one distinct language group (stem) with several subgroups (branches). Vater categorized these subgroups by their geographic distribution, but described their relationship by lexical and grammatical similarities. Vater categorized the American languages, adopting the contemporary perspective, as nonelaborate (kunstlos) languages with a simplistic grammar, described as raw or rough (roh or rauh). The European languages were considered elaborate languages (ausgebaut). Vater did not assign the languages different

values, but described them as equally inspired by the divine spark (göttlicher Funken). He also acknowledged that in every American language group some languages developed a sophisticated grammar. Analyzing these languages was important for Vater to better understand the so-called elaborate languages. Vater gained most recognition for his studies about Slavic languages. However, his contributions to American linguistics had some impact on language science. With his contribution to the Mithridates, Vater provided the first comprehensive study about American Indian languages. His Untersuchungen of 1810 represented only a preliminary study of the American languages, but presented more information than any study before. Vater’s approach has been criticized as not being sufficiently analytical. He did, however, gain recognition for his copious sources and samples presented and for his classification of American languages. He was marginally successful, as some of the genetic language relationships he described were incorrect, but he described others correctly for the first time. The Mithridates is often described as the last large work of the language science of the nineteenth century; a time when large collections of languages dominated the field of comparative linguistics. The following generation of comparative linguists shifted the focus on indepth research about single language groups. Nevertheless, Vater’s work would influence new generations of linguists with his integration of historical and ethnographical data. His linguistic studies proved to be important for the research of language history, language groups, and later for sociolinguists. Jörg Meindl

VEIDT, CONRAD See also Adelung, Johann Christoph; Humboldt, Wilhelm von References and Further Reading Kuhn, E. “Vater, Johann Severin.” In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 38. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1971, pp. 503–508. Schmidt, Isolde. “‘Giebt es etwas schöneres als die Geschlechter der Menschen wie die Familien der Pflanzen geordnet zu sehen!’ Johann Severin Vaters Studien über amerikanische Sprachen.” Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft 6 (1996): 79–94. Vater, Johann Severin. “Proben Amerikanischer Sprachen mit Uebersichten ihres Baues in den beigefügten grammatischen Bemerkungen.“ Allgemeines Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik 1 (1808): 341–354.

VEIDT, CONRAD b. January 22, 1893; Berlin, Prussia d. April 3, 1943; Hollywood, California German actor who often played Nazi characters in American movies from the beginning of World War II. With a long and skinny silhouette, Veidt is widely known for his unforgettable role as Cesare, the hypnotized robot-like victim of his master in Robert Wiene’s classic Das Cabinett des Doktor Caligari (The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari, 1920). After working on stage with Max Reinhardt in 1913 and playing expressionist dramas on stage (in Georg Kaiser’s Coral), Veidt appeared in some 125 films between 1917 and 1943. In Germany, Veidt played in horror movies for Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau (Satanas, 1920; Der Januskopf [The Head of Janus], 1920; Der Gang in die Nacht [Journey into the Night], 1921), and also for Paul Leni (Patience, 1920; Das Wachsfigurencabinett [Waxworks], 1924) and Richard Oswald

1091

(11 films). He reappeared in Wiene’s thriller Olracs Hände (Olrac’s Hands, 1924) in which he plays a brilliant piano player who, after losing his hands in an accident, receives a transplant of new hands from an unknown deceased man, who apparently was a murderer. In Germany, Veidt was lucky enough to be part of many milestones from the expressionist era: he was in Paul Czinner’s melodrama titled Nju (Eine Unverstandene Frau [Husbands or Lovers], 1924) and in the second version of Der Student von Prag (The Student from Prag, 1926) directed by Henrik Galeen. A remarkable actor, Veidt also directed two biographical films (in which he also played) in 1923: Paganini and Lord Byron. Veidt spent a year in Hollywood in 1927 and appeared in silent films such as The Beloved Rogge (directed by Alan Crosland), A Man’s Past (directed by George Melford), and the next year he had the leading role in Paul Leni’s The Man Who Laughs (1928), freely adapted from a novel by Victor Hugo. But the talkies revealed Veidt’s strong German accent. He went back to Germany from 1928 to 1934, and then left his native country to live in England with his Jewish spouse. Among his last roles in Germany, Veidt was Chancellor Metternich in a famous musical, Der Kongress Tanzt (Congress Dances, 1932), directed by Erik Charell. Although he stayed in England from 1934 and worked in France in 1938, Veidt often returned to the United States after 1934. He received his British citizenship in 1939, but very soon afterward left for the United States. During the 1930s, Veidt showed his versatility as an actor, playing Jewish characters as well as Nazi spies. He personified a powerful Jew in the British version of Jud Suss directed by Lothar

1092

VENEZUELAN CRISIS

Mendès (1934, much different from the infamous Veit Harlan version from 1940). Because of his Aryan profile, Veidt portrayed Nazi characters in many U.S. antiNazi films from the beginning of World War II, the most famous being Jules Dassin’s Nazi Agent (1942) and, with Humphrey Bogart, in Vincent Sherman’s All Through the Night (1942). As many other directors, George Cukor also chose Veidt to be the villain in A Woman’s Face (1941). Veidt’s last great performance was in Michael Curtiz’s Casablanca (1943), where he was Major Strasser, from the German army. Yves Laberge See also Hollywood; Leni, Paul; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Reinhardt, Max References and Further Reading Soister, John T. Conrad Veidt on Screen. A Comprehensive Illustrated Filmography. Jefferson, NC, and London: McFarland, 2002.

VENEZUELAN CRISIS (1902–1903) The Venezuelan crisis of 1902 and 1903 was a decisive turning point, not only for German American relations but also for the international system prior to World War I. German expansionist designs in Latin America clashed with U.S. ambitions based upon the Monroe Doctrine in Venezuela. The Venezuelan incident was the last traditional armed intervention of European powers in Latin America. After Venezuela, the European alliance system reached its final prewar form with AngloGerman antagonism as the keystone. Beginning in the 1880s, traditional German economic ties to Latin America rapidly gained importance. Colonial en-

thusiasts in Germany hoped to win a colony in that region for the surplus population of the Reich. Yet, in the 1890s, German expansion was slowed down by the world economic crisis and growing competition with the United States, which began to pay more attention to its neighbors in the Southern Hemisphere. The depression of the 1890s that had led to an industrial surplus production made new markets necessary. Before World War I the new policy was, however, only partially successful and U.S. trade never matched that of Great Britain or Germany. Although the economic penetration of Latin America by Germany and the United States did not meet expectations, both countries increased naval armaments so as to gain a military advantage. Moreover, despite Germany’s failure to achieve its aims at the peace negotiations to end the Spanish-American War of 1898 and 1899, German naval planners continued to demand coaling stations in the Caribbean. In contrast to Great Britain, Germany never openly accepted the Monroe Doctrine that required it to leave the Western Hemisphere to the guidance of the United States. From a U.S. perspective at the turn of the twentieth century, Germany had become the most threatening rival in Latin America. Venezuela was one of the hot spots for German American rivalry. German commercial houses held a dominant position in Venezuelan foreign trade, and a group of powerful German industrial enterprises had developed an ambitious railway project. The political situation in Venezuela at the turn of the twentieth century was far from stable though. A border conflict with British Guyana peaking in 1895 had demonstrated the weakness of the country.

VENEZUELAN CRISIS

It had also proved the power of the United States and its ability to intervene in Venezuelan foreign relations and act on its behalf in conflicts with European powers. In 1899 Cipriano Castro, an allegedly “liberal” caudillo, took power in Venezuela. Castro’s reign met with resistance within the country. The strongman resorted to violence and oppression, plunging Venezuela into a civil war. In the course of the fighting, foreign economic activities in Venezuela came to a standstill. Castro stopped repaying the foreign debt and raised tariffs, thus hurting foreign economic interests even more. From 1900 onward, the German government reacted to the rapidly worsening situation by sending warships to the coast of Venezuela. Sensing U.S. apprehension, Germany informed the government in Washington that an aggressive action against Venezuela might be required. Great Britain and Italy had causes for complaint against Venezuela, too, and negotiations about joint measures with Germany were completed by the end of November 1902. In December, the European allied blockade began, and allied naval forces seized Venezuelan gunboats and bombarded Puerto Cabello. Soon Castro sent an offer for arbitration, yet the German side hesitated to accept it. Meanwhile, developments in Venezuela had caused considerable anxiety in the Americas. What, from a European perspective, looked like a routine intervention of European powers against a Latin American country was perceived as a grave threat in the United States and in Latin America. Leading politicians and newspapers of the region believed that Germany was the motor behind an apparent European scheme that might ultimately lead to the partition of Venezuela. The United States

1093

demonstrated its seriousness in the matter unmistakably when the U.S. Navy staged maneuvers in the Caribbean region. In connection with these events, Theodore Roosevelt several years later claimed that he had uncompromisingly threatened the Germans and in that manner had directly forced Berlin to consent to arbitration. This claim has been the object of much scholarly debate. While it has never been proven, the pressure that the president did exert was certainly strong and played an important role in the German decision to back down. On December 18, the European allies officially consented to arbitration. Because the U.S. government itself had claims against Venezuela, it could not officially act as a mediator. To compromise, a simple U.S. citizen was chosen to represent Venezuela. However, this “simple citizen” was the U.S. minister at Caracas, Herbert W. Bowen, and Washington was the place of negotiations. Thus, the United States remained very much involved in settling the affair. Public opinion in the United States remained uneasy because Germany continued to employ coercive measures and a German cruiser shelled a Venezuelan fort in January. In Great Britain public pressure on the government to pull out of the alliance with Germany increased. Soon Germany was isolated. The German government reacted to the worsening situation by sending Roosevelt’s friend Hermann Speck von Sternburg as ambassador to Washington. Sternburg was instrumental in calming U.S. public opinion. In February 1903 the contestants reached an agreement. Venezuela had to pay the most urgent demands of the allies immediately. All other claims were transferred for further negotiation to the Court

1094

VEREIN

of International Arbitration in The Hague. Thus, Germany’s minimal demand of preferential treatment for the powers that had participated in the blockade was at least partially met, while the idea of putting Venezuelan customs under international control had to be dropped. From the German perspective, the Venezuelan affair was a complete failure. Right-wing criticism against the alleged record of German weakness grew. In addition, the blockade of Venezuela was the last attempt to cooperate with Great Britain on an international scale. Wilhelm II was enraged with the British, and German leaders now hoped for a rapprochement with the United States instead. This hope was not reciprocated, however. On the contrary, the crisis convinced Roosevelt of the necessity to modify the meaning of the Monroe Doctrine, which he did in his corollary of December 1904. The “big stick” that Roosevelt wanted to use against European intervention in Latin American affairs was by then mainly intended as an instrument against German expansionism. Through its aggressive behavior during the Venezuelan crisis, Germany had by 1903 taken the place of Great Britain as potential enemy number one in the United States. Stefan Rinke See also Far East, U.S.-German Entente in the; First Moroccan Crisis (1905–1906) References and Further Reading Esthus, Raymond A. Theodore Roosevelt and the International Rivalries. Waltham, CA: Regina, 1970. Fiebig-von Hase, Ragnhild. Lateinamerika als Konfliktherd der deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen, 1890–1903: Vom Beginn der Panamerikapolitik bis zur Venezuelakrise von 1902/03. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1986.

Herwig, Holger H. Germany’s Vision of Empire in Venezuela, 1871–1914. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1986. Hood, Miriam. Gunboat Diplomacy: 1885–1905: Great Power Pressure in Venezuela. London: Allen & Unwin, 1975. Rinke, Stefan. Zwischen Weltpolitik und Monroe Doktrin: Botschafter Speck von Sternburg und die deutsch-amerikanischen Beziehungen, 1898–1908. Stuttgart: Heinz, 1992.

VEREIN Ubiquitous in the history of German America is the Verein (literally, “unit”); that generic term that combines so frequently with cultural prefixes as to make it universal. Thus, the word means not just a club or a social unit, but often a cultural, artistic, political, religious, gymnastic, or any other type of organization as the imagination allows. Words combine variously, such as Gesangverein (singing society), Kunstverein (arts association), Turnverein (sports gymnastic or physical fitness club)—often to include their purpose. Thus, many mutual aid or support societies care for members or others through so-called Unterstützungsvereine (support groups) that have included mutual insurance associations and even the first savings and loan companies that once pervaded German settlements in America. In this category are such organizations as the St. Raphaelsverein located in New York to offer assistance to newly arriving German immigrants. Sometimes a Verein was a huge organization, such as Deutscher Kirchenverein des Westens (German Evangelical Syndicate of the West), or the German Catholic Central-Verein, a powerful organ of the German Catholic Church in the United

VEREIN

States that published the Central-Blatt and Social Justice in St. Louis. The term Verein also appeared regularly in the titles of sodalities, youth organizations, and pastoral care societies that pervaded the whole of German American life—not just in America but back in Germany as well. Frequently the name of a saint was incorporated in the title, as in Cäcilien-Verein (St. Cecilia club), implying here that this was a church choir. Equally numerous were the school societies, some geared to school children who learned in German, others to raise financial support for private and parochial schools, such as those that were mandated by the Third Council of Baltimore in 1884. In the same vein, the dramatischer Verein or Theater-Verein, such groups as the Schiller-Verein, Schubert-Verein, or Beethoven-Verein, and a plethora of similar organizations were cultural units existing for specific purposes that served the German American community. In the more political arena back in Germany was the Nationalverein für deutsche Auswanderung (The National Society for the Promotion of German Emigration), which had surprising success around the 1850s in encouraging Germans to seek new homes in the United States. This organization functioned as a clearinghouse for information about life in the United States, operated a Darmstaedt bookstore with materials about emigration, facilitated financial arrangements, and helped out if legal problems arose. Often these societies extended assistance through their counterparts in North America. Thus the Verein held its own as a rather respected entity that benefited ordinary people in line with the society’s mission statement. Princes and dukes

1095

in Germany found a ready relief valve for their social problems and the United States usually benefited by receiving an adequate labor supply and enterprising new farmers. Although German military organizations generally referred to their troop assemblies with the word Einheit (active duty military unit), veterans’ groups often took the suffix word Verein to distinguish themselves from those still active and to imply a social dimension to the organization’s purpose; hence, Krieger-Verein (war veterans’ society). Here, too, many combinations of veteran societies arose, many of which employed some other word to indicate a mutual support organization of a very specific sort. Such an organ as the Steuben-Verein in one instance was used to raise money for the monument to Frederick von Steuben that now stands in Lafayette Park across from the White House. In another, it was used to honor German Americans by means of identification with a prominent and respected German immigrant. The Steuben Society still stages its parade down the streets of New York annually in late September. Appearing at such events are dozens of varying Verein-titled groups. Organizations with names such as Verein deutscher Trachten (native costume club), Schuhplattler-Verein (Bavarian shoe-slapping dancers), Verein deutscher Sprache (German language club), and even such college support groups as the Verein zur Förderung der Universität Princeton (Society for the Financial Support of the University of Princeton) are likely to join in the Steuben parade. As might be expected, the Canstatter Volksfest Verein, the Pennsylvania Bayrischer Volksfest Verein, and many others are in attendance at the annual Steuben parade.

1096

VEREIN

Schützenvereine (protection societies), which started out in Germany as a way to secure mutual physical protection such as that offered by national guard organizations or even neighborhood watch groups, are in the early twenty-first century mostly social clubs. Various Donau-Schwaben Vereine (Danube-Swabian societies) celebrate and support post–World War II immigrants from the Danube region of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. The settlements there originated during the reign of Maria Theresia in the 1770s and 1780s. The settlers lived in German-speaking enclaves until the end of World War II, when according to the July 1945 Potsdam Agreement, they were expelled. Qualifying as displaced persons, the Danube Swabians immigrated in large numbers to the United States. In 2005, therefore, a host of Vereine in the American setting serve these Danube Swabian immigrants and their descendents, not only in big cities like greater New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, but also in smaller communities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Ann Arbor, Michigan. A Schwäbischer Männerchor Verein (Swabian Men’s Chorus Club) exists in Fraser, Michigan. Mention should also be made of the Vereine that sought commonality among those of German ethnicity who were never citizens of Germany but who clung nevertheless to their German heritage. Such Vereine include, for instance, the Carpathian Verein, named after the Carpathian Mountains in southern Poland and eastern Slovakia, sometimes extending to include also the region once known as Bukovina and thus resulting in titles like the Buchenland Vereine. Also prominent are such organizations as the Siebenbürger Sachsen Vereine, which stem from the German settlements in Romania that date

from the 1200s to the 1400s. There are also Vereine for the German groups from Russia, notably in Nebraska, Kansas, and the Dakotas. Sometimes the latter are divided further along the lines of their geographical origin, such as the Black Sea Germans or the Volga Germans. There are even Vereine for more minute subgroups, like the Bessarabian, the Glückstal, the Kherson, or the Volhynia Germans. Not to be forgotten are those religious Vereine that had as their mission mutual support among laypeople. Strong within this category are the Catholic Kolping Societies, which were founded in honor of the Cologne priest Adolph Kolping (1813– 1865), to promote piety among individuals and families. A worldwide organization, the Kolping chapters in the United States are located primarily close to either coast, in the East in New York, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and Philadelphia, and in the West in Los Angeles and San Francisco. Motivated by a different mission is the Protestantenverein, which began in Germany in 1863 to achieve unity among the various nonCatholic denominations. The term Verein has a very positive connotation for some kind of community with almost any identifiable purpose. Cutting across all aspects of group living, it is the word that brings together, communalizes, and supports its membership of individuals. In that sense, the word is accurate, it “unifies.” The prefix ver- implies action, and thus the Verein is an active coming together into one. LaVern J. Rippley See also German Catholic Central-Verein; Kenkel, Frederick P.; St. Raphael’s zum Schutze Katholischer deutscher; Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants; Steuben Society of America

VIERECK, GEORGE SYLVESTER References and Further Reading Gleason, Philip. The Conservative Reformers: German-American Catholics and the Social Order. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1968. Levine, Bruce C. The Spirit of 1848: German Immigrants, Labor Conflict and the Coming of the Civil War. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois, 1992. Wittke, Carl. Refugees of Revolution: The German Forty-Eighters in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1970.

VIERECK, GEORGE SYLVESTER b. December 31, 1884; Munich, Bavaria d. March 1, 1962; Hadley, Massachusetts As a newspaperman, poet, and political activist, Viereck ranks as America’s most prominent and notorious defender of the reputation and the policies of imperial Germany and of the Third Reich in the first half of the twentieth century. During both world wars, Viereck assumed a leading position in the German American community while acting on behalf of the respective German governments to propagate a pro-German viewpoint to the American public. In both instances, he was accused of conspiring to undermine the American war effort. Viereck’s checkered career, as well as his extensive writings, highlight the ambivalence that lies at the foundation of immigrant life in general and the fragility of German American integration in times of nationalist fervor and crisis. Viereck’s father, Louis Viereck, emigrated to the United States in 1896 after an uneven political career. As a member of the Social Democratic Party, he was first elected to the Reichstag and later imprisoned during Otto von Bismarck’s anti-So-

1097

cialist crusade. His mother, American-born Laura Viereck, was the daughter of a revolutionary who had been forced to leave Germany after the failed uprising of 1848 and 1849. Due to his father’s travails, Sylvester, as he preferred to be addressed, had a childhood marked by economic hardship and familial instability. In 1896, soon after his arrival in New York, Sylvester was able to place a few of his poems with various German-language newspapers on the East Coast. Later on, while studying at City College, Viereck continued to write and embarked on a parallel career as a journalist, often collaborating with his father. Viereck’s first collection of poetry in the English language (translated from German originals), Nineveh and Other Poems, was published in 1908 and received wide critical acclaim for its brash narcissism and sexual content. Hailed by some as a Wunderkind, Viereck cultivated the public persona of the dandy and provocateur, emulating his idol Oscar Wilde. Although less successful, a second collection entitled The Candle and the Flame (1912) showed a similar antipuritanical thrust, offering a celebration of the many forms of love. Viereck’s poetry bore the influence of the European decadents and their predilection for the exotic, perverse, and amoral aspects of experience. Following a trip to Germany, Viereck wrote Confessions of a Barbarian (1910), which he dedicated to his father and to Germany. The book became a best-seller in spite of its critical stance toward the American way of life and its praise of Wilhelm II and German cultural supremacy. When his parents moved back to Germany in 1911, Viereck decided to stay in New York and assumed the editorship of his father’s magazine Der deutsche

1098

VIERECK, GEORGE SYLVESTER

Vorkämpfer (The German Pioneer). He increasingly involved himself in German American affairs. The outbreak of hostilities in Europe in August 1914 provided Viereck with an opportunity to act as spokesperson for the German American community. A week after the German invasion of Belgium, he brought forth the weekly The Fatherland and dedicated himself to presenting the German point of view and to exposing the distortions of the American press. Throughout the war, Viereck’s newspaper, later renamed The American Weekly, argued for American neutrality and attacked Woodrow Wilson as beholden to British interests. At the same time, Viereck claimed to maintain a fundamental commitment to America. In 1915, The New World alleged that Viereck was working with a propaganda cabinet set up in New York by German agents and receiving considerable sums of money from Berlin. An investigation by the Justice Department failed to produce enough evidence to charge him formally as a foreign agent. After the United States entered the war in April 1917, Viereck continued to avoid condemning Germany and dwelt instead on the injustices suffered by German American citizens. His activities drew the contempt of many American intellectuals and publishers, and he was expelled from the Author’s League and the Poetry Society of America. By the end of the war, Viereck had lost his readership due to the virtual collapse of the German American community as a political force, but he pressed on in his pro-German fight, attacking Wilson’s peace initiatives and protesting against the Versailles Treaty. Viereck became one of the founding members of the Steuben Society, which championed the civil rights of German Americans, and he

supported several relief funds to aid the poor in Germany. During the 1920s, Viereck gradually resurrected his career, writing sensational, anti-Communist articles for the Hearst papers and the Saturday Evening Post. In My Flesh and Blood: A Lyric Autobiography with Indiscreet Annotations (1931), Viereck portrayed himself as a poet of historical stature and asserted that his earlier political activity had been an unfortunate digression from his artistic endeavors. But he once again took pains to advance the German perspective in the 1930s, acting as a public relations consultant and propagandist for the National Socialist regime. He assisted in the publication of the German-American Economic Bulletin, a venture designed to encourage trade between the two countries and funded by the German Foreign Ministry. Viereck admired Adolf Hitler, whom he had interviewed as early as 1923, as a strong leader and heir apparent to the emperor. Convinced of the existence of a Jewish Communist conspiracy, Viereck would not denounce the Nazis’ persecution of the Jews in public. As relations between the Third Reich and the United States deteriorated, Viereck again came out in favor of American neutrality and isolation. From March 1942 to March 1943 and again from July 1943 to May 1947 he was imprisoned on charges of disloyalty and conspiracy to undermine the morale of the armed forces. With his reputation ruined beyond repair, Viereck resumed his literary career. In several books he revealed himself to be unrepentant and increasingly pessimistic. While he strove to justify both his passionate amorality and his pro-German legacy, he also expressed dismay over the decline of Western civilization. Cornelius Partsch

VIETNAM WAR AND WEST GERMAN PROTESTS See also Bismarck’s Anti-Socialist Law; Steuben Society of America; Treaty of Versailles; World War I;, World War I and German Americans References and Further Reading Gertz, Elmer. Odyssey of a Barbarian. The Biography of George Sylvester Viereck. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1978. Johnson, Niel M. George Sylvester Viereck. German-American Propagandist. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1972. Keller, Phyllis. States of Belonging. GermanAmerican Intellectuals and the First World War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1979.

VIETNAM WAR AND WEST GERMAN PROTESTS West German peace activists began protesting the Vietnam War in 1965, when Operation Rolling Thunder, the campaign of bombing North Vietnam, began. Many protesters were veterans of the peace and antirearmament movements of the 1950s, and others were activists in the Socialist Students League (SDS). They rejected the official stance that the war in Vietnam was part of a worldwide struggle against communism and charged the United States with imperialism. By 1967 West German antiwar protesters were drawing parallels between U.S. actions in Vietnam and the Nazi’s murder of Jews in Auschwitz. Moreover, they connected the U.S. administration with the Grand Coalition in Bonn, labeling both “fascistic.” The SDS and other student groups called for ever more radical resistance against the West German government, and some activists turned to terrorism. For many students in the 1960s, taking a stand against the Vietnam War relieved the guilt they felt as descendants of those implicated in the crimes of the Third

1099

Reich. Their condemnation of the policies of the United States enabled them to atone for their parents’ inaction and provided an opportunity to universalize Nazi brutality. Other Germans saw the question in a more nuanced light. While many disapproved of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia, or supported the war only tepidly, a majority of German citizens continued to support the U.S. military presence on their own soil, seeing it as a necessary protection against Soviet aggression. This was true especially in West Berlin, the center of radical antiwar protest. In 1967, when students from the Free University of Berlin staged a demonstration against the war, drawing perhaps 20,000 participants, supporters of the United States held a counterdemonstration of over 100,000. Ambiguity existed on many levels. While protesters condemned the United States for its actions in Vietnam, they also placed elements of American youth culture at the center of their general rebellion against West German politics and society. Clothing, sexual morals, drug use, and especially rock music from the United States and Great Britain became forms of protest. Moreover, the U.S. forces in Germany were not generally targets of anti-American protest; rather, soldiers were seen as victims of U.S. policy similar to the Vietnamese. West German political leaders such as chancellors Ludwig Erhard (1963–1966) and Kurt Kiesinger (1966–1969) supported U.S. involvement in Vietnam, aware that U.S. defense of West Germany implied a quid pro quo, though they resisted sending troops or equipment to Southeast Asia. However, growing public distaste for Germany’s unconditional support of U.S. cold war policy brought Social Democratic Party (of Gemany) member

1100

VIETNAM WAR AND WEST GERMAN PROTESTS

Demonstration against the American war in Vietnam in West Berlin, 1968. (Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin/Michael Ruetz)

Willy Brandt to power in 1969. Brandt was unafraid to disagree with the Americans, and led West Germany down a more independent path. Although U.S. troops in Germany experienced few acts of anti-Americanism as such, the Vietnam War had a long-term negative effect on the U.S. forces in Germany and on German American relations on a local level. As the war sapped energy, morale, and funding from U.S. military communities, problems burgeoned and German American relations deteriorated. Both sides lost interest in expressions of friendship, and the social problems of the U.S. forces, caused in great part by the

trauma of Vietnam, frightened and alienated German civilians. The Vietnam War protest movement virtually disappeared by 1972, but the reservoir of informal friendship and trust was drained, and when a new round of protests against American policy began in the 1980s, the overt anti-American flavor was much more pronounced. Anni Baker See also U.S. Bases in West Germany; West Berlin References and Further Reading Nelson, Daniel J. A History of U.S. Military Forces in Germany. Boulder, CO, and London: Westview, 1987. Seiler, Signe. Die GIs: Amerikanische Soldaten in Deutschland. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1985.

VOLGA GERMANS

VOLGA GERMANS (VOLGA DEUTSCHE) IN THE UNITED STATES German-speaking emigrants from Russia, the Volga Germans formed a significant wave of settlement in the upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest in the period from 1870 to 1920. Largely rural agricultural workers, these colonists exhibited a unique blend of Russian and German heritage and remain a strong force in the region through their contribution to farming and religious and educational institutions. Originally brought to Russia beginning in 1763 at the command of Czarina Catherine II, who was born a princess of Anhalt-Zerbst, the settlers were meant to provide a stable frontier on the lower Volga River and to introduce more intensive and efficient agricultural practices to Russia. Russian agents recruiting in the war-weary Hessian states (Darmstadt, Kassel) and the Rhine Palatinate found volunteers eager to escape high taxes and compulsory military service, but they also found German governments wary of losing their workforces. Catherine issued a declaration offering each settler family 162 acres of land, loans with a 10-year interest-free period, and livestock at government expense. Most promisingly, settlers were permitted to keep their language, religion (Roman Catholic or Lutheran), and school systems, and to run their own civil and criminal courts locally, and were forever exempt from military service. By 1798 approximately 39,000 Germans lived in 104 colonies (32 Roman Catholic, 72 Protestant, largely Lutheran) on the Volga, and in 1804, Alexander I issued another invitation for Germans to settle in the Black Sea region (Koch 1977, 69).

IN THE

UNITED STATES

1101

The German colonies prospered and increased the grain yield of the Ukraine and Volga regions substantially, but their self-contained and unassimilated German communities incited the envy and hostility of their Russian neighbors. In 1871 Alexander II and the Russian senate abruptly suspended the 1763 law, making the colonists the equals of newly freed serfs and requiring them to serve in the imperial army. The loss of their own courts made them subject to Russian harassment, and pan-Slavism increasingly threatened the Germans’ carefully kept separate identity, pushing community leaders to investigate emigration options. Mennonite Volga Germans who held deep pacifist beliefs left for America from 1872 through 1874, while others successfully transplanted their entire communities to Brazil, Argentina, or Paraguay. Learning of the Volga Germans’ willingness to leave Russia, agents of U.S. railroad companies—such as Carl Schmidt, born in Saxony and representing the Kansas Pacific, or Bavarian Henry Villard of the Northern Pacific—enthusiastically promoted settlement along their lines in Kansas, the Dakotas, and Oregon. These efforts attracted an average of 30,000 Volga Germans per year between 1876 and 1914 (Koch 1977, 212–220), and, aided by the Homestead Act and subsidized loans from the railroads, planted Volga communities across the upper Midwest. Volga Germans, unlike many emigrants of the period, came in community groups rather than as individuals or families, although the provisions of homesteading broke down the practice of living together in a town and farming outlying lands in favor of families living in sod houses on their own claims.

1102

VOLKSWAGEN COMPANY AND ITS VW BEETLE

The Volga Germans meshed well with other immigrants to the region, especially the Reich Germans and Scandinavians, with whom they shared many religious and cultural traditions, including the institutionalized Lutheran Church. Roman Catholics among the immigrants were welcomed and served by the Capuchin Brothers in Kansas and the Roman Catholic missionary fathers of the Dakotas. They quickly gained a reputation for thrift, honest dealing, and skill in cultivating winter wheat, sunflowers, and sugar beets, which they had done in Russia. Although many households continued to use German at home and in religious services, the settlers assimilated their children through the public schools and became highly valued American citizens, with large proportions of men serving in World Wars I and II. Emigration ended with the start of World War I, although in 1921, learning of the disastrous famine in Russia, Volga Germans in the United States quickly raised $550,000 for relief of the settlers who remained behind and encouraged emigration for those under increasing pressure from the Soviet government as spies or wealthy kulaks. Heritage societies, like the American Society of Germans from Russia, founded in 1968, and the North Dakota Historical Society of Germans from Russia, which represents the descendents of the state’s 23,000 Volga Germans, continue to promote and preserve the cultural legacy of these significant settlers, hosting annual conventions and sponsoring important document collections like that of North Dakota State University. Margaret Sankey See also Argentina; Brazil; Kansas, German Dialects in

References and Further Reading Aberle, George P. From the Steppes to the Prairies. Bismarck, ND: Bismarck Tribune, 1963. Koch, Fred C. The Volga Germans: In Russia and the Americas. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1977. Long, James W. From Privileged to Dispossessed: The Volga Germans 1860–1917. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1988. Scheuerman, Richard D., and Clifford E. Trafzer. The Volga Germans: Pioneers of the Northwest. Moscow: University of Idaho, 1980.

VOLKSWAGEN COMPANY AND ITS VW BEETLE The VW Beetle was one of the most successful automobiles built in the twentieth century. Ideas about a car that would not be a luxury product but an affordable vehicle for the majority of the population go back as far as 1904. In the Wilhelmine Empire, engineers were already arguing that the future of automobiles would lie only in mass production of affordable small vehicles that even working-class families could afford. This debate was sparked by Henry Ford’s creation of the Model T. The Model T, commonly known as the Tin Lizzie, was produced by the Ford Motor Company between 1908 and 1928. The first model rolled off the assembly line on October 1, 1908. It was the first car mass-produced on assembly lines with completely interchangeable parts. By 1914 the production of the Model T had been streamlined in such a way that it took only 93 minutes to produce one car. According to contemporary estimates, roughly half of all the cars driven in the world by the early 1920s were Model-T Fords. About 15 million Ford

VOLKSWAGEN COMPANY AND ITS VW BEETLE

Model T’s were sold. Only the VW Beetle surpassed this record. The idea of a Volkswagen (people’s car) became the leitmotif for German engineers during the Golden Twenties. However, the idea became feasible only after the endorsement of this suggestion by Adolf Hitler, who admired Henry Ford and realized the potential of his concept of affordable massproduced cars for the integration of average Germans into the Nazi system. The Reichsverband der Deutschen Automobilindustrie (Imperial Association of Carproducers, RDA) requested Ferdinand Porsche to construct a prototype of his people’s car in 1934. Hitler demanded that the sales price was not to exceed 990 reichsmarks. Porsche already had worked on concepts and sketches of a small and affordable family car before Hitler seized power in January 1933. However, only after the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship did this idea gain much support in political circles. The production of a people’s car fit Hitler’s plans for the construction of a system of Autobahnen (highways) and was an ideal element in the Nazis’ desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community). The Deutsche Arbeitsfront (German Laborers’ Front, DAF) under its leader Robert Ley took over the responsibility for the production of the Volkswagen in 1937. This organization was also in charge of the Kraft durch Freude (Strength through Joy, KdF) Program, the first mass-tourism program. This explains the naming of the people’s car as the KdF car (as Hitler had suggested it). The DAF founded the Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des deutschen Volkswagens mbH (Society for the Preparation of the German People’s Car, Gezuvor), which soon was renamed

1103

Leaflet for the "Kraft durch Freude" (Strength by Joy) car, 1938. (Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin)

Volkswagenwerk GmbH (Volkswagen Company). On May 26, 1938, construction began on a production facility for the Beetle near the city of Fallersleben in Lower Saxony. This production site, completed between 1939 and 1940, became the center of an entire new city, which was named Stadt des KdF Wagens (City of the KdF car). The Volkswagen soon became a symbol of the National Socialist consumer policy. By 1936 the car already had its distinctive round shape designed by the Austrian car-body designer Erwin Komenda (1904–1966). Porsche had met him in 1929 in Steyr and hired him in 1931 to head the Porsche Car-Body Construction Department. Beginning in August 1938, Germans were invited by the DAF to buy car coupons in the form of saving stamps,

1104

VOLKSWAGEN COMPANY AND ITS VW BEETLE

which would enable average families to purchase a people’s car after several years of saving. By 1945, about 340,000 people had participated in this saving scheme and accumulated some 280 million reichsmarks (Graef 2002, 4). However, only a handful of Beetles were ever produced before the onset of war in September 1939. Production was immediately switched over to military vehicles, and, instead of Beetles, VW produced jeeplike Kübelwagen (bucket seat cars) and amphibious Schwimmwagen. Only after 1945 did the actual production of Beetles begin. The British, who were in charge of the automobile production facilities, decided to restructure the factories rather than demolish them. In October 1946 the 10,000th Beetle left the assembly line. By 1954 about 1 million Beetles had been produced (Graef 2002, 42). The Beetle, sold worldwide, became the most striking symbol of the fast West German economic recovery after World War II. Inside West Germany, the Beetle was quickly seen as the most obvious indication that the old class society had been replaced by a classless mass-consumer society. The Beetle was the car that everyone could afford. The sales numbers proved that the car finally had become a consumer good and was no longer an exclusive luxury item. By the end of the 1940s, VW was producing more than half of all vehicles manufactured in West Germany. During the 1950s, production skyrocketed. In 1954 the 1 millionth car rolled off the assembly line. In the following decades, the Beetle would become one of the highest-selling cars in the world. Until March 1950, VW had only one product—the Beetle. This changed with the development of the first VW transporter, the Bulli. At the same

time, VW embarked on worldwide expansion of its production facilities. In September 1952 Volkswagen Canada, Ltd., was opened, with its headquarters in Toronto. One year later, Volkswagen do Brasil, S.A., in São Bernardo do Campo near São Paulo was founded. In October 1953 Verkaufsgesellschaft Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen Marketing Company of America) was established with its seat in Inglewood, New Jersey. Over the next few years, new production facilities were opened in Hanover and Kassel (Germany) as well as in South Africa (Volkswagen of South Africa Pty. Ltd. In Uitenhage) and in Australia (Volkswagen Australasia Pty. Ltd. in Melbourne). By 1973 more than 16 million Beetles had been produced worldwide. With this output, the Beetle surpassed the previous record set by the Ford Model T. It became the best-selling car of the twentieth century. After the introduction of the VW Golf, sales dropped and the Beetle slowly but surely began losing ground. Until 1978 it was produced in German production facilities, afterward (between 1978 and mid2003) only in the Mexican VW factories. On July 30, 2003, the last VW Beetle (No. 21,529,464) rolled from the assembly line in Puebla, Mexico, after an unexpected and unprecedented life span of 58 years. Sold in the United States until 1978, the VW Beetle and VW Bus became the symbols of an alternative counterculture during and after the 1968 student revolutions. No longer just a car, the Beetle has been the center of a cult since the 1960s and its association with the hippie movement. It still has a very strong fellowship of believers worldwide. It even became the star, “Herbie,” of a Walt Disney movie The Love Bug

VON-DER-HEYDT’SCHES RESKRIPT

(1968) followed by three sequential movies: Herbie Rides Again (1974), Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo (1977), and Herbie Goes Bananas (1980). In 1998 the Beetle experienced a resurrection of sorts when VW presented its New Beetle to the public. Developed by VW engineers in California, this New Beetle does not have much in common with the original version. Technically based on the Golf model, it is only reminiscent in its round shape. It is quite an irony that the “grandson” of Hitler’s people’s car is an American. Alexander Schug See also Ford, Henry; Mexico References and Further Reading Baaske, Edwin. Volkswagen Beetle: Portrait of a Legend. Cambridge, MA: Robert Bentley, 1997. Barber, Chris. Birth of the Beetle: The Development of the Volkswagen by Ferdinand Porsche. Sparkford, UK: Haynes, 2003. Graef, Bernd, et al., eds. Volkswagen Chronik. Wolfsburg: Unternehmensarchiv der Volkswagen AB, 2002. Patton, Phil. Bug: The Strange Mutations of the World’s Most Famous Automobile. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2002.

VON-DER-HEYDT’SCHES RESKRIPT (HEYDT EDICT) After the ban on the importation of slaves in 1850, the parceria system was to supply Brazil’s coffee plantations with European labor. It was a combination of promotion for immigration with contractual conditions of employment. The owners of coffee plantations, or fazendeiros, signed contracts with workers recruited in Europe that assured financing of their passage to the harbor of Santos and provisions until the first

1105

harvest. After their arrival the immigrants thus recruited worked under a sharecropping arrangement. The colonists had to give part of the value of their crop (often half ) to the fazendeiro, until they had paid back their debts, plus interest. This sharecrop system, the parceria, did not represent free wage labor but instead was an attempt to employ labor in an indentured working relationship designed to create indebtedness. This questionable type of colonization and reports about the new settlers’ helplessness against the all-powerful fazendeiros, who dominated and manipulated both state and law to their advantage, provided the background for German restrictions on emigration to Brazil. As news of the mistreatment of the German colonists in Brazil accumulated, they were debated in the Prussian parliament. In 1859 Robert Avé-Lallemant, a physician from Lübeck, returning from Brazil, reported about the horrible conditions of the German colonists at the Mucury River in Minas Gerais, who had been deprived of their rights and were exploited by lack of sufficient nourishment and medical care as well as rising indebtedness. Avé-Lallemant spoke of “human butchery” and labeled any further immigration to Brazil as “unsafe and dangerous.” Prussian authorities reacted immediately. On November 3, 1859, an edict was issued that revoked all concessions permitting recruitment granted previously and forbade all further recruitment for emigration to Brazil. Baron August von der Heydt was Prussian minister for trade and industry. Because emigration was handled by his department, the edict soon became known as the von-der-Heydt’sches Rescript (Heydt edict).

1106

VON-DER-HEYDT’SCHES RESKRIPT

After the establishment of the German Reich (1871), the edict became a national guideline that was not changed even after the conditions of German settlers in Brazil improved. Chancellor Otto von Bismarck was a firm opponent of emigration and when petitioned to revoke the edict answered sharply: “A German who leaves his fatherland behind like an old coat, is not a German in my eyes and I lose interest in him as a compatriot” (Sudhaus 1940, 159). The edict was finally revoked in 1895 for the three southern states (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Paraná), but not for the rest of Brazil. It severely curtailed recruiters’ opportunities throughout Germany, while Brazil’s image suffered considerable damage with the consequence that German Brazilian relations cooled off. While German immigration into Brazil

continued and even increased after the edict was issued, it decreased in relation to immigration from other nations. Thereafter, Brazilian recruiters preferred to seek out potential immigrants in other European regions; for example, in northern Italy or the Mediterranean areas of Austria. Holger M. Meding See also Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold; Brazil References and Further Reading Bendocchi Alves, Débora. Das Brasilienbild der deutschen Auswanderungswerbung im 19. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin, 2000. Brunn, Gerhard. Deutschland und Brasilien (1889–1914). Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 1971. Sudhaus, Fritz. Deutschland und die Auswanderung nach Brasilien im 19. Jahrhundert. Hamburg: Hans Christian Verlag, 1940.

W WAIBEL, LEO HEINRICH b. February 22, 1888; Kützbrunn, Baden d. September 4, 1951; Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg German geographer who was exiled to the United States in 1939 and engaged in geographical and economic investigations of South America. He influenced regional economic planning in Brazil. Waibel first studied zoology and botany at the University of Halle an der Saale, and he then switched subjects and trained as a geographer with Albrecht Penck in Berlin as well as at Alfred Hettner in Heidelberg. At first Waibel appeared to be developing into a specialist on Africa. Immediately after receiving his doctorate in 1911, he had the opportunity to accompany his fellow Hettner student, Franz Thorbecke, professor of geography at the University of Cologne, on an expedition to Cameroon. In 1913 he toured southwest Africa together with Fritz Jaeger, another Hettner student. They were surprised there by the outbreak of World War I and were held in custody until 1919. However, they were not greatly hindered in conducting their research expeditions. In 1920 Waibel completed his second dissertation (Habilitation) on “Winterregen in Südwestafrika” (Winter Rains in South-

west Africa). After a brief stint as an assistant to Albrecht Penck in Berlin, he was appointed chair of the Geography Department at the University of Kiel in 1922. He remained there until 1929. Waibel then accepted the chairmanship of the Geography Department at the University of Bonn. Because he did not wish to separate from his Jewish wife, he was forced into compulsory retirement in 1937 and left Germany for the United States two years later. He worked until 1945 (as well as in 1950 and 1951) at Johns Hopkins University, the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. In 1946 he was commissioned by the Conselho Nacional de Geografia in Rio de Janeiro for five years of research projects in agricultural colonization and developmental opportunities in Brazil. Waibel developed the important concept of Wirtschaftsformation (economic formation) in the course of his analysis of observations made on a trip to Mexico in 1925 and 1926 (Die Sierra Madre de Chiapas, 1927). As an analogy to the concept of Vegetationsformation (formation of vegetation), which he used earlier, Waibel was able to demonstrate the connection between the physiognomic and functional factors of the economic region. With the

1107

1108

WALDSEEMÜLLER, MARTIN

example of the Sierra Madre of Chiapas he showed how and why, in terms of space, the pasture farming of the Creoles, the peasant farming mountain settlements of the Indians, and the modern plantation economy were distinctly different. The terminology he introduced achieved recognition and is still widely used in agricultural geography, to which he made a significant contribution with his work Probleme der Landwirtschaftsgeographie (Problems of Agricultural Geography, 1933). Waibel’s focus on regional spaces influenced the agricultural and economic policies of the Brazilian government. During the 1930s, he developed guidelines for Brazil’s future regional planning that had a lasting effect on Brazil’s economic development. His proposals resulted in basic changes in the economic methods and distribution of the country’s population, based on a new appraisal of the agricultural potential of the campos (fields) and the resulting conception for the layout of colonization areas. Ute Wardenga See also Intellectual Exile References and Further Reading Bernardes, Nilo. “Leo Waibel.” Revista Brasileira de Geografia 14 (1952): 199–201. Broek, Jan O. M. “Leo Heinrich Waibel: An Appreciation.” Geographical Review 42 (1952): 287–292. Pfeifer, Gottfried. “Das wirtschaftsgeographische Lebenswerk Leo Waibels.” Erdkunde 6 (1952): 1–20. ———. “Leo Waibel.” In Geographers. Biobibliographical Studies. Vol. 6. Ed. Walter T. Freeman. London: Mansell, 1982, pp. 139–147.

WALDSEEMÜLLER, MARTIN b. (?) about 1475; Freiburg, Breisgau d. (?)

Famous for having given the newfound continent the name America, after Amerigo Vespucci. But there has always been a paradox in this fact. How did it come about that a cartographer of Breisgau should be the first to name and delineate regions newly reached by the mariners of Iberia from their bases far away on the Atlantic Coast? Waldseemüller was born about 1475, probably near Freiburg-im-Breisgau, whose university he attended. He was early recognized as an accomplished humanist scholar and began to work in the learned circles patronized by René II, duke of Lorraine. This group established a printing press in St-Dié, near Strasbourg, around 1505 and in 1507 published Waldseemüller’s Cosmographiae Introductio (Introduction to Cosmography), in which the suggestion was made that the new continent be named America; this came about because letters concerning the supposed discoveries of Amerigo Vespucci formed a large part of the book. This publication and its variants were long known and studied, and then in the late nineteenth century scholars discovered both the globe gores designed to accompany the Introductio, and a large world map also dating from 1507. Waldseemüller, in fact, went on to produce other maps, in particular those accompanying his 1513 edition of the Geography of the classical scholar Claudius Ptolemy. But his great fame rests on the world map of 1507, with its mention of America. This map had been discovered in 1900 in the collections at Wolfegg Castle. At the time of this writing in 2005 it seems likely that it will be purchased for the Library of Congress, so that it can be held and exhibited in Washington.

WALTHER, CARL FERDINAND WILHELM

1109

World map by Martin Waldseemüller, 1507, showing America. (British Library)

To revert to the paradox with which we began, the naming of the new continent took place in Lorraine because of the advanced printing techniques newly available there. Although the Iberian powers provided the mariners and cartographic skill, Spain and Portugal lacked the sophisticated printing presses that could produce large printed maps, and so America was named in the duchy of Lorraine, far from the Atlantic Ocean. David Buisseret

References and Further Reading Fischer, Joseph, and Franz von Wieser. Die älteste Karte mit dem Namen Amerika. Innsbruck, London: Wagner/Stevens, 1903. Karrow, Robert, Jr. Mapmakers of the Sixteenth Century and Their Maps. Chicago: Speculum Orbis, 1993. Skelton, Raleigh A., ed. “Introduction.” In Geographia, Strasbourg, 1513. Amsterdam: Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, 1966.

WALTHER, CARL FERDINAND WILHELM b. October 25, 1811; Langenschursdorf, Saxony d. May 7, 1887; St. Louis, Missouri Formative theologian and leader of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Walther served as the first president of the synod (1847–1850, 1864–1878). He initiated the synod’s major nineteenth-century publications: Der Lutheraner (The Lutheran) in 1844, a periodical for the faithful, and Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense) in 1855, a theological journal. From 1854 until his death in 1887, he was the president and the dominant influence of the synod’s main seminary, Concordia, in St. Louis. Walther’s father, grandfather, and great-grandfather had all been Lutheran pastors, and his parents oversaw the young boy’s developing knowledge of the Bible.

1110

WALTHER, CARL FERDINAND WILHELM

When Walther noted in his journal at age eighteen that he enjoyed his family more than his friends, he attested to his unease both with worldly acquaintances and with the spirit of rationalism that infused his early schooling. When he matriculated in theology at the University of Leipzig (1829–1833), he noted that only two of the nine members of the department accepted the truth of scripture as superior to the precepts of reason. Self-conscious about his sins and sense of isolation, Walther joined a pietist club at the university that engaged in fasts and other exercises of holy living. The onerous standards of the club made Walther more lonely and perplexed than before. When he heard of a Dresden preacher who attracted large crowds with a pure Lutheran perspective, the young scholar sent the pastor a letter. The reply that Walther received from the Reverend Martin Stephan helped to quiet the anxiety that was immobilizing him. When Walther later received his first call to Bräunsdorf, Saxony, he maintained his contacts with Stephan. Such guidance became all the more necessary as Walther confronted a rationalist schoolteacher at his church school and preached to overcome resistance to the doctrine of the Lutheran confessions. When Stephan claimed that the rationalistic schools of Saxony were endangering the souls of Lutheran children, Walther joined his mentor’s Auswanderungsgesellschaft (emigration society), and supported his plan to immigrate to America. In November 1838 Walther and nearly 700 other followers of Stephan left Germany, and by the end of January 1839 they had arrived in St. Louis, Missouri. By this time, Stephan also claimed the powers of a

bishop. Walther and the other ministers in the exodus supported this presumption and signed a document that stated that the members of the emigration society were to treat their “Primate” with a reverence due his high office. Walther might well have remained a parish pastor for the rest of his life if Stephan had continued in his role as an inspired theologian and leader. Instead, Stephan, who emigrated without his wife, made sexual advances to women in the Gesellschaft, and began to treat one as his mistress. As Stephan led the bulk of the group to a 4,500-acre tract of land in Perry County, Missouri, rumors reached the villages of Dresden and Johannesburg where Walther preached. With the support of Reverend G.H. Loeber of Attenburg village who had heard the confessions of two women, Walther interviewed the bishop’s acquaintances. Without accusing Stephan directly, Walther let the already suspicious Lutherans in Perry County know that a scandal of epic proportions was developing. During the final week of May 1839, Walther confronted Stephan and with other leaders arranged for his deposition and banishment. The Gesellschaft even excommunicated Stephan, but as it did so, it experienced a crisis about its own future and the nature of its mission. Questions lingered and eroded the confidence of the group. Had they been following a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Were they a church in the New World? Was their emigration a product of unbelief? It was Walther’s answers to these questions in a debate with Adolph Marbach in Altenburg in April 1841 that quieted the uproar and made Walther the leader of the Gesellschaft. Walther professed that churches such as

WALTHER, CARL FERDINAND WILHELM

those described in Revelation 2:3 may well have apostates in their midst, but that they perform their function as churches precisely in retaining the sins of defiant members like Stephan, and loosening the sins of those who repent (Matthew 16:19). The church, regardless of its errant members, always exists when the word of God is rightly preached, and the sacraments rightly bestowed. Even flawed churches— that only alluded to the Gospel—could possess the power of the church to confer forgiveness to repentant believers. The inevitable conclusion—that the Old Lutherans now constituted very viable churches in America—inspired Walther to organize and unite these churches. With a high proportion of ministers compared to other communities of German Protestants, and the Concordia Seminary that began in 1843, Walther’s church was poised to expand. In 1847 Walther served as the key organizer of the body that became the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. The emphasis of the synod, on churches “walking together” in unity of doctrine, appealed to many confessional Lutheran congregations across the nation. Walther’s Lehre und Wehre helped shape the uncompromising theology that stood behind this organizational appeal. Though Philip Schaff in 1864 argued that it would be easier to make the Mississippi flow to Bavaria than to build a confessional Lutheran Church in America (Spitz 1968, 132). Walther continued to support a very positive reappraisal of Luther and of the chorale theology of the Reformation era. In the early eighteenth century, a concerted attempt to maintain Lutheran orthodoxy in the New York Ministerium had failed, but now, over a century later, Walther’s synod flourished.

1111

As a theologian, Walther endeavored to make what Saint Paul had made essential to Christianity: the Doctrine of Justification, quintessential to the church. This was the teaching found most succinctly in Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8 that one is saved by unmerited, God-given faith, and not by human effort. For Walther, the Gospel or good news of Christianity was essentially this, that Christ’s atoning death destroyed sin but preserved the sinner. The Law of God, on the other hand, could only kill the sinner, but not the sin, since no one could even impress God with their righteousness. Walther refused to support the teachings of the Buffalo Synod Lutheran leader, Johannes Grabau, because the latter appeared to have established Lutheran orthodoxy itself as a standard one must follow to be saved. He refused to embrace the more Americanized Lutheran bodies because of their doctrinal tolerance for the idea of human merit and subsequent outreach to rationalists and to American revivalists who stressed human initiative. As American culture tended to stress the importance of individual performance, the Lutheran church would have to remain as scripture driven as possible, preserve its own schools, and maintain its consciousness of theological purity. Walther’s synod by 1900 had over a million members throughout the United States and Canada and the largest Protestant school system in the United States. Unlike in South America where leaders of confessional Lutheranism supported the course of assimilation, Walther helped direct the Missouri Synod against the established, more American synods, making the confessional church in America a bulwark of German ways through World War I. Though Walther’s influence has receded somewhat as

1112

WARBURG, FELIX MORITZ

the synod has lost its German character, the most influential Lutheran leader of the era after World War II, Jack Preus, called Walther’s book Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel the most important work ever published by an American theologian. It remains to be seen whether Walther’s emphasis on the Doctrine of Justification will continue to have the centrality it has achieved in the teachings of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Andrew Yox See also Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; Schaff, Philip References and Further Reading Forster, Walter. Zion on the Mississippi: The Settlement of the Saxon Lutherans in Missouri 1839–1841. St. Louis: Concordia, 1953. Spitz, Lewis W. The Life of Dr. C. F. W. Walther. St. Louis: Concordia, 1961. ———. Life in Two Worlds: Biography of William Sihler. St. Louis: Concordia, 1968. Suelflow, August R. Servant of the Word: The Life and Ministry of C. F. W. Walther. St. Louis: Concordia, 2000.

WARBURG, FELIX MORITZ b. January 14, 1871; Hamburg d. October 20, 1937; New York City Jewish American leader, financier, and philanthropist. Warburg, whose grandfather founded the M. M. Warburg banking house, belonged to one of the most prominent and influential Jewish families in Germany. In 1895 he married Frieda Schiff, the daughter of the American investment banker Jacob H. Schiff, and subsequently settled in New York City. He soon became a partner in his father-in-law’s firm, Kuhn, Loeb and Company. Both Schiff and Warburg carried their families’ legacy of German Jewish leadership and invested much

of their time and resources in public affairs. Indeed, Warburg was known for having said that he devoted 75 percent of his day to charity and 25 percent to banking (Chernow 1993, 163). The scope of his philanthropic contribution—both Jewish and general—and his engagement in welfare, educational, and cultural organizations, was overwhelming. His philanthropic activities ranged from the Juilliard School of Music to the New York City Board of Education; from the American Foundation for the Blind to the Training School for Jewish Social Work. His most important public activity was his role in creating the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), the overseas arm of the American Jewish community in serving the needs of Jews throughout the world. He and his father-inlaw, Jacob H. Schiff, were instrumental in the establishment of the JDC in 1914, and Warburg was its first chairman (1914–1932). Following this, he was its honorary president for the rest of his life. The JDC—which played a major role in Jewish history throughout the twentieth century as it still does into the twentyfirst—was originally conceived as a shortterm project. It originated as a war-relief committee aiming to assist its overseas brethren during the Great War. In the interwar period, following the Russian Revolution, Warburg and the JDC assisted Soviet Jewry by creating the American Jewish Joint Agricultural Corporation (the “Agro-Joint”). Following the Nazi rise to power, Jews from Germany and later Nazi-occupied Europe, received the JDC’s assistance in emigration and absorption elsewhere. The JDC helped persecuted Jews during World War II and assisted displaced persons and Holocaust survivors in its aftermath. The JDC became

WASHINGTON, BOOKER T., AND GERMAN TOGOLAND

a unifying force in American Jewish life and symbolized American Jewry’s leading role in the modern Jewish world. As the chairman of the JDC, Warburg became a Jewish leader of international scale. He was a non-Zionist Jewish leader and it was in this capacity that he participated in many Zionist projects. He acted as a mediator between opposing sides in Jewish politics, supporting some projects in Palestine whenever he found them beneficial to the broader Jewish cause, and opposing others whenever he found them misguided. Befriended by Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, he joined him on several visits to Palestine, and liberally supported the establishment of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, though he had long disputes with Weizmann over the character it should embody. In 1929 he worked with Louis Marshall for the formation of the enlarged Jewish Agency including non-Zionists, and became the chairman of its administrative committee. Warburg remained critical of Zionism on many issues, primarily regarding its attitude toward the Arab population of Palestine, and this criticism grew increasingly harsh in his last years. If ever there was a “Jewish aristocracy,” it was comprised of people like Felix Warburg and his three older brothers. In the interwar years, when Felix was already a Jewish American leader and a notable American financier, his oldest brother, Aby (1866–1929), was an eminent art historian; his second brother, Max (1867– 1946), managed the family banking house in Hamburg and was a very important Jewish leader in Nazi Germany until the eve of World War II; and his third brother, Paul (1868–1932), played a major role in American banking history and was one of the ar-

1113

chitects of the Federal Reserve system. Coming from a family that was revered as Jewish royalty, Warburg (just like his brother Max in Germany) was guided by a deep responsibility for the Jewish cause at home and abroad. Adi Gordon See also German Jewish Migration to the United States; New York City; Schiff, Jacob Henry References and Further Reading Chernow, Ron. The Warburgs: The TwentiethCentury Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family. New York: Random House, 1993. Farrer, David. The Warburgs: The Story of a Family. New York: Stein and Day, 1974.

WASHINGTON, BOOKER T., AND GERMAN TOGOLAND Expedition of Tuskegee Institute students and one faculty member from 1901 to 1909 to improve the cotton output of the German colony of Togo in West Africa. Germany led other European colonial powers in seeking to develop sources of industrial-quality cotton in Africa that would allow them some independence from the near monopoly of U.S. producers. Booker T. Washington admired what he wrongly believed to be a policy of racial uplift in German colonies. He thus willingly helped Germans in their attempt to import the racialized labor relations of the southern United States to German Africa in hopes of transforming first Togo and later other African colonies into cotton-producing economies that would rival the United States. Widely admired before World War I and widely imitated afterward, this apparent success of the Tuskegee Institute in Africa in fact involved a great deal of violence and coercion.

1114

WASHINGTON, BOOKER T., AND GERMAN TOGOLAND

The agricultural attaché to the German Embassy in Washington, D.C., Baron Beno von Herman, contacted Booker T. Washington in August 1900 on behalf of an association of German Textile Manufactures, the Kolonialwirtschaftliches Komitee (Colonial Economic Committee), which was working closely with the German government to encourage cotton production in German colonies. Washington was the founder, in 1881, of the Tuskegee Institute, an industrial school for African Americans, and remained the principal of the institute until his death in 1915. Baron von Herman had attended the Cotton State Exposition at Atlanta in 1895, where Washington gained international prestige with a speech promoting at least temporary acceptance of social and political segregation and recommending the cooperation of black workers with white agricultural and industrial employers. Herman became convinced by an 1897 study trip through the southern United States that cotton could be grown profitably only by black people and thus became an enthusiastic supporter of growing cotton in German Africa with the assistance of African American educators from Tuskegee. The Tuskegee expedition landed in Togo in December 1900. It consisted of three Tuskegee graduates, Allen L. Burks, Shepherd L. Harris, and John W. Robinson, led by a German-speaking Tuskegee faculty member, James N. Calloway. The four established a model plantation at Tove that operated throughout the German colonial period. Since Togolese already grew cotton, although not of a quality suitable for German spinning machinery, the expedition initially planned simply to set an example to indigenous farmers, work on improving cotton seeds (partially in con-

sultation with George Washington Carver at Tuskegee), and improve marketing opportunities for cotton in Togo. In May 1902 a boat bringing additional Tuskegee personnel capsized while landing in the rough surf off the Togo coast, drowning two of the farmers. Two other farmers, Walter Bryan and Horace Griffins, along with Griffins’s wife, briefly set up unsuccessful cotton farms in Togo. By 1904 Robinson had become the de facto leader of the exhibition. The German government sent home the other Tuskegee expedition members and placed Robinson in charge of a new cotton school in Nuatjä. This school trained hundreds of Togolese, forcibly recruited from every region of the country, in methods of farming industrialquality cotton. German colonial officials compelled Nuatjä graduates to return to their home districts and continue farming cotton in the methods they learned from Robinson, in hopes that their countrymen would choose to imitate them. Robinson was joined in 1906 by his wife, Danella Foote, who remained in Togo until sometime before July 1909, when Robinson drowned crossing a river in Togo. The cotton school was taken over by a German colonial official and kept in operation until Togo was defeated by Allied forces at the beginning of World War I. Between 1901 and 1909, the cotton exported to Europe from Togo improved in quality and increased in quantity by almost sixtyfold, from 2,000 to 116,850 kilograms (4,400 to 257,600 pounds) per year. Washington and admirers of the project in Germany and throughout Europe attributed this massive increase to a successful transformation of Togolese into the economically cooperative and politically docile “Negroes” that Washington had praised in

WATERLOO COUNTY, ONTARIO

his Atlanta speech in 1895. This project the Germans regularly referred to as Erziehung des Negers zur Arbeit (Education of the Negro to Work). It is clear from documents in the Togo National Archives and the archives of the Reichskolonialamt (Colonial Office) in Berlin that this apparent case of transatlantic “racial uplift” was in fact a forced production drive, accompanied by all the physical violence and other forms of coercion of the colonial state. Nonetheless, the apparent success of the Tuskegee expedition to Togo gave great international prestige to German colonialism and to Booker T. Washington. Andrew Zimmerman References and Further Reading Fierce, Milfred C. The Pan-African Idea in the United States, 1900–1919: AfricanAmerican Interests in Africa and Interaction with West Africa. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993, 171–197. Harlan, Louis R. “Booker T. Washington and the White Man’s Burden.” American Historical Review 71 (1966): 441–467. Radcliffe, Kendahl L. “The Tuskegee-Togo Cotton Scheme, 1900–1909.” PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1998.

WATERLOO COUNTY, ONTARIO Waterloo County, now the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, is located about 60 miles west of Toronto, Ontario. The county was established as a second tier of municipal administration on January 1, 1853, with Berlin, now Kitchener, as the county seat. It was composed of the five townships of Waterloo, Woolwich, Wilmot, Wellesley, and North Dumfries, as well as a number of incorporated communities. Due to the strong presence of Pennsylvania German and European German immigrants, the county’s identity was predominantly Ger-

1115

man in character. Waterloo County passed into history on January 1, 1973, when it was replaced by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, encompassing the cities of Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge, as well as four of the townships that had previously belonged to the county. The German presence has remained strong in Waterloo Region: descendants of Pennsylvania and European German pioneers, together with post–World War II European German immigrants in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo contribute to the region’s unique character. According to the census of 2001, 103,620 out of a total of 433,875 residents of Waterloo Region, which is close to 24 percent, still identify themselves as being of German ethnic origin (Statistics Canada Census, 2001). German-speaking Mennonites, who arrived from Pennsylvania in the early 1800s, marked the beginning of the modern settlement history of Waterloo County. They cleared the land and started operating farms, thereby establishing the continuing strong agricultural tradition in Waterloo Region’s rural townships. Devoid of links to the anglophone outside environment, the defining parameters of the encapsulated Pennsylvania German group settlement were the pioneers’ shared Anabaptist faith, the common use of the German language, and their pre-existing social fabric, which they had brought with them from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania German pioneers such as Joseph Schneider, Benjamin Eby, and John and Abraham Erb became the founders and early community leaders of Berlin, Preston, and Waterloo. The most conservative groups among the Mennonites have maintained the isolation of the early pioneer period into the twenty-first century.

1116

WATERLOO COUNTY, ONTARIO

Most often on their way to the American Midwest through Upper Canada, now Ontario, immigrants from Germany, arriving in North America from the late 1820s on, learned of the area’s German character and decided to make Waterloo County their new home, abandoning their original destination farther West. This pattern makes the settlement of Waterloo County with European German immigrants a byproduct of German immigration to the United States. Arriving in Waterloo County, newcomers found first employment on Mennonite farms or in their trades in one of the region’s growing villages. Newcomers from Germany were joined by such immigrants who came to Waterloo County after having lived in the United States for a number of years, bringing with them to Canada strong ties to family members, ethnic neighborhoods, and German-speaking groups and institutions in the United States. Pennsylvania German migration to Waterloo County came to an end by 1830, when Mennonite settlements in the American Midwest began to absorb Pennsylvania’s surplus population. From the 1820s well into the 1870s, when the opening of the Canadian prairies caused a shift in migration patterns among European German immigrants as well, Waterloo County attracted thousands of immigrants from those territories that in 1871 united within the German Empire. In the census of 1871 some 158,000 Ontario residents identified themselves as belonging to the German ethnic group, 115,189 (almost 75 percent) of which were living in Waterloo County and adjacent areas (Government of Canada, Census of 1870–1871). Even though Pennsylvania Germans and European German newcomers were

aware of their differences in religious commitment and lifestyles right from the beginning, a relationship of mutual appreciation developed, in the center of which was the common use of the German language, isolation from the mainstream of British traditions and religious affiliations, and both groups’ strong cultural and ethnic conservativism. Their relationship, however, became increasingly strained during the second half of the nineteenth century when urbanization and industrialization changed the character of Waterloo County. The more urban lifestyle in the county’s towns, particularly in Berlin, contrasted greatly with the Mennonites’ traditional way of life. While some German Mennonites took on leading roles as economic and community leaders in the county’s new urban and industrial center of Berlin, Pennsylvania and European Germans generally grew apart throughout the second half of the nineteenth century. There was a growing tendency, particularly among the county’s European German population, to look down upon the Mennonites as not being “real” Germans. Opposing political allegiances further added to the split. While the European-born residents of the county’s urban centers Berlin and Waterloo overwhelmingly supported conservative candidates in elections, Pennsylvania Germans in the surrounding townships almost exclusively voted Reform/Liberal. It was not before 1878 that the Liberal Mennonite vote of Waterloo County was broken for the first time. The European Germans’ arrival fundamentally changed the socioeconomic structure of Waterloo County. Lutheranism superseded the Mennonites’ Anabaptist faith as the area’s predominant denomination. A rich cultural life developed in the county’s

WATERLOO COUNTY, ONTARIO

growing communities: German churches, a German-language press, Turnvereins, choirs and musical societies, theater groups, and other organizations contributed to the area’s increasingly European German appearance. The most outstanding cultural event in Waterloo County’s history was the Friedensfest (peace festival), held in Berlin and Waterloo in May 1872 in commemoration of the founding of the German Empire. It attracted more than 10,000 people from within and outside the county. Largescale choir festivals, the Saengerfests, equally attracted thousands of visitors to Berlin and Waterloo. Such manifestations of immigrants’ ethnic self-perception reinforced the strong cultural and ethnic conservativism that had prevailed from the settlement’s early period. Almost completely separated from Ontario’s anglophone charter group, Waterloo County Germans developed little interest in Canadian affairs outside of the community context. Awareness of their own difference from Ontario’s mostly anglophone environment resulted in the creation of a strong local and regional identity that was primarily defined along ethno-cultural lines. Waterloo County community leaders played an important role in the Canadian government’s attempt to attract more German immigrants to Canada. Local printers produced pamphlets describing the political, climatic, economic, and social conditions in Canada, which were distributed among potential German emigrants in Europe. When the government in 1872 adopted a proactive immigration policy, resulting in a system of immigration agencies in Europe, Waterloo County residents Jakob Emil Klotz, Wilhelm Hespeler, and Jacob Yost Shantz took on leading roles. Jakob Emil Klotz of Preston became a

1117

Canadian emigration agent in Hamburg, while Wilhelm Hespeler of Waterloo was appointed Canadian immigration agent in charge of all German-speaking territories in Europe and took up his post in Straßburg, Alsace. Berlin industrialist Jacob Yost Shantz became a leading organizer and activist for the settlement of several thousand German-speaking Russian Mennonites in Manitoba, and later established his own colony in Didsbury, Alberta, which attracted many descendants of German pioneers from Waterloo County. Lack of new immigrants combined with the forces of acculturation resulted in the decline of language maintenance among the members of the Canadian-born generations during the last decades of the nineteenth century. A language question evolved, with most of the county’s German churches answering the increased demand for English by introducing additional English-language services, while maintaining German as the main language in denominational life. After the turn of the century many German clubs and newspapers merged or were dissolved in view of an ever-declining clientele and the younger generations’ adoption of the English language. Against this background, World War I, with its complete rejection of all things German served as a catalyst for sociodemographic changes that had their origins in the prewar period. World War I imposed a loyalty question on Waterloo County. The county’s pacifist Mennonites were attacked for their religiously determined unwillingness to enlist; they became disenfranchised in 1917. As with other areas in Ontario, Waterloo County failed to meet overambitious recruitment numbers for Canada’s overseas’ contingent. The county’s former

1118

WATERLOO COUNTY, ONTARIO

seat, Berlin, which had left the county structure following incorporation as a city in 1912, was in the center of anti-German propaganda, and in the fall of 1916 the community’s name was changed to Kitchener as a demonstrative act of loyalty. Former Waterloo mayor and wartime member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo North, William Weichel, who was a son of German immigrants, took a strong stand in the House of Commons and publicly addressed the war’s challenges from the local German Canadian perspective. Answering the Speech from the Throne—an annual parliamentary tradition in Canada and part of the opening of the new Parliament by the governor-general as representative of the king and queen—in February 1915, Weichel emphasized that his constituents were loyal citizens of Canada. Being Canadian and being proud of one’s ethnic heritage, he argued, was not mutually exclusive. As the rest of Canada, Waterloo County underwent fundamental changes during the twentieth century. Berlin, Galt, and Waterloo left the county administration upon incorporation as cities in 1912, 1915, and 1948, respectively. With declining numbers of German immigrants and the group’s increased willingness to assimilate, Waterloo County became more integrated into mainstream society. The open rejection of the county’s European German heritage during World War I resulted in an increased emphasis on the county’s Mennonite pioneer past. Into the twenty-first century writers, historians, and artists perpetuate the Mennonite myth, glorifying the Pennsylvania German pioneer society and its traditions. The creation of this myth allowed county residents to remain connected to the region’s rich history with-

out having to confront the issues and wounds created by World War I. In 2005 Waterloo Region is a thriving area, being home to more than 400,000 people, with a high concentration of leading industries, two universities, and recently acquired international think tanks, such as the Centre for International Governance Innovation, the Academic Council for United Nations Studies, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Waterloo Region remains a mixed urbanrural area in which the urban centers Kitchener, Waterloo, and Cambridge have remained closely connected to their rich agricultural hinterlands. Immigration of Germans after World War II, primarily during the fifties and sixties, has reinforced the German presence in the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo, while German-speaking Mennonites are highly visible in the surrounding countryside. The area north of Waterloo and around St. Jacobs is known as “Mennonite country” and attracts thousands of visitors each year. Ulrich Frisse See also Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Pennsylvania; Waterloo, Ontario References and Further Reading Bloomfield, Elizabeth. Waterloo Township through Two Centuries. Kitchener, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 1995. Frisse, Ulrich. Berlin, Ontario (1800–1916): Historische Identitaeten von “Kanadas Deutscher Hauptstadt.” Ein Beitrag zur Deutsch-Kanadischen Migrations-, Akkulturations- und Perzeptionsgeschichte des 19. und fruehen 20. Jahrhunderts. Kitchener, ON: Transatlantic Publishing, 2003. Government of Canada. Census of Canada 1870–71. Recensement du Canada. Volume I. Ottawa, 1873. Hayes, Geoffrey. Waterloo County: An Illustrated History. Kitchener, ON: Waterloo Historical Society, 1997.

WATERLOO, ONTARIO ———. “From Berlin to the Trek of the Conestoga: A Revisionist Approach to Waterloo County’s German Identity.” Ontario History XCI, no. 2 (1999): 131–149. McLaughlin, Kenneth. “Waterloo County: A Pennsylvania-German Homeland.” In From Pennsylvania to Waterloo: Pennsylvania-German Folk Culture in Transition. Eds. Susan M. Burke and Matthew H. Hill. Kitchener, ON: Friends of the Joseph Schneider Haus, 1991, pp. 35–45. Statistics Canada, Census 2001, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/ home/index.cfm (cited May 15, 2005).

WATERLOO, ONTARIO Waterloo, about 60 miles west of Toronto, is located in the center of Ontario’s main German settlement area. Waterloo and neighboring Kitchener are commonly referred to as the Twin-Cities, reflecting the close ties and integrated character of both communities. Founded by Pennsylvania German Mennonites at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Waterloo has developed into an important academic center, being home to two universities (University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University) and internationally renowned think tanks and research institutes, such as the Centre for International Governance Innovation, the Academic Council for United Nations Studies, and the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. With several German clubs located in close-by Kitchener, Waterloo does not have a genuine German life, yet the community participates in events like Oktoberfest. According to the census of 2001, 23,130 out of a total of 86,085 residents, belong to the German ethnic group (Statistics Canada Census, 2001).

1119

Waterloo was founded by Pennsylvania German immigrant Abraham Erb in 1806. Erb settled in what is now the city’s center for its water access at a tributary of the Grand River. Here he built a grist and sawmill that attracted farmers from the surrounding mostly German Mennonite countryside. Located in the midst of a large Pennsylvania German colony, Waterloo over the years developed into Waterloo County’s agricultural center. Corresponding with the end of Mennonite migration from Pennsylvania, immigrants from Germany began to arrive in the community from the 1820s on. They were craftsmen, laborers, and artisans. Building onto the community’s Pennsylvania German foundations, they established a self-sufficient local economy, encompassing breweries, mills, and two foundries, as well as various artisan shops and businesses. Even though their arrival changed the character of the pioneer settlement, this change was not as dramatic as in neighboring Berlin, which during the second half of the nineteenth century developed into Waterloo County’s industrial and administrative center. Waterloo, on the other hand, always remained closely linked to its Pennsylvania German agricultural hinterland through its busy grain and cattle market, as well as through steady expansion of the community’s various wheat trade-related industries. Waterloo always benefited from its close proximity to its twin-city partner Berlin, now Kitchener. Berlin’s immediate access to the Grand Trunk railway in 1856 turned both communities into inland ports, guaranteeing the continuing influx of new immigrants into Waterloo as well. By 1868 the village of Waterloo had a population of close to 1,800 residents, who were mostly German immigrants; eight

1120

WATERLOO, ONTARIO

years later the community was incorporated as a town. Waterloo always participated in the area’s rich German cultural and denominational life, albeit at a significantly smaller scale than neighboring Berlin. German-language newspapers such as Der Morgenstern (Morning Star), Der Canadische Bauernfreund (The Canadian Farmer’s Friend), and Der Deutsche Reformer (The German Reformer) operated out of the community at various times during the nineteenth century. Waterloo had a Turnverein (sports club), a brass band (established in the 1860s), and a German male choir (established during the 1870s). Waterloo also hosted a number of Saengerfests, which were large-scale choir festivals with visitors from Canada and the northern states of the United States. In 1873 Waterloo resident and musical leader Henry A. Zoellner drafted the constitution of the GermanCanadian Saengerbund, defining the goal to unite all German singing societies in Canada under one roof, and between August 31 and September 3, 1874, the first large international Saengerfest of the Canadian National Saengerbund was held in Waterloo. Waterloo hosted its largest Saengerfest in 1902 with participating choirs coming from as far away as Cleveland, Detroit, Erie, Rochester, and Toledo. With participating choirs from Canada and the United States, Saengerfests helped establish a common identity among German immigrants in those two countries. The local ethnic German church was an important focal point of community life from the early beginnings. Reflecting the European German immigrants’ predominant faith, Waterloo’s first German Lutheran church was built in 1837. A new

church building, erected in 1882, accommodated a congregation of 1,200 people, indicating the strength of the Lutheran congregation, as well as the high level of German-language maintenance in the community. At the beginning of the twentieth century more than half the population of Waterloo still attended a Germanspeaking congregation. Next to the local choirs and the Saengerfests, German churches were the main contributors to language retention as well as to Waterloo’s unique ethnic identity. In 1911 Waterloo’s continuing longstanding tradition in education was established by the founding of the Waterloo Lutheran Seminary as Canada’s first institution to train pastors for Lutheran congregations within the country. Prior to this, Canada’s Lutheran clergy was exclusively trained in Germany and the United States. Placed in the midst of a predominantly Lutheran and German community, the seminary contributed greatly to Waterloo’s German Canadian identity. It later became integrated into Wilfrid Laurier University. The famous Seagram’s distillery stands out among Waterloo’s many successful business establishments. Grown out of Waterloo’s second gristmill, Granite Mills, Seagram’s developed into a worldrenowned brand name. Originating in the 1860s, when the first mutual insurance company was established in the community, Waterloo also became known all over Canada as one of the country’s leading insurance centers, hosting the head offices of several national insurance companies. One of Waterloo’s foremost residents, local businessman E. W. B. Snider, was also instrumental in the creation of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power System. In February

WATERLOO, ONTARIO

1902 he announced his idea of bringing electric power from Niagara Falls to the local communities. His relentless involvement in the scheme earned him the name “Father of Hydro.” By the outbreak of World War I, the community had undergone significant changes. Even though 76 percent of Waterloo residents in the 1911 census identified themselves as members of the German ethnic group, less than 10 percent had been born in Germany. Waterloo had developed from a German immigrant town into a truly Canadian community, with most residents being first- and second-generation Canadians. And yet, during World War I the Canadian public’s perception was that Waterloo, though less than neighboring Berlin, was a German community, putting the residents’ loyalty into question. Former Waterloo mayor and wartime member of Parliament for the riding of Waterloo North, William Weichel, who was a son of German immigrants, took a strong stand in the House of Commons and publicly addressed the war’s challenges from the local German Canadian perspective. Answering the Speech from the Throne in February 1915, Weichel emphasized that his constituents were loyal citizens of Canada. Being Canadian and being proud of one’s ethnic heritage, he argued, was not mutually exclusive. Despite Weichel’s numerous attempts to create an understanding for the peculiar challenges the war presented to German Canadians, his hometown community was not spared the eruption of tensions and anti-German feelings challenging German Canadians all over Canada. On May 5, 1916, Waterloo’s remaining small German organization, the Acadian Club, was raided by soldiers of the 118th Over-

1121

seas Battalion that was stationed in the community. Even though this act of aggression was a spill-over effect from neighboring Berlin, which in the public’s eye became synonymous with Germanness and disloyalty, the war imposed a loyalty question onto Waterloo as well. Waterloo residents’ and businesses’ outstanding contributions to the Canadian Patriotic Fund, which were the highest per capita for all of Canada, as well as to the war effort at large, must at least partially be seen as a desperate attempt to prove their community’s loyalty. Waterloo’s German origins became less visible after World War I. Being home to two universities and several national insurance companies, Waterloo in 2005 presents itself as a rather typical Canadian city. However, the continuing German presence in the community is clearly indicated in the 2001 census, in which close to 27 percent of Waterloo residents were counted as being of German ethnic origin (Statistics Canada, Census 2001). The German group in the early twenty-first century consists of descendants of nineteenth-century immigrants, post–World War II immigrants from Germany, as well as many ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe who chose Canada as their new homeland after being expelled from Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltics after World War II. The newly founded Centre for German Studies at the University of Waterloo is a clear manifestation of the community’s continuing strong German influence. Ulrich Frisse See also Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Ontario; Ontario, German-Language Press in; Waterloo County, Ontario

1122

WEISCHET,WOLFGANG

References and Further Reading McLaughlin, Kenneth. Waterloo: An Illustrated History. Canada: Windsor, 1990. Rowell, Marg, Ed Devitt, and Pat McKegney. An Illustrated History of Waterloo, Ontario, in Celebration of its 125th Anniversary 1857–1982. Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Printing, 1982. Statistics Canada, Census 2001, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/ home/index.cfm (May 15, 2005). Wells, Clayton W. “A Historical Sketch of the Town of Waterloo, Ontario.” Waterloo Historical Society 16 (1928): 22–65.

WEISCHET,WOLFGANG b. January 21, 1921; Solingen (Rhineland), Prussia d. January 13, 1998; Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden-Württemberg German geographer who produced a scientific political-regional geography of Chile. Weischet studied meteorology at the University of Berlin from 1939 until 1942 and then underwent civil service candidate training in Metz and Insterburg. He then worked at the Agricultural Meteorological Service in Berlin-Lindenberg as well as at the Marine Weather Office in Hamburg and with the Aviation Weather Service in Frankfurt am Main before being deployed as a soldier with the weather staff of the Luftwaffe. After World War II he reentered the university to study mathematics, physics, and geography at the University of Bonn. Initially interested in becoming a high school teacher, Weischet, influenced by Carl Troll, changed his professional career and made geography his major. In 1949 Weischet received his doctorate from the University of Bonn. Starting in 1949 as an assistant to Herbert Louis, first at the University of Cologne

and then at the University of Munich, he worked on a terrain-climatological study of the lower Rhine bay. This study became his second doctoral dissertation (Habilitation), which he defended in 1954. Beginning in 1955 he was a guest lecturer in Chile and thereby worked in a country that, with its 4,300-kilometer (2,700-mile) longitudinal extent, included almost all of the climatic zones of the earth and so offered a geographer trained in meteorology favorable research conditions. With works on the morphology of Ultima Esperanza in Patagonia and on glacial forms of the southern Chile longitudinal depressions on both sides of the Osorno, he quickly gained a reputation as an expert on Chile. From 1959 until 1961 he was even entrusted with directing the Instituto de Geografia y Geologia (Institute of Geography and Geology) in Valdivia. In 1961 Weischet became director of the Institute for Physical Geography at the University of Freiburg, where he taught until his retirement. Further stays in Chile in the 1960s yielded new research results, among others, on the structure of the southern Chile quartenary period (Geomorfologia glacial de la Region de los Largos [Glacial Geomorphology of the Largos Region], 1964) as well as on the geomorphology in the arid SubTropics of the Small North. The main work resulting from Weischet’s employment in the Andean country is a scientific politicalregional geography of Chile (Chile—seine länderkundliche Individualität und Struktur [Chile: Its Regional Geographical Individuality and Structure], 1970), which was expanded by a study published in 1974, on Agrarreform und Nationalisierung des Kupferbergbaues in Chile (Agrarian Reform and Nationalization of Copper Mining in Chile). It was greatly affected by the politi-

WEISER, CONRAD

cal change in Chile under the presidency of Salvador Allende. Ute Wardenga See also Chile References and Further Reading Endlicher, Wilfried, and Hermann Gossmann, eds. Beiträge zur Regionalen und angewandten Klimatologie. W. Weischet zum 70. Geburtstag. Freiburg im Breisgau: University Department of Geography, 1991.

WEISER, CONRAD b. November 2, 1696; Affstätt, Württemberg d. July 13, 1760;Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania German Indian agent who developed a colonial policy for dealing with the Iroquois Confederacy that stressed peaceful relations. After the death of his mother, Weiser’s father moved the family to Schenectady in the New York Colony in 1710. His father allowed him to live in a Mohawk village during the winter and spring of 1712 and 1713. During his time with the Mohawks, a tribe of the Iroquois Confederacy, Weiser learned to speak fluent Iroquois and gained a thorough understanding of Native American customs and culture. Living with the family of Quaynant, a Mohawk chief, Weiser was accepted as an adopted member of Quaynant’s wife’s family. The knowledge he acquired during his residence with the Mohawks served him in his later life. By 1723 Germans of the Mohawk Valley began migrating south to the Tulpehocken Valley in what is now Berks and Lebanon counties, Pennsylvania. The Weiser family joined the migration in 1729, settling near the site of present-day

1123

Womelsdorf in western Berks County. Weiser became a prosperous farmer, building a tannery and investing in land. He also served as a schoolmaster and as a leader in the local German Lutheran congregation. In addition, the Pennsylvania provincial government appointed Weiser a magistrate in the Lancaster County courts. Because of his knowledge of Native American culture, Weiser was selected by provincial secretary James Logan to help develop a colonial policy for dealing with the Iroquois Confederacy. Most of the province’s leaders were Quakers, strict pacifists who did not believe in using military force, even in self-defense. Weiser and Logan recognized that some policy had to be developed to avoid war with the Iroquois. Through a friendly alliance with the Confederacy, a war between the Indians and settlers could be avoided. Weiser worked with the Iroquois authority in Pennsylvania—an official named Shickellamy—to develop the policy and traveled to the Confederacy’s capital at Onondaga in 1737 to obtain its approval. The policy was approved and war was avoided. Weiser made four additional journeys to the Iroquois homeland in 1743, 1745, 1750, and 1751. In 1748, he traveled to Logstown on the Ohio River west of Pittsburgh to claim the region for the English and to counter growing French influence. Weiser was able to convince the Iroquois to take no part in quarrels between the French and the English. Weiser was a deeply religious man. In 1734 he left the Lutheran Church and joined Conrad Beissel and the German Seventh-Day Baptist Church at the Ephrata Cloister in the Cocalico Valley. After being baptized by Beissel in 1735, he unsuccessfully attempted to establish a Seventh-Day Baptist congregation in the Tulpehocken

1124

WEISSMUELLER, PETER JONAS

Valley. Recognizing his failure, he moved with his wife Anna to the cloister. Anna remained at the cloister only a few months before moving back to the Tulpehocken Valley. Weiser left the cloister in 1741, returning to his home and becoming a lay leader in the Lutheran Church of America. He also promoted the work of the Moravian Church in establishing a mission among the Native Americans in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Weiser was one of three commissioners responsible for the sale of lots in the new town of Reading in 1749. He was commended for his honesty and integrity when he mediated a dispute between the provincial government and the other commissioners who were trying to individually profit from the sale of the lots. With the establishment of the town, Weiser began a campaign for the creation of a new county around it. The campaign was successful and Berks County was created from parts of Lancaster and Philadelphia counties in 1752. Weiser was appointed the county’s first president judge, a position he held until his death. In 1756 Weiser was appointed a lieutenant colonel in command of the 1st Battalion, Pennsylvania Regiment. His battalion was responsible for manning a line of forts between the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers. He served in the regiment until 1758. John David Rausch Jr. See also Ephrata; Pennsylvania References and Further Reading Merrell, James H. Into the American Woods: Negotiators on the Pennsylvania Frontier. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. Pardoe, Elizabeth Lewis. “The Many Worlds of Conrad Weiser: Mystic Diplomat.” Explorations in Early American Culture 4 (2000): 113–147. Wallace, Paul A. W. Conrad Weiser, 1696–1760: Friend of Colonist and Mohawk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1945.

WEISSMUELLER, PETER JONAS b. June 2, 1904; Freidorf (Banat), AustriaHungary d. (?) 1984; Acapulco, Mexico Outstanding swimmer in the 1920s and early 1930s (better known under his nickname “Johnny”). During his lifetime he won a total of five Olympic Gold medals, in both the 1924 and 1928 Olympic Games, and he officially broke fifty-two national American and twenty-eight world records. He also became famous as an actor for his role as Tarzan in various films. János Weissmüller’s family belonged to the group of Donauschwaben (Danube Swabians), who came to the United States after the turn of the twentieth century. They first settled in Pennsylvania, before moving to the Chicago area a few years later. Johnny left school at the age of twelve. He and his one-year-younger brother had to work to support their family. Through swimming Johnny managed to escape from the harsh street life. As a twelve-year-old he started his career on the Chicago YMCA swimming team, pretending to be fourteen years old to be allowed to participate. Later he competed for the Illinois Athletic Club in Chicago. On May 22, 1922, he achieved his first world record: swimming the 200-meter in 2:15.5 minutes and thus beating the three-time Olympic gold medalist Norman Ross. One of the high points in Weissmueller’s swimming career was his participation at the Olympic Games in 1924 in Paris, where he won three gold medals. With a time of 59.0 seconds he was the first athlete ever to swim the 100meter in under one minute at the Olympic Games.

WEISSMUELLER, PETER JONAS

There was, however, the problem with his citizenship. Although his parents and his brother had obtained U.S. citizenship, they had forgotten to naturalize Johnny. To be allowed to represent the United States at the Olympic Games, Weissmueller used his brother’s birth certificate to prove that he was an American. From this time on, the family always pretended that Johnny was born in Windber, Pennsylvania (the birthplace of his brother). After the 1928 Olympic Games in Amsterdam and two more gold medals, Weissmueller ended his athletic career. In 1930 he published the book Swimming the American Crawl and had various jobs before he took up film acting. In 1932 the former swimmer could be seen for the first time as Tarzan in movie theaters. Within sixteen years he played in twelve Tarzan movies, and acted in another sixteen films as the star of the Jungle Jim Series. With his well-trained body and innocent looks, he was considered to be the ideal person to play the role of Tarzan. Although since then many other actors have played this role, Weissmueller is still considered the person who best symbolizes the hero of the jungle. After his film career was over, the star lost most of his money. He earned his living mainly through advertisements and for some time as a greeter at Las Vegas’s Caesar’s Palace. Here he fractured his hip in 1974, which was the beginning of his many health problems. In 1950 Johnny Weissmueller was voted the greatest swimmer of the first half of the century by sport journalists (Ryan 2000, 488). In 1965 he was made a charter member of the International Swimming Hall of Fame and in 1983 elected to the U.S. Olympic Hall of Fame. The five-time married former athletic and Hollywood

1125

Champion swimmer and actor Johnny Weissmueller preparing to dive, 1927. (Bettmann/Corbis)

star and father of three children suffered a cerebral stroke in 1977. He was hospitalized at the Motion Picture and Television Home for Actors in Los Angeles. In 1979 Johnny’s wife and friends had him moved to Acapulco, Mexico, where he spent his last years. Annette Hofmann See also Hollywood References and Further Reading Chronik des Sport. Berlin: Sportverlag, 2000. Glass, Christian, ed. Johnny Weissmüller. Ausstellung zum 100. Geburtstag. Donauschwäbisches Zentralmuseum, Ulm. Begleitheft, 2004. Kamper, E., and H. Soucek. Olympische Heroen. Erkrath: Spiridon Verlag, 1991. Ryan, Dennis. “Weissmueller, Peter John.” In Encyclopedia of Ethnicity and Sport. George B. Kirsch, Othello Harris, and Claire E. Nolte. Greenwood Westport, London, 2000.

1126

WEITLING,WILHELM

WEITLING,WILHELM (CHRISTIAN) b. October 5, 1808; in Magdeburg, Prussia d. January 25, 1871; New York City Important German Communist thinker and prolific writer who published many theoretical pamphlets and books that influenced the German workers’ movement in the United States. He also attempted unsuccessfully to establish a Socialist colony in Iowa. Weitling was born as the illegitimate son of a French officer who went missing without trace, and a German cook. He grew up with his mother in humble conditions. After attending elementary school he completed an apprenticeship as a tailor. The traditional years of travel linked with this trade took him to Paris in 1826 via Hamburg, Leipzig, Dresden, Prague, and Vienna. There he joined the Communist Bund der Geächteten (Association of Outlaws) in 1835, switching a year later to the radical splinter group thereof, dubbed Bund der Gerechten (Association of the Righteous). He advanced in 1838 to association leader and in 1839 wrote the manifesto in ten precepts entitled “Die Menschheit, wie sie ist und wie sie sein sollte” (Humanity, How It Is and How It Ought to Be) that had a print run of 2,000 copies. Influenced by the works of Félicité Robert de La Mennais, Philipp Buonarotti, Henri de Saint-Simon, Étienne Cabet, Louis-Auguste Blanqui, and Charles Fourier, he developed a social utopia of “common property” to be brought about by a revolutionary act that he explained in greater detail in his main work Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit (Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom, 1842), which was admired by Karl Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach. His social idea of redemption united

Christian elements of brotherly love with Communist concepts of equality. Until the beginning of the 1840s Weitling featured as a central figure within the international labor movement. He agitated in Germany and Switzerland (Geneva) and propagated his ideas of justice within several associations close to the movement known as Junges Deutschland (Young Germany) as a means of exploiting these alliances as nuclei for the new social order. He supported these efforts with articles in the monthly, and later weekly, magazine Der Hülferuf der deutschen Jugend (The German Youth’s Cry for Help) appearing in Geneva, Bern, London, and Brussels from 1841 to 1843. After numerous disputes within the association and expulsions from Geneva, Bern, and Vevey, he retreated to Zurich, where he was sentenced to a term of several months in prison for his work entitled Das Evangelium eines armen Sünders (The Gospel of the Poor Sinner, 1845), in which he established similarities between early Christianity and communism using more than 100 verses from the Bible. His popularity reached its height, and his political songs (Kerkerpoesien [Dungeon Poetry], 1844) were well known in many circles. His agitational activities provoked his expulsion from Switzerland and Prussia. After further disputes of a political, organizational, and theoretical nature with, among others, Marx in Brussels (March 1846) regarding the need for an economic theory for revolution and the religious coloring of Weitling’s Socialist ideas of justice, he emigrated to New York at the end of 1846 to take over the editorial office of the Volkstribun (People’s Tribune) publication from Hermann Kriege. However, as the social reformist paper was forced to close for financial reasons, Weitling translated his work The Gospel of the Poor Sinner, made

WEITLING,WILHELM

contact with American supporters of Fourier such as Albert Brisbane, and founded the Befreiungsbund (Freedom Association, 1847–1849) modeled on American lodges and European trade associations. It attracted German supporters in many American cities such as New Braunfels in Texas. Weitling vexed American tradesmen with his disrespectful image of America, which he described as the “Babylon of Capitalists” in which theft, fraud, and deceit stood in the way of social justice and freedom. Following an agitational trip that ended in New Orleans, he spontaneously returned to Europe in 1848 to help shape the revolution in Berlin. However, his plans for arming the workers, a complete amnesty, the abolition of the police force and judiciary, new paper money for workers, and a provisional government comprising members of the freedom association failed to arouse support. Bitterly disappointed, he returned to the United States at the end of 1849, where he hoped to prepare the ground for revolution through organizations and by publishing articles. As a member of the Arbeiterverbrüderung (Worker’s Alliance) Weitling edited the 16-page weekly paper entitled Die Republik der Arbeiter (The Republic of Workers, 1850–1855), which had a print run of up to 4,000 copies. The plan to publish a bilingual edition never materialized. The organ, which contained numerous reprints of his writings, became the mouthpiece of his personal views. His outlook formed the subject of discussion at the German American Workers’ Congress in Philadelphia (October 22–28, 1850), attended by members from St. Louis, Louisville, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, New York, Buffalo, Williamsburg, and Cincinnati. Although Weitling was highly regarded and his ideas formed the basis of

1127

the congress, the tradesmen and workers distanced themselves in numerous resolutions from Weitling’s ideas of an ideal society achieved by revolution and demanded instead reforms to immigration, labor, and economic policies. This shift was reinforced by Weitling’s critical stance toward the strike movement and his indifference to workers’ claims for higher pay. Weitling’s fundamental sociopolitical ideas, embracing the establishment of trading regulations, a currency reform, the foundation of a trade barter bank, a special system of workers’ shops, and independent paper money for workers, met with little support among workers and within the German workers’ association. He also attempted unsuccessfully to implement such sociopolitical experiments in Socialist colonies, such as in the Communia settlement in County Clayton, Iowa, from October 1851 to spring 1855. This colony was also to become the organizational center of the workers’ association with the objective of uniting all workers. Accusations of embezzlement, criticism of his strict style of leadership, his tendency to portray himself as a messiah, his pathological overestimation of himself, internal power struggles, and above all the increasing influence of the union movement within the workers’ movement finally led a disappointed Weitling to leave the political stage altogether. Following numerous disputes with, among others, Karl Heinzen, Weitling was isolated within the workers’ movement after 1855. Until the outbreak of the Civil War he worked in the records department of the New York Immigration Office in Castle-Garden, to support his wife, Caroline Toedt, whom he had married in 1854, and his six children. In addition, Weitling carried out astronomical

1128

WELSKOPF-HENRICH, LISELOTTE

(Theorie des Weltsystem [Theory of the World System], 1859) and educational studies. He finally returned to working as a tailor. The buttonhole and embroidery machine he invented and patented was unlawfully mass produced by sewing machine manufacturer Howe and Singer. Three days before his death he was celebrated by German, English, and French workers at a festive occasion staged by the International Workers Association in New York. Weitling’s religiously inspired utopia of equality and brotherhood in a dictatorial workers’ republic was largely forgotten and could no longer compete with Marx’s ideas of a scientific socialism. However, Weitling’s illustrious personality, the idealistic type of the utopian socialism, had an influence on the German worker’s movement in the United States into the 1860s. Claude D. Conter See also Anarchists; Darmstaedters; New Braunfels, Texas; New York City References and Further Reading Knartz, Lothar, and Hans-Arthur Marsiske, eds. Wilhelm Weitling. Ein deutscher Arbeiterkommunist. Hamburg: Ergebnisse, 1989. Marsiske, Hans-Arthur. Eine Republik der Arbeiter ist möglich. Der Beitrag Wilhelm Weitlings zur Arbeiterbewegung in den Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika 1846–1856. Hamburg: Hamburger Institut für Sozialgeschichte, 1990. Schäfer, Wolf. Die unvertraute Moderne. Historische Umrisse einer anderen Naturund Sozialgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1985. Schlüter, Hermann. Die Anfänge der deutschen Arbeiterbewegung in Amerika [1907]. Ed. and with a preface by Carol Poore. New York, Berne, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1984. Wittke, Carl. The Utopian Communist. A Biography of Wilhelm Weitling, Nineteenth Century Reformer. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1950.

WELSKOPF-HENRICH, LISELOTTE b. September 15, 1901; Munich, Bavaria d. June 16, 1979; GarmischPartenkirchen, Bavaria East German author of Indian novels under the name of Liselotte WelskopfHenrich, and scholar of classical studies under the name of Elisabeth Charlotte Welskopf. She developed her rejection of the Eurocentric mode of thought through her scholarly studies of American Indian civilization and pre-/ancient societies. Her theory of writing was primarily derived from the cyclical quality of oral traditions. She had studied and questioned the Iliad and worked from firsthand experience with oral traditions. Welskopf ’s early interest in antiquity and American Indians became evident in her teenage years (reading classical texts; despising Eurocentric, masculinist Indian novels). Liselotte Welskopf graduated with a doctorate from the University in Berlin in 1925. In Nazi Germany, Welskopf worked in the underground, helping Jews and concentration camp inmates, and organized the escape of an unknown man, her husband-to-be, Rudolph Welskopf. Those years are described in her semiautobiographical novels Jan und Jutta (1955) and Zwei Freunde (Two Friends, 1955). She also continued to work on her first American Indian novel, Die Söhne der Grossen Bärin (Sons of the Great Bear Mother), published in 1951 in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). This version contains a simple hope for a communal future as a higher developed form of basic tribal society, derived from a cyclical, spiral notion of societal advancement (more highly developed form of basic tribal society). The

WELSKOPF-HENRICH, LISELOTTE

novel takes place around the last Lakota uprising (1878) and concludes with the escape of a group to Saskatchewan. The main character, Tokei-ihto, reappears in Welskopf ’s second set of five novels that take place on the Pine Ridge Reservation preceding the second battle at Wounded Knee in 1973. He is then renamed after John Okute, a family elder and author, whom Welskopf met in Saskatchewan. Throughout her life, Welskopf ’s active resistance was motivated by her shocked response to Stalinist Eastern Europe, the common German desire to repress its Fascist past, and the discrepancy between her ideals and reality. To the exterior world, she was an internationally renowned scholar and the author of American Indian novels that were translated into many languages. Due to her age, reputation, and status as an anti-Fascist, Welskopf was able to circumvent law and politics and use her international royalties to travel to North America and Europe in support of dissidents, American Indian protests in the United States, film director Chris Spotted Eagle, American Indian prison inmates, Pine Ridge Reservation residents, the so-called Indian traveling college that undertook the reintroduction and maintainance of American Indian cultures, and more. With regard to novels about American Indians, she demanded that they not be used “like a coat hanger on which to hang adventure stories” as she repeatedly demanded in interviews and at conferences. and that they be written from the American Indian point of view. As so often, her research and fiction writing played off each other. Her investigation of the pre-graeco substrate of schole, which is an investigation of sources predating Greek society as they are rudimentarily preserved in cyclical

1129

narratives within the text of the Iliad, especially in the famous description of the shield, and the observation as well as conclusion of who was in leisure during certain festivities and activities, lead to the understanding that before the word schole came into existence there had to have been a form of “leisure” that included not just our more modern understanding of leisure but also the aspect of labor. Welskopf redefined the necessary unity of leisure under freedom and of upbringing and education with labor (distorted Western concepts), as it has been much more preserved in traditional cultures that was also evidence to comprehend life as a cyclical spiral as opposed to Christian/Eurocentric linearity. This fundamental finding and conviction had been worked out in her professional area of expertise and has been not so much worked into her literature as it has been developed throughout her literature in cooperation with her real life learning among traditional people. It even influenced her understanding how contemporary upbringing and education should be harmonized and reconnected with “labor.” Welskopf rewrote her novel Die Sohne der Grossen Bärin into a cycle (a circular spiral form of oral tradition): the first book, substantially reworked, is now the last volume chronologically in a trilogy: Die Söhne der Grossen Bärin (Tokei-ihto’s manhood, but in the context of a warrior’s life), Top und Harry (mostly adolescence, 1963), and Harka, der Sohn des Hauptlings (Harka, Son of the Wartime Chief, 1962). (She sued the DEFA film studios because they had adapted her first novel into a cowboy and Indian Western, except that the Indians were the “good guy” victims.) The cycle begins with Harka, living with his bear band of Teton Oglalas. They live in

1130

WELSKOPF-HENRICH, LISELOTTE

what appears to be the normal, harmonious cycle of life, only disturbed by nondisruptive aspects of disharmony but do not break the cycle. That changes during the years 1863 to 1878, due to interference by European civilization. Chief Mattotaupa is made drunk by Red Fox and, accused of having given away the secret of the gold in the Paha Sapa, he is banished from his band. His son follows him and witnesses Mattotaupa’s murder by Fox. As an outcast, Harka follows the fate of his people and others, repeatedly interacting with them but not allowed back. Eventually, through intervention by Totanka Yotanka and Tascunka Witko, Harka (also known as Stonehorn and now called Tokeiihto) rejoins his band and people in the last stand against reservation imprisonment. He survives captivity. His closest friends and he lead the band towards Canada, taking the last gold from the Bear Mother’s cave in the Paha Sapa to buy land. Before they can cross the Missouri, however, they are trapped by their pursuers led by Fox. In a last fight, Tokei-ihto revenges his father’s death. They escape, making sure that Tokei-ihto is believed dead because the pursuers suspect his knowledge of a gold cave. The bear had been killed by gold diggers, but the band takes her cub with them; that is, the origin of the people will not be lost. Throughout the cycle, the essential story of Stone Boy is told, mentioned, or retold. It is tied to the Lakota origin and land rights to the Paha Sapa, the Black Hills, as testified to by Charlotte Black Elk at a hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs on July 16, 1986. In Welskopf ’s last five novels, the narrative is increasingly the one given by Black Elk. Another aspect develops in the novel cycle. Hawandschita, the secret keeper, loses trust

in himself and cannot fulfill his role in oral culture. Tokei-ihto’s grandmother, a woman of special knowledge herself, grows into the role of the keeper of culture, continuing the upbringing and educating of the tribal youth. This significant role of an untschida as the protector and carrier of a people’s culture is continued in the reservation novels, in accordance with Welskopf ’s real-life observations regarding women, and especially older women on various reservations and on Pine Ridge in particular. The five volumes of Das Blut des Adlers (The Blood of the Eagle) appeared in chronological order from 1966 to 1980 (posthumously). Nacht über der Prärie (Night over the Prairie, 1966), Licht über weissen Felsen (Light over White Rocks, 1967), and Stein mit Hörnern (Stone with Horns, 1968) are the first novels written after Welskopf ’s direct reservation experiences in Canada and the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Embedded in a larger constellation of characters, the couple Tashina (Queenie) and Stonehorn (Joe King) present the center of telling about reservation reality from founding a school ranch to tribal rodeos, the return/purchase of the buffalo, the alcoholism of American Indians and whites, extreme hostility, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, political and legal injustice, high incarceration rates, and a high suicide rate among teenagers, but also includes small successes in the effort to develop an economic basis. Stonehorn, released from prison, grows into the role model, hated by the bureau and puppet elders, but looked up to by others. Culture—tradition and religion—receives new impulses, especially by the untschidas. Okute, now over a hundred years old, returns to see the young Inya-he-yukan (Joe King ) and to pass on

WENDERS,WIM

the secret of the Great Bear Mother’s cave. The origin story, Stone Boy, Heyoka, sacred names, and anything that would be an anthropologist’s delight to use in an academic report is referred to by Welskopf in such a way that it is meaningfully mentioned in the right context but not exploited because it is not explored. However, for cultural insiders reading the books, a significant dimension is added. Furthermore, these books contain what are commonly considered to be features of crime and adventure. However, Welskopf insists that American Indians are not misused to create this effect, but that the reality—on Pine Ridge and other reservations and for urban Indians—forces various types of violence and suspense on her “characters” with shocking frequency. In 1972 Welskopf’s fourth novel, Der siebenstufige Berg (The Seven Step Mountain), attained a new level. She had visited American Indians in Minneapolis and San Francisco, had met the later-murdered civil rights activist Pedro Bissonette, and had gone to Alcatraz and repeatedly to Pine Ridge. This novel is much less fiction than it is a historical/contemporary book about real events. Tashina and Inya-he-yukan are set aside for other characters. The hard-hitting reality includes forced sterilization of American Indian women, the growing threat of even more loss of land, increased violence in connection with this goal, and the growing resistance. Das Helle Gesicht (Ite-skawih/The Light Face, 1980) is the sum total of Welskopf’s experience and contacts with Pine Ridge, including her own interrogation by the FBI and Dicky Wilson’s goons (socalled guardians of the Oglala nation), the murder of Anna Mae Aquash, the standoff at Wounded Knee, the role of the American Indian movement, and the incarcerations,

1131

murders, and disappearances of others. Among her closest connections were Russell Means, Dennis Banks, and Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt of AIM, the writer Richard Erdoes, Elwa One-Feather, and a young German nurse on Pine Ridge. All of them and others have found their way into Welskopf’s literary form of telling. (Her fictional couple is murdered off.) She did condense some of them into single characters and never used people’s actual names—not even the acronym AIM. The book is hardly a novel anymore. It certainly “lacks” the fluidity of adventure and received very little praise from critics. Welskopf ’s followers were a different matter. With her particular mission in mind, she organized as much support for AIM as possible. When she died, her son tried to contact most of her American Indian friends but many were on the run, in prison, or dead. Elsa Christian Muller See also Indian Films of the Deutsch Film Aktiengesellschaft; Indians in German Literature; May, Karl Friedrich References and Further Reading Muller, Elsa Christina. A Cultural Study of the Sioux Novels of Liselotte Welskopf-Henrich. PhD thesis. University of Maryland, College Park, 1995.

WENDERS,WIM b. August 14, 1945; Düsseldorf, North Rhine-Westfalia German film director and producer who, fascinated by the American film noir tradition, has produced numerous “road movies,” among many other films depicting U.S. subjects and themes. He was born Ernst Wilhelm Wenders. As of 2005, Wenders has made almost forty films; almost

1132

WENDERS,WIM

half of them deal in one way or another with the United States. Born in West Germany just after World War II, fascinated by U.S. culture, often questioning the German identity and challenging its society after the Third Reich (which he had not experienced), Wenders began his artistic career with a few short 16-mm film essays, such as Alabama: 2000 Light Years from Home (1968) and 3 Amerikanische LP’s (1969), that already contained two of his main interests: Anglo-American music and America in general. As many German directors before him (Ernst Lubitsch, Fritz Lang, Werner Herzog), Wenders has worked most of his life outside his native country, making movies in many mixed languages, often in English. A newcomer in the early 1970s, Wenders had the chance to release his first feature films at a moment when West German cinema received easy financing and television exposure. After spending a year in New York City in 1972, Wenders wrote (with the uncredited advice of American director Sam Fuller) his script for Alice in den Städten (Alice in the Cities, 1973). It is the story of a German reporter who meets a friend at the New York airport and agrees to travel with the woman’s nineyear-old daughter, Alice, back to Europe. The three are supposed to reunite at the Amsterdam airport, but the mother never shows up. The man and the child travel together through West Germany, trying to find the child’s grandmother, without any address. This feature film initiated Wenders’s approach to the “road movie” genre and his errant, deconstructive, partly improvised style that often makes his films seem like works in progress with no clear endings. Most Wenders movies are about traveling.

After six feature films produced in West Germany in the 1970s, Wenders began a first “American cycle” by asking three of his American heroes, Dennis Hopper (from Easy Rider), Samuel Fuller (1911–1997), and Nicholas Ray (1911– 1979), to be part of his adaptation of a novel by Patricia Highsmith, Der amerikanische Freund (The American Friend, 1977). This is Wenders’s first real thriller: In Hamburg, an ill man who thinks he is condemned to die in just a few weeks is asked by a foreigner to murder two “Mafiosi” in Paris. He accepts and does the job, but he learns later that the medical reports were false: he is not sick anymore. Although the film is meant to be a tribute to the American film noir, it differs from the genre because it is almost impossible to follow or understand the second half of the story. A few months later, Wenders teamed up again with Nicholas Ray to produce a sad tribute or testamentary documentary entitled Nick’s Movie: Lightning over the Water (1981) that retells the rise and fall of that great American director, who once created the James Dean classic Rebel without a Cause (1955). Incidentally, a very sick Ray played himself in the first half of Wenders’s film, but he died of cancer after a few weeks and the film was dedicated to his memory. Fascinated by the American film noir tradition, Wenders imagined directing a tribute to American novelist Dashiell Hammett (the author of The Maltese Falcon). After four years of episodic shooting and forced pauses due to lack of financing and conflicts with coproducer Francis Ford Coppola, the film Hammett (1982) was finally released in the United States, adapted from a story by Joe Gores that had nothing

WENDERS,WIM

to do with Dashiell Hammett’s real life. Here, Hammett’s character is not a writer but a private detective living in 1928, who investigates the San Francisco underworld. In fact, the preparation of Hammett was so complicated and painful that Wenders released three other films meanwhile, including a short chronicle titled Reverse Angel. New York City. March 1982 (1982), about his problems of inspiration, his doubts about Coppola, and some possible ideas about how to finish Hammett. The same year, 1982, Wenders invited a dozen directors from Germany (including Rainer Werner Fassbinder and Werner Herzog) and from elsewhere (Paul Morrissey, Steven Spielberg, and Jean-Luc Godard) each to do a monologue about their own conception of cinema in a documentary (made in two versions) titled Chambre 666 (1982). It was made from thirteen scenes shot in a hotel room at the 1982 Cannes Film Festival. Taken from a few short stories by American writer and actor Sam Shepard, Paris, Texas (1984) was Wenders’s biggest commercial success. After explaining that there are about twenty cities named Paris in North America, Wenders tells the story of a salesman separated from his beautiful wife, who tries to get her back. The role of the wife is played by German actress Nastassia Kinski, who incidentally made her film debut when she was only a child in a previous Wenders production, Falsche Bewegung (Wrong Move, 1974). Here, in Paris, Texas, Wenders achieved the quintessence of his conception of the “road movie” by creating an atmosphere that evokes a mythic America at its purest. The slow rhythm and the wide images of the western desert are sometimes inspired by the universe of John Ford (The Searchers, 1956),

1133

but also by Michelangelo Antonioni’s film, Zabriskie Point (1970), produced as well in the United States. The famous Paris, Texas soundtrack music played on slide guitar by Ry Cooder is, in fact, copied from melodies of an African American musician, Blind Willie Johnson, who recorded his “Dark Was the Night” in 1929. Paris, Texas was Wenders’s most popular film and was awarded the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival. After living for ten years in the United States (although traveling frequently worldwide), Wenders ended his American cycle after 1984 and returned to West Germany to shoot his most beautiful film, Der Himmel über Berlin (The Wings of Desire, 1987). Wenders worked again with his longtime friend, novelist and screenwriter Peter Handke, with whom he had teamed up in the early 1970s. Their script was published and translated into many languages. But the American spirit remained somehow in that film centered on the Berlin Wall with the presence of U.S. actor Peter Falk (famous for his Colombo character), who played himself. Wenders was awarded Best Director at the 1987 Cannes Film Festival. By then, Wenders had come back to settle down in Europe. After ten years of international productions and recognition, Wim Wenders returned to his fascination for American culture, this time country music, with a one-hour documentary essay, Willie Nelson at the Teatro (1998), which contains ten vignettes centered around country songs interpreted by U.S. artist Willie Nelson. Fifteen years after Paris Texas, Wenders worked again with musician Ry Cooder. A tribute to African Cuban music, Buena Vista Social Club (1999) is a nostalgic documentary shot in Cuba that revives the

1134

WEST BERLIN

rhythms of the 1940s with some exceptional African Cuban musicians that were long forgotten. The film was a huge success, especially on video and DVD. It gained six prizes, including the Best Documentary Award given by the New York Film Critics Association, in 1999. Back in Los Angeles in 2000, Wenders released The Million Dollar Hotel (2000), from a script cowritten with rock star Bono (the singer from the Irish pop group U2). Although it gained the Silver Bear Award at the Berlin Film Festival, this thriller did not attract much audience. Because he often mixes isolated elements, some film theoreticians now consider Wenders a “postmodern artist.” In 2003 Wenders directed another documentary on African American music produced for PBS, titled Soul of a Man (2003), that concentrates on blues artists, mixing archives, interviews, and fiction (in order to revive pre–World War II blues artists). Similarly, allusions to American popular culture and its dominant position can also be seen in other Wenders movies, such as The State of Things (1982), Faraway, So Close! (1993), and The End of Violence (1997). Wenders’s film Land of Plenty (2004) was cowritten with young American screenwriter Michael Meredith. It is the story of a Vietnam veteran who experiences a paranoia crisis after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States. Descended into a patriotic madness, he films every person on the street who seems suspect. The inspiration from deep America seems always fertile in Wim Wenders’s mind. Two decades after the success of Paris, Texas, Wenders coteamed again with Sam Shepard, who cowrote and starred in their recent “road movie” titled Don’t Come Knocking (2005),

about an aging cowboy actor (Shepard) who quits his acting job for the quest of himself. After three decades of presence in countless film festivals, Wim Wenders’s influence is acknowledged by a whole new generation of directors in Canada (Atom Egoyan and David Cronenberg) and in the United States (Jim Jarmusch). Wenders even obtained an “Honoris Causa” doctorate from La Sorbonne University and many international prizes. Retrospectively, Wenders’s movies appear like a never-ending quest. Yves Laberge See also Film (German), The Image of the United States in; Herzog, Werner; Lang, Fritz; Lubitsch, Ernst References and Further Reading Handke, Peter, and Wim Wenders. Les Ailes du désir. Le-Chesnay and Paris: Jade and Flammarion, 1987. Land of Plenty (Film). Official Site http://www.ocean-films.com/landofplenty/ (accessed May 11, 2005). Wim Wenders Official Site http://www.wimwenders.com/ (accessed May 11, 2005).

WEST BERLIN In the wake of the unconditional surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945, the capital of Berlin was divided into four sectors of occupation by the victorious Allied Powers (the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France). Initially designed as a joint endeavor, it soon turned into a literal division of the city along the front lines of the cold war in Europe. Over the course of years, Berlin would become an epitome of the potential for conflict between the nuclear superpowers almost until the end of its division in late 1989. During all those years, the city’s three Western sectors represented an outpost of democracy and

WEST BERLIN

1135

Happy Berlin children wave from the top of the truck carrying the “Freedom Bell” to its shrine. The donation of a replica of Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell to the City Hall of Schöneberg in 1950 symbolized the mutual identification of America and West Berlin with the cause of “freedom” and strengthened emotional ties. (Bettmann/Corbis)

capitalism in the midst of the territory of the Socialist German Democratic Republic (GDR). Most notable during those years were succeeding American efforts to make West Berlin sustainable and maintain its status as a “showcase of the free world.” All U.S. governments in power between 1945 and 1989 provided political and military guarantees and furthered the emergence of lasting cultural and emotional bonds. According to the London Protocol and the London Agreement of September and November 1944, respectively, Germany

was to be divided into zones of occupation with Berlin being treated as a special case. Germany was to be administered jointly and supervised by an Allied Control Council in the German capital. However, Berlin was occupied completely by Soviet troops by early May 1945. American, British, and French troops took over their designated zones in early July. The three Western-administered sectors constituted about 54 percent of the city’s territory and 63 percent of the population, which in August 1945 stood at 2.8 million overall (DDR

1136

WEST BERLIN

Handbuch 1984, 164). Six districts became part of the American sector of occupation (Kreuzberg, Neukölln, Schöneberg, Steglitz, Tempelhof, Zehlendorf ), four belonged to the British sector (Charlottenburg, Tiergarten, Wilmersdorf, Spandau), and two had been assigned to the French forces (Reinickendorf, Wedding). As Berlin was located in the middle of the Soviet Zone of Occupation in Germany, the four Allies designed in November 1945 three air corridors to the Western zones (Frankfurt/Main, Hamburg, Hanover) and a special flight zone over the city itself. These regulations were maintained and stayed intact through 1990. They proved to be the lifeline for the viability of West Berlin, in particular when the Soviet Union or the GDR impeded or blocked access to the city by land on various occasions. Initial German administrative structures for “Greater Berlin” had been installed early on when the Soviet Union was still the city’s sole occupation power. Although the Western powers at first went along with these administrative arrangements, a major conflict arose in spring 1946 when the Soviets enforced the merger of the majority Social Democratic Party (SPD) with the minority Communist Party of Germany (KPD) into a new Socialist Unity Party (SED) dominated by Communists. Only in the Western sectors of Berlin was it was possible to hold a vote among SPD members about whether to consent to the merger. Overwhelming rejection of the Communist scheme in these sectors accelerated the rapidly deteriorating situation in the nominally still-unified city. Emerging cold war divisions on all levels, in Germany and worldwide, paved the way toward two separate cities on Berlin’s territory.

When in 1947 the Soviets vetoed the election of Ernst Reuter (SPD) as mayor of Berlin, Social Democrats left the Trade Unions Federation after conflicts with the Communists. Various steps by the Western powers and the Soviet Union, in conjunction with their respective German allies, toward the preestablishment of separate states in West and East Germany resulted in the permanent breakdown of the Allied Control Council for Germany on March 20, 1948. That day Soviet representatives left the meetings and never returned. This pattern repeated itself in June 1948 with the Allied Command for the city of Berlin. On June 18 and 24, 1948, the occupation powers respectively introduced conflicting currency reforms in the Western sectors of Berlin and in its Eastern sector. When the Western powers refused to accept the Soviet demand to adopt the Eastern currency for the entire city, the Soviet Union began to block all access into Western sectors by land or on water. This blockade lasted from June 1948 to May 1949 before it was suspended due to successful U.S.-Soviet negotiations to end the impasse (Jessup-Malik Agreement of May 4, 1949). Those eleven months achieved legendary status for German American relations and strengthened the U.S. commitment to West Berlin. The U.S. Air Force and the British Royal Air Force organized the Berlin Airlift to support the population and military garrisons in West Berlin with altogether 279,114 flights of food and supplies for the Western sectors. American military commander Lucius D. Clay became enshrined in the collective memory of West Berliners. During this period, the Berlin city government and administration also split along sectoral borders. After Communist-

WEST BERLIN

inspired turmoil, Western representatives left the city hall in the Eastern sector on September 6, 1948, forever and established their own government in the city hall of the Schöneberg district. In December 1948 the SPD won two-thirds of the vote in West Berlin local elections, and Ernst Reuter became the first democratically elected mayor of the Western sectors. When the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was established in the Western zones of occupation of Germany proper with Allied consent on May 23, 1949, the Basic Law of the new state only cautiously stipulated that West Berlin was to be part of the FRG in terms of advisory roles and adjunct memberships in West German legislative bodies. In contrast, the GDR, founded on October 7, 1949, gradually integrated the Eastern sector of Berlin into its territory and declared it the “capital” of the new Socialist state. During the 1950s both parts of the city underwent further political and economic integration into the two respective German states and the antagonistic cold war blocs. The donation of a replica of Philadelphia’s Liberty Bell to the Schöneberg City Hall in 1950, following an extensive fundraising drive all across the United States, symbolized the mutual identification of America and West Berlin with the cause of “freedom” and strengthened emotional ties. Nominally all of Berlin remained a city under four-power rule. Some elements of this status, like demilitarization, were initially maintained despite general tensions. Notwithstanding interruptions due to events like the 1952 treaties on FRG sovereignty, or the June 1953 uprising in East Berlin and the GDR, border crossings between the Eastern and Western sectors remained open in general, and in

1137

both directions. Public transportation linked both parts of the city. The situation changed, however, when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev issued on November 10, 1958, an ultimatum to end the Allied “occupation regime in Berlin” and make West Berlin into an “independent political unit” free of any ties to West Germany. The ensuing “Berlin Crisis” between the major cold war powers with its potential for becoming nuclear was, in a way, not resolved until summer 1961. Beginning on August 13, 1961, the GDR built fences and walls around West Berlin that eventually divided the city physically. Irritation among West Berliners over alleged American passivity in light of these Communist actions was assuaged by skillful rhetoric and symbolic acts on the part of charismatic mayor Willy Brandt and the Kennedy administration in Washington alike. Beginning in August 1961 transportation links between the two halves of the city were permanently cut off. However, from 1963 to 1966 West Berliners were permitted to visit the Eastern sector during the Christmas holidays. During the 1960s the GDR and the Soviet Union attempted to separate West Berlin from West Germany in many ways, whether by harassing travelers on access routes, rejecting visitors, or requiring visas. The March 1969 convocation of the Federal Assembly to West Berlin to elect the FRG president constituted the last “Berlin Crisis” that brought the superpowers in Moscow and Washington close to a confrontation over the divided city. On a cultural level, West Berlin maintained its viability as a “Western island” in the midst of the GDR with much closer ties to the FRG than to the Eastern part of the

1138

WEST BERLIN

city. In the late 1960s West Berlin students were at the forefront of the West German anti–Vietnam War protest movement. This was a far cry from the boundless enthusiasm for the United States that the city had manifested during the triumphant June 26, 1963, West Berlin visit of U.S. president John F. Kennedy. Starting around 1966 or 1967, for the first time many of the younger generation in West Berlin felt a growing alienation from the United States and its policies. “America’s Berlin” had changed and no longer encompassed all of its citizens, as was to be observed later in the 1980s dramatically during the visits of U.S. president Ronald Reagan. Following the FRG’s Ostpolitik and Soviet desires for détente in Europe, the situation considerably relaxed when the four Allied Powers agreed in 1970 to enter into negotiations for an agreement to resolve existing tensions over Berlin’s status. Prepared mostly in “backchannel” negotiations between the Bonn ambassadors of the Soviet Union (Valentin Falin) and the United States (Kenneth Rush) with West German state secretary Egon Bahr, the Quadripartite Agreement was signed in the Allied Control Council building in West Berlin on September 9, 1971. Ratification by the four Allied foreign ministers followed on June 3, 1972. This historic agreement improved the access of West Berliners to East Berlin and to the GDR; confirmed West Berlin’s special ties to, and its international representation by, the FRG; and provided its citizens with West German passports. Despite different interpretations of certain cases and public disputes over specific applications, the 1971 Berlin agreement proved a guarantee for the existence of West Berlin and a source of reliability for its citizens.

At the same time, geopolitical constellations and domestic currents contributed to the seeming permanence of Berlin’s and Germany’s division. West Berlin became just another West German city—actually the country’s largest—with unique features (such as exemption from the military draft for male inhabitants), Germany’s largest universities, and the highest proportion of foreign residents in a German city (about 15 percent of the population in the 1980s). Overall population gradually declined after the 1961 building of the wall by about 400,000 people until the late 1980s (DDR Handbuch 1984, 179). West Berlin’s industry and workforce had to be propped up by massive West German subsidies. Economic incentives and financial benefits were applied generously to make people stay in the city. Politically, West Berlin became divided into a traditional, pro-American milieu and a liberal to antiestablishment culture that rose to prominence in the “squatter wars” (young people in search of scarce living space squatted empty houses and apartments subjected to real estate speculation by their private owners) in Kreuzberg during the late 1970s and early 1980s. These cultural clashes brought the downfall of increasingly corrupt SPD-led coalition governments that had dominated West Berlin since the 1950s (mayors Willy Brandt, Klaus Schütz, Dietrich Stobbe, HansJochen Vogel). With the highly popular candidate Richard von Weizsäcker, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) won a majority in 1981 for the first time in the city’s history and went on to govern the city until March 1989. Weizsäcker had replaced some of the worn-out West Berlin “political class” with imports from West Germany and markedly improved the

WIED-NEUWIED, MAXIMILLIAN ALEXANDER PHILIPP PRINZ

quality of city government. His native successor Eberhard Diepgen, who followed him into office in 1984, returned to old networks. With them he ruled the city for most of the period until 2001, when a financial crash in the course of a massive banking scandal ended his term. In its aftermath, the SPD returned to power in a coalition with the post-Communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). However, the CDU had to bear with an interim SPD/Alternative List city government between March 1989 and January 1991 under SPD mayor Walter Momper. The latter had the privilege to preside over the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the first steps to reunify the city. These historical events came as unexpectedly for the unprepared West Berliners as for most Germans and Europeans. Nominally this meant the end of “West Berlin,” though the mindset remained for a considerable time after 1990 and dominated life in many practical and emotional terms. The reelevation of Berlin to Germany’s capital in 1991, and the consequent move of government institutions to the city by 1999, gradually began to change those patterns so deeply ingrained during the long period of Berlin’s division. Bernd Schaefer See also American Occupation Zone; Berlin Wall; Brandt, Willy; German Unification (1990); Halvorsen, Gail S.; Vietnam War and West German Protests References and Further Reading Bering, Henrik. Outpost Berlin: The History of the American Military Forces in Berlin, 1945–1990. Chicago: edition q, 1995. Daum, Andreas. Kennedy in Berlin. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2003. DDR Handbuch, Band I. Köln: Verlag Wissenschaft und Politik, 1984. Forschungsinstitut der DGAP, ed. Dokumente zur Berlin-Frage 1944–1966. München: Oldenbourg, 1967.

ZU

1139

———. Dokumente zur Berlin-Frage 1967–1986. München: Oldenbourg, 1987. Merrit, Richard L., and Anna J. Merrit, eds. Living with the Wall: West Berlin, 1961–1985. Durham, NC: Duke University, 1985. Tusa, Ann, and Henning Gutmann. The Last Division: A History of Berlin, 1945–1989. New York: Perseus, 1997. U.S. Department of State, ed. Documents on Germany 1944–1985. Washington, DC: Office of the Historian, 1985.

WIED-NEUWIED, MAXIMILIAN ALEXANDER PHILIPP PRINZ ZU b. September 23, 1782; Neuwied, Rhineland d. February 3, 1867; Neuwied, (Rhineland), Prussia German naturalist and explorer in Brazil and North America. Maximilian zu Wied was the scion of a Rhenish noble family. After fighting in the Wars of Liberation and making intensive preparations for his journey, the prince of Wied began a voyage to Brazil in 1815, accompanied by a gardener and a hunter from the court at Neuwied, with the intention of combining his interests as a passionate hunter with the exploration of unknown lands in South America. After a stay in Rio de Janeiro as the guest of Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff, he set out for the coastal region north of Rio in August 1815, together with the ornithologist Georg Wilhelm Freyreiss (1789–1825) and the botanist Friedrich Sellow (1789–1831). Although only a few miles from the coast, this jungle area had scarcely been explored. The Indian peoples of the Coropó, Coroado, Purí, Pataxó, and Camacan lived here largely untouched by European civilization. Prince Maximilian spent several months

1140

WIED-NEUWIED, MAXIMILLIAN ALEXANDER PHILIPP PRINZ

among the Botokude before reaching Bahia (Salvador) in April 1817. His detailed ethnological observations, which he published in his travel account Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815 bis 1817 (Journey to Brazil in the Years 1815 to 1817, 2 vols., 1820– 1821), provided the first comprehensive description of this area. He devoted separate works of many volumes to the flora and fauna, describing numerous genuses for the first time (Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens [Contributions to the Natural History of Brazil], 1825–1833; Abbildungen zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens [Illustrations on the Natural History of Brazil], 1822–1831). In 2005, more than fifty animals and plants bear his name. The expedition to Brazil made Maximilian famous, and his home at Neuwied became a meeting place for numerous learned visitors. Although Prince Maximilian’s expedition to Brazil was one of the most important achievements in exploration in the first half of the nineteenth century, it was almost forgotten for a long time. Intensive study of the prince of Wied has begun only recently; his works have been reissued with commentaries, his library studied, and his life and achievements commemorated in conferences and exhibitions. He was never entirely forgotten because of his second great journey—to the United States in 1832 when he was already fifty years old, and because of his companion, the Swiss artist Karl Bodmer (1809–1893) and his drawings of Indians. The destination of this expedition was the upper Mississippi and Missouri rivers. As Duke Paul Wilhelm of Württemberg (1797–1860) had done nine years earlier, Maximilian started from St. Louis, and like Paul Wilhelm, made the acquaintance of William Clark (1770–1838) who had

ZU

resided in St. Louis as the government representative for Indian affairs since the famous Lewis and Clark expedition. When Maximilian came into the Mississippi area he saw that conditions had changed dramatically there. The Indians had been expelled from their original settlement area and now lived in cramped conditions to the west of the river. This had led to increased tensions and fighting for a share of scarce resources among the Indians. Under the protection of the American Fur Company, Wied and Bodmer first reached Fort Union (founded 1829), and then in August 1833 they arrived at Fort McKenzie in what is now Montana, built only a year before. In his account of this journey (Reise in das Innere Nord-America in den Jahren 1832 bis 1834, 2 vols. 1839; English translations appeared in 1843 and 1906 as Travels in the Interior of North America), Wied described in considerable detail the trade between Indians and European settlers, the Indians’ appearance and clothing, and their culture and customs. The high point of the journey was their stay in Fort Clark in what is now North Dakota, near where the Mandan lived. They spent the winter of 1833 and 1834 among the Mandan and Hidatsa, studying their everyday life, social structures, and ceremonies. Wied wrote detailed descriptions of all his impressions, while Bodmer sketched the world of the Mandan. His realistic paintings in particular were to become an important source for ethnographic studies up to the present day, their value all the greater because three years after their visit almost the entire tribe of the Mandan fell victim to an epidemic of smallpox. Thus, Wied’s report and Bodmer’s pictures became testimony to a culture that was irrecoverably lost. Heinz Peter Brogiato

WIGNER, EUGENE PAUL See also Bodmer, Karl; Brazil; Indians in German Literature; Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von; Paul Wilhelm Duke of Württemberg References and Further Reading Gesellschaft für Naturschutz und Ornithologie Rheinland-Pfalz, ed. Maximilian Prinz zu Wied. Jäger, Reisender, Naturforschender. Fauna und Flora in Rheinland-Pfalz: Beiheft; 17. Landau: Ges., 1995. Löber, Ulrich, ed. Prärie- und Plainsindianer. Die Reise in das innere Nord-America von Maximilian Prinz zu Wied und Karl Bodmer. Ausstellungskatalog. Mainz: Hermann Schmidt, 1993. Löschner, Renate, and Wolfgang Ulland. Die Reisen des Prinzen Maximilian zu Wied 1815–1817 in Brasilien. Ausstellungskatalog. Berlin: IberoAmerikanisches Institut, 1982. Röder, Josef, and Hermann Trimborn, eds. Maximilian Prinz zu Wied. Unveröffentlichte Bilder und Handschriften zur Völkerkunde Brasiliens. Bonn: Dümmler, 1954. Schach, Paul. “Maximilian, Prince of Wied (1782–1867), Reconsidered.” Great Plains Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1984): 5–20. Thomas, Davis, and Karin Ronnefeldt, eds. People of the First Man: Life among the Plains Indians in Their Final Days of Glory. The Firsthand Account of Prince Maximilian’s Expedition up to the Missouri River, 1833–34. Watercolors by Karl Bodmer. New York: Dutton, 1976.

WIGNER, EUGEN(E) PAUL b. November 17, 1902; Budapest, Austria-Hungary d. January 1, 1995; Princeton, New Jersey Physicist and chemist who studied and taught at several German research institutes and universities before he had to leave Germany for the United States as a result of the Nazi seizure of power. In August 1939 Wigner accompanied Leo Szilard when he

1141

visited Albert Einstein to tell him of the possibility of a German nuclear fission project. Wigner produced pathbreaking papers on the application of symmetry principles to quantum theory and chemistry, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize. More than 500 publications mark his activity in nearly all fields of modern physics. He was an influential teacher who supervised more than forty doctoral students. Wigner began his studies of physical chemistry and chemical engineering at the Technische Hochschule (Technical University) of Budapest in 1920. The following year, he moved to Berlin. In 1924 Wigner received his diploma for a thesis on the lattice structure of sulfur supervised by Hermann Mark. One year later, in 1925, he was awarded his PhD for a dissertation on calculations of chemical reaction rates supervised by Michael Polanyi. Afterward he went back to Budapest to work in the leather factory of his father. One year later, he returned to Berlin. He accepted a research position at the KaiserWilhelm-Institut and started teaching at the Technische Hochschule. His research was focused on the symmetries in crystal lattices using the group theory. Wigner proved the usefulness of symmetry principles for the new quantum theory. Together with John von Neumann, he published three important papers on this topic. In 1927 Wigner was appointed assistant to David Hilbert at the University of Göttingen for one year. Wigner finished his second doctoral degree (Habilitation) in 1928 at the Technische Hochschule in Berlin. At that time his main topic of research was the theory of chemical reactions. His book on group theory and its application to quantum theory of atomic spectra, published in 1931, was a review of

1142

WILDER, BILLY

important results of previous years. Beginning in 1930, Wigner shared a part-time lecturer position at Princeton University with John von Neumann. Due to the antisemitic laws of 1933, Wigner lost his position at the Technische Hochschule in Berlin. He continued teaching in Princeton. After a two-year appointment at the University of Wisconsin at Madison (1936–1938), he finally received a permanent position at Princeton. In the United States, Wigner worked on nuclear physics and what was later called solid-state physics. He investigated theoretically the nuclear forces and reactions. Together with Gregory Breit he developed a formula for the calculation of cross sections that was named after both researchers. In collaboration with his doctoral student Frederick Seitz he succeeded in calculating properties of the sodium crystal by using the later so-called WignerSeitz cell. In 1939 he published a pathbreaking investigation on the inhomogeneous Lorentz group. In this context he was able to show the connection of irreducible unitary representations with the known elementary particles. Wigner and Leo Szilard discussed with Albert Einstein the danger of a German nuclear fission project in August 1939. As a result, Einstein wrote the first of two letters to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on this matter. Wigner participated in the corresponding U.S. project when he joined the “Metallurgical Laboratory” in Chicago in spring 1942. He led a group of theoretical physicists who had been responsible for the design of nuclear reactors that were to produce plutonium. However, in the end not his group but the Dupont Company was chosen for the construction of a nuclear reactor.

After the war, Wigner remained interested in the technology of nuclear reactors. Until 1947 he was research director of the Clinton Laboratories, a predecessor of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. He returned to his teaching position at Princeton in 1947. Wigner continued to focus on the foundations of quantum theory. He is considered a pioneer of quantum chaos because of his contributions to R-Matrix theory, which originated from his treatment of nuclear reactions. Wigner retired in 1971 but did not give up his research and teaching. Wigner, together with Maria GoeppertMayer and H. D. Jensen, received the Nobel Prize for his contributions to nuclear physics and the application of fundamental symmetry principles in 1963. Stefan L. Wolff See also Einstein, Albert; Intellectual Exile; Jewish Refugee Scientists References and Further Reading Wightman, Arthur S., and Jagdish Mehra, eds. The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner: Part A. The Scientific Papers: Part B. Historical, Philosophical and Socio-political Papers. Berlin: Springer, 1993–1998. Wigner, Eugene Paul. The Recollections of Eugene P. Wigner as Told to Andrew Szanton. New York: Plenum, 1992. Seitz, Fredrick, Erich Vogt, and Alvin M. Weinberg. “Eugene Paul Wigner.” Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 74 (1998): 364–388.

WILDER, BILLY b. June 22, 1906; Sucha, Galicia, AustriaHungary d. March 28, 2002; Los Angeles, California Austrian American director, scriptwriter, and producer of Hollywood classics such as

WILDER, BILLY

1143

Director Billy Wilder behind the camera directing Gloria Swanson on the set of Paramount’s Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles, ca. 1949. (Library of Congress)

Sunset Boulevard (1950), Seven Year Itch (1955), Some Like It Hot (1959), and Irma la Douce (1963). Born Samuel Wilder, he grew up in Vienna from 1910 in a middleclass Jewish family. In 1927 he began working in Berlin as a scriptwriter for the most important film studio in Germany, the Universum Film Aktien Gesellschaft (UFA), for a dozen projects such as Menchen am Sonntag (Men on Sunday, directed by Robert Siodmak, 1929). Wilder also adapted for screen Erich Kästner’s novel for children, Emil und die Detektive (Emil and the Detectives, directed by Gerhard Lamprecht, 1931). In February 1933 Wilder left Germany for France. In Paris for almost a year, he codirected his first film, Mauvaise Graine (Bad Seed, 1934), with actress Danielle

Darrieux. The same year, Wilder sold a new script to Joe May, a German-born producer who was then working in Hollywood. In January 1934 Wilder emigrated to the United States to work for Columbia Studios as a ghostwriter and then as dialogist for some of Ernst Lubitsch’s films: Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife (1938) and Ninotchka (1938), starring Greta Garbo. Also, Wilder cowrote the script for Howard Hawks’s Ball of Fire (1941). In the United States, Wilder began by directing a spy film set in North Africa (in the Casablanca vein), Five Graves in Cairo (1943), with actor Erich von Stroheim, who later reappeared in Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard (1950). Other films directed by Wilder during that period are Hotel Imperial (1944), adapted from a novel by author

1144

WILHELMY, HERBERT

Lajos Biro; followed by a film noir titled Double Indemnity (1944), from a novel by Raymond Chandler; and The Lost Weekend (1945), which was the first “serious” feature film about alcoholism made in Hollywood, that gave Wilder two Oscars and still remains a milestone on that touchy subject. During World War II, Wilder’s mother (she was widowed in 1927), his grandparents, and many other members of his family were murdered by the Nazis. References to Nazi camps appeared in Wilder’s Stalag 17 (1953), starring William Holden and director Otto Preminger (who played von Scherlach). There are many Atlantic crossings in Wilder’s movies. Exactly thirty years after the actual event, the biographical film Spirit of St. Louis (1957) tells the famous story of pioneer Charles Lindbergh, who was the first pilot to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927. Later, in the comedy titled One, Two, Three (1961), we see the story of a U.S. representative of Coca-Cola working in Berlin, who is charged with chaperoning the daughter of a millionaire on holiday in Germany. Although he made a few legendary movies in the fifties, Wilder’s reputation as a director declined in the seventies. Hollywood studios rejected his last projects because they considered Wilder a figure from the past. In fact, one of the last films directed by Wilder, Fedora (1978), had to be financed and coproduced with West German and French partners. In 1986 Billy Wilder received an Oscar for his life’s work, and in 1988, the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, after some twenty-five films. He had won many Oscars as a screenwriter, director, and producer, including three for his comedy The Apartment (1961). Yves Laberge

See also Hollywood; Lindbergh, Charles Augustus; Lubitsch, Ernst; Preminger, Otto Ludwig; Stroheim, Erich von References and Further Reading Hopp, Glenn. Billy Wilder. Köln: Taschen, 2003.

WILHELMY, HERBERT b. February 4, 1910; Sondershausen, Thuringia d. February 1, 2003;Tübingen, BadenWürttemberg German geographer who extensively explored and studied the colonization of tropical forests, as well as urban geography, in South America. Starting in 1928, Wilhelmy studied geography, geology, and ethnology, and also German philology and English language and literature at the universities of Gießen, Bonn, Vienna, and Leipzig. He received his doctorate at the University of Leipzig in 1932 with a morphological study of western Bulgaria. In the same year he took a position as an assistant to Oskar Schmieder at the University of Kiel. By 1936 he had finished his second doctoral thesis (Habilitation) entitled “Sofia. Wandlungen einer Großstadt zwischen Orient und Okzident” (Sofia: A Changing City between the Orient and Occident). In 1939 he was appointed a university lecturer and in 1942 he was named an extraordinary professor at the University of Kiel. Only in 1954 did he become a full professor, when he was appointed professor of geography at the University of Stuttgart. Four years later he was offered the chairmanship of the Geography Department at the University of Tübingen. Encouraged by Oskar Schmieder, Wilhelmy chose South America as his main area of interest. In the course of

WILLICH, AUGUST (VON)

numerous exploratory trips (1936–1937, 1952, 1956–1957, 1959, 1966, and 1969), he visited almost all of the South American countries: Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. At first Germans in South America and the problems of the colonization of the tropical forests were the primary focus of his research (Deutsche Ackerbausiedlungen im südamerikanischen Grasland, Pampa und Gran Chaco [German Agricultural Settlements in the South American Grasslands, the Pampas and Gran Chaco, coauthored with Schmieder and published in 1938] and Siedlung im südamerikanischen Urwald [Settlement in the South American Tropical Forest], Hamburg, 1949). However, starting in the 1950s he turned also to urban geographical problems (Südamerika im Spiegel seiner Städte [South America as Reflected in its Cities, 1952] as well as the comprehensive volume Die Städte Südamerikas [The Cities of South America, two volumes coauthored with Axel Borsdorf, 1984–1985]). Starting in the late 1950s, he emphasized more and more regional geographical works; first in the form of teachers aids; for example, materials on the La Plata countries (1958, 1959), Brazil (1959, 1963), Argentina (1959, 1963), and the Amazonian lowlands (1963), but then also for purposes of scientific regional geography of the La Plata countries, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay (1963). His last large work, which received recognition far beyond the field of geography, was Welt und Umwelt der Maya (World and Environment of the Maya, 1981) and analyzed, using the example of the tropical ecosystem shaped by the Mayans, the space-time interrelationship of man and nature. Ute Wardenga

1145

See also Argentina; Brazil; Paraguay References and Further Reading Schröder, Karl-Heinz. “Herbert Wilhelmy zum 60. Geburtstag.” In Beiträge zur Geographie der Tropen und Subtropen. Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Herbert Wilhelmy. Eds. Helmut Blume and Karl Heinz Schröder. Tübingen: Universität, Geographisches Institut, 1970, pp. 1–19.

WILLICH, AUGUST (VON) b. (?) 1810; (?) d. January 23, 1878; St. Marys, Ohio Prussian artillery officer and petty nobleman, U.S. general, leftist Socialist en route to anarchism, Hegelian thinker, and trained carpenter, August Willich combined a number of contradictions in his person, all of which may be traced to having grown up in the house of the theologician Friedrich Ernst Schleiermacher in Berlin. After attending military school, Willich seemed designed for a typical Prussian army career when he came in contact with the Rhenish proto-Communists. Following a court-martial (he successfully sued the Prussian king over the issue of whether he could ask for and receive an honorable discharge), he resigned his commission as first lieutenant of artillery as well as his aristocratic title, and sided with the revolutionists in 1848. After the ignominious failure of Friedrich Hecker’s April 1848 campaign, Willich spent months in French exile training a volunteer force. During the constitutional campaign of 1849, this pan-European legion covered the retreat of the revolutionary army to Switzerland. In London, Willich raised funds to support his veterans and to train for a new revolution. Having fallen out with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Willich emigrated to the

1146

WILLICH, AUGUST (VON)

United States in 1852, still accompanied by some of his men. Willich worked as a carpenter in a Brooklyn shipyard, and in the Coastal Survey Bureau. This position he left in turn to edit the radical Cincinnati Republikaner (Cincinnatti Republican). He was an influential labor organizer and Turner activist. His prominence as one of the leading figures among the Forty-Eighter refugees and his sincerity (which even his enemies conceded) was of great help during the secession crisis of 1861 when Willich helped to form two regiments, the 9th Ohio and the 32nd Indiana. Both regiments were raised among the immigrants and political refugees with a clear political agenda: to defend the principles of democracy, to save the Union, and to achieve equal human rights. Several veterans of his legion became officers in the regiments that Willich helped to organize; others raised units themselves. Willich was revered by his men as a fatherly figure (Papa Willich) who would always make the well-being of his men his foremost concern, addressing them off duty as “citizen” in the tradition of the French Revolution, and giving lectures on socialism. Captured at Stones River, Willich returned to his brigade in the summer of 1863, and his men gave him a huge welcome party. Banners in the streets, some of which made fun of his bad English, signaled an uncommon understanding between him and his men, although even some of his friends thought him a little naerrisch (crazy). Brevetted brigadier at Shiloh, Willich was also an inventive spirit. He developed a mode of rolling, four-rank advance for his brigade, and he attempted to mobilize infantry by putting them on wagons. Willich led by example, as at Missionary Ridge (1863) where he was the first commanding

officer to order his brigade forward, resulting in a resounding Union victory. In May 1864 a bullet paralyzed his right arm. For the rest of the war he commanded the District of Cincinnati, and was mustered out as brevet major general. After the war, Willich moved to St. Marys, Ohio. He founded a Shakespeare society and the social Schlabberhannes Clubb (sic), and introduced modern German music, sponsoring Schubert evenings. He also returned to his prewar activism as a speaker at union meetings, Turner festivities, and Fourth of July celebrations. Politically, he moved in the direction of anarcho-syndicalism. “Old General Willich” who had never been able to raise a family himself, spent much of his invalid’s pension on candy for the children of St. Marys. Local folklore recalls him as a much beloved public figure, and the funeral after his unexpected death was one of the biggest events in the town’s history. Wolfgang Hochbruck See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Anarchists; Forty-Eighters; Hecker, Friedrich; Turner Societies References and Further Reading Dlubek, Rolf. “August Willich (1810–1878). Vom preußischen Offizier zum Streiter für die Arbeiteremanzipation auf zwei Kontinenten.” In Akteure eines Umbruchs. Männer und Frauen der Revolution von 1848/49. Eds. Helmut Bleiber, Walter Schmidt, and Susanne Schütz. Berlin: Fides, 2003, pp. 923–1003. Easton, Loyd. Hegel’s First American Followers: The Ohio Hegelians John B. Stallo, Peter Kaufmann, Moncure Conway, and August Willich, with key writings. Athens: Ohio University, 1966. Rattermann, Heinrich. “General August Willich.” Der Deutsche Pionier 9, no. 11 (1878) and 10, no. 4 (1879). Stewart, Charles D. “A Bachelor General.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 17, no. 2 (1933): 131–154.

WIRZ, HENRY

WIRZ, HENRY b. November 25, 1823 (?); Zurich, Switzerland d. November 10, 1865;Washington, D.C. Henry Wirz was a German-speaking Swiss immigrant to America who fought for the Confederacy and was executed by the Union for his command of the Andersonville prison camp. Details of Wirz’s life remain disputed but common accounts list that Wirz immigrated to the United States in 1849, married, and began medical practice first in Kentucky and then in Louisiana. After the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War, Wirz joined the enlisted ranks of Company A, Fourth Battalion of the Louisiana Volunteers and crippled his right arm during his service (perhaps in the 1862 Battle of Seven Pines). Promoted to captain for bravery, Wirz served as acting adjutant general to the provost marshal of Confederate prison camps, General John H. Winder, and then reputedly as a secret courier to Confederate diplomatic missions in England and France. He returned to Richmond in January 1864, commanded Andersonville prison camp from April 1864 to the end of war in April 1865, and received a promotion to major before his decommission. The then-civilian Wirz was arrested by Union military forces, questioned, released, rearrested, sent to Washington for war crimes trial relating to his treatment of prisoners at the Andersonville camp, and executed for “murder in violation of the laws and customs of war.” The Wirz case sparked controversy from its inception, and the controversy remains unsettled. Postexecution defenders of Wirz included his lawyer Louis Schade and even a Union prisoner of Wirz, Lieu-

1147

tenant James Madison Page of the 6th Michigan Cavalry. Critics of the Wirz trial argued a litany of both procedural and substantive improprieties: for example, that it began as an abortive political ploy to implicate Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and others in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; that it lacked jurisdiction for a U.S. military court because Wirz never served in the U.S. military; that it violated the terms of the surrender; that none of the alleged thirteen murder victims were named; that the prosecutor, Judge Advocate Colonel Norton P. Chipman (founder of the Grand Army of the Republic and Memorial Day, and author of a 1911 account of the Wirz trial), denied the ability of the defense to call witnesses based on his screening interviews of witnesses for relevance; that prosecution witnesses committed perjuries known prior to execution; that Wirz was a scapegoat for factors beyond his control, such as systemic Confederate food shortages, local epidemics that also ravaged nonprisoners in the same area, and overcrowding well beyond the design limits of the facilities; or that Union prison commanders should or would be open to similar prosecutions. Some points incited political controversy because they suggested Union responsibility. For instance, the starvation of Union prisoners might be traced to the Union blockade of the South because Confederate soldiers suffered more meager rations than their enemy and the Confederacy’s prisoners did not eat better than its soldiers. Also, critics blamed the overcrowding on the controversial 1863 Union decision to end prisoner exchanges (an issue declared inadmissible by the Wirz tribunal). As Union general Ulysses S. Grant grimly noted, because the Confederacy en-

1148

WISE, ISAAC MAYER

dured a greater manpower shortage than the Union, prisoner exchange provided a relative military advantage to the Confederacy—so a Union soldier performed military service by risking his life in squalid prison camps just as he would risk his life in battle. Wirz constituted part of the German contribution of roughly 200,000 soldiers, including nine brigadier generals and four major generals, to both sides of the U.S. Civil War. As the only official postwar execution of a Confederate (when in world history mass execution of rebels was not unprecedented), he also represents the U.S. habit of constructive rather than vengeful Carthaginian peace for its vanquished foes. On the other hand, as the only enemy officially executed for war crimes by the United States until after World War II, Wirz’s 1865 trial and execution became a template for the 1945 Nuremburg trials and executions of twentieth-century Germans. Finally, his case illustrates that the attempt to apply the rule of law to war ironically risks the imposition of one-sided “victor’s justice.” John W. Walko

See also American Civil War, German Participants in; Nuremberg Trials References and Further Reading Genoways, Ted, and Hugh H. Genoways, eds. A Perfect Picture of Hell: Eyewitness Accounts by Civil War Prisoners from the 12th Iowa. Iowa City: University of Iowa, 2001. Horigan, Michael. Elmira: Death Camp of the North. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole, 2002. Page, James Madison, and M. J. Haley. The True Story of Andersonville Prison: A Defense of Major Henry Wirz. Scituate, MA: Digital Scanning, 2000.

WISE, ISAAC MAYER b. March 29, 1819; Steingrub (Bohemia), Austria-Hungary d. March 26, 1900; Cincinnati, Ohio German American rabbi and “founder” of the American Reform movement. Wise received his education in Prague and Vienna at traditional Jewish yeshivot. Unlike most of the leading Reform thinkers, he did not attend a secular university nor did he obtain a doctoral degree, and neither did he learn Greek and Latin as required by the German Reform movement, which sought a critical scholarly approach to Judaism. Although it is not known if Wise was ever ordained as a rabbi, he became a rabbinical officiant in Radnitz, Bohemia, in 1843. Irrespective of his educational background, during these years Wise became attracted to the Haskala, the Jewish Enlightenment, and the Reform movement. This interest may have been supported by his frequent visits to Vienna and his friendship with the preacher Isaac Noah Mannheimer and the cantor Solomon Sulzer, or simply by the Zeitgeist and progressive mood of the “Vormärz” era, which was also reflected in the debates of the Rabbinical Conferences (1844–1846), as well as the writings of Gabriel Riesser and Samuel Hirsch. Like many Germans and German-speaking Jews, Wise left central Europe in 1846 with his first wife Therese Bloch Wise and first child Emily, later claiming that he consciously sought a more liberal environment. He arrived in New York City in July 1846, quickly sensing the opportunities America offered for a break with religious tradition. Soon after his arrival he was elected rabbi at Temple Beth El in Albany,

WISE, ISAAC MAYER

New York. A strong advocate and supporter of the United States, he soon started introducing reforms in Jewish liturgy and religious services, such as organizing a mixed choir, introducing confirmation, singing German and English hymns, and eliminating piyutim, the sale of honors. Facing growing opposition, yet followed by his supporters, he founded one of America’s first Reform synagogues, Anshe Emeth in Albany in 1851. Here Wise introduced an organ and, for the first time in America, mixed seating in a Jewish synagogue. In 1854 Wise left Albany for Cincinnati, Ohio, where he became rabbi of the German congregation Bene Yeshurun, which became the second-largest Reform congregation in the country after Temple Emanu-El in New York. With a strong congregational support and a continuously growing Jewish community in the United States through German immigration, Wise managed to take a leading position in the American Jewish community and realize his ideas of an American Judaism. Not only committed to religious progress, as propelled by fellow German rabbis (David Einhorn, Bernhard Felsenthal, Samuel Hirsch, Samuel Adler), but also to the formation of an English-speaking and nationally organized Judaism, Wise sought to establish a national platform for the definition of a specifically American Judaism and the establishment of an American Jewish rabbinical seminary. His first attempt for a national consensus was launched in 1847 in New York City in a small rabbinical conference; however, this conference failed due to the opposition of the Jewish Lichtfreunde who rejected a binding religious authority beyond the local congregation. In 1855

1149

Isaac Mayer Wise (1819–1900), rabbi who became the greatest organizer of American Reform Jewish institutions. (Jacob Rader Marcus Center of the American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati Campus, Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion)

Wise, together with his orthodox friend Isaac Leeser, tried again to reach consensus on the definition of religious principles and the establishment of an American Judaism at a rabbinical conference in Cleveland. This effort to reach a consensus with the orthodox congregations for national unity in Judaism was unsuccessful largely due to the opposition of David Einhorn. Einhorn, a recent German immigrant rabbi and at the time the most important German Jewish thinker in American Judaism, never fully adapted to American life. He considered German the only language to express theological philosophy and agitated fiercely against this “synod.” He rejected the attempts at compromise

1150

WOLF, FRANZ THEODOR

made by Wise and considered America the country where German Reform could and should materialize according to its theological principles, rather than suffer from theological compromise. Further, Einhorn favored congregational independence and liberty of conscience over a national religious platform. This conflict created two camps in American Reform Judaism and is generally referred to as a conflict among “germanizers” and “americanizers.” The growing periodical and newspaper culture in American Judaism, mainly in Einhorn’s Sinai and Wise’s The Israelite and Die Deborah, strongly exposed this debate to the public. However, Wise did not give up his plans for national union in American Judaism for a rabbinical college, although his first college project, Zion College in Cincinnati, failed and the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, which Wise imagined to be a perfect financier of such a project under the name of B’nai B’rith University, continued to reject such denominational involvement. While Wise could not organize national cooperation among Jewish theologians in America, by the early 1870s he found strong support for national cooperation in the congregations of the South and the West and was able to organize a Union of American Hebrew Congregations (UAHC) in Cincinnati in 1873. This union served as a national platform for the cooperation of congregations on educational and social projects, and they strongly supported the founding of a rabbinical college, the Hebrew Union College (HUC) in Cincinnati in 1875. Wise served as president of HUC until the end of his life; likewise he served as president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), founded in

1889. However, the CCAR did not adopt Wise’s prayer book, Minhag America, selfpublished in 1856, but Einhorn’s prayer book, Olat Tamid, as a model for the Union Prayer Book, which is still central for the American Reform movement in the twenty-first century. Cornelia Wilhelm See also B’nai B’rith; Cincinnati; Einhorn, David; Judaism, Reform (North America) References and Further Reading Heller, James G. Isaac M. Wise: His Life, Work and Thought. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1965. Meyer, Michael A. Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University, 1990. Temkin, Sefton. Isaac Mayer Wise: Shaping American Judaism. Oxford, New York: Oxford University, 1992. Wise, Isaac M. Reminiscences. Translated and edited with an introduction by David Philippson. Cincinnati: Leo Wise, 1901.

WOLF, FRANZ THEODOR b. February 13, 1841; Bartholomae, Württemberg d. June 22, 1924; Dresden, Saxony German Jesuit and naturalist, state geologist of Ecuador. Theodor Wolf joined the Jesuits late in 1857, where he was able to pursue his hobby of botanizing and began to lay out an herbarium, as well as receiving an education in theology and classical languages. Because of his talent for natural sciences, the order sent him to study at the University of Bonn in 1862, also with the expectation that he make a critical study of Darwin’s new theories. He then taught for four years at the order’s Collegium Maximum in Maria Laach. As well as teaching, Wolf explored the surroundings of the monastery and published his first scientific

WOLF, FRANZ THEODOR

contributions on the Laach lake volcanism of the eastern Eifel. To his great surprise he was invited to take up the professorship of geology at the University of Quito in Ecuador in 1869 and 1870. He accepted this offer, made in the context of modernization policies pursued in the Andean republic under President García Moreno. It was his ambition to improve the education of the people. To this end he reopened the capital’s university and invited numerous European scientists to the country, especially German scholars including several Jesuits. Ecuador’s geology was of great interest to Wolf. It was continually at risk from volcanic and tectonic activity; as recently as 1868 the province of Imbabura had suffered a severe earthquake. To provide a basis for his scientific work, Wolf made a chronology of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes (Crónica de los fenómenos volcánicos y terremetos en el Ecuador, con algunas noticias sobre otres paises de la América central y meridional, desde 1533 hasta 1797 [Chronicle of the volcanic hazards and earthquakes in Ecuador, with some remarks on other countries in Central and South America between 1533 and 1797], 1873). He studied the language and customs of the Indians on numerous journeys, investigated the flora and fauna of the country, and collected rocks and minerals. In Quito he met the two volcanologists Wilhelm Reiss and Alphons Stübel, whom he supported in their research and with whom he remained lifelong friends. Wolf ’s travels and scientific research led to many conflicts with his Spanish fellow Jesuits, who accused him of neglecting his duties as a priest. After he left the order in 1874, he was able to devote himself to his scientific interests. He visited the Galápagos Islands twice, in 1875 (forty years after Darwin)

1151

and in 1878, studied their climate, vegetation, fauna, geology, and ocean currents and contributed significantly to the growth of knowledge about the islands. In November 1875 Wolf was appointed state geologist of Ecuador and paid a considerable salary; the University of Bonn awarded him an honorary doctorate in 1877. Only ten weeks after a violent eruption on Cotopaxi, Wolf climbed the volcano and wrote a memorandum about it (Memoria sobre el Cotopaxi y su última erupcion [Memorandum about Mt. Cotopaxi and its last eruption], 1878). He also wrote reports on the geology of various provinces (on Loja, Azuay, and Esmeraldas in 1879), and included geological maps. When he lost his government salary he sought private commissions, surveyed estates, produced a town plan of Guayaquil, and supervised the construction of a gasworks and the plans for the construction of water pipes in the city. In 1887 he made the acquaintance of the German governess Bertha Werber in Guayaquil, converted to the Protestant faith, married Werber, and built a house of his own. He had already contracted with the government in 1884 to produce a geological wall map and a comprehensive account of the geology and geography of Ecuador. The manuscript was completed in 1891. As it was to be printed in Germany, he left his new homeland and moved to Dresden, where Stübel wished for his assistance. In 1892 Wolf ’s Geografía y Geología del Ecuador (Geography and Geology of Ecuador) appeared, probably the best description of a South American country in the nineteenth century. Wolf did not return to Ecuador, but remained as a private scholar in Dresden. He assisted Stübel with the analysis of his expedition materials and with the creation

1152

WOMAN AND SOCIALISM

of the Museum of Regional Geography in Leipzig. After Stübel’s death, Wolf published his manuscript Die Vulkanberge von Colombia (The Volcanic Mountains of Colombia, 1908). He also turned to vegetation studies (Potentillen-Studien, 2 vols. 1901–1903). Wolf ’s achievements were not forgotten in Ecuador. When he was in great financial need in 1921, the National Congress granted him a monthly honorarium to the considerable sum of 500 sucres. Several mountain peaks, glaciers, and islands in Ecuador bear the name of the founder of scientific geology and cartography in this equatorial country. Heinz Peter Brogiato See also Reiss, Johann Wilhelm; Stübel, Moritz Alphons References and Further Reading Henze, Dietmar. Enzyklopädie der Entdecker und Erforscher der Erde. Vol. V. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 2004, pp. 534–535.

WOMAN AND SOCIALISM This popular book by August Bebel advocating the emancipation of women appeared in American English translations three times before World War I: 1886, 1904, and 1910. It has been reprinted many times since and illustrates the interaction between Germany and the United States, especially in terms of socialism and feminism. Composed mostly in prison, Bebel’s book first appeared as Die Frau und der Sozialismus (Woman and Socialism) in 1879 and was promptly forbidden by the Prussian police, but was reprinted in Zurich. Despite the initial reception, it went through over fifty reprintings and new editions in German by 1913 and

achieved translation into more than twenty languages. It may have been among the world’s first best-sellers. Certainly it inspired many women throughout the world to rethink their social situation and some to join the Socialist or women’s movements. Its main point was that “The freedom of humanity is not possible without the establishment of the social independence and equality of the genders” (Bebel 1971, 192). The translation by Daniel de Leon of the thirty-third edition published in New York in 1904 probably had the widest impact in the United States because de Leon headed a large movement. The precise influence is difficult to measure but during 1909 in New York, when a male reader of the Volkszeitung (People’s Newspaper) insisted on the naturalness of marriage, the editors of the women’s page recommended that he “diligently read the women’s page and study Bebel’s book, Woman and Socialism” (Shore et al. 1992, 130). By then another translation by Meta Lilienthal Stern was being prepared, which appeared in 1910. Because millions of the immigrants to the United States came from Germany and most of them were from the working class, many would have received information through the radical German press. Many newspapers printed excerpts and the book sold through labor organizations. Mari Jo Buhle has claimed in her book Women and American Socialism that Bebel’s book amounted to “the homelands greatest contribution on the woman question” (Buhle 1981, 26). Bebel’s book contains three parts: “Woman in the Past,” “Woman in the Present,” and “Woman in the Future.” He took up issues being discussed in the fledgling bourgeois women’s movement and

WORLD WAR I

transformed them for a wider, and especially working-class, audience. The simple organizational approach and the clarity of the language helped gain a wide audience. However, the main substance focused upon the reality of German women’s situations in the present with many international comparisons. He presented the results of the new social sciences, especially statistically gathered information, in tables and precise examples. By succinct and novel information on sexuality, on prostitution, on working situations, and on lack of political rights, Bebel provided an exemplary tract. He illustrated well the difference between professed middle- and upper-class morality and the hypocrisy of marriage for money. He cited endless advertisements, such as a penniless noble offering a long pedigree for an American heiress, and for “[a] cavalry officer of the Guards, of large, handsome build, noble, 27 years of age, desires a financial marriage” (Bebel 1971, 95). The extent and harsh nature of women’s work and the consequences of a lack of civil rights were clearly demonstrated. Bebel’s book asked the fundamental question: “[W]hat position in our social organism will enable the woman to become a useful member of the community, and will put her in possession of the same rights as those enjoyed by its other members, and ensure the full development of her powers and faculties in every direction?” (Bebel 1971, 222) He argued that the woman’s question, as the female work and political emancipation issue was termed in the nineteenth century, proved central to the social question. Without solving one, society could not solve the other. Though some may question his assertion that only socialism could provide the solution, many women in North Amer-

1153

ica and in Europe found in his way of laying out of the problem the best account at the time. In the twenty-first century, some authors have rediscovered Bebel’s approach to this issue and underscored the modernism of “men’s feminism” in Bebel’s seminal book. Dieter K. Buse See also Liebknecht, Wilhelm References and Further Reading Bebel, August. Woman and Socialism. Trans. Daniel de Leon (1904) with new introduction by Lewis Coser. New York: Schocken, 1971. ———. Ausgewählte Reden und Schriften. 2 vols. Munich: Saur, 1996. Buhle, Mari Jo. Women and American Socialism, 1870–1920. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1981. Lopes, Anne, and Gary Roth. Men’s Feminism: August Bebel and the German Socialist Movement. Amherst, MA: Humanity, 2000. Shore, Elliott, et al., eds. The GermanAmerican Radical Press. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1992.

WORLD WAR I In 1914 war broke out in Europe and rapidly spread across the globe. Although the United States had strong cultural ties with the European powers, President Woodrow Wilson was not prepared to take his country into the war. The European conflict was viewed as a product of European imperial expansion, and it was felt that to give overt support or to enter the war on any one side might create unrest. With other political leaders calling for the United States to maintain its isolationist policy, Wilson quickly declared a policy of strict neutrality. However, the United States was involved indirectly through its continuing, and expanding, trade links with Great

1154

WORLD WAR I

Britain and its allies and through the number of American private citizens who chose to travel to Europe to join in the conflict. America was also affected by the unrestricted submarine warfare conducted by Germany in an attempt to blockade allied ports and cripple the allied economy. American ships were sunk and American lives lost in a succession of attacks on passenger vessels. This, plus an attempt by Germany to bring Mexico into the war, eventually brought the United States into the conflict in April 1917. At the end of the war, Wilson was a major influence in the peace process and in determining the peace settlement.

Submarine Warfare At the outbreak of World War I most of the major powers included submarines in their naval armory. However, they were generally small in size, limited by operational range to coastal waters, and carried one or two deck-mounted guns and a limited number of self-propelled torpedoes fired from bow tubes. Initially, the submarines would approach enemy merchant vessels on the surface and, using the threat of the deck guns to ensure the target ships’ surrender, then search the vessels for contraband—and in many instances for food for the U-boat (U-boot, Unterseeboot [submarine]) crew. After the ship’s crew had taken to the lifeboats, the submarine’s deck guns were then used to sink the ship. Submarines were also used to lay mines in coastal waters and at the entrance to enemy harbors. From the outset of hostilities, Alfred von Tirpitz, grand admiral of the Imperial German Navy, advocated a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare against the British and their allies, with the resulting loss of 750,000 tons of British shipping in

the first six months of the war. On February 4, 1915, the German Admiralty issued a declaration that forbade merchant shipping from traveling in British waters. The declaration announced all waters around the United Kingdom to be a war zone and that starting on February 18, 1915, any merchant vessel found within the zone would be destroyed. Importantly, the declaration indicated that no guarantee could be given as to the safety of the crew and passengers. Neutral shipping would be treated the same as that from combatant nations. This included American merchant vessels. For the first time German submarines were directly threatening American ships and American lives. Both sides in the war had the same aim as regards naval power, which was to blockade the enemy’s ports and prevent commerce and the supply of raw materials from reaching them. The British were able to achieve this through the use of their surface fleet, while the German navy chose to use submarines. Although the principles of warfare decreed that merchant shipping of enemy nations was a legitimate target, every effort was to be made to ensure the safety of the crews. This was fine until the British began mounting guns on their merchant vessels, whereby it became too dangerous for the submarines to attack on the surface or to surface in an attempt to communicate with the target vessel. The hulls of the U-boats were thin and any damage in action would compromise the safety of the vessel. It therefore became impossible to make the necessary provision for the crews of merchant vessels. The rules of warfare allowed the continuation of trade with neutral countries, but vessels from these countries could expect to be boarded and have their cargoes inspected for con-

WORLD WAR I

traband goods, munitions, chemicals, etc., that might aid the enemy. Vessels found to be carrying such goods were sunk or impounded. American ships were taken into custody by the British authorities in this fashion and cargoes and mail seized. Relations between Britain and the United States were strained by this policy, as the British continually changed the meaning of the term contraband, eventually even including items like food and clothing. The German policy of unrestricted warfare soon made itself clear when the William P. Frye, an American vessel carrying a shipment of wheat to England, was sunk on January 28, 1915, in the South Atlantic. This was the first loss of an American ship, and Wilson’s reaction was to warn Germany that it would be held responsible for the safety of American lives. On May 1, 1915, the American tanker Gulflight was damaged by a torpedo attack off the southwest coast of England. Although the vessel remained afloat, 3 Americans were killed. Six days later, on May 7, the liner Lusitania was sunk by a torpedo off the coast of Ireland with the loss of 128 American lives. It was only later, under intense diplomatic pressure, that Germany agreed to pay reparations for the incident and also to halt such unannounced attacks on passenger ships. Two Americans were among the 40 passengers and crew of the British passenger liner Arabic that was sunk on August 19 off the coast of Ireland. The sinking, coming as it did only a short period after the Lusitania, inflamed public opinion in the United States, with Wilson threatening to break off diplomatic relations with Germany. The response of the German authorities was to issue the “Arabic Pledge,” which promised to halt the practice of attacking unarmed passenger ships without

1155

warning and to provide for the safety of the passengers and crew. Such promises to return to a form of restricted submarine warfare were prompted by the desire to keep the United States out of the war, at least until such time as the German submarine fleet had expanded to a size deemed capable of dealing with any threat from American naval power. An uneasy calm lasted until March 1916 when a German U-boat sank the French passenger ship Sussex, killing several Americans. Again, in a repetition of the Arabic incident, the Germans, in an attempt to keep the United States from entering the war, issued the “Sussex Pledge,” which reiterated the previous “Arabic Pledge” in promising not to sink merchant ships without adequate warning and to prevent loss of life to the passengers and crew. In early 1916 U-53, under the command of Lieutenant Hans Rose, crossed the Atlantic with the help of extra fuel stored in the ballast tanks and sank three British merchant ships, one Dutch ship, and one Norwegian ship just outside American territorial waters. This was seen as an attempt to intimidate the United States into remaining neutral, but it backfired when the sinkings outraged public opinion against Germany. Germany returned to unrestricted submarine warfare on February 1, 1917, at which point Wilson broke off diplomatic relations and began to arm American merchant vessels. This “armed neutrality” was the final step before American entry into the war. In February 86 vessels were sunk, with the number increasing to 103 in March and 155 in April. On February 25 the Cunard liner Laconia on passage from New York was sunk off the Irish coast. The report of that sinking, written by Floyd

1156

WORLD WAR I

U.S. Navy recruiting poster from 1917 showing a sailor reaching out to a young girl in a lifeboat labeled Lusitania. It reads, “When you fire remember this—Enlist in the Navy.” (Library of Congress)

Gibbons, who was one of the passengers, helped to steer American public opinion toward war. When the contents of the Zimmermann Telegram, enticing Mexico into the war, were made public in April 1917, war with Germany was the only option. American trade priorities changed as the war progressed. There was always a question as to the extent of American neutrality: With its trade with Germany effectively cut off, could the United States then afford to have its trade with Britain reduced to the same extent? This would have meant economic hardship. In 1914 U.S. trade with Germany stood at $169 million, dropping to $1 million in 1916, while trade with Britain and its allies rose to $3,214 million in 1916 from $825 million in 1914. From March 1915 until the

American entry into the war in April 1917 U.S. bank loans to Britain and its allies exceeded $2 billion. In May 1918 the U-151 wreaked havoc along the U.S. eastern seaboard. On May 21 she laid a number of mines off Baltimore harbor and attacked and sank three small coastal ships. The submarine also laid a number of mines in Delaware Bay before proceeding to New York and cutting undersea telegraph lines. The U-151 returned to Germany on July 20, 1918, having sunk twenty-seven ships. By the end of the war German U-boats had sunk almost 5,000 ships, but at a high cost to themselves. When the armistice came, out of 345 U-boats built and 13,000 men who served on them only 176 U-boats were left to be handed over to the Allies and scrapped and over 5,000 men had perished.

Lusitania Built by John Brown & Company of Clydebank, Scotland, the Lusitania was launched on June 7, 1906. With a length of 762 feet, a beam of 87 feet, and a gross tonnage of 31,550 tons, the vessel, with a speed of 25 knots, was intended to recapture for Britain the coveted Blue Riband, awarded for the fastest Atlantic crossing, from the German liner SS Deutschland. The construction of the ship was financed by the British Admiralty, which also provided the owners, Cunard, with an operating subsidy of £75,000 annually. The financing was provided on the strict understanding that the ship would be built to Admiralty specifications, including mounts for 12 quick-firing 6-inch guns, and that she would be called into active naval service if, or when, the need arose. The vessel was therefore part of the Royal

WORLD WAR I

Naval Reserve, never fully commissioned as a warship but still recorded in Jane’s Fighting Ships as an auxiliary cruiser. On Saturday, May 1, 1915, the Lusitania left New York bound for Liverpool, England, under the command of Captain William Turner with a crew of 702 and carrying 1,257 passengers. As the Lusitania left port, newspapers in the city carried a warning from the German government that the zone of war between Germany, Great Britain, and their respective allies included British coastal waters and that any vessels found sailing in these waters flying the flag of Great Britain or its allies would be liable to destruction. The Lusitania had previously flouted international law by flying the flag of the United States on her previous voyage when the captain felt they were under threat from German U-boat activity. At 1:20 P.M. on Friday, May 7, the Lusitania was sighted by U-20, commanded by Captain Schwieger, approximately twelve miles from the coast of Ireland. At 2:10 P.M. the ship was struck by a single torpedo on the starboard side, with a second explosion occurring within the vessel almost immediately. The origin and cause of the second, larger explosion has never been fully explained. While some contend that the ship secretly carried arms and munitions, contrary to its manifest and U.S. law, others put the explosion down to coal dust that was ignited by the torpedo explosion. Having originally been designed as an armed auxiliary cruiser, the Lusitania’s coal bunkers were of Admiralty design and were constructed along the sides of the ship, protecting the ships’ boiler rooms that had been placed below the waterline. This has been identified as a design weakness that contributed to the

1157

speed at which the ship sank—large voids that rapidly filled with seawater. The explosions caused an immediate list of 15 degrees to starboard, increasing to 25 degrees, which severely hampered the launching of the lifeboats and, although the number of lifeboats had been doubled in the wake of the Titanic sinking, only 6 out of the 48 available were successfully launched. In the 18 minutes that the ship took to sink 1,201 lives were lost, 794 passengers and 407 crew—including 124 Americans, the most famous being Alfred Vanderbilt. Captain Turner was the last to leave the ship and was picked up after three hours in the water. While a naval disaster in its own right, the sinking also served to increase political tensions between the United States and Germany, and although the United States chose not to enter the war at that time, the incident ensured that there would be no alliance between the two countries.

Deutschland The sinking of the Lusitania did not sour relations between the United States and Germany to the extent that trade with Germany was suspended. The U.S. government, reacting to pressure from Germany and attempting to avoid accusations of favoritism for the Allied cause, announced that unarmed submarines were to be regarded as merchant vessels. In July 1916 the unarmed merchant submarine Deutschland, under the command of Captain Paul Koenig, arrived in Baltimore harbor with a cargo of chemical dyes and gemstones. It returned to Germany with a cargo of nickel, copper, and zinc. On her second voyage to New London, Connecticut, she returned with rubber, oil, and silver. The significance of the Deutschland’s voyages was in the

1158

WORLD WAR I

length of the journey across the Atlantic without the support of surface ships or the need to refuel. Built as a blockade runner and launched on March 28, 1916, the Deutschland was operated by the North German Lloyd Line. Totalling 1,500 tons, the vessel had a cargo-carrying capacity of 700 tons and a speed of 12 knots. Although this was not a significant cargo load, the vessel’s political and propaganda value far outweighed the practicalities. The Deutschland was one of two cargocarrying submarines built to run the Allied blockade. Her sister ship, the Bremen, was lost on her maiden voyage to the United States—although no one was quite sure, it was assumed that she had been lost after striking a mine. The Deutschland made only two voyages to the United States before being converted into a combat vessel. She was converted to carry 18 torpedoes and 2 150-mm guns. Redesignated U-155 she undertook 3 combat cruises, sinking 43 allied ships totalling 122,033 tons, before surrendering after the armistice. She was then taken to England as a prize and displayed for public viewing until finally being broken up for scrap in 1921. There were another 6 vessels in this class intended for commercial trade, but they were all converted to warships and designated U-151 to U-157. Captain Paul Koenig in 1916 published a book based on those two journeys to America entitled Voyage of the Deutschland.

The Zimmermann Telegram In January 1917, a telegram from the German foreign minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to the German minister to Mexico, Heinrich J. F. von Eckhardt, was intercepted and deciphered by British cryptographers. In the telegram Zimmermann in-

formed von Eckhardt that Germany was intending to return to unrestricted submarine warfare while at the same time endeavoring to preserve the neutrality of the United States. The telegram outlined the steps to be taken in the event of the United States entering the war against Germany as a result of this increased submarine action. In the first instance, von Eckhardt was to approach the president of Mexico with the proposal of an alliance. The telegram offered, in return for a German Mexican alliance in support of the German cause, generous financial support and the return to Mexico of all the lands formerly owned by Mexico and now (1917) owned by the United States—that is, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The final details of any land settlement were to be left up to the Mexican authorities. This was a direct attempt to neutralize American entry into the war—by keeping the relatively small U.S. Army occupied on the U.S.-Mexican border. The second step to be taken was for Mexico to mediate between Germany and Japan and to invite Japan to join the alliance. In the meantime, in direct response to the effectiveness of the British naval blockade, Germany returned to unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917 with the immediate sinking of eight American ships and the adverse effect on U.S. industry as ships remained in port in the face of the increased submarine threat. By returning to unrestricted submarine warfare Germany had broken the “Sussex Pledge,” which had previously limited submarine warfare. The British, in an effort to maximize the propaganda value, generate the greatest possible political impact, and protect their intelligence-gathering networks, waited until February 24 before presenting the telegram to Wilson.

WORLD WAR I

A variety of reactions greeted the telegram and its contents. German, Japanese, and Mexican diplomats claimed it to be a forgery, until Zimmerman confirmed that he had, indeed, written the message. In Mexico, Pancho Villa declared that he would help Germany by recovering lost Mexican soil and left Parral with a force of some 3,000 men. Wilson was becoming increasingly frustrated at the number of American merchant ships being sunk by U-boats and by the number of American civilians being killed in U-boat attacks on Allied passenger ships. When he was presented with the evidence of the Zimmermann Telegram and the German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, Wilson broke off diplomatic relations with Germany. Reported widely in American newspapers, the telegram prompted him to take America into the war. On April 4, 1917, the Senate approved Wilson’s call for American entry into the war by a vote of 82to 6, supported 2 days later by a vote in the House of Representatives of 373 to 50.

Lafayette Escadrille Commanded by a French officer, Captain Georges Thenault, the Lafayette Escadrille was made up of American volunteer pilots. Initially formed in April 1916, the escadrille (squadron) was known as the Escadrille Americaine until German diplomatic protests forced a change in name. Although the U.S. government had granted the volunteers’ petition to undertake military service abroad, the United States still maintained its neutrality. Initially based at Luxeuil, France, the squadron settled itself into the Grand Hotel and adopted a luxurious lifestyle. Supplied with the best accommodations and the best equipment, most of it bought

1159

with American private subscriptions, the members of the escadrille soon became as well known for their antics on the ground as for their recklessness in the air, with dice and poker the favorite pastime. The unit adopted two lion cubs as squadron mascots, naming them “whiskey and soda.” They also selected an Indian head as the squadron insignia and had this painted on the fuselage of their aircraft. After suffering unnecessary casualties, the squadron soon found itself transferred to the front at Verdun, this time based at Bar-le-Duc, to undertake bomber escort duties. As an individual squadron, the Lafayette Escadrille was not large enough to absorb the large number of Americans who chose to serve in the French Air Service and so the Lafayette Flying Corps was created as a means of utilizing the services of the American pilots. Over 200 Americans passed through the training program initiated by the French Air Service and served in the Lafayette Flying Corps, mostly flying as members of French squadrons. The escadrille’s first aerial victory was by Kiffin Rockwell on May 18, 1916. However, Rockwell himself was brought down by machine-gun fire on September 23, 1916. On June 23, 1916, Harvard graduate Victor Chapman became the escadrille’s first American pilot killed in action. In all, some sixty-five Lafayette Escadrille and Lafayette Flying Corps members died. In February 1918, ten months after the United States entered the war, the Lafayette Escadrille was transferred to the United States Air Service and renamed the 103rd Pursuit Squadron. Nine Americans were killed serving with the escadrille out of a total of thirty-eight American pilots serving while the escadrille

1160

WORLD WAR I

was under French command. In the twenty months of its existence, the Lafayette Escadrille accounted for fifty-seven downings of German planes. Among the members of the Lafayette Escadrille were Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall, who in 1932 coauthored the book Mutiny on the Bounty.

General John “Black Jack” Pershing Born in Linn County, Missouri, in 1880, John Pershing spent a short period as a school teacher before attending West Point Military Academy. Pershing’s military experience included service against the Sioux and Apache (1886–1898), service in the Spanish-American War (1898) and the Philippines (1903), and service as a military observer in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905). Pershing also led an unsuccessful campaign against Pancho Villa in Mexico in 1917. Appointed commander in chief of the American Expeditionary Force on May 28, 1917, Pershing and his staff sailed from New York on the liner Baltic, arriving in Liverpool on June 8. Pershing believed American forces, acting as an independent army, would quickly alter the balance of power on the western front, but had to revise his belief in the face of stiff British and French opposition. The British and French insisted that American troops should operate as part of the existing Allied armies, while Pershing was determined that American troops should operate as an independent force. He not only believed this from a military standpoint but believed it would be best for the morale of the troops and the pride of the public at home. The idea of a distinct American army was supported by Wilson and the secretary of war in written instructions given to

General Pershing, who was also given a wide brief in the relationship he would develop with the Allies. Although the United States had entered the war, Wilson clarified the American position by declaring that the United States was not joining the alliance but should be seen as an associated member. Pershing stood his ground over the use of American troops, and a stalemate developed with the headquarters of Marshal Foch, the French commander in chief. In March 1918 German forces overwhelmed the British 5th Army in an area between Arras and a few miles south of Saint-Quentin, and broke through on a wide front, threatening to create a gap between the British and French forces. The British withdrew, and setting aside his determination to create a separate American force, Pershing went to Marshal Foch and offered to put at his disposal the five American divisions then in France to be utilized as Foch saw fit. Pershing’s main priority was to build up supply bases and establish independent lines of communication. He felt that he was being hindered on two fronts. He was hampered by his reliance on the British to provide vessels to bring his troops from the United States and their insistence that the priority for transportation should be given to infantry and machine gunners. From the point of view of the French and British this made sense, as those were the troops most required to build up the existing forces and undo the manpower damage suffered in the German March offensive. However, from Pershing’s standpoint, this merely delayed the arrival of support troops necessary in creating an independent force. The second restriction on his efforts was the increasing determination of the French and British that American troops should be

WORLD WAR I

1161

German soldiers posed in trenches during World War I. (Library of Congress)

used only to fill manpower gaps in the French and British armies. In July 1918 Foch at last agreed to Pershing’s demand for an independent American force. The first successful offensive undertaken by the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) was at St. Mihiel and was followed almost immediately by further American operations in the Argonne region of France. Pershing remained in France after the armistice and, after a brief holiday, administered the task of returning the American troops home.

American Expeditionary Force The U.S. 1st Division arrived at SaintNazaire on June 28, 1917, with the 2nd, the 26th (New England National Guard), and the 42nd (Rainbow) divisions arriving in France by November of that year, an initial force of over 100,000 men. Pershing’s initial plans called for 30 American divisions to be sent to Europe, over 1 million

men. The AEF was assigned to an area in the Toul-Dijon-Troyes region of France on the Lorraine front, with the ports of SaintNazaire and Marseille as their supply ports. Initially, supplies of food, tobacco, and mail were slow in arriving, and the men were not paid for several months, but Pershing quickly established his general headquarters at Chaumont, and the American troops began a tough program of training in trench and open warfare to prepare them for the planned offensives. The first experience of trench warfare came for the American troops in October 1917, when it was agreed that one battalion from each 1st Division regiment would accompany French troops, who had been acting as their instructors, into trenches in the quiet Toul sector in order to gain firsthand experience. This “learning experience” continued into November as other American battalions were rotated into the French trenches in turn. The first artillery

1162

WORLD WAR I

action by the AEF was undertaken by the 6th Field Artillery on the morning of October 23. On November 2 the troops of the 1st Division had their first taste of trench warfare when the Germans staged a trench raid, capturing eleven prisoners and killing three Americans. While the AEF was establishing itself in France, at home men were being drafted into the new national army and training was being carried out under the direction of NCOs taken from the regular army.

Draft One month after the United States entered World War I, the Selective Service Act was passed on May 18, 1917, authorizing the president to increase the military establishment of the country. The Selective Service System was the body responsible for selecting those men who would be inducted into military service. Made up from 4,648 local draft boards, the system had overall responsibility for classifying and registering men, dealing with appeals, conducting medical examinations, and transporting the men selected to regional training centers. During the war there were three registrations: the first on June 5, 1917, called on all men between the ages of 21 and 31; the second on June 5, 1918, called for those who had reached the age of 21 after June 5, 1917; and the third on September 12, 1918, called for men aged 18 to 45. Some 24,000,000 men registered for the draft, 23 percent of the population. In 1917 there were 516,212 men inducted, with an increase in 1918 to 2,294,084 men inducted into the military. For the period covering direct American involvement in the war, 1917 through 1918, the number of men inducted stood at 2,810,296. Not all men who served with the AEF were

draftees; large numbers came forward to volunteer for service in the military. The local boards were closed down in May 1919 and the Selective Service System was closed down in July of that year.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points On January 8, 1918, Woodrow Wilson presented to Congress his peace program for the aftermath of the war. He proposed a program known as the Fourteen Points, which had been compiled by a group of U.S. foreign policy experts including Dr. Sidney Mezes and Walter Lippmann. Wilson gave his speech to a rather depleted audience, as Congress had been given only half an hour’s notice of his appearance. In Wilson’s view, the Great War (as World War I was known at the time) was to end all wars. Wilson insisted that the settlement was to provide for long-term goals—the establishment of democracy throughout Europe and the securing of a permanent peace. The Fourteen Points were based on three fundamental principles. First, war must and could be avoided in the future if the nations in concert obeyed certain guidelines, above all the conclusion of “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at.” Second, national status should rest on ethnic self-determination, dependent on whether a people considered themselves a unity and lived together “along historically established lines of allegiances and nationality.” Third, an international body should be created, the League of Nations, to negotiate conflicts between nations before war erupted. “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity of great and small states alike” (http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh /wwi/1918/14points.html).

WORLD WAR I AND GERMAN AMERICANS

Wilson’s Fourteen Points gave the newly elected democratic German government some hopes for a just peace. In opposition to France, Wilson seemed not to be interested in crushing Germany completely, but in establishing stable democratic states. Wilson’s Fourteen Points appealed to European moderates and convinced Germans that the settlement would not be vindictive. In fact, Wilson’s commitment to settlement as opposed to surrender contained tough-minded stipulations, for he recognized that Germany was still the strongest state on the continent. He merely pushed for a treaty that balanced the strengths and interests of the various European powers. Many of the historians, economists, and other experts accompanying Wilson to Paris agreed that, harshly dealt with and humiliated, Germany might soon become vengeful and chaotic— a lethal combination that could lead to the growth of unsavory political sects. Derek Rutherford Young See also Norddeutscher Lloyd; Treaty of Versailles; World Wars I and II, Brazil and Germany in References and Further Reading Beckett, Ian. The Great War 1914–1918. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2001. Cooper, John Milton. Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2001. DeGroot, Gerard. The First World War. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave, 2001. Horton, Edward. The Illustrated History of the Submarine. London: Sedgwick and Jackson, 1974. Hough, Richard. The Great War at Sea. Sussex, UK: Naval & Military, 2000. Longstreet, Stephen. The Canvas Falcons, The Men and Planes of World War 1. London: Leo Cooper, 1995. Marshall, Samuel Lyman Atwood. World War 1. Boston: Mariner, 2001. Peeke, Mitch, Kevin Walsh-Johnson, and Steven Jones. The Lusitania Story. Annapolis, MD.: Naval Institute, 2002.

1163

Preston, Diana. Lusitania: An Epic Tragedy. New York: Berkley, 2003. Saunders, Robert. In Search of Woodrow Wilson. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1998. Strachan, Hew. The First World War; Volume 1: To Arms. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 2003. Tuchman, Barbara. The Zimmermann Telegram. New York: Dell, 1967. Wilson, Woodrow. Fourteen Points Plan. http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918/14 points.html.

WORLD WAR I AND GERMAN AMERICANS America’s participation in World War I sparked a period of national paranoia and violence directed at German immigrants and their descendants. Fighting an international conflict with a country that had sent a large immigrant population to the United States brought about a nativism few immigrants had ever experienced. German Americans had to endure two years of misunderstandings, persecution, and violence. In 1910 Germans represented the largest and the most well-established ethnic group in the United States. For over a century, Americans had highly respected and tolerated German immigrants because they appeared to quickly adjust to American life and had a reputation as honest, hard-working, and law-abiding citizens. German Americans had been able to acculturate on their own terms. They had become Americans in the economic and political sense, but had retained their German cultural heritage in the form of German language, food, and religion. The outbreak of World War I in 1914 changed that, first because for many German Americans it reawakened old and sometimes forgotten feelings for a distant

1164

WORLD WAR I AND GERMAN AMERICANS

fatherland. Some Germans chose to return to Europe to fight. Others found it difficult to comply with President Woodrow Wilson’s request to remain neutral in thought and action and fought personal battles over allegiance to the homeland and loyalty to the adopted country. They had been devoted to their culture, but not to the German government, and yet many continued to believe in the greatness of the German people. Some maintained close ties with relatives in their native country, while most cultivated a nostalgic attachment to the mystical land of their grandparents. Numerous German Americans were also concerned about American adherence to strict neutrality. They opposed the sale and shipment of munitions to the Allies because that would have favored one side over the other in the war. The National German-American Alliance shifted its attention from Prohibition to the more volatile issue of defending Germany’s position in the war and demanded a fair hearing for Germany’s view of the conflict in the press. German American societies turned their attentions to collecting money for aid societies such as the Relief of Widows and Orphans, the German Red Cross, and the Blind Soldier’s Relief. At the same time, British propagandists molded U.S. public opinion to support the Allies and hate the Central Powers, especially Germany. Americans were also overwhelmed by rumors and newspaper accounts about foreign intrigue and German sabotage activity within the country. By the time the United States entered World War I in April 1917 Americans had become increasingly frightened of German spies and had been conditioned to hate anything associated with Germany. During the war, the Committee on Public Information, the government

agency responsible for uniting a reluctant nation for war, reinforced this disgust of everything German with pamphlets, posters, and speeches portraying the German enemy as barbarian and determined to destroy everything America represented. Federal laws required that German nationals living in the United States register with U.S. marshals or local postmasters. Congress enacted the Espionage Act to catch spies and traitors. The combination of negative information about the enemy and restrictive legislation created a climate of suspicion and distrust of anything associated with Germany. Suddenly German immigrants and Americans of German descent had to prove that they were 100 percent American. They were seen as the enemy or as being proGerman, despite their insistence that they opposed the German emperor and his militaristic government, because they spoke the language of the enemy. This resulted in a sharp division between other U.S. citizens and German Americans. To avoid persecution, German Americans had to act patriotic and look 100 percent “American.” The easiest way for them to demonstrate their loyalty was to support the government in all its war efforts. German American men had to register for the selective service and answer the call to duty when drafted willingly and joyfully without asking for exemptions. German-language newspapers had to look patriotic and provide free space for government publications. Purchasing their quota in Liberty Loan Bonds and War Savings Stamps was also a way to prove their unquestionable loyalty to their adopted country. But supporting the war effort through money, sacrifice, and service was not enough. Giving up German traits also became a measure of

WORLD WAR I AND GERMAN AMERICANS

patriotism and Americans of German birth and heritage had to abandon the last remnant of their German culture: the German language. Despite these efforts, anti-German sentiment grew and German Americans bore the brunt of the resulting hysteria, which expressed itself in varying degrees of severity. Federal laws, intended to catch enemy spies and limit their activities on American soil, became measures to silence opposition to the war. Any expression of dissatisfaction, disagreement, or outright unwillingness to support the war effort, especially if made by a person with a German name, could result in arrest and prosecution under the Espionage and Sedition Acts. German-language magazines and newspapers had to deal with new government regulations, because criticism of the war printed in the enemy tongue looked more disloyal than a similar article in English. Postmaster General Albert Burleson had the authority through the Espionage Act to deny mailing privileges for suspected disloyal publications. And the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 1917 required that foreign-language papers file translations with proper officials of any article dealing with the Red Cross, Liberty Loan, draft, or the war in general. The Trading with the Enemy Act also gave A. Mitchell Palmer, the alien property custodian, the authority to confiscate tangible or intangible property in the form of land, patents, money, or securities that belonged to the enemy. The term enemy applied to any citizen of Germany or person residing in Germany, even if Americanborn, who owned property in the United States. Several German Americans who lived in or visited Germany during the war, including relatives of brewery magnate

1165

Adolphus Busch, lost property even though they were not spying for the German government. State and local governments also joined the war against the enemy. Officials removed German books from schools and libraries. Book burnings in states such as Montana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina not only included books written in German but English texts that appeared to be pro-German. Teachers who questioned or challenged the war were dismissed. In Missouri, the city of St. Louis began a renaming campaign of German-sounding streets and the town of Potsdam in Gasconade County changed its name to Pershing following a local petition drive. Several communities pushed for ending of the use of the German language in public. They argued that continued use of the enemy tongue was a German propaganda move to discourage unity in the United States and that speaking German gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Iowa had the strongest law, forbidding the use of German on streetcars, over the telephone, or anywhere else in public, as well as its teaching in public and private schools. Several State Councils of Defense, the organization responsible for coordinating resources for the war effort at the state level, backed the move to stop the teaching of German in schools. Numerous private and semiofficial organizations supplemented official authority in this anti-German hysteria. The largest of these groups was the American Protective League (APL). Attorney General Thomas Gregory publicly endorsed the group and sought federal funds to support its police work. The APL believed it had to defend the nation against an army of over 250,000 German spies living in the United States.

1166

WORLD WAR I AND GERMAN AMERICANS

Members of the APL conducted private inquests into the loyalty of German Americans and routinely spied on workers and neighbors, opened mail, tapped the phones of those suspected of disloyalty, and harassed young men who they thought were evading the draft. Encouraged by government actions, vigilante groups and patriotic Americans went after alleged enemies and traitors, took the law into their own hands, and violated fundamental rights as they hunted suspected disloyal individuals and pro-Germans as criminals. They interpreted the official rhetoric of loyalty and unity as permission to demand conformity in thought and action. Everything German, be it a person’s name, a newspaper, and organization, or the language, became suspect. Possessing a German-sounding name often was reason enough to deny a job promotion or to launch an investigation into the private life of a person. Businesses and individuals, either voluntarily or involuntarily, changed their names. During the winter and spring months of 1918, demands to keep silent and conform to national consensus escalated to include vandalism and mob violence. Persons reading German-language newspapers or conversing in the enemy’s tongue in public could expect verbal abuse. Throughout the United States, German Americans who did not appear patriotic enough or who expressed the slightest pacifist inclination or disagreement with the government could justifiably fear humiliating acts of physical abuse and violence. In Jefferson City, Missouri, a group of twenty-five men nabbed a German man, took him to a nearby park, administered a public beating, and forced him to kiss the flag because in a drunken stupor he had expressed the hope that his

birth country would win the war. A naturalized German in Minnesota received a coat of tar and feathers for allegedly making disloyal statements. Night riders in Illinois painted Mennonite churches yellow to protest the sect’s pacifist beliefs and their refusal to serve in the military. In Toledo, Ohio, a mob marched through a German American neighborhood intimidating its citizens and knocking men down who did not remove their hats upon hearing the “Stars and Stripes.” This hysteria and fear of things German reached its peak in April 1918 with the mob lynching of Robert Prager, a German-born miner, in Collinsville, Illinois. German Americans reacted to this paranoia in many ways. Some, in fear, withdrew from public life or changed their names. Others became superpatriots and coerced fellow German Americans suspected of slacking into compliance. Most demonstrated the minimum patriotism necessary to survive without attracting attention. While numerous churches and societies suspended the use of German only temporarily, many adopted English permanently. The National German-American Alliance dissolved. Nearly half of all German publications disappeared by 1919. The most enduring impact came in the public schools. Canceling the teaching of German eliminated an important tool in the perpetuation of the language and accelerated acculturation. Petra Dewitt See also Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Committee on Public Information; Espionage and Sedition Act; National German-American Alliance; Newspaper Press, German-Language in the United States; Prager, Robert Paul; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in

WORLD WAR I, GERMAN PRISONERS AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES References and Further Reading Higham, John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860–1925. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1955. Keller, Phyllis. States of Belonging: German American Intellectuals and the First World War. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1979. Luebke, Frederick C. Bonds of Loyalty: German Americans and World War I. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, 1974. Peterson, Horace C., and Gilbert C. Fite. Opponents of War, 1917–1918. Seattle: University of Washington, 1968. Toltzmann, Don Heinrich. The GermanAmerican Experience. Amherst, MA: Humanity, 2000.

WORLD WAR I, GERMAN PRISONERS AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES IN Between 1914 and 1920 several thousand German and Austro-Hungarian civilians and military personnel were interned in various camps both in Latin and North America. The internment of enemy aliens was by no means unusual—Britain, France, and Germany also took this measure in the early days of the war. In the United States between 8,500 and 10,000 non-naturalized German civilians (8 percent of all male German aliens) were interned. Prisoners of war from the European battlefields were not brought to America, even if they were captured by the U.S. Army. Through August 1918 German soldiers were handed over to the French. From then until the end of the war in November, U.S. troops themselves commanded ten large prisoner-of-war camps in France. In the United States non-naturalized male persons of German or Austro-Hungarian birth were regarded as “enemy aliens.” The patriotic enthusiasm of the

IN

1167

Germans in the United States provoked suspicion and led the U.S. administration to the conclusion that they maintained their loyalty to the German Empire and were to be regarded as a potential danger to the country’s security. Moreover, non-naturalized Germans had to face anti-German hysteria, which lacked substantial evidence and was thus vastly exaggerated. Real cases of sabotage and espionage remained isolated and rare events, yet all Germans became the objects of public suspicion and an administrative system of control. Several organizations like the Military Intelligence, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the American Protective League participated in the supervision of civilian Germans. With its “Alien Enemy Regulation” of April 6, 1917, the U.S. government established precautionary measures against potential acts of sabotage. Enemy aliens were prohibited to approach sensitive spots such as military camps, arsenals, and airports. The German-language press in the United States was censored, and the proclamation formed the legal basis for interning enemy aliens. Regulation No. 12 stated: “An alien enemy whom there may be reasonable cause to believe to be aiding or about to aid the enemy, . . . will be subject to summary arrest . . . and to confinement in such penitentiary, prison, jail, military camp, or other place of detention as may be directed by the President.” Selective internment of Germans in the United States—particularly reserve officers of the imperial German army and navy—started in April 1917. In the beginning, non-naturalized male Germans in the United States were interned in local jails and at Ellis Island, while fifteen German women were regarded as serious enough security risks to merit internment. By

1168

WORLD WAR I, GERMAN PRISONERS AND CIVILIAN INTERNEES

October 1917 about 900 people had been arrested. Pursuant to a second supplemental regulation, the Proclamation of November 16, 1917, restrictions on the freedom of movement of enemy aliens were extended to areas such as wharves and railroads. Enemy aliens were also forbidden to fly airplanes and balloons, or to possess weapons and ammunition. In addition they were also required to register at places fixed by the attorney general. In addition to non-naturalized Germans who had been living in the United States, there was another group that filled the internment camps: German sailors of both naval and merchant vessels that had been kept in the harbors by the U.S. government or who were captured during maritime combat. Civilian internees and sailors were interned in the War Department’s camps. Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, was the largest and stretched over 24 acres. Here the first group of 53 civilian internees arrived in July 1917, while later on up to 1,500 civilians were interned in Oglethorpe’s three camp sections. Camp A was called the “millionaires camp” due to its wealthy inhabitants, who enjoyed something like a luxurious lifestyle. Fort Douglas, Utah, encompassed 6 acres and housed over 1,500 internees, mostly civilians and German marine staff. Fort McPherson, Georgia, contained about 1,300 marines. About 2,000 sailors from civilian vessels were interned at Hot Springs, North Carolina, where the Labor Department had rented the Mountain Park Hotel to house them. In June 1918 the War Department took over responsibility for this site, too. The prisoners and internees in U.S. camps enjoyed relatively fair treatment, with leisure facilities like theaters and sports grounds. However, the lack of useful

IN

occupation and the restricted routine of camp life proved detrimental to the mental health of the inmates. Many of them suffered from “barbed-wire disease,” also known as neurasthenia. Internees became more and more inactive, suspicious, aggressive, and depressed. Despite adequate food and shelter, friction between the camp authorities and the internees arose. While the navy sailors were accepted as prisoners of war according to the Hague Convention of 1907, the civilian internees by the U.S. authorities were regarded as spies and did not fall under the regulations of the Hague Convention with regard to soldiers. Disciplinary problems manifested as acts of resistance, refusal to perform any work— other than the civilians the marine staff could compel to work—and attempts to escape. Finally, naval prisoners were transferred from Fort Douglas to Fort McPherson to avoid conflicts with their civilian compatriots. Arrests of enemy aliens continued until February 1919. The camp system was dissolved in spring 1920, when the Versailles Treaty was put into force. Between 40 and 50 percent of the former internees were repatriated to Germany, while another 40 to 50 percent stayed in the United States (Powell 1989, 33). Similar camps for the internment of civilian enemy aliens, sailors, and marines existed throughout the Western Hemisphere; for example, in Chile (Island of Quiriquina). The Canadian government between 1914 and 1920 interned some 8,000 enemy aliens, mostly Ukrainians, but also Germans and Austro-Hungarians. It erected camps at twenty-four locations (for example, at Amherst and Nova Scotia and in the national parks at Banff, Jasper, Yoho, and Mount Revelstoke). Rainer Pöppinghege

WORLD WAR I, GERMAN SABOTAGE See also Canada, Germans in (during World Wars I and II); Committee on Public Information; Espionage and Sedition Act; Newspaper Press, German Language in the United States References and Further Reading Glidden, William B. “Internment Camps in America, 1917–1920.” Military Affairs XXXVII (December 1973): 137–141. Nagler, Jörg. “Victims of the Home Front: Enemy Aliens in the United States during World War I.” In Minorities in Wartime. The Experience of National and Racial Groupings in Europe, North America and Australia during the Two World Wars. Ed. Panikos Panayi. Providence, RI, Oxford, UK: Berg, 1993, pp. 191–215. Powell, Allan Kent. Splinters of a Nation: German Prisoners of War in Utah. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1989. Speed, Richard B. Prisoners, Diplomats, and the Great War: A Study in the Diplomacy of Captivity. New York: Greenwood, 1990.

WORLD WAR I, GERMAN SABOTAGE IN CANADA DURING When Canada declared war on Germany on August 4, 1914, it created an opportunity for members of the Auswärtiges Amt (German Foreign Office, AA) in the United States to organize sabotage activity. While the United States remained neutral until April 1917, the AA carried out intelligence work throughout North America. This was led by Count Johann von Bernstorff, Germany’s ambassador in Washington. He was aided by Karl Boy-Ed, naval attaché; Franz von Papen, military attaché; and Heinrich Albert, commercial attaché. With direction and support from Berlin they succeeded in establishing small groups of saboteurs within Canada. These individuals were somewhat successful in delaying small amounts of military aid that was des-

IN

CANADA

DURING

1169

tined for Europe in the early stages of the war. Canadian officials maintained that Germany instigated and equipped a campaign of espionage by placing large sums of money in the hands of AA representatives residing in the United States. For Canadian authorities, the most important public utilities that needed protection were the canal systems of Ontario and Quebec. The largest security force, approximately 1,000 men, was deployed to protect the Welland Canal. This canal was a vital supply route running from Port Colborne, Ontario, on Lake Erie to Port Weller, Ontario, on Lake Ontario. It allowed ships to avoid Niagara Falls by passing along the Niagara escarpment. In September 1914 one potential saboteur, Horst von der Goltz, visited Papen. He convinced Papen of the military necessity to dynamite the Welland Canal. British security had alerted Canada that the canal was a target, and security was intensified. Goltz abandoned his plan. In October 1914 he returned to Germany. On Goltz’s return trip he stopped in Great Britain to examine the success of German air raids. He was arrested and extradited to the United States. Goltz implicated others in the United States regarding espionage plans in Canada; he and his accomplices were imprisoned. Papen, in his quest for other saboteurs, met Albert Kaltschmidt through Consul von Reisswitz, the German consul in Chicago. Papen and Kaltschmidt planned to attack Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) property. Kaltschmidt convinced Karl Respa to lay time bombs in Walkerville and Windsor, Ontario, in June 1915. The Walkerville explosion destroyed a clothing plant that was producing uniforms for the British. The bomb in Windsor, which was

1170

WORLD WAR I, GERMAN SABOTAGE

planted at the local armory, failed to detonate. Respa, a German whom Kaltschmidt convinced to act for the benefit of Germany, was soon captured and later sentenced to life imprisonment. Both Goltz and Respa represent those German nationals who were outside of Germany when World War I began but wanted to do what they could for the land of their birth. When Japan declared war on Germany and became an ally of Canada, Germany feared that Japanese troops could be transported through Canada by rail to ships destined for Europe. Arthur Zimmermann, undersecretary at the AA in Berlin, wanted Bernstorff to disrupt CPR traffic in several places. Bernstorff ’s target was a CPR bridge across the Croix River at Vanceboro, Maine. Papen contacted Werner von Horn, a German reserve officer from Guatemala, for this purpose. Horn was successful in planting his bomb, despite Canadian authorities being warned of this threat. Horn’s bomb did little substantial damage; he was arrested in Maine, where he pleaded guilty and went to a federal detention center in Atlanta, Georgia. Canada demanded his extradition, which was successfully enacted in 1918. Due to the work of Horn and Respa, Germans had successfully carried out two minor sabotage acts in Canada, but their main objective of disabling parts of the CPR remained unfulfilled. Other espionage campaigns in Canada were directed at transportation links such as bridges, canals, railway hubs, communication centers, and power plants. Sabotage attempts directed by the AA also took place on vessels on the Great Lakes, in coastal harbors, on recently departed ships returning to Europe, and in Canadian factories.

IN

CANADA

DURING

Canadian losses due to German sabotage during World War I appear to be small, although the exact number is a matter of historical debate. Arthur G. Slaght, an eminent Ontario lawyer, Member of Parliament, and war emergency planner for Canada, tabulated that AA representatives were responsible for ninety-two acts of sabotage in North America. The majority of Slaght’s figures listed a U.S. city or port, but some simply gave the name of a ship or factory without a point of origin. Deriving exactly how many occurred in Canada is open to debate; it can only be stated with certainty that four took place within Canadian borders. Historians have compiled different figures. Major S. R. Elliot listed the total number to be nine, while Fortescue Duguid gave the figure at eleven. One problem in compiling such data is that some unexplained occurrences that were linked to the war effort were often viewed as sabotage; for example, negligence at factories, unexplained fires, acts of vandalism, etc. Unfortunately, in some circumstances, innocent individuals who were accused of committing or planning crimes suffered. Grant Grams See also Bernstorff, Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht Count von; Papen, Franz von; World War I References and Further Reading Doerries, Reinhard. Imperial Challenge. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1989. Duguid, Fortescue. Official History of Canadian Forces in the Great War 1914– 1919. Ottawa, ON: J. O. Patenaude, 1938. Elliot, Major S. R. Scarlet to Green. Toronto: Hunter Rose, 1981. Landau, Henry. The Enemy Within. New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1937. Mount, Graeme S. Canada’s Enemies, Spies and Spying in the Peaceable Kingdom. Toronto: Durdurn, 1993.

WORLD WAR II

WORLD WAR II When Nazi Germany began its conquest of Europe, and Japan its assault on its neighbors, the majority of Americans did not want to get involved in either of the two conflicts. “We Must Keep Out!” was the slogan of the day. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, however, pursued a course of incremental involvement by allowing Great Britain to “borrow” military equipment (the lend-lease program) in January 1941 and the establishment of naval bases in Greenland (Germany’s occupation of Denmark in 1940, during World War II, brought the status of Greenland again into question. Negotiations between the U.S. government and the Danish minister to Washington resulted in an agreement on April 9, 1941, granting the United States the right “to construct, maintain and operate such landing fields, seaplane facilities and radio and meteorological installations as may be necessary” to protect the status quo in the Western Hemisphere; the United States also assumed protective custody over Greenland for the duration of World War II, while recognizing Danish sovereignty.) Roosevelt ordered the American navy to search for German submarines and to report sightings to the British. American ships escorted British convoys to within 400 miles of the British Isles and thus became the target of German submarines. The United States was on a course to direct confrontation with the Germans. On August 14, 1941, Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met on board the U.S. cruiser Augusta and the British battle cruiser Prince of Wales to discuss a common foreign policy. Roosevelt and Churchill published a joint statement (the Atlantic Charter), which later became the basis for

1171

the United Nations Charter and comprised eight main points: (1) Neither country sought any kind of aggrandizement, nor (2) desired territorial changes without the freely expressed agreement of the peoples concerned. (3) The right of all peoples to choose their governments was respected and it was desired that self-government be returned to all who had been forcibly deprived of it. (4) The two powers would endeavor, with due respect to their existing obligations, to give to all states, “victor or vanquished,” equality of access to the world’s trade and raw materials that were needed for their economic prosperity. (5) Both powers would support the collaboration of all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all peoples improved labor standards, economic advancement, and social security. (6) After the final destruction of Nazi tyranny both powers hoped to see established a lasting peace that would give all nations the means of dwelling safely within their own boundaries, and would allow all peoples to live out their lives in freedom from fear and want. (7) Such a peace should enable all men to sail the high seas unhindered, and (8) all nations must abandon force. About four months later, after Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the United States declared war on Japan. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini followed suit in declaring war against the United States on December 11.

U-boats The German U-boat (U-Boot, Unterseeboot [submarine]) campaign was directed at specific targets. It was intended to weaken the Allied naval blockade of Germany, restrict the movement of Allied military power,

1172

WORLD WAR II

German poster showing the United Kingdom surrounded by German U-boats.German U-boats destroyed 70 percent of the Allied shipping. (Library of Congress)

and act as the front line in imposing Germany’s blockade of Britain—in effect severing all maritime communications with Britain. The fall of France in June 1940 gave the German U-boats direct access to the Atlantic. Although the number of operational U-boats in the first winter of the war was limited to twenty-seven in August 1940, dropping to twenty-one by January 1941, this period became known to German submariners as the “happy time” due to the high numbers of Allied shipping sunk and the limited risk to the submariners themselves. The German U-boat

fleet became the primary fighting arm of the German navy in the battle for the Atlantic. German U-boats destroyed 70 percent of the Allied shipping. The active involvement of the U.S. Navy in the battle of the Atlantic increased during 1941, following the meeting at Placentia Bay in Newfoundland, Canada, in August between Churchill and Roosevelt. At this meeting it was decided, for the purpose of naval projection, that the world should be divided into spheres of strategic control. The western Atlantic, which was to include Iceland, was to be under the control of the United States, and in September 1941 the U.S. Navy began escort duties alongside the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) between the Grand Banks and Iceland. This meant that even before American entry into the war the U.S. Navy was involved in combat protecting convoys against U-boat attack. When America entered the war after the attack at Pearl Harbor, the lessons learned in the early days of the battle for the Atlantic were often forgotten or ignored. The United States followed the discredited policy of offensive patrols designed to deprive U-boats of access to American waters. In practice this often meant that while naval and air forces were directed out to sea searching for the submarine threat, merchant shipping was left to continue unprotected in coastal waters. For the Germans this meant a second “happy time” as American shipping continued to ignore the realities of war and the eastern seaboard of the United States became a rich hunting ground for German U-boats with losses reaching as high as 1 million tons of shipping sunk in the months of May and June 1942.

WORLD WAR II

The experience of the U.S. Navy while assisting in prewar escort in support of the RCN led to the belief that slow-moving convoys were of themselves a danger. It was believed to be safer to allow slower-moving ships to operate independently in the relative safety of shallow coastal waters. The American policy of following routine patrols along predicted routes meant that the U-boats could easily avoid contact with the patrols while at the same time ensure that their tally of individual victims steadily increased. This second “happy time” came to an end when coastal convoys were introduced and air coverage was increased, both points aimed at providing a protected in-shore corridor. The U-boats still depended upon swift surface movement to race ahead of their intended target and position themselves for attack, and the increase in air coverage meant that they were vulnerable while on the surface. The aim was to deny U-boats the ability to operate within the protected area. Iceland was abandoned as a staging area for convoys in late 1942 after New York had been transformed into the main staging area for transatlantic convoys. The convoys were now sent on a direct route between the Grand Banks and Ireland. However, this allowed the U-boats to take advantage of a gap in the protective air cover—the period when the convoys were beyond the range, and therefore the protection, of land-based aircraft operating from bases in the United States, Canada, and Scotland. It was only with the introduction of a limited number of Liberator aircraft converted for long-range flight that convoys from America to Britain were able to be protected all the way with a resulting drop in tonnage lost to U-boat activity.

1173

North African Landings When France fell in June 1940, her North African colonies were left in the hands of Vichy French administrations. On November 8, 1942, Allied troops were landed in French Morocco and Algeria as the initial part of the North African campaign. Although this could not be seen as the second front that Joseph Stalin was demanding, it offered a greater opportunity for success, while at the same time requiring fewer landing craft, and was seen in the circumstances as a more suitable baptism of fire for untried American troops. Given the codename TORCH, the invasion was conceived and carried out as an American operation. Lieutenant General Dwight D. Eisenhower was appointed commander in chief of the Allied Expeditionary Force, with Major General Mark Clark as his deputy. Eisenhower had three main objectives. The first was to gain control of North Africa, beginning with the landings in Algeria and French Morocco. The second, after occupying French North Africa, was to strike out eastward and take Erwin Rommel’s German Italian panzer army in Libya in the rear. The third objective, after surprising Rommel, was to clear Libya of all Axis forces. It was hoped that if the French forces in North Africa could be persuaded to welcome the Allied invasion force there would be little or no bloodshed. To this end the Allies sent a submarine to bring General Henri Giraud, a staunch opponent of Germany, out of Vichy France. At the same time, Mark Clark landed secretly near Algiers on October 22, 1942, to meet the pro-Giraud Major General Charles Mast, chief of staff of the 19th French Corps.

1174

WORLD WAR II

Three landing places were chosen for the operation. Casablanca was the objective of the Western Force, commanded by Major General George Patton; Oran was chosen for the Central Force, commanded by Major General Lloyd Fredendall; and the Eastern Force, commanded by Major General Charles Ryder, was to land at Algiers. The two westerly landings were supported by Western Air Command, while the Eastern Air Command provided support for those landing at Algiers. The Western and Central landing forces were all American, and, in the hope of preventing hostilities with the French, who were more likely to oppose British landings after the British sinking of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir, the Eastern Force initially comprised an American assault force that was to be reinforced later by British troops. Initial landings took place in the early hours of November 8, 1942, with 65,000 Allied troops involved. The landings achieved complete strategic surprise. A naval force of 650 warships was deployed to transport the Central and Eastern forces from the United Kingdom, while Patton’s force sailed directly from the United States to the African landing sites. The attacking forces met the toughest opposition around Casablanca as they struggled to land in the surf, but Algiers was occupied the same day and Oran two days later. Some 1,400 American and 700 French troops were killed during the invasion. It was argued that the North African landings were a distraction and diverted the attention of the Allies from their primary goal of invading France. However, given the rawness of the American troops, such a large-scale undertaking could not have been successfully achieved in 1942 or 1943. The experiences gained from the

TORCH landings were to provide valuable information and skills that were put to use in the invasion of Sicily and when the Allies landed in Normandy in June 1944.

D-Day The Allied invasion of occupied northwest Europe in June 1944 was given the codename OVERLORD while the assault phase, the Normandy landings, was given the codename NEPTUNE. The successful operation had a number of requirements: A suitable landing area in the Low Countries or France where the beach defenses could be overcome by the invasion forces. The landing site itself had to be within the range of Allied fighters and able to ensure that the rate of build-up of Allied troops could equal the rate of reinforcement of the defending German forces. It was necessary to find firm and sheltered beaches over which the troops landing ashore could move forward and expand the beachhead. The site eventually chosen for the landings was the Baie de la Seine, between Le Havre and the Cherbourg peninsula. The site fitted the necessary criteria and was close to Cherbourg, which it was hoped could be captured intact. Because the Allies could not rely on the capture of a major port like Cherbourg, the build-up of Allied troops on the beachhead was dependent on the creation of two artificial harbors, which had to be towed across the English Channel. These harbors were designed to handle all supplies while fuel was to be pumped directly across the English Channel by a series of pipelines known as Pluto. All previous Allied amphibious operations had begun under cover of darkness, but in this instance, because of the scale and complexity of the landings, the assault was timed to begin after dawn. This would

WORLD WAR II

also allow air and naval forces to neutralize the coastal defenses. June 5 was the day chosen for the landings, due to the tides and the need for the airborne troops to land under a full moon, but the operation was delayed for 24 hours due to bad weather. Just after midnight on June 6, some 23,400 British and American paratroopers were dropped on the flanks of the invasion beaches. The 6th British Airborne Division was dropped on the left flank east of the river Orne, while the 82nd and 101st U.S. Airborne Divisions landed on the right flank between Ste Mere Eglise and Carentan. At 6:30 A.M. the first assault divisions were delivered to the beaches by five naval assault forces, each designated by the first letter of the codename of the beach on to which it was to deliver its division. The beaches were codenamed UTAH, OMAHA, GOLD, JUNO, and SWORD. Some 7,000 ships and landing craft took part in the operation, bombarding German positions, landing the five assault divisions, and countering any German naval attack. Altogether 57,500 American troops and 75,215 British and Canadian troops were landed on D-Day, and the assaulting forces suffered 6,000 American casualties and 4,300 British and Canadian ones. The assault phase of the landings, NEPTUNE, ceased on June 30, 1944, with the loss of 59 ships sunk and 110 damaged. In that time 850,279 men, 148,803 vehicles, and 570,505 tons of supplies had been successfully landed at the Normandy beachhead.

Battle of the Bulge Commonly known as the Battle of the Bulge, the Ardennes Offensive launched in December 1944 was Adolf Hitler’s lastditch offensive in northwest Europe. The aim of the offensive was to drive a wedge

1175

between the Allied armies and recapture Antwerp, at that time the Allies’ most vital supply port. The attack was launched in poor weather and achieved total strategic and tactical surprise due to the inability of the Allied air power to operate. The success of the offensive relied on the newly created Sixth SS Panzer Army, commanded by SS general Joseph “Sepp” Dietrich, to make a quick breakthrough in the northern Ardennes around Monschau. Simultaneously, Lieutenant General Erich Brandenberger’s Seventh Army attacked in the south while Lieutenant General Hasso Manteuffel’s Fifth Panzer Army attacked in the center. Totaling 30 divisions, and supported by more than 1,000 aircraft, these armies were assembled in the greatest secrecy and represented the final recourses of the Third Reich. Special units were employed to break through and capture bridges across the river Meuse, paratroops were employed to block U.S. reinforcements moving south, and a handful of English-speaking troops dressed in American uniforms and driving American vehicles were employed to cause confusion and apprehension. Lieutenant General Courtney Hodges’s First U.S. Army, part of General Omar Bradley’s Twelfth Army Group, was responsible for the Ardennes sector, which was the chosen area for new or recuperating divisions. At the time of the offensive its only five divisions defended the 80-mile front: the 99th and 106th from Hodges’s 5th Corps, the 28th and 4th from his 8th Corps, with the 9th Armored in reserve. This lack of strength was a calculated risk taken by the Allies to pursue strategic objectives north and south of the Ardennes. With no advanced intelligence, both Bradley and British general Bernard Montgomery saw any impending attack in the

1176

WORLD WAR II

A file of American prisoners march along a road somewhere on the western front. The prisoners were captured by Germans during the surprise enemy drive into Allied territory during the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944. (NARA)

Ardennes area as only a remote possibility, and when information did finally arrive, it was initially interpreted as a local attack. The 10th Armored Division of Patton’s Third U.S. Army and the 7th Armored Division of Lieutenant General W. H. Simpson’s Ninth U.S. Army were ordered by Dwight D. Eisenhower, supreme Allied commander, to reinforce the frontline infantry divisions. The first few days were critical, however; in the north the 99th Division was soon reinforced by two others, the 1st and 2nd, and later by the 9th. Manteuffel’s panzers broke through and headed for two important centers of the local road network, St. Vith and Bastogne. Cut off from reinforcements, two regiments of the 106th Division were forced to surrender on the Schnee Eifel,

but its third put up a stout defense before St. Vith. At Bastogne the 101st Airborne Division and part of the 10th Armored managed to throw a defensive ring around the town before it was surrounded and repelled Manteuffel’s advancing forces. On December 19, Eisenhower, now alerted that the Germans were heading for the Meuse, stopped all Allied offensive action along his front. Patton was ordered to attack northward, changing the axis of his advance. The intention was to relieve the pressure on Hodges’s beleaguered forces. With Dietrich’s advance blocked in the north, Bastogne remained a severe hindrance to Manteuffel’s advance, sucking in as many as nine German divisions desperately required elsewhere. On December 22 the turning point came when the weather began to clear and Allied fighter-bombers appeared for the first time in force. On December 23 the Ninth U.S. Army Force flew nearly 1,300 sorties and on Christmas Eve 31 separate targets were attacked by over 2,000 Allied aircraft. The arrival of Allied air power was of critical importance. The already overstretched German supply organization was destroyed, Manteuffel’s panzers, already hampered by fuel shortages, poor roads, and facing dogged defense, were left vulnerable to air attack. At its limit the offensive penetrated nearly 60 miles. However, weakened by Bastogne’s determination not to surrender, and by his continuing supply problems and heavy losses, Manteuffel could advance no further. The retreating German armies had suffered over 100,000 casualties with the loss of nearly all their tanks and aircraft, and, while the Allies’ losses were almost as heavy, they could replace them, while the Germans, in the final months of the war, could not.

WORLD WAR II

Air Offensive In February 1942 the Allies introduced a policy of area bombing in which entire cities and towns would be bombed in an attempt to destroy civilian morale in Germany. One of the tactics developed by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the U.S. Army Air Force (USAAF) was the use of firestorms. Incendiary bombs, filled with phosphorus or petroleum jelly (napalm), were dropped in clusters over a specific target. The air above the bombed area became extremely hot and rose rapidly causing cold air to rush in at ground level from the outside, sucking people into the fire. The first man-made firestorm was created during the Allied bomber offensive against Hamburg and affected an area of 8.5 square miles. The city was attacked in strength by the RAF and the USAAF in a series of daylight and night raids during the period July 24 to 29, 1943. These attacks combined high explosive and incendiary bombs alternately, the effect of which was to render helpless the city’s firefighting force. It is estimated that the raids killed 42,000 civilians (Stackelberg 1999, 202). In addition to the heavy civilian casualties the bombing reduced half the city to rubble and the remainder had to be evacuated. Although aimed principally at the civilian population, the raids destroyed or damaged some 580 industrial and war production firms. The U-boat yards on the river Elbe escaped serious damage, but it was acknowledged that U-boat production suffered as a result of the casualties among the civilian workforce. Within five months of the attacks industrial output had returned to 80 percent of normal, but the city was never fully able to recover during the war. After the successful air offensive against Hamburg, the Allies were deter-

1177

mined to bring the same concentration of effort against Berlin, believing that the same scale of destruction inflicted on the German capital could bring about the early surrender of Germany. The RAF mounted three attacks against Berlin during the period August 23 to September 4, 1943, but with the loss of 126 bombers out of a total of 1,647 dispatched, the attacks proved costly. At the conference at Yalta (February 1945) Stalin asked for Allied air assistance to disrupt communications and prevent the movement of troops from the west to the eastern front. The attacks began two days after the conference in an attempt to take advantage of the Soviet offensive westward and add to the growing chaos in Germany by disrupting the flow of refugees fleeing in the face of the Soviet attack. The decision was taken to create a firestorm in the city of Dresden, the destruction of which would seriously hamper the movement of German reinforcements eastward. Large numbers of refugees fleeing from the advancing Red Army had expanded the population of the city above the normal 650,000. Between February 13 and 15, 1945, the RAF bombed Dresden with 796 Lancaster bombers. Over the next two days the USAAF sent 527 B17 bombers to complete the task. Approximately 650,000 bombs fell on the city and Dresden was almost totally destroyed as a result of the ensuing firestorm. Estimates vary as to the number of civilian casualties caused by the bombing. Allied figures suggest that 40,000 to 50,000 died in the air raids while German sources, ever mindful of the propaganda value, claimed as many as 100,000 people perished in the flames (Wall 2002, 273–274).

1178

WORLD WAR II

The morality of these attacks was questioned in the American press after an Associated Press correspondent was told “off the record” that the aim of the attack on the civilian population was not only to destroy large centers of population but to prevent relief supplies getting through to the casualties.

Rhine Crossing In March 1945 the river Rhine stood as the last natural obstacle barring the western Allies’ advance through Germany. Although elements of Lieutenant General William Simpson’s Ninth U.S. Army arrived on the west bank of the river opposite Düsseldorf on March 2, the retreating German forces had blown up all of the bridges. On March 7 at Remagen, Hodges’s First U.S. Army stumbled across an intact bridge. Although every effort was made to reinforce the bridgehead at Remagen, it was realized that the countryside east of the Rhine in this area would allow the Allies to break out only on a narrow front. To concentrate his resources on a single narrow bridgehead was against Eisenhower’s broad-front policy; the preference was to wait until other bridgeheads had been established and allow his forces to break out on a wide front. To put his broad-front policy into action, Eisenhower had Dever’s Sixth Army Group in the south, Bradley’s Twelfth Army Group in the center, and Montgomery’s TwentyFirst Army Group in the north. By March 10 Montgomery’s Twenty-First Army Group had reached the Rhine and began preparations for a crossing at Wesel, north of the Ruhr. Meanwhile, in the south Patton’s Third U.S. Army, supported by Lieutenant General Alexander Patch’s Seventh

U.S. Army, continued to clear the sector between the Moselle and the Rhine. On the night of March 22 to 23, Patton caught the German defenders totally by surprise and, in what was described as “a lightening move,” succeeded in forcing a crossing at Oppenheim, south of Mainz. In marked contrast to Patton, Montgomery’s crossings at Emmerich, Rees, Wesel, and Rheinberg the following night (March 23 to 24) were the end product of elaborate planning and massive artillery support. The attacks between March 22 and 24 were supported by British and U.S. airborne divisions operating east of Wesel. Over the following few days further crossings were made by the Third U.S. Army on the night of March 24 to 25 at Boppard and St. Goar, while the Seventh U.S. Army crossed near Worms on March 26 and the French crossed at Germersheim and Speyer on March 31. Eisenhower’s broad-front strategy had proved successful. In the space of three weeks the Western Allies had crossed the Rhine on a wide front of 320 km (198.7 miles). The crossings themselves represent three distinct types of operational river crossing. Hodges’s First U.S. Army made the most of the opportunity presented at Remagen, while the hasty crossing at Oppenheim by Patton’s Third U.S. Army caught the enemy unawares. Both were in contrast to the deliberate action of Montgomery’s Twenty-First Army Group. Between February and May 1945, American, British, and Russian troops crossed the rivers Rhine in the west and the Oder in the east, thus advancing deeply into the German heartland. At the end of April, Russian troops encircled Berlin and on April 25, American and Russian troops

WORLD WAR II, GERMAN AMERICAN SOLDIERS

met at the river Elbe. Five days later, Hitler committed suicide, thus rendering Germany leaderless. On May 7 and 8, 1945, the remaining German military leadership unconditionally surrendered to the American and Russian forces. At the war’s end, overall U.S. casualties in the European theater stood at 234,874 dead, 701,385 wounded, and 124,079 prisoners of war. In contrast to this, the Soviet forces fighting in eastern Europe suffered 12,000,000 dead and 5,700,000 captured. Some 17,000 Americans died while in captivity as the result of wounds, illness, and disease. In comparison to this, approximately 3 million Russian soldiers died while in captivity either in prisoner-of-war camps or after transfer to concentration camps (Stackelberg 1999, 213–214). Derek Rutherford Young See also Casablanca Conference/Unconditional Surrender; Hamburg; Nuremberg Trials; Tehran Conference; U.S. Plans for Postwar Germany (1941–1945); World War I References and Further Reading Beck, Earl R. Under the Bombs: The German Home Front, 1942–1945. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1986. Friedrich, Jörg. Der Brand: Deutschland im Bombenkrieg. Berlin: Propyläen, 2002. Hart, Liddell B. H. History of the Second World War. New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1971. Neumann, William L. After Victory: Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and the Making of the Peace. New York, London: Harper and Row, 1967. Sainsbury, Keith. The North African Landings. London: Davis Poynter, 1976. ———. The Turning Point: Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, and Chiang-Kai-Shek, 1943 the Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran Conferences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University, 1985. Smith, Gaddis. American Diplomacy during the Second World War, 1941–1945. New York, London: Wiley, 1965.

IN

1179

Stackelberg, Roderick. Hitler’s Germany: Origins, Interpretations, Legacies. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Strawson, John. The Battle for North Africa. New York: Ace, 1977. Wall, Donald D. Nazi Germany and World War II. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/ Thomson Learning, 2002. Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1994. Wheeler-Bennell, Sir John, and Anthony Nickills. The Semblance of Peace: The Political Settlement after the Second World War. London: Macmillan, 1972. Williamson, Gordon. Kriegsmarine U-Boats 1939–45. Oxford: Osprey, 2002.

WORLD WAR II, GERMAN AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN When World War II broke out, over 1.6 million people of German extraction were living in the United States. Approximately 600,000 of them had come to the United States since the end of World War I. Of this group, a little over half were still German citizens (O’Connor 1968, 437; Krammer 1997, 26). Most works on the experience of German Americans during World War II do not go beyond the generalization that the vast majority of German Americans opposed Nazism. Recent scholarship, however, has revealed that approximately 11,000 German Americans were interned during World War II. This discovery has led to political action. In October 2003, Senator Russell Feingold, a Democrat from Wisconsin, introduced legislation known as the Wartime Treatment Study Act. If passed, the act will establish two fact-finding commissions to review the treatment by the U.S. government of 11,000 German Americans, along with Italian Americans, and Jewish refugees during World War II.

1180

WORLD WAR II, GERMAN AMERICAN SOLDIERS

At the time of this writing, the act is awaiting approval from the U.S. Senate. But while these developments will enhance our knowledge about the German American experience during World War II, there is much work that needs to be done on the subject. To wit, no work has been done on German émigrés who fought in the U.S. Army during the war. These men represent a significant cohort; statistics from the U.S. Military Institute in Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, show that over 30,000 men of German birth served in the U.S. Army during World War II (Miller 1948, 274). Half of these men were not citizens of the United States when they entered the armed forces. There is a good chance that most of the noncitizens were recent émigrés who left Germany because of their opposition to the Nazi movement. Despite their significant numbers, little is known about these men as a group. Though several German American veterans of the U.S. Army have written their memoirs—Joachim von Elbe, Witness to History: A Refugee from the Third Reich (1988); Tom Frazier, Between the Lines (2001); Kurt Gabel, The Making of a Paratrooper, Airborne Training and Combat in World War II (1990); and Hans Schmitt, Lucky Victim. An Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times 1933–1946 (1989)—their works do not place their experiences in the wider context of the other native-born Germans who fought with them. Nor as of 2005 has any work been done to assess their contributions to the war effort, particularly in Germany. Taken collectively, these memoirs show that German émigré soldiers played an important and unheralded role in the war against Nazism and its aftermath—particularly in the European theater of operations.

IN

They were distinguished by their commitment to fight the war in general and Adolf Hitler’s regime in particular. As one of them put it, “I felt very strongly that I should go into combat, because these boys they came from Pennsylvania and South Dakota, they didn’t even know what a Nazi was. They had no idea what they were fighting for, and they were going to get killed for it, too. I felt I had a much higher obligation” (Kollander and O’Sullivan 2005). The memoirs of many other German émigrés echo these sentiments. But despite their commitment to the war effort, many of these men were placed under a cloud of suspicion because of their backgrounds. When the United States entered the war against Germany, Germans in the United States who were not yet citizens were labeled “enemy aliens.” This designation was particularly galling for those who had fled Hitler’s Germany. Some were cleared by draft boards in order to serve, others were investigated by the FBI before they entered the army. Even after they were cleared for service, German émigré soldiers found themselves in the same bind as many of their Japanese counterparts, who fought for a government that was at the same time interning many of their friends and families back home in detention camps. And after they returned from the war, many felt that the fact that they were Germans held them back from the kinds of jobs and promotions they thought they deserved. The fact remains, however, that these men made a unique contribution to the war effort. Along with their special sense of commitment to fight Hitler and Nazism, their language skills and their connection to the German way of life enabled them to do their various jobs—interpreting German documents, interrogat-

WORLD WAR II, INTERNMENT

OF

ing prisoners of war, and ferreting out war criminals and administering the occupation—more efficiently and rapidly than non-German-speaking American military personnel. Their treatment of their former countrymen appears to have been aboveboard and quite fair; this also made the Germans perhaps better disposed toward their American conquerors. Hence, these men not only fueled the U.S. campaign to defeat Hitler, they also played an important role in laying the foundation for good postwar relations between Germany and the United States. Patricia Kollander See also Heym, Stefan; Kissinger, Henry; World War I and German Americans; World War I, German Prisoners and Civilian Internees in References and Further Reading Kollander, Patricia, and John O’Sullivan. “I Must Be a Part of this War.” A German American’s Fight Against Hitler and Nazism Fordham University Press, forthcoming, Fall 2005. Krammer, Arnold. Undue Process: The Untold Story of America’s German Alien Internees. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997. Miller, Watson B. “Foreign Born in the US Army During World War II, with Special Reference to the Alien.” Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, US Military History Institute, 1948. O’Connor, Richard. The German-Americans, An Informal History. Boston: Little, Brown, 1968.

WORLD WAR II, INTERNMENT OF GERMANS FROM LATIN AMERICA IN From 1941 to 1945, the U.S. government, fearing Nazi subversion in Latin America, organized the expulsion of 4,058 German residents from 15 countries (Friedman

GERMANS

FROM

LATIN AMERICA

IN

1181

2003, 2). They were delivered to the U.S. military and interned in camps in Texas, Louisiana, and other states. American intelligence agents identified them as particularly dangerous, but subsequent investigations showed most to be harmless. Three-quarters were repatriated to Germany during the war and exchanged for citizens of the Americas. The remainder returned to their homes in Latin America. Alarm at the prospect of Nazi plotting in Latin America began in the 1930s, when the Nazi Party’s Auslandsorganisation (Foreign Organization) sought to enroll new members throughout the hemisphere. The drive disappointed its organizers, with membership ranging from 3 to 9 percent of German citizens in most countries (Friedman 2003, 27). Nevertheless, public demonstrations and other highly visible activities by uniformed Nazis contributed to a menacing image. American newspapers on the eve of the war reported erroneously of secret Nazi schemes to smuggle weapons, overthrow governments, and seize the Panama Canal. The rapid fall of France and other European countries in 1940 strengthened Americans’ apprehensions over the possibility of sabotage by ethnic Germans. When the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor brought the United States into World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the FBI to conduct surveillance of Fascist movements in Latin America. Working with agents from the army’s Military Intelligence Division and Office of Naval Intelligence, the FBI drew up lists of suspected German subversives. The State Department then prevailed upon 15 Latin American countries to arrest these individuals and turn them over to the United States for detention. The operation also resulted in the seizure of 2,264 Japanese,

1182

WORLD WAR II, INTERNMENT

OF

mostly from Peru, and 288 Italians (Friedman 2003, 2). Few if any of the Japanese had been politically active. Among the Italians were some supporters of Italy’s dictator Benito Mussolini who were accused of spreading Fascist propaganda, but most were selected on the basis of their nationality alone. The German contingent was more complex. The Department of Justice described the German group as “an ill-assorted miscellany of individuals representing . . . a complete cross-section of every political and national strain to be found in pre-war Germany” (Berle 1944). Between 10 and 15 percent of the German internees were Nazi Party members (Friedman 2003, 111). Several dozen were active recruiters for the Auslandsorganisation or had distributed pro-Nazi propaganda, and the FBI had evidence of espionage against eight internees. At the other end of the spectrum were eighty-one Jewish refugees who had fled Europe for Latin America, only to find themselves labeled suspected subversives and sent to the same camps as the real Nazis. The bulk of the group was made up of German immigrants who had lived for years or decades in Latin American countries. Most sympathized with their former homeland, but did nothing to further the German war effort. Some were deported by corrupt Latin American officials who then seized their property or were denounced by informants for cash payments from American intelligence. There were internment camps for Axis nationals in Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Mexico, Curaçao, and the Panama Canal Zone as well. While dictators such as Anastasio Somoza of Nicaragua and Rafael Trujillo of

GERMANS

FROM

LATIN AMERICA

IN

the Dominican Republic readily cooperated in the deportation program, the democratic governments of Costa Rica and Colombia at first resisted the request to expel their residents without legal process. The State Department used promises of increased aid and threats of economic boycott to encourage cooperation. The largest Latin American countries did not participate. Argentina maintained a pro-German policy for most of the war. Brazil, Chile, and Mexico, for reasons of national sovereignty, insisted on interning any foreign suspected subversives on their own territory. Upon arrival from Latin America, the deportees were interned at Camp Kenedy, Camp Seagoville, and Camp Crystal City, Texas; Camp Blanding, Florida; Stringtown, Oklahoma; Ft. Lincoln, North Dakota; Camp Forrest, Tennessee; and other sites. After an initial period of disorganization, the U.S. internment camps were improved to provide living conditions that compared favorably to the War Relocation Authority camps for Japanese and Japanese Americans. Internees received three hot meals a day. They were allowed to work for wages if they wished, and had access to a commissary and mail-order catalogues. Single women and married couples without children were housed at Seagoville, a former minimum-security women’s prison that resembled a college campus and was the most comfortable of the camps. The worst facility was the state prison at Stringtown, where internees slept in filthy, overcrowded cells with inadequate drinking water and infested by vermin. (Stringtown was closed in May 1943.) Interned families lived in simple shacks at Crystal City, where children could attend school in their native languages and play sports or use the large swimming pool built with volunteer internee labor. There were no

WORLD WARS I AND II, BRAZIL AND GERMANY

reports of abuses by the guards, but tension and occasional violence flared between the hostile factions of pro- and anti-Fascists in the camps. Before the war was over, three-quarters of the internees were repatriated to their countries of birth, or exchanged for citizens of the Americas interned by the Axis after protracted, indirect negotiations between the State Department and the Auswärtiges Amt (German Foreign Ministry). All adult males repatriated in either direction were required to sign an oath promising not to bear arms during the current conflict. Perhaps surprisingly, the German government respected this oath, refusing to permit repatriated men to serve in the armed forces. After the end of the fighting, the Truman administration sought to deport the remaining German internees to Germany, where they would go through the denazification process. Several filed suit in U.S. federal courts, which ruled that legal residents of foreign countries could not be detained without charge or deported to countries against their will, and so most Germans still in U.S. camps returned to their homes in Latin America. The remaining Japanese, and most German Jewish internees, stayed on and eventually became U.S. citizens. Max Paul Friedman See also Latin America, Nazi Party in; World War II References and Further Reading Berle, Adolf. “‘Internment at Large’ Program of Department of Justice,” 27 June 1944, in folder 711.5, Costa Rica: San José Embassy, Confidential File, Record Group 84, National Archives, Washington, DC. Friedman, Max Paul. Nazis and Good Neighbors: The United States Campaign against the Germans of Latin America in World War II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 2003.

IN

1183

Gaudig, Olaf, and Peter Veit. Der Widerschein des Nazismus: Das Bild des Nationalsozialismus in der deutschsprachigen Presse Argentiniens, Brasiliens und Chiles 1932–1945. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1997. Müller, Jürgen. Nationalsozialismus in Lateinamerika: Die Auslandsorganisation der NSDAP in Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile und Mexico, 1931–1945. Stuttgart: Verlag Hans-Dieter Heinz, 1997.

WORLD WARS I AND II, BRAZIL AND GERMANY IN Brazil declared war against Germany in both world wars—on October 25, 1917, and on August 22, 1942, respectively. The reason for the declaration of war was in both cases the German attacks on Brazilian merchant ships by German submarines. While Brazilian participation in World War I was merely symbolic, participation in World War II involved sending troops to the European theater of the war over a period of almost three years. In 1917 the Brazilian government limited its participation in the war to the shipment of needed medication and doctors to support the American, French, and British armies. During World War II, about 25,000 Brazilian soldiers contributed to the liberation of Italy from German occupation (1943–1945). More than 450 Brazilian soldiers died in World War II. Brazil’s facing Germany as an enemy had severe consequences for the German immigrant population in southern Brazil, which was already considered not integrated enough into Brazilian society. During World War II nationalism soared and all “foreigners” were seen as potential enemies. Since the declaration of the Estado Novo (new state) by Getúlio Vargas in 1937

1184

WORLD WARS I AND II, CANADA AND GERMANY

the nationalization of all “foreign” schools had started. This policy targeted the German school system in southern Brazil and successfully destroyed it. The shutdown of German schools, the presence of a National Socialist cell in Brazil, as well as the Integralism movement provided for an antiGerman climate hostile not only to Fascist organizations and ideologies but to everything German. After the declaration of war in 1942, anti-German riots broke out in nearly every city in which the Germans did not represent the majority of the population. German factories (for instance, the Suerdick cigar factory in Bahia and the Casas Pernambucanas textile factory and shops of the family Lundgreen), shops, and hotels were destroyed by rioting mobs. The largest demonstrations, however, took place in Porto Alegre and Pelotas (Rio Grande do Sul) in southern Brazil. The police persecuted and interned “subjects of the Axis powers” in internment camps similar to the camps for Japanese in the United States at the same time. While exact numbers are not available, it is assumed that several Germans and German Brazilians were killed at this time, among them Edmundo Bückner, Pedro Munsberg, and Otto Franz. Measures had been taken against the German population already during World War I, but the intensity and aftermath differed. During World War I, Germanspeaking newspapers were banned, German schools closed, and the use of the German language in public restricted. After the end of the war, all these restrictions were lifted and the Germans returned to their prewar life. Yet, after World War II, German schools were not reopened, the German-speaking press completely disappeared, and the use of the German lan-

IN

guage remained restricted to the home and to the older generations of German immigrants. World War I damaged the German culture but did not destroy it. World War II eradicated German life and identity. René Gertz See also Brazil; Latin America, Nazi Party in; World War I; World War II References and Further Reading Luebke, Frederic C. Germans in Brazil: A Comparative History of Cultural Conflict during World War I. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1987. Seitenfus, Ricardo Antônio Silva. O Brasil de Getúlio Vargas e a formação dos blocos. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1985.

WORLD WARS I AND II, CANADA AND GERMANY

IN The Great War cost the Dominion of Canada nearly 52,000 battle deaths and another 138,000 wounded or gassed, a fearful price for a population of just 8 million (Nicholson 1964, Appendices C and D, 548). That the vast majority of these losses were borne by the 5 million of British descent only served to magnify these losses for the dominant community. Most of the volunteers—the government only resorted to conscription during the final year of the war—were military novices who at most possessed some limited militia experience. With time, the Canadian Corps developed into a superb force of shock troops, winning a string of victories during 1917–1918. But their training was mostly combat itself, and the early bloody battles of Second Ypres, St. Eloi, Mount Sorrel, and the Somme exacted a heavy toll on the enthusiastic but painfully inexperienced army. As the war progressed, the Canadians reveled in their reputation as peerless at-

WORLD WARS I AND II, CANADA AND GERMANY

tackers. Where the Canadians entered the line, any “live and let live” arrangements previously in place were promptly discarded. Time and battle also hardened attitudes toward their enemy. The Dominion men would only return home when the war was won, and most realized that this could only be expedited by killing Germans. As Canadian fighter ace Donald MacLaren bluntly put it in a letter home: “We are here for one purpose only—to kill the Hun” (Bashow 2000, 71). Furthermore, Canadian soldiers were incessantly exposed to the worst of the anti-German atrocity propaganda by their officers and government, including the universally believed (but false) account of a Canadian prisoner crucified by his German captors. Such propaganda more than compensated for the respect the soldiers developed for their opponents’ fighting qualities. Finally, as English-speaking Canada took ownership of the war—and soldiers’ motives changed from fighting for king and empire to fighting for Canada itself—hatred of the “Hun” predictably intensified. In the victorious “Last Hundred Days” campaign, during which a defeated but still belligerent German army inflicted on the Canadian Corps one-fifth of its entire wartime losses, Canadian fighting men confirmed the merciless reputation they had already earned among ordinary German soldiers. The Canadian Corps’ password for the attack on Amiens in early August 1918 was “Llandovery Castle,” a reference to the torpedoing of a hospital ship of that name earlier in the year after which many of the surviving Canadian nurses, crew, and wounded had been machine-gunned in their lifeboats. Canadian novelist Charles Harrison, a veteran of Amiens, later vividly described in his novel

IN

1185

Generals Die in Bed the bloody toll that his comrades, inflamed by accounts of the U-boat atrocity, took of German soldiers attempting to surrender during the battle. The breakthrough that followed the victory at Amiens brought ordinary Canadian soldiers into contact with French civilians who had endured a harsh German occupation, and their stories seemed to confirm the worst propaganda accounts of “Hun” barbarism. As Lieutenant General Arthur Currie calmly noted in his diary: “our fellows . . . have become more bitter than ever against the Boche” (Dancocks 1985, 170–171). In the last days of fighting as the Canadian advance guard neared Mons, the adjutant of the 50th Battalion proudly noted of one day’s work that while too many prisoners had been taken “some very useful killing was also achieved” (Dancocks 1985, 170). If anything, the army’s shortlived participation in the occupation of the Rhine bridgeheads hardened Canadian attitudes toward the vanquished, and on occasion it was all the officers could do to keep the men in check when the latter perceived slights from the sullen, unrepentant (and starving) German populace. In its imagery of German cruelty and Germany’s complete responsibility for the war and the destruction it had wrought, English Canadians’ collective memory of the conflict in the years following the end of hostilities deviated little from the perception that had been forged by wartime passions. During the late 1930s, as war clouds gathered in Europe, Canadians generally distrusted the “new” Germany and despised Adolf Hitler, but were not prepared to fight unless forced to do so. When war finally came—a now-sovereign Canada officially declared war on September 10, 1939, a week after Britain—the public ap-

1186

WORLD WARS I AND II, CANADA AND GERMANY

proached the conflict with a grim determination that the Nazi evil must be confronted but none of the illusions of 1914 about a short, relatively bloodless war. Ravaged by Depression-inspired retrenchment and the pervasive isolationism of the population, Canada’s armed forces numbered only about 10,000 men, supplemented by perhaps 40,000 militia and reservists, and were even more ill-equipped for modern war than a generation earlier (Bercuson 1995, 7–14). In a war of “limited liabilities,” as the government’s initial policy phrased it, such shortcomings would matter little because Canada’s principal contribution to the Allied cause would be economic production, not expeditionary forces. With the fall of France in June 1940, Canada’s war quickly became total, a decision that launched a desperate effort to build a modern army, navy, and air force in wartime while simultaneously mobilizing the Dominion’s considerable economic potential. With the exception of 2,000 soldiers dispatched to assist in the futile defense of Hong Kong in 1941, Canada’s war was entirely European in its focus. The government, largely to keep passions against the large German Canadian population in check, declared that the enemy was not Germans but Nazis, and by and large, public opinion was so persuaded. Predictably, mounting a war effort as an ally of Great Britain again tested national unity, though the strains were less pronounced than during the Great War thanks to the fact that Ottawa did not have to introduce even a limited form of conscription for overseas service until late 1944. Although both francophone and immigrant (that is, continental European immigrant) Canadians proved more supportive than in 1914–1918, volunteer

IN

enlistments once again drew disproportionately from those Canadians of British descent. Altogether 1.1 million served, and Canadian military units were present in all major campaigns—in the air, at sea, and on land. Total battle fatalities reached 42,000, over 41,000 of them dying in the European theater, killed by Germans. The British Commonwealth/Empire Air Training Plan, which primarily operated in Canada, trained over 130,000 air crew members—half of them for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The great majority of these young men found their way into British Bomber Command and participated in the increasingly devastating “area bombing” attacks on German cities. From their perch 20,000 feet above the fires, most of the young Canadians contemplated that the slim likelihood of their own survival—nearly 10,000 would die—was probably greater than the odds faced by the German civilians below. At home, Canadian public opinion had little sympathy for the victims of Anglo-Canadian air power, whether the label was “Nazi” or “German.” The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) war focused almost entirely on the battle of the Atlantic. Expanding fiftyfold within three years, the RCN faced an almost impossible task through 1942 as the Royal Navy’s chief ally in the antisubmarine war. There was no lack of courage, but proper equipment and training were in desperately short supply. The Nazi menace beneath the waves brought the war as close to Canadian shores as it would get, and the October 1942 torpedoing of the ferry SS Caribou in the Gulf of St. Lawrence with heavy loss of life served as a sort of rerun of the Llandovery Castle incident. As Naval Minister Angus Macdonald reminded a national radio audience, if “there were any . . . who

WORLD WARS I AND II, CANADA AND GERMANY

did not realize that we are up against a ruthless and remorseless enemy, there can be no such Canadians now” (Hadley 1985, 142). The naval war, while pitiless in its own way, nonetheless only rarely brought Canadian sailors face to face with their enemy, and the RCN’s own losses were only 2,000 men (a comparable number of Canadian merchant seamen also perished in the icy waters of the North Atlantic). Thus, most Canadian sailors at least gave the Germans in their “iron coffins” grudging respect for their undeniable courage, especially after the tide in the battle shifted in the Allies’ favor. The Canadian army, built up in England to a force of five and a half divisions by 1942, spent the first four years of the war training first to defend the British Isles and then to participate in the promised invasion of France. The lone excursion was the disastrous raid on Dieppe staged on August 19, 1942. In a matter of hours, the 5,000 Canadian soldiers who comprised the bulk of the 6,000-man attacking force were decimated—with more than 900 killed and another 2,000 taken prisoner, most of them wounded, more prisoners than the Canadian army would suffer in the entire ten-month-long Northwest Europe campaign. As a further indignity, having captured a British order compelling the shackling of German prisoners to prevent their destruction of documents, German authorities singled out the hapless Canadian prisoners for similar treatment. At Britain’s request, Ottawa promptly retaliated against the many German prisoners held in Canada. Eventually, the intervention of the Red Cross led both sides to abandon shackling, but not before several German prisoner revolts had to be put down in Canada. The slaughter at Dieppe

IN

1187

steeled Canadian soldiers and the public alike—if any steeling had been necessary— to assume the worst from their opponent. Canadian soldiers participated in the invasion of Sicily and subsequent liberation of Italy beginning in 1943. During the Christmas 1943 Battle of Ortona—“Little Stalingrad” as the exhausted Canadian infantry ruefully named it—vicious houseto-house fighting against fanatic German paratroopers won the enemy more respect than hatred. This perception generally held throughout the Italian campaign where the miserable weather of “sunny Italy,” chronic shortages of supplies and reinforcements, and especially the disinterest of the home front in the fate of the “D-Day Dodgers” were a greater focus of resentment among Canadian soldiers than the stubborn defense offered by the German army. It would be different in Normandy, however. When the Canadian 3rd Division was savagely counterattacked at Juno Beach in the days immediately following their landing on D-Day, 156 Canadian prisoners, many of them wounded and all disarmed, were slaughtered in cold blood by members of the 12th Waffen SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend. Word quickly spread along the lines, and during the ensuing three months as the Canadians fought their way toward Caen and then Falaise, they gave no quarter in all but exterminating the SS unit. Canadian soldiers did, however, generally distinguish between the German army— professional, brave, and generally fighting by the accepted rules of civilized warfare— and the “criminal” Waffen SS. Liberating grateful French, Belgian, and Dutch civilians from the yoke of Nazi occupation had offered some consolation to Canadian soldiers daily risking their lives in a war won but not yet over. When

1188

WYLER,WILLIAM

they crossed into Germany in early 1945, attitudes noticeably hardened. Nonfraternization rules needed little enforcing, and few of the men felt any compassion for the long columns of bedraggled German civilian refugees who, as soldiers’ correspondence home widely conveyed, were just getting a taste of the misery they had handed so many others. Among those who could remember an earlier conflict, the bitterness often ran very deep. General Harry Crerar, commander of the 1st Canadian Army, refused even to show up at the surrender of German troops in Holland. Offering that he had spent his adult life fighting German militarism and had no stomach to shake hands with the enemy, he seconded a Corps commander to preside over the ceremonies in his place. Still, that one of his divisions was ably commanded by a Canadian named Hoffmeister said much about an antipathy toward “Germans” that was more appropriately focused than had been the case twenty-seven years earlier. Wartime animosity did not last, not the least because the onset of the cold war raised new enemies. To its credit, Canada would play a leading role in feeding hungry Germans during the desperate postwar years, and by 1950 German immigration was allowed to resume, with relatively little domestic opposition in evidence. Patrick H. Brennan See also World War I; World War II References and Further Reading Bashow, David L. Knights of the Air: Canadian Fighter Pilots in the First World War. Toronto: McArthur and Company, 2000. Bercuson, David J. Maple Leaf against the Axis: Canada’s Second World War. Toronto: Stoddart, 1995.

Dancocks, Daniel G. Sir Arthur Currie: A Biography. Toronto: Methuen, 1985. Granatstein, J. L., and Desmond Morton. Marching to Armageddon: Canadians and the Great War, 1914–1919. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1989. ———. A Nation Forged in Fire: Canadians and the Second World War, 1939–1945. Toronto: Lester & Orpen Dennys, 1989. Hadley, Michael L. U-Boats against Canada: German Submarines in Canadian Waters. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1985. Margolian, Howard. Conduct Unbecoming: The Story of the Murder of Canadian Prisoners of War in Normandy. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1998. Morton, Desmond. When Your Number’s Up: The Canadian Soldier in the First World War. Toronto: Random House, 1993. Nicholson, G. W. L. Canadian Expeditionary Force, 1914-1919. Ottawa: Queen’s Printer, 1964

WYLER,WILLIAM b. July 1, 1902; Mühlhausen, Alsace d. July 27, 1981; Beverly Hills, California German American film director. After studying music in Lausanne (Switzerland) and in Paris in his teen years, Wyler emigrated to the United States in 1920. His first job was at Universal Studios’ branch in New York City, where he was hired by Carl Laemmle, a German émigré and cousin of Wyler’s mother, who was a very influential producer and had introduced many German directors, such as Paul Leni and Karl Freund, to Hollywood in the 1920s. In 1922 Wyler became second assistant for various projects in Hollywood. Starting in 1925 he directed or codirected some forty Westerns and gained recognition after the silent period with Hell’s Heroes (1930).

WYLER,WILLIAM

Although he began in low-budget series, Wyler proved he could adapt his style to many genres and not just Westerns: drama (Counselor at Law, 1933); comedy (The Good Fairy, 1935); melodrama (Wuthering Heights, adaptation from Emily Brontë, 1939); and war films about the German bombings of England (Mrs. Miniver, 1942). Also, Wyler contributed to creating the Bette Davis legend in three popular feature films: Jezebel (1938), The Letter (1940), and The Little Foxes (1941). During World War II, Wyler became a member of the U.S. Air Force and while in England, directed two propaganda documentaries for the U.S. War Department: The Memphis Belle (1944) and Thunderbolt (1945). Back in the United States after the war, Wyler released his most important

1189

film, The Best Years of Our Lives (1946), which is a social critique of how the U.S. veterans were left behind after their sacrifice at war in Europe. Nevertheless, Wyler’s most famous film remains Ben-Hur (1959), a story he had already filmed as an assistant in a silent version (directed by Fred Niblo) in 1925. Presented by its producers as “The Greatest Movie of All Time,” this epic, flamboyant movie gained countless awards and soon became a classic. Yves Laberge See also Hollywood; Leni, Paul References and Further Reading Herman, Jan. A Talent for Trouble: The Life of Hollywood’s Most Acclaimed Director, William Wyler. New York: Da Capo, 1997. Kern, Sharon. William Wyler, a Guide to References and Resources. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1984.

Z ZAKRZEWSKA, MARIE ELIZABETH b. September 6, 1829; Berlin, Prussia d. May 12, 1902; Jamaica Plain, Massachusetts In 1852 Marie Elizabeth Zakrzewska was the most thoroughly trained medical woman in Berlin. At the age of twentytwo, she was installed as chief Accoucheuse (obstetrician or midwife) of the Royal Hospital Charité and as professor in the affiliated School for Midwives. Her work in Prussia was unique in that she became the only woman professor of midwifery teaching in a government institution during the nineteenth century. By deciding to emigrate, Zakrzewska cut short a German experiment in advanced women’s medical education. To the United States, however, she brought a thorough knowledge of hospital organization, management, and teaching methods learned in Berlin. Her legacy to American women’s medical education included four hospitals built through fundraising for the New York Infirmary for Women and Children, founding the Clinical Department of the New England Female Medical College in Boston, planning the Hospital of the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania, and establishing the

New England Hospital for Women and Children with its associated medical school, nursing school, and social services department in Boston. Zakrzewska’s early formal education was somewhat unusual in that she attended classes with boys in primary school. She recalled that teachers called her “unruly.” Her temperament did not lend itself easily to the three most important virtues taught in the Prussian Restoration era—namely, piety, patriotism, and submissiveness. In the meantime, her practical introduction to medical care began. Her grandfather, in organizing a charitable institution for war veterans, included living quarters for the sick and insane. There, she learned from nurses how close observation of patients could teach the causes and courses of diseases. When she supervised maternity wards in Berlin, her strict attention to cleanliness virtually eliminated deaths there from puerperal fever. Later, in the United States, she designed buildings for the Boston Hospital of the New England Women’s Medical College that completely isolated the building for maternity patients from structures housing infectious and general medical or surgical cases. These innovations derived from her own observations of disease transmission and predated

1191

1192

ZAKRZEWSKA, MARIE ELIZABETH

general acceptance of the techniques of Ignaz Semmelweis for aseptic and Joseph Lister for antiseptic medical care. During the time Zakrzewska was visiting Berlin medical institutions for charitable and familial reasons; her family was forced by financial reverses to enter paid medical service. Influential friends secured the mother’s admission to midwifery training so that she could support her family. After one and one-half years of practical study, student midwives moved into residence in the maternity hospital for six months. Zakrzewska’s mother boarded out her five younger children during this internship, but gained permission for elevenyear-old Marie to stay in the hospital because she needed eye treatments. During this time, Marie was treated by a Dr. Müller who allowed her the run of the hospital, including the morgue, where she satisfied her curiosity about corpses and dissection apparatus. He gave her books to read during school vacations, including the History of Midwifery and the History of Surgery. Thus, Zakrzewska began her first apprenticeship phase in learning medicine at the age of eleven by reading with a doctor. In 1843 when she was fourteen years old, she began assisting with her mother’s midwifery practice. Marie also provided private medical care for relatives, as did other women of her time. Through an aunt, Zakrzewska met a homeopath who taught her about the theories of Samuel Hahnemann and about then-prevalent Spiritualist beliefs, including mesmerism and magnetism. She studied scientific books on her own, while at the same time going through the usual discipline of German girls, learning plain sewing, dressmaking, and the management of the household. Because she was allowed to use her

leisure time as she pleased, she felt she was as free as it was possible for any German girl to be in those days. After attending the midwives school at the Charité Hospital in Berlin, Zakrzewska became—to the astonishment of many male colleagues—the assistant of Joseph Hermann Schmidt, the director of the royal hospital. When Schmidt announced that Zakrzewska was to be his future assistant, younger male members of the medical profession who coveted the post of midwifery professor began to organize in opposition to Schmidt’s plans. However, Schmidt considered educating women as an experiment in scientific possibilities. He made a point of inviting prominent medical men to witness his protégé’s final examination, saying he wanted to convince colleagues that she could do better than half of the young men at their examinations. Once she was admitted to the midwifery school, Schmidt trained her to take over his lectures. Zakrzewska constantly accompanied him on his hospital rounds, completing the second phase of an apprenticeship in medical practice, that of riding (visiting patients) with the doctor. When her mentor died on the very afternoon of her appointment to be superintendent of the Midwifery Department, Zakrzewska faced an uphill battle against her male colleagues. Without Schmidt’s influential support, Zakrzewska continued in her academic duties for only six months before bureaucratic pressures and professional intrigues drove her to resign her positions at the state hospital. Sympathetic sponsors then offered to raise funds to build a private maternity or surgical hospital for her to manage. As influential figures in the Berlin medical establishment rallied to her support, a window of opportunity for advanc-

ZAKRZEWSKA, MARIE ELIZABETH

ing the work of women as practitioners and teachers of modern medicine seemed to be opening. However, Zakrzewska remembered her mentor’s excitement when he received the first report of the Pennsylvania Female Medical College. He had concluded that in America women would become physicians like men, which showed that only in a republic could it be proved that science has no sex. Zakrzewska decided, therefore, to emigrate in order to offer her services to the new female medical college. She left Berlin and potential opportunities for her unusual career as a woman in German medical practice and education against the protests of family, friends, and professional colleagues. She later reported that she had idealized the freedom of the United States and especially the degree of reform in the position of women. After having been several years in the United States, very probably she would have thought twice before undertaking again to emigrate, for even the idealized freedom had lost a great deal of its charm when she considered how much better it could be. Upon arrival in New York, German acquaintances informed Zakrzewska that female physicians in America were only doctoresses or abortionists who advertised their services in the newspapers. Dr. Reisig, an émigré physician who had been employed by Zakrzewska’s mother for difficult deliveries in Berlin, offered Marie a nursing position in his office, saying that female physicians ranked lower than good nurses in the United States. Finally, a charity organization introduced Marie to Elizabeth Blackwell, who recognized the value of Zakrzewska’s German medical training and her potential worth to reform women’s education. Marie Zakrzewska earned her medical degree at the same college as Dr.

1193

Emily Blackwell; namely, Cleveland Medical College in 1856. In the United States, too, recognition of women’s abilities was rare among medical men. Zakrzewska recalled proudly that Dr. Cabot, a consulting physician for her Boston hospital, said in 1862 that it was not necessary to call him for forceps cases, as was the usual practice when women delivered babies, since she was so skilled with forceps and instruments. In fact, Zakrzewska was probably far better trained both in obstetrics and in basic physiology and anatomy, at that time, than most of her American colleagues, male and female. She deplored the prevalent medical education that focused only on cures without teaching underlying scientific theories about human organisms. When she requested that the first female medical college in Boston buy a microscope for classroom use, for example, founder Samuel Gregory denounced her fancy European notions of science. In the New England Hospital for Women and Children, Zakrzewska insisted on scientific record keeping. Her women medical students were required to sign prescriptions ordered from pharmacists—an innovation in medical accountability that surprised their patients, among others. Finally, she made the health of patients away from hospitals and doctors’ offices a concern through the work of her medical students in out-practice or home visits. She helped open the first social welfare offices connected to a medical institution in the United States. By the 1890s women interns at Zakrzewska’s New England Hospital for Women and Children who already possessed university degrees sometimes resented her insistence that they learn practical patient care from the ground up

1194

ZENGER, JOHN PETER

through attending to conditions of cleanliness in the wards, while learning about nutritive cooking for the sick, and from noting the basic social needs of patients for housing, clothing, and employment. This intensive practical training was patterned after Zakrzewska’s own broad experiences with the sick and invalided in Germany. At the turn of the century, however, an apprenticeship system of learning medicine through working long years under the supervision of a master practitioner was no longer acceptable to modern generations of medical students. In the end, from Marie Zakrzewska’s perspective, what the new female medical college graduates gained in book learning might well have been offset by their loss of practical hands-on experience at all levels of patient care. Paulette Meyer See also Kindergartners References and Further Reading Drachman, Virginia. Hospital with a Heart: Women Doctors and the Paradox of Separatism at the New England Hospital, 1862–1969. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, 1984. Meyer, Paulette. “From ‘Uncertifiable’ Medical Practice to the Berlin Clinic of Women Doctors: The Medical Career of Franziska Tiburtius (M.D. Zürich, 1876).” Dynamis: Acta Hispanica ad Medicinae Scientiarumque Historiam Illustrandam 19 (1999): 279–303. Tiburtius, Franziska. “The Development of the Study of Medicine for Women in Germany, and Present Status.” Canadian Practitioner and Review 34 (1909): 492–500. Vietor, Agnes, ed. A Woman’s Quest: The Life of Marie E. Zakrzewska, M.D. New York: Appleton, 1924. Zakrzewska, Marie E. “Report of One Hundred and Eighty-seven Cases of Midwifery in Private Practice.” Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 121, no. 23 (December 5, 1889): 557–560.

ZENGER, JOHN PETER b. November 5, 1697; Passau, Upper Palatinate d. July 28, 1746; New York City German American printer and journalist. The Zenger family, which was of noble descent, immigrated to the British North American colonies in 1710. The British government financed their trip. Zenger’s father died during the transatlantic journey. Though his mother survived the voyage to the New World, Governor Robert Hamilton assumed financial responsibility for Zenger and his brother. Zenger apprenticed under William Bradford, New York colony’s royal printer, from 1711 to 1719. He was indentured to Bradford for much of this time. After marrying Mary White of Philadelphia in 1719, Zenger and his bride moved to Chestertown, Maryland, where he would become that colony’s first printer. When Mary White died, Zenger returned to New York and married Anna Catherine Maulin in 1723. He worked again with Bradford, but opened his own printing establishment in 1726. Zenger published textbooks, religious tracts, and open letters. One of the textbooks he published, Peter Venema’s Arithmetic (1730), was the first mathematics textbook printed in the British North American colonies. On November 5, 1733, Zenger published the first edition of the New York Weekly Journal after allegedly having been persuaded to do so by James Alexander, a prominent, politically active colonist. The primary aim of the Journal was to counter the state-controlled newspaper, the New York Gazette, which supported Governor William Cosby. Alexander, who is believed

ZEPPELIN

to have funded the paper, and his Popular Party used the Journal to attack Cosby. Countering this criticism, Cosby called for copies of the Journal to be burned in October 1734. Zenger, as the publisher of the offending material, was charged with libel, and a bench warrant for his arrest was issued a month later. Zenger spent, subsequently, nine months in prison. The Scottish American lawyer Andrew Hamilton defended Zenger during the trial, which took place in the summer of 1735. Hamilton argued that the antiadministration commentary printed in the Journal was true and therefore not libelous. Despite the contrary opinion of the judge, a man handpicked by Cosby, the jury accepted Hamilton’s reasoning and acquitted Zenger of any guilt. This verdict is considered the first landmark decision in the history of American press freedom. Following the Cosby affair, Zenger was appointed public printer for the colony of New York in 1737 and that of New Jersey in 1738. Despite these appointments, Zenger died in relative poverty. After the death of her husband, Anna Zenger took over the publication of the New York Weekly Journal until 1748, when John Zenger, John Peter’s son from his first marriage, took over. However, the paper was discontinued in 1751. In honor of Zenger’s contributions to freedom of the press, the University of Arizona has awarded annually the John Peter and Anna Catherine Zenger Award for outstanding contributions that support press freedom and the people’s right to know since 1954. Christopher Brooks See also Printing and Publishing

1195

References and Further Reading Clark, Charles E. “John Peter Zenger.” In American National Biography. Vol. 24. New York: Oxford University, 1999, pp. 232–233. “John Peter and Anna Catherine Zenger Award.” At http://journalism.arizona.edu/dept/zenger/ (cited March 20, 2004). Putnam, William Lowell. John Peter Zenger and the Fundamental Freedom. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1997.

ZEPPELIN Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin, the inventor of the airship that was later named after him, was born July 8, 1838, in Konstanz, Württemberg. He began his academic education at the Polytechnikum in Stuttgart, entered the military academy at Ludwigsburg in 1855, and was made lieutenant in 1858. In 1863 Zeppelin traveled to the United States to be an observer on the side of the Union in the Civil War. During this trip he saw for the first time a tethered reconnaissance balloon. From 1882 to 1885, Zeppelin was in charge of the Ulanenregiment Nr. 19 in Ulm. From 1885 until 1889, he was minister of defense in Württemberg and afterward head of the Württemberg envoy in Berlin. Initially not taken seriously by Wilhelm II because of the Echterdingen incident, which destroyed the first powerful Zeppelin in a thunderstorm during a motor breakdown, his reputation changed quickly. In 1908, Zeppelin received the highest award of the German Empire, the Black Eagle Medal for the successful construction and promotion of airships. In 1898 Zeppelin had founded the Aktiengesellschaft zur Förderung der Motorschif-

1196

ZEPPELIN

Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin, inventor of the Zeppelin airship. (Library of Congress)

fahrt (Stock Company for the Promotion of Airships). On July 2, 1900, the first flight of a Zeppelin at Manzell on the Bodensee was reported to a stunned public. Zeppelin and his airship received much attention in the German and foreign press. The Sunday Examiner (San Francisco) reported on him under the headline “Count von Zeppelin, King of the Earth” (Clausberg 1979, 135). Although Zeppelin was laughed off as a lunatic initially, he slowly became one of the most admired Germans of his time. Like the Wright brothers, Zeppelin paved the way for air travel for his people. His popularity is evident in the many products that advertised using his name. The Zeppelin LZ3 was his first economic success. The German army acquired this model and renamed it Z1. However, the success story of the Zeppelin was sparked by a disaster. When a new model of the Zeppelin

crashed during its flight from Basel to Stuttgart at Echterdingen in 1908, the German people spontaneously donated 6 million reichsmarks for the establishment of the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin GmbH (Zeppelin Airship Construction Company). This donation allowed the company to survive until 1914. Afterward it received large-scale military contracts. In 1909 the Deutsche Luftschiff AG (German Airship Company) was founded to further the idea of domestic passenger service. The Zeppelin, considered to be a train in the air, was meant to open a new era of passenger and freight transportation for civilian, military, and colonial purposes. It did not depend on the existing infrastructure. Furthermore, it extended warfare into the air and thus represented the beginning of a modern air force. The airship used the Archimedean Axiom—the higher the gas volume of the ship, the easier it is to lift it. The Zeppelin had to be extremely big and light at the same time. All Zeppelins had an aluminum skeleton that was to secure the aerodynamics. The Dornier Metallbauten GmbH (Dornier Metal-Construction Company) was founded in 1913 for the sole purpose of producing this aluminum skeleton. The Maybach Motorenwerke GmbH (Maybach Motor Works Company) and the Zahnradfabrik (Cogwheel Factory) were established to produce small, lightweight motors for the Zeppelin. The outer skin of the Zeppelin was made from cotton, which later was coated with Zellon, a paint with an aluminum powder base. This reflective finish prevented gas from heating up too quickly and leaking. The Zeppelin consisted of several hydrogen-filled cells that were responsible for the lift. The gas density was achieved by the fabric of the balloon, which was lined with

ZEPPELIN

the intestinal skin from cows. About 500,000 cattle were needed to build one Zeppelin. In the LZ 129, the intestinal skin finally was replaced with a gelatin latex solution. The town of Friedrichshafen on Lake Constance became the first German center of this highly specialized airship production. In World War II the city still was considered to be an important wartime production site and therefore became a heavily bombed target. The Zeppelin made Germany the only European power to possess a successfully tested means of air travel. This fact fired up German nationalism and assured the German military of its superiority over France and Great Britain in World War I. Redirecting money from navy construction to the Zeppelin program allowed for the production of a large number of airships, which were used for aerial espionage and for bombing enemy ships and infrastructure. However, problems with navigation and accuracy prevented the airships from having a large impact on the war. Furthermore, the expanses for the airships, the hangers, and the personnel far exceeded these of an air corps. By 1916 it became obvious that airplanes were much more effective than airships. Nevertheless, the High Command insisted on employing airships until the end of the war. Zeppelins were used for nightly air raids over England, to divert English troops from the front lines in northern France, and to demoralize the civilian population. With the introduction of incendiary bombs, however, these flights turned into suicide missions. A single hit could mean the end for ship and crew. About 30 percent of all Zeppelins were destroyed by English antiairship defense forces. About 40 percent were destroyed by inclement weather. De-

1197

spite the risk and high losses, the military clung to the Zeppelin program until the end of the war. In 1918, only fifteen Zeppelins were still in service. The crews either destroyed them or surrendered them to the entente forces: L61 and LZ90 were handed over to Italy, L64 and L71 to England, L72 (renamed “Dixmuide” by the new French possessors) and LZ83 to France, L30 to Belgium, and L37 to Japan. Count Zeppelin did not live to witness the end of World War I (he died in 1917) nor the destruction of his airship fleet by the end of war. The Treaty of Versailles prohibited the production of airships with a volume of more than 1,000,000 cubic feet, as well as the existence of navigational airships. After the emergency landing of the LZ 96 (L4) on October 20, 1917, at Bourbonne-les-Bains, the Americans used this ship as a model for the construction of their first airship, the Starr Airship ZR 1 Shenandoah (Z=Zeppelin, R=Rigid). The Shenandoah crashed in a thunderstorm on September 2, 1925. Only after the conditions of the Versailles Treaty had been modified, did the business of Zeppelin construction take an upswing. These political changes were the precondition for the development of LZ 126 Los Angeles (ZR 3) by German engineers as part of the repayment of the indemnity accorded to Germany under the Treaty of Versailles. The LZ 126 was to cross the Atlantic to show that the Zeppelin had a future as a means of international travel. The crew of LZ 126 was given a very warm reception in the White House by President Calvin Coolidge, who took the opportunity to call the Zeppelin “a messenger of peace.” His speech caused widespread interest in this technology. William Randolph Hearst was

1198

ZUCKMAYER, CARL

the first to recognize the potential of the Zeppelin. His reporters were guests on nearly every airship journey and he continued to financially support the Zeppelin business. At first, the top of the Empire State Building was considered as a landing site for the airships. After this plan was abandoned because of technical difficulties, Lakehurst, New Jersey, was chosen. The LZ 126 symbolized the German American technology transfer, and its successful crossing of the Atlantic led to the founding of Goodyear-Zeppelin in Akron, Ohio, in 1924. This new enterprise employed thirteen German engineers, and began construction of American airships in 1928. Ten of these ships were to be employed in the crossing of the Pacific. However, the ZRS 4 Akron, finished in 1931, crashed in a thunderstorm on April 3/4, 1935, and 73 of the 76 crewmen died. The ZRS 5 Macon (1933) crashed on February 12, 1935, because of structural problems. The Macon was one of the most modern airships ever built. It was able to transport five small airplanes and could be employed for espionage. American attempts to produce a reliable airship failed in the end. The name Goodyear, however, became a synonymous with “blimps.” The complete military failure of the Zeppelin in World War I did not dampen its popularity with German engineers or the public. To build an even larger Zeppelin than before World War I, Hugo Eckener, the director of the Luftschiffbau Zeppelin, appealed to the public for donations in 1928. Because of this fund, the Zeppelin-Eckener-Spende, the LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin was constructed. It still counts as the largest airship built to date and was named after its inventor. It gained fame by crossing the Atlantic in 1928 and by cir-

cumnavigating the world between August 15 and September 4, 1929. Finished in 1936, the LZ 129 Hindenburg was the first and last Zeppelin built for the sole purpose of international passenger transportation. It connected Friedrichshafen, Württemberg, and Lakehurst, New Jersey, on its North Atlantic route. The Hindenburg disaster in 1937 marked the end of an era of airship transportation. In 1940 Hermann Göring ordered the last airship, LZ 130 Graf II, together with LZ 127 Graf Zeppelin into retirement. Erik Straub See also Eckener, Hugo; Hindenburg Disaster; Treaty of Versailles; World War I References and Further Reading Clausberg, Karl. Zeppelin: Die Geschichte eines unwahrscheinlichen Erfolges. Munich: Schirmer-Mosel, 1979. Cord, Henry. Airshipmen, Businessmen and Politics, 1890–1940. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1991. Robinson, Douglas H. The Zeppelin in Combat: A History of the German Naval Airship Division, 1912–1918. London: G. T. Foulis, 1962.

ZUCKMAYER, CARL b. December 27, 1896; Nackenheim, Hesse d. January 18, 1977;Visp, Switzerland German playwright, poet, and novelist who was a long-term émigré and visitor to the United States. Interpreting war as part of a natural, even cosmic order, Zuckmayer participated in World War I. In his memoirs, he gave a vivid impression of the spirit of the time, stating that the soldiers went to war like lovers do, in a kind of patriotic intoxication and under the impression that it was a just cause for which they were

ZUCKMAYER, CARL

fighting. One expected the unknown, a liberating adventure providing freedom from stagnation and conventions. That attitude of Zuckmayer’s, however, was to change due to an intellectual reorientation. An unsystematic course of studies in Frankfurt and Heidelberg, made possible due to the family’s sound financial background, fostered in him the development of Socialist and pacifist positions. Finding himself in Berlin in the 1920s, Zuckmayer was exposed to new literary trends like expressionism. The impulse in art in general to envisage a different, nonmechanical society and to stop the suffering stemming from a sense of alienation became manifest in a strong interest in America. The United States was generally perceived as the land of a humanist potential that war-struck Europe seemed to have lost. Zuckmayer shared this interest: he named his daughter Maria Winnetou after a male Indian character in the works of Karl May, and in his oeuvre, we find the unfinished draft of a novel called Sitting Bull dating from 1924/1925 as well as a play of the same period, which is set in the Wild West. The latter work is also proof of the friendship and cooperation Zuckmayer enjoyed with Bertolt Brecht; both playwrights briefly worked together at Max Reinhardt’s Deutsche Theater in Berlin. Subsequently, Zuckmayer rose to fame as a writer: his comedy of 1925, Der fröhliche Weinberg (The Merry Vineyard), proved a great success as did his script for the movie Der blaue Engel (The Blue Angel), which was cowritten with Robert Liebmann and directed by Joseph von Sternberg in 1930. It was based on the 1905 novel Professor Unrat (Small Town Tyrant) by Heinrich Mann and featured Emil Jannings and Marlene Dietrich. What is arguably

1199

Zuckmayer’s most popular play, Der Hauptmann von Köpenick (The Captain of Köpenick), subtitled “a German fairytale,” was based on a true story: a former prisoner desperately tries to settle down in Berlin, but is denied the necessary passport. It is only when he disguises himself as a captain that the authorities readily yield to his orders. The play was premiered in Berlin in 1931 and elicited ferocious attacks from the Nazi Party (NSDAP), which rightly perceived it as denigrating and ridiculing the Prussian sternness of the military. The Nazis started to focus on Zuckmayer’s family background (the mother was Jewish) and, consequently, Zuckmayer was forbidden work from 1933 onward and emigrated to a village near Salzburg in Austria that same year. He obtained Austrian citizenship in 1938, but fled to Switzerland shortly thereafter because of the annexation of Austria by Nazi Germany. The year after, when the Nazis had terminated Zuckmayer’s citizenship for good, the family arrived in New York, where the journalist Dorothy Thompson supported them. Although prominent Germans in exile—such as Marlene Dietrich, Thomas Mann, and Albert Einstein—wrote letters in Zuckmayer’s favor to enable him to continue with his literary work, he struggled to make a living. To Zuckmayer, emigrating to the United States, however safe a refuge, had involved the loss of linguistic competence. He assumed that he was on a journey without return and became homesick. Various works in English, amongst them a play cowritten with Fritz Kortner, were not as successful as he had expected. From 1942 on, he published essays and short prose in the German American, a journal for Germans in exile. Still, Zuckmayer found

1200

ZUCKMAYER, CARL

short-term work as a playwright in Hollywood, but was bordering on depression in what he regarded as the “purgatory” of Los Angeles. He moved on to the New School for Social Research in New York and also joined Erwin Piscator’s Dramatic Workshop there, a kind of university-in-exile. Zuckmayer subsequently became a farmer in Barnard, Vermont, and then moved on to Woodstock, also in Vermont, in 1945. The forerunner of the CIA, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), invited him to come to Washington, D.C., to discuss plans for relaunching cultural enterprises in postwar Europe. Despite the FBI surveying his mail, Zuckmayer became head of the German section of the War Department, his task being to act as a civil mediator between the occupying forces and the Germans, to initiate and to improve the state of cultural life in the western occupation zones of Germany and in Berlin. His activities also included reporting back on the state of cultural affairs in Austria and Switzerland. In 1947, the Voice of America, a radio station attempting to promote understanding for the reed-

ucation policy in Germany, also turned to him for his expertise. In the same year, Zuckmayer’s literary résumé of the Third Reich, Des Teufels General (The Devil’s General), which previously had been censored by the American occupying forces due to the military leitmotif of its plot, was finally premiered in Germany. The play revolves around the life of General Ernst Udet, an antiNazi obsessed with aircraft, who, in the beginning, cooperated with the Nazis, then committed suicide in 1941. From 1951 on, Zuckmayer lived in the United States. When at last returning to Europe in 1958, he decided to settle in Saas-Fee, Switzerland. Markus Oliver Spitz See also Brecht, Bertolt; Council for a Democratic Germany; Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene; Einstein, Albert; Intellectual Exile; Jannings, Emil; Mann, Thomas; May, Karl Friedrich; Reinhardt, Max; Sternberg, Josef von, Thompson, Dorothy References and Further Reading Wagener, Hans. Carl Zuckmayer: Tracing Endangered Fame. Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1995.

TRANSLATORS AND CONTRIBUTORS Translators Thomas Adam University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX

Richard John Ascárate George Washington University Washington, DC Ofer Ashkenazi Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel

Michael Dailey Arlington, TX Linda Williams Arlington, TX Sarah Wobick University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI

Contributors Thomas Adam University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX Bianka J. Adams Defense Threat Reduction Agency U.S. Department of Defense Ft. McNair, DC Esref Aksu Victoria University of Wellington Wellington New Zealand Anabel Aliaga-Buchenau University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte, NC Marina Arnold Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel, Lower Saxony Germany

R. Bryan Bademan Sacred Heart University Fairfield, CT Anni Baker Wheaton College Norton, MA Tibor Baukal Drew University Madison, NJ Claudia A. Becker Loyola University Chicago, IL James M. Bergquist Villanova University Villanova, PA Jeffrey B. Berlin Langhorne, PA Walther L. Bernecker Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Nürnberg, Bavaria Germany Claus Bernet Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg Halle, Saxony-Anhalt Germany

1201

1202

LIST

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Thomas E. Blantz University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN Hans C. Boas University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX Susan R. Boettcher University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX Patrick H. Brennan University of Calgary Calgary, Alberta Canada Tobias Brinkmann University of Southampton Southampton, England United Kingdom Heinz Peter Brogiato Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig, Saxony Germany Christopher Brooks Center for North American Studies (ZENAF) Frankfurt am Main, Hesse Germany Suzanne Brown-Fleming United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies Washington, DC Eberhard Brüning Universität Leipzig Leipzig, Saxony Germany Jürgen Buchenau University of North Carolina, Charlotte Charlotte, NC Annette Bühler-Dietrich Universität Stuttgart Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg Germany David Buisseret University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX Robert W. Burg Purdue University West Lafayette, IN Dieter Buse Laurentian University

Sudbury, Ontario Canada Lamar Cecil Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA Thomas Cieslik Tecnologico de Monterrey (ITESM), Campus Estado de Mexico Mexico-City Mexico Luke Clossey University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA Rory Conley Leonardtown, MD Claude Conter National Center of Literature in Mersch Mersch, Luxemburg Christel Krause Converse College Park, MD Wolfgang Crom Berliner Staatsbibliothek Berlin Germany Kurt Culbertson Design Workshop Aspen, CO Melvin Davis Middle Tennessee State University Murfreesboro, TN Guillaume de Syon Albright College Reading, PA Ute Deichmann Leo Baeck Institute, London/Universität zu Köln London/Köln United Kingdom/Germany Petra DeWitt University of Missouri-Rolla Rolla, MO Marc Dluger Loyola University Chicago, IL Stacy Dorgan CUNY Graduate Center New York, NY

LIST Jerry Drake Texas General Land Office Archives and Records Austin, TX Martin Dreher Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos Sao Leopoldo/RS Brazil James Dwyer International United Methodist Church Hamburg Germany Alexander Emmerich Universität Heidelberg Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg Germany Patrick Erben Emory University Atlanta, GA Bernd Essmann Universität Dortmund Dortmund, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Heiner M. Fangerau Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Brian Feltman Ohio State University Columbus, OH Katrin Fischer Harvard University Cambridge, MA Caroline Flick Berlin Germany Marta Folio Hamilton College Clinton, NY Max Paul Friedman Florida State University Tallahassee, FL Ulrich Frisse Nipissing University North Bay, Ontario Canada Eckhard Fuchs Universität Mannheim

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Mannheim, Baden-Württemberg Germany Jay Howard Geller University of Tulsa Tulsa, OK René E. Gertz Freie Universität Berlin Berlin Germany Klaus F. Gille Duits Seminarium Amsterdam, Netherlands Philip Gleason University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN Adi Gordon Hebrew University Jerusalem Israel Tom Goyens Tidewater Community College Norfolk, VA Grant W. Grams University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Canada Walter Grünzweig Universität Dortmund Dortmund, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Imgart Grützmann UNISINOS São Leopoldo, Rio Grande do Sul Brazil Diane J. Guido Azusa Pacific University Azusa, CA Claudia Haake University of York York, United Kingdom Mark Häberlein Universität Bamberg Bamberg, Bavaria Germany Klaus Hanson University of Wyoming Laramie, WY

1203

1204

LIST

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Christiane Harzig Arizona State University Tempe, AZ

Douglas Kellner University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

John Heartfield New York, NY

Franziska Kirchner Berlin Germany

Laura J. Hilton Muskingum College New Concord, OH Wolfgang Hochbruck Universität Freiburg Freiburg, Baden-Württemberg Germany

Hans Michael Kloth Der Spiegel Hamburg Germany Patricia Kollander Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, FL

Michaela Hoenicke Moore York University Toronto, Ontario Canada

Robert L. Kusmer University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN

Dirk Hoerder Arizona State University Tempe, AZ

Yves Laberge Quebec City, Quebec Canada

Dieter Hoffmann Max Planck Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte Berlin Berlin Germany

Raimund Lammersdorf Bayerische Amerika-Akademie München, Bavaria Germany

Annette R. Hofmann Universität Münster Münster, North Rhine Westphalia Germany

Joachim Lerchenmüller Staatliches Seminar für Didaktik und Lehrerbildung Tübingen Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg Germany

Tim Hoheisel Cass County Historical Society at Bonanzaville West Fargo, ND

Kevin M. Levin St. Anne’s—Belfield School Charlottesville, VA

Adam Hornbuckle College Park, MD

Sonja Levsen Universität Tübingen Tübingen, Baden-Württemberg Germany

Erika Hughes University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI Christiane Job University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada Charles Johnson Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA Christian B. Keller Gettysburg College Gettysburg, PA

Joel A. Lewis Central Michigan University Mount Pleasant, MI Blanche M. G. Linden Ft. Lauderdale, FL Gabriele Lingelbach Universität Trier Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate Germany Ute Lischke Wilfrid Laurier University Waterloo, Ontario Canada

LIST Matthias M. Maass Seoul National University Seoul South Korea Wendy A. Maier Oakton Community College Des Plaines, IL Sean M. Maloney Royal Military College of Canada Kingston, Ontario Canada Dr. David E. Marshall University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN Christof Mauch German Historical Institute Washington, DC Washington, DC James R. Maxeiner University of Baltimore School of Law Baltimore, MD Rob McCormick University of South Carolina Upstate Spartanburg, SC Michael McGregor Arlington, VA David T. McNab York University Toronto, Ontario Canada Holger M. Meding Universität zu Köln Köln, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Frank Mehring Harvard University Cambridge, MA Jörg Meindl University of Kansas Lawrence, KS Paulette Meyer Portland, OR Deirdre M. Moloney George Mason University Fairfax, VA Agata Monkiewicz University of Waterloo

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Waterloo, Ontario Canada Alice Reed Morrison North Troy, VT Elise B. Mueller Duke University Durham, NC Kurt Mueller-Vollmer Stanford University Stanford, CA Elsa Muller Wyndmoor, PA Daniela Münkel Universität Hannover Hannover, Lower Saxony Germany R. Boyd Murphree State Archives of Florida Tallahassee, FL David Thomas Murphy Anderson University Anderson, IN Caryn E. Neumann Ohio State University Columbus, OH Anke Ortlepp Universität zu Köln Köln, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Kevin Ostoyich University of Montana Missoula, MT Cornelius Partsch Western Washington University Bellingham, WA Gilda Pasetzky Université de Besançon France Rainer Pöppinghege Universität Paderborn Paderborn, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Lisa Porter Cheekwood Museum of Art Nashville, TN

1205

1206

LIST

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Barbara Potthast Universität zu Köln Köln, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Michael Putnam University of Kansas Lawrence, KS Ellen G. Rafshoon Georgia State University Atlanta, GA Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen University of Miami Coral Gables, FL John David Rausch, Jr. West Texas A&M University Canyon, TX Andreas Reichstein Bremen Germany Steven P. Remy City University of New York, Brooklyn College Brooklyn, NY Gil Ribak University of Wisconsin Madison, WI Annette Richardson University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta Canada Stefan Rinke Katholische Universität Eichstätt Eichstätt, Bavaria Germany LaVern J. Rippley St. Olaf College Northfield, MN William Roba Scott Community College Bettendorf, IA Christiane Rösch Universität Heidelberg Heidelberg, Baden-Württemberg Germany Ralf Roth Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main Frankfurt am Main, Hesse Germany

Michael Rudloff Arbeitsgemeinschaft Staat und Gesellschaft e.V. (asg) Chemnitz/Leipzig, Saxony Germany David L. Salvaterra Loras College Dubuque, IA M. David Samson Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester, MA Margaret Sankey Minnesota State University, Moorhead Moorhead, MN Tilman Sauerbruch Universität Bonn Bonn, North Rhine Westphalia Germany Bernd Schaefer German Historical Institute Washington, DC Washington, DC Peter K. Schäfer Germany Michaela Schmölz-Häberlein Bamberg, Bavaria Germany Ulrich Schnakenberg Universität Kassel Kassel, Hesse Germany Timothy Schroer University of West Georgia Carrollton, GA Alexander Schug Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany Friedrich E. Schuler Portland State University Portland, OR Frank Schumacher Universität Erfurt Erfurt, Thuringia Germany Angela Schwarz Universität Duisburg-Essen Duisburg, North Rhine Westphalia Germany

LIST

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

Michael Shaughnessy Washington and Jefferson College Washington, PA

Tommy Tobiassen Rio de Janeiro Brazil

Gregory Shealy University of Wisconsin Madison, WI

Douglas Tobler Brigham Young University Provo, UT

Gareth A. Shellman University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, WI

Steven Totosy de Zepetnek Universität Halle-Wittenberg Halle, Saxony-Anhalt Germany

Sandra Singer Alfred University Alfred, NY James M. Skidmore University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada Robert W. Smith Worcester State College Worcester, MA John David Smith University of North Carolina at Charlotte Charlotte, NC Kerri Pierce Pennsylvania State University State College, PA Markus Oliver Spitz Luxembourg Ingo R. Stoehr Kilgore College Kilgore, TX Jeff P. Stone University of Texas at Arlington Arlington, TX Walter Struve Graduate Center and City College/City University of New York New York, NY Ulrike Thoms Institut für die Geschichte der Medizin Freie Universität Berlin/Humboldt Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany Gregor Thuswaldner Gordon College Wenham, MD

Corinna Treitel Harvard University Cambridge, MA Heinz Tschachler Universität Klagenfurt Klagenfurt, Carinthia Austria Kirk Tyvela Ohio University Athens, OH Jefford B. Vahlbusch University of Wisconsin Eau Claire, WI David L. Valuska Kutztown University Kutztown, PA Lorie A. Vanchena Creighton University Omaha, NE James Varn Johnson C. Smith University Charlotte, NC Patricia Vertinsky University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada L. Allen Viehmeyer Schwenkfelder Library and Heritage Center Pennsburg, PA Patrik von zur Mühlen Friedrich Ebert Stiftung Bonn, North Rhine Westphalia Germany John T. Walker Fullerton College Fullerton, CA

1207

1208

LIST

OF

CONTRIBUTORS

John Walko Meriden, CT Wardenga, Ute Leibniz-Institut für Länderkunde Leipzig, Saxony Germany Thomas White Duquesne University Pittsburgh, PA Siegrun Wildner University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA Cornelia B. Wilhelm Universität München München, Bavaria Germany Sarah Wobick University of Wisconsin Madison, WI

Kerstin Wolff Archiv der deutschen Frauenbewegung Kassel, Hesse Germany Stefan Wolff Universität München München, Bavaria Germany Katja Wüstenbecker Philipps-Universität Marburg, Hesse Germany Derek R. Young University of Glasgow Glasgow, Scotland United Kingdom Andrew Yox Northeast Texas Community College Mount Pleasant, TX

Gregory H. Wolf North Central College Naperville, IL

Stefan Zahlmann Universität Konstanz Konstanz, Baden-Württemberg Germany

Stephanie Grauman Wolf McNeil Center for Early American Studies University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA

David Zersen Concordia University at Austin Austin, TX Andrew Zimmerman George Washington University Washington, DC

INDEX Note: bold page numbers indicate main encyclopedia entries; italic page numbers indicate pictures. AA. See German Foreign Office AAD. See Academic Exchange Service AAL. See Aid Association for Lutherans AAU. See Amateur Athletic Union Abend-Anzeiger (Evening Informer), 93 Abendpost (Evening Post), 232–233, 542 Aberdeen, Lady, 565 Abish, Walter, 1050 “About Combustion Tests” (Braun), 163 About the Climate of the Argentinean Republic (Über das Klima der Argentinischen Republik; Burmeister), 197 Abwehr, 156 Abyssinian Baptist Church, 155 Academic Exchange Service (AAD; Akademischer Austauschdienst), 432 Academy of Social and Economic Sciences, 273 Academy of the Arts (Akademie der Künste), 493

Ação Integralista Brasileira, 561–562 ACC. See Allied Control Council Account of a Society at Harmony (twenty five miles from Pittsburg), Pennsylvania, United States of America, in the years 1806 and 1807, and 1809, 1810, and 1811 (Melish), 483 Acculturation, immigration and, 7–8, 11. See also Anti–German sentiment; Assimilation; Nativism Acheson, Dean, Stalin Note and, 998–999 Achternbusch, Herbert, 501 ACK. See Association of Christian Churches Adam Open AG, 198, 199 Adams, Ansel, 884 Adams, John, 37, 1053–1054 Adams, John Quincy, 37–38, 452, 532, 587, 965. See also Treaty of 1785 Addams, (Laura) Jane, 17, 38–39, 53, 193, 609. See also Anarchists; Chicago; International Council of Women Adelbert, Felix, 120 Adelbert, Julius, 120 Adelbert, Waldemar, 120

1209

Adelsverein (Society for the Protection of German Immigrants in Texas; Mainzer Verein; TexasVerein; Verein zum Schutze deutscher Einwanderer in Texas), 40–42, 265–266, 315, 381–382, 1026–1027. See also Darmstaedters; Ernst, Friedrich; Fredericksburg, Texas; Meusbach, John O.; New Braunfels, Texas; Sealsfield, Charles; Solms-Braunfels, Prince Carl of Adelung, Friedrich von, 1090 Adelung, Johann Christoph, 43–45, 1088, 1089, 1090. See also Humboldt, Wilhelm von; Humboldt, Alexander von; Vater, Johann Severin Adenauer, Konrad, 89, 114, 186, 364, 365, 438 Stalin Note and, 998–999 Adenauer administration, 161 ADL. See Anti-Defamation League Adler, Cyrus, 940 Adler, Felix, 593, 622 Adler, Mortimer, 863 Adler, Samuel, 592, 1149

1210

INDEX

Admiral Graf Spee, 45–46. See also Argentina; Chile; World War I; World War II Adolf, the Superman (Heartfield), 491 Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund, 47–48, 88, 180, 267, 378, 379–381, 517, 562, 626, 720, 949, 1049. See also Brecht, Bertold; Horckheimer, Max; Frankfurt School; Intellectual exile; Kracauer, Siegfried; Schönberg, Arnold The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle (TV cartoon), 340 Advisory Committee on Post-War Foreign Policy and, 1079 AEF. See American Expeditionary Force AEG. See Allgemeine ElektricitätsGesellschaft AELC. See Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches Aesthetic Theory (Adorno), 48 AFCS. See American Federation of Catholic Societies AFGF. See American Friends for German Freedom African Americans, 48–51 in American Civil War, 64–65 as GIs, in West Germany, 50 jazz and, 49 Nazism and, 49–50 Olympic games and, 49 racism and, 48–49, 49–50, 50–51 African languages, 43, 44, 45 Against the Un-German Spirit (Wider den Undeutschen Geist), 562 Agassiz, Louis, 914, 1057

Age of the Baroque (Friedrich), 391 Agnew, Mary, 1021 Agrarian Reform and Nationalization of Copper Mining in Chile (Agrarreform und Nationalisierung des Kupferbergbaues; Weischet), 1122 Aguirre, Don Lope de, 500 Aguirre: The Wrath of God (Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes; film), 500 Aid Association for Lutherans (AAL), 710 Aid Association (Hilfsverein), 334 Aid Organization of the Evangelical Church in Germany (Hilfswerk der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland), 259 AIDS, 591 Air Force One (film), 346 AIZ. See Arbeiter Illustrierte Zeitung AJC. See American Jewish Committee Alabama: 2000 Light Years from Home (film), 1132 Alaska, 225 Alberdi, Juan Bautista, 235 Albers, Anni, 126 Albers, Josef, 123, 125, 126 Albert, Heinrich, 1169 Albert Ballin (passenger liner), 482 Albright, Jacob (Jakob Albrecht), 58 ALC. See American Lutheran Church Alcott, Bronson, 607, 1041 Alcott, Louisa May, 1048 Aldan, Felix, 379 Alencar Castelo Branco, Humberto de, 403 Alexander, James, 1194–1195 Alexander I, 638, 1101 Alexander II, 386, 779, 1101 Alfred A. Knopf Publishing Company, 520–521

Alice in the Cities (Alice in den Städten; film), 1132 Alien and Sedition Act, 134, 412 Alien Enemy Regulation of 1917, 1167 Alien Property Custodian, 247 Alien Registration Act, 412 Alienation effect, 491 All-Russian National Socialist Labor Party, 410 Allard, Jean V., 214 Allen, Irwin, 697 Allende, Salvador, 919, 920, 1123 Allerhand Heiteres aus Californien (Humorous Thoughts from California; Kirchhoff ), 613 Allgemeine ElektricitätsGesellschaft (AEG; General Electricity Company), 95 Allgemeine Lehrerzeitung für Rio Grande do Sul (General Teachers’ Newspaper for Rio Grande do Sul), 442 Alliance for Germany, 439 Allied Control Commission Law 10, 839 Allied Control Council (ACC), 66, 68 Allied Reparations Commission, 269, 270–271 Allman, John, 452 Almanacs. See German almanacs Alraune (film), 1017 Altenburg, Matthias, 688 Altgeld, John Peter, 51–53, 490, 539, 896. See also Addams, Jane; Anarchists; Chicago; Haymarket Riot; Illinois; Politics, and German Americans Altmann, Charlotte Elisabeth (Lotte), 527 Alvarez, Luis, 149

INDEX Amalia, Princess (pseud. Amalia Heiter), 587 Amalia Heiter. See Amalia, Princess Amana Appliances, 56 Amana Church Society, 56 Amana Colonies, 53–56 in Buffalo, New York, 55–56 Community of True Inspiration and, 54–55 history of Amana people in, 54 in Iowa, 53, 55–56 lifestyle in, 56 religion in, 56 religious beliefs of, 54–55 See also Buffalo, New York; Iowa, German dialects in; Pietism Amana Society, 53, 56 Amateur Athletic Union (AAU), 847 Amelung, Christian F., 452 Amelung, Johann Friedrich, 452–453 America and a New World Order (Howard), 198 America House (AmerikaHäuser), 366, 448 America Primer for Grownup Germans: An Attempt to Explain What Has Not Been Understood (Boveri), 159 America the Paradise (Paradies Amerika; Kisch), 614 American Association of Teachers of German, 422 American churches in Germany, 57–61 See also individual churches; under individual countries and U.S. cities and states American Citizens League, 247 American Civil War African Americans in, 64–65

antisemitism during, 85 Anzeiger Des Westens and, 92 assimilation during, 99 Buffalo, New York, during, 186 Chicago during, 229–230, 231–232 Chile during, 238–239 Cincinnati during, 241 financial support of Frankfurt bankers for, 61–62, 376. See also Frankfurt am Main, citizens of, in U.S. Fredericksburg during, 384 German-language press during, 824 German participants in, 62–65 migration, GermanJewish, during, 17, 18 New Braunfels, Texas, during, 814 Norddeutscher Lloyd during, 827 politics, German Americans and, 895 printing and publishing during, 906–907 St. Vincent Monastery and College during, 995 Texas during, 1027–1028 travel literature during, 1047 Turner societies during, 1061 See also 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; FortyEighters; Hecker, Friedrich; Koerner, Gustave; Nueces, Battle of the; Osterhaus, Peter J.; Salomon, Edward S.; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz; Willich, August von American Council of Learned Societies, 422 American Eugenics Society, 324

1211

American Expeditionary Force (AEF), 1161–1162 American Federation of Catholic Societies (AFCS), 419, 457 American Federation of Labor, 87 American Flint Glass Manufactory, 452 The American Friend (Der Amerikanische Freund; film), 353, 1132 American Friends for German Freedom (AFGF), 262 American Friends Southern Negro Student Committee, 267 American Fur Company, 106 American German Student Exchange, 432 American Helium Control Act of 1927, 509 American Hunting and Travel Adventures from My Life in the Western Indian Plains (Amerikanische Jagd- und Reiseabenteuern aus meinem Leben in den westlichen Indianergebieten; Strubberg), 557, 1018 American Indian languages, 43–45 American Indians captivity narratives and, 543–545 American Institute for Contemporary Studies, 422, 423 The American Israelite, 17 American Jewish Committee (AJC), 18, 89 American Jewish Congress, 87 American Jewish Historical Society, 658 American Journal of Mathematics, 588 American Lutheran Church (ALC), 710, 711

1212

INDEX

American Nationalist Association, 410 American Occupation Zone, 65–69, 89 American GIs in, 448 chewing gum sales in, 228 German American Clubs in, 413 American Overseas Airlines at La Guardia, 292 American Patriotism and other Social Studies (Münsterberg), 796 American Problems from the Point of View of a Psychologist (Münsterberg), 796 American Protective League (APL), 40, 247, 1165–1166, 1167 American Quarterly, 307 American Railway Union, 53 American Reform movement, 301 American Revolution, 37, 105 American SchleswigHolstein Heritage Society (ASHHS), 567 American Social Science Association, 668 American student movement, 434 American students, at German universities, 69–71, 1073–1074 motivation of, 70 during World War I, 69–70 See also Bancroft, George; German students, at American universities; Gõttingen, University of; Ticknor, George; Intellectual exchange, U.S.-German American Traits from the German Point of View (Münsterberg), 796 American universities, German students at, 432–435 American Vitruvius (Hegemann and Peets), 495

American War of Independence, 6, 504, 906 The American Weekly, 1098 Americanisms, in the German language, 71–74 Americanization and, 76 history of, 71–72 motives for using, 73–74 reception of, 74 sources of, 72 types of, 72–73 See also American Occupation Zone; Bases, U.S., in West Germany Americanization, 18, 75–79 American mass culture and, 78 Americanisms and, 76 anti-American sentiment and, 76–77 antitrust laws, decartelization and, 78 Bauhaus and, 124 car industry and, 78 Coca-Cola and, 78, 250 Ford and, 76 Fordism and, 78–79, 361 Hollywood and, 76 jazz and, 76 mass consumption and, 78–79 mass production and, 78–79 McDonald’s Restaurant and, 76 music and, 76, 77 Nazi economy and, 77 during post-World War II era, 77, 78–79 U.S. hegemonic pressure and, 76, 77, 78 Volkswagen and, 76 See also American Occupation Zone; Coca Cola; Ford, Henry; Fordism; Hollywood; McDonald’s Restaurant; Volkswagen Company, and Volkswagen Beetle Americanizers, 75

The Americans and Aristocracy in America (Grund), 469 The Americans in their Moral, Social, and Political Relations (Grund), 468 The Americans (Münsterberg), 796 Amerika, 938 Die Amerika (America), 605, 904–905 Amerika Institut, 78–80 during World War I, 80 See also American students, at German universities; Johns Hopkins University; Münsterberg, Hugo; Intellectual exchange, U.S.-German Amerika Woche (America Weekly), 909 Amerikadeutscher Volksbund. See German American Bund Amerikafibel (Boveri), 159 “Amerikanische Zustände Nr. 2” (Ruppius), 930 Ames, John Barr, 388 Ames, William, 887 Amish, 10, 80–81. See also Iowa, German dialects in; Pennsylvania German (Dutch); Pennsylvania German (Dutch) language Ammann, Jakob, 80 Ammon, Wolfgang, 409 Among Creoles, Indians, and Mestizos (Unter Kreolen, Indios und Ladinos; Helbig), 497 Among the Primitive Peoople of Central Brazil. An Account of the Second Xingú Expedition (Unter den Naturvölkern ZentralBrasiliens. Reiseschilderung und Ergbnisse der Zweiten Schingú-Expedition; Steinen), 1001

INDEX Among the Tierra del Feugan Indians (Unter Feuerland-Indianern; Koppers), 470 An Irish Version of the Alexander Sage (“Eine irische Version der Alexandersage”; Meyer), 749 Anabaptists’ movement, 80 Anales de la Universidad de Chile (Annals of the University of Chile), 883 Analysis of America’s Population (Untersuchungen über Amerika’s Bevölkerung; Vater), 1089 Anarchism, 39 feminism and, 82 forms of, 82 unifying principles of subforms of, 82 value of, 83 Anarchists, 81–83. See also Bismarck, and Anti-Socialist Law; Haymarket Riot; Most, Johann; Schwab, Justus H.; Turner Societies; Weitling, Wilhelm Anatahan (film), 1003, 1004 The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (Fromm), 396 Ancient Order of Foresters, 417 Das Andere Deutschland (The Other Germany), 96 Anders, Stefan, 686 Andersch, Alfred, 687 Anderson, Michael, 697 Anderson, Robin, 447 Anderson, Sherwood, 518–519 Andreae, Johann Valentin, 887 Andress, Ursula, 514 Andrian-Werburg, Leopold, 174–175 Angela Davis Solidarity committees, 267–268 “Angry young men”

movement, 345 Anheuser, Eberhard, 130, 133 Anheuser-Busch, 133 The Animal Life of Tibet and the Himalaya Mountains (Das Tierleben Tibets und des Himalaya-Gebirges; Bartz), 119 Anna Boylen (film), 342 Annals of the United States Illustrated: The Pioneers (Bodmer), 155 Anneke, Fritz, 84 Anneke, Mathilde Franziska, 84–85, 311, 415–416, 754–755, 834, 975. See also forty-Eighters; Milwaukee; Slavery, in German American and German texts Anthon, Carl G., 399 Anthony, Susan B., 84, 565, 754–755 Anthropological Studies about the Native Population of Brazil, Especially of the People in the Provinces of Matto Grosso, Goyaz, and Amazonas (Anthropologische Studien über die Urbewohner Brasiliens, vornehmlich der Staaten Matto Grosso, Goyaz und Amazonas; Ehrenreich), 295 Anti-Defamation League (ADL), 18, 86, 90 Anti-German sentiment. See Acculturation; Assimilation; under individual countries and states in U.S. Anti-Socialist Law (Ausnahmegesetz zur Abwehr sozialdemokratischer Ausschreitungen; Exceptional Law for Vigilance against

1213

Social Democratic Activities), 7, 94, 145–146, 385, 944. See also Anarchists; Chicago; Haymarket Riot; Liebknecht, Wilhelm; Milwaukee; Most, Johann; New York City; Socialist Labor Party Antiquities of the Paya Region and the Paya Indians of Northeast Honduras (Antiguales der Paya-Region und der Paya-Indianer von Nordost-Honduras; Helbig), 496 Antisemites’ petition (Antisemitenpetition), 368 Antisemitism, 85–91, 992 during American Civil War, 85 and business, U.S.-Third Reich, 198–200 in East Germany, 90 nationalism and, 89 Nazism and, 87 neo-Nazism and, 90, 91 Olympic games and, 88 in postwar Germany, 89–91 skinheads and, 91 in U.S., 86, 87, 88 in U.S. Army, 88–89 white supremacists and, 91 during World War I, 86 See also Adorno, Theodor; Bitburg; B’nai B’rith; Cincinnati; Chicago; Einstein, Albert; Frankfurt School; Friends of the New Germany; German American Bund; Honecker, Erich; Horckheimer, Max; Kuhn, Fritz; Migration, GermanJewish; Marcuse, Herbert; Milwaukee; Morgenthau Plan; Nazism; Schurz, Carl

1214

INDEX

Antitrust laws, Americanization and, 78 Anton in America (Anton in Amerika; Solger), 834 Antonioni, Michelangelo, 1133 Anzeiger Des Westens (Western Informer), 92–93, 1063 American Civil War and, 92 See also forty-Eighters; Körner, Gustave; Newspaper Press (U.S.), German language in; Schurz, Carl AO. See Foreign Organization Apaches (film), 549 The Apartment (film), 1144 Aphra Behn (Mundt), 104 APL. See American Protective League Apollo program, 164 Appleton’s Encyclopedia, 1012 The Apprentices of Sais (Die Lehrlinge zu Sais; Novalis), 402 Arabic (British passenger liner), 1155 Arabic Pledge, 1155 Arbeiter Illustrierte Zeitung (AIZ; Workers’ Illustrated Newspaper), 491, 492, 886 Arbeiter-Zeitung (Workers’ News), 243, 977 Die Arbeiterstimme am Erie (The Worker’s Voice on Erie), 187 The Arbor (Die Gartenlaube; Kirchhoff ), 613 Archenholtz’s Magazine, 968 Archer, Frederick Scott, 884 Architects. See Landscape architects, German American The Architects’ Collaborative (TAC), 467

Archive for the History of Socialism and the Workers’ Movement (ed. Grünberg), 378 Archives of Explorers (Archiv Für Forschungsreisende; Stübel), 1020 Ardistan and Dschinnistan (May), 726 Arendt, Hannah, 21, 108, 233, 562, 563, 564 Arensburg (D’Arensbourg), Karl Friedrich von, 698 Argentina, 93–97, 159, 196 Admiral Graf Spee in, 45–46 German businesses in, 95 German Jesuits in, 93–94 German-language press in, 95–96 German schools in, 96 immigration to, 23, 24, 29, 30t, 94–95, 95–96 during post-World War II era, 96 war criminals in, 96 during World War I, 95 during World War II, 96 See also Brummer; Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad; Dobrizhoffer, Martin; Eichmann, Karl Adolf; Humboldt, Alexander von; Latin America, German military advisers in; Latin America, Nazis in; Schmidel, Ulrich Argentinean Homestead Act of 1917, 29 Argentinisches Tageblatt (Argentina Daily News), 95, 96, 908 ARI. See Association of Jewish Religion Arias, Arnulfo, 865 Aristocracy in America: From the Sketch-book of a German Nobleman (Grund), 468–469 Arithmetic (Venema), 1194

Armbrüster, Anton, 906 Armbrüster, Gotthard, 906 Armed Forces (Wehrmacht; film), 317 Arming, Friedrich, 835 Armstrong, Hamilton Fish, 1079 Army Ballistic Missile Agence, 164 Army Rocket Center, 163 Arnau, Frank, 174 Arndt, Johann, 887 Arnim, Bettina von, 266 Arnold, Gottfried, 314 The Art of Loving (Fromm), 396 Arthur, Chester A., 927 As I Saw Mexico: From Monterrey to Tapachula (So sah ich Mexiko...von Monterrey bis Tapachula; Helbig), 497 Asbury, Francis, 58, 426 ASHHS. See American Schleswig-Holstein Heritage Society Ashkenazic Jews, 13 Assimilation during American Civil War, 99 beer and, 101 definition of, 97–98 German language and, 98, 99–100 German organizations, and misconception of prevention of, 99–100 of Germans, in U.S., 97–103 immigration and, 98–99, 100, 102 mass consumerism and, 100 nativist movement and, 99 of Pennsylvania German culture, 98 popular culture and, 100–101 prohibition and, 101 in rural areas, 101 social mobility and, 102

INDEX two-way process of, 102 during World War I, 101–102 during World War II, 102 See also Acculturation; Anti-German sentiment; Nativism Assing, Ludmilla, 103, 105 Assing, Ottilie, 103–105, 975. See also Forty-Eighters; Slavery, in German American and German texts Assing, Rosa Maria (née Varnhagen), 103 Assis Brasil, Francisco de, 127 Association for Mutual Benefit (Gemeinnütziger Verein), 335 Association for Press and Nationality (Preß- und Vaterlandsverein), 374 Association for the Acclimitization of Rare Birds, 245 Association of Christian Churches (ACK; Arbeitsgemeinschaft christlicher Kirchen), 60 Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches (AELC), 711 Association of German Social Democrats in Brazil (Vereinigung deutscher Sozialdemokraten in Brasilien), 174 Association of German Societies (Verband deutscher Vereine), 334 Association of Jewish Religion (ARI; Associação Religiosa Israelita), 173 Association of Singing Clubs (Sängerbund), 244 Astor, George, 105

Astor, Henry, 105 Astor, John Jacob, 105–107, 431. See also Germany Society of the City of New York; Hessians; New York City Astor, Sarah, 107 Astor, William B., 459 Astor House, 107 Astor Library, 107 Astoria (Irving), 107 At Home and Abroad: A Sketch-Book of Life, Scenery and Men (Taylor), 1022 Atlantic Monthly, 954, 973, 1012 Atlas, Samuel, 594 Auclert, Hubertine, 565 Audubon, John James, 107 Aue, Hartmann von, 696 Auer, Louis, 756 Auerbach, Berthold, 685, 975 Aufbau, 108–109, 810, 820, 890, 908, 909. See also Americanization; Huebsch, Ben W., and Viking Press Imprint; Council for a Democratic Germany; Intellectual exile; Mann, Thomas; Zuckmayer, Carl Aufhäuser, Siegfried, 108 Augsburger Allgemeine (Augsburger Gazette), 84 Die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung (Augsburg General Newspaper), 975 Augsburger Neusten Nachrichten (Augsburg Newest News), 179 August Belmont and Company, 375 Augusta (U.S. cruiser), 1171 Aus Namaland und Kalahari (Schultze-Jena), 950 Ausländer, Rose, 689 Austin, Moses, 1025 Austin, Stephen F.,

1215

285–286, 314, 1025 Austro-Prussian War of 1866, 368 “Author film,” 347 The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno), 48 Autobahnen (highways), 1103 Autobiography (Buffalo Child Long Lance), 559 Autobiography (Du Bois), 49 Automobile industry, consumerism and, 258 Autorenfilme, 347 Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold, 109–110, 1105. See also Von-derHeydt’sches Reskript; Humboldt, Alexander von Aveling, Edward, 669 Avery, Oswald T., 582 Axen, Hermann, 1073 Ayolas, Juan de, 946 Aznavour, Charles, 727 Baader, Joseph von, 673 Bab, Julius, 108 Babbitt (Lewis), 662, 663, 664 Babo, Joseph Marius, 1045 Bache, Alexander Dallas, 532 Bachmann, Ingeborg, 891, 1049 Bachofen, Johann Jakob, 395 Bad Kissingen Cosmopolitan Club, 412–413 Bad Seed (Mauvaise Graine; film), 1143 Bading, Gerhard A., 753 Bading, John, 753 Baegert, Christoph Johannes Jakob, 111. See also Mexico, German Jesuits in Baer, George, 876 Baerwald, Friedrich, 261 Baez, Joan, 920 Bage, Robert, 968 Baginski, Max, 387 Bahr, Egon, 1138

1216

INDEX

Baison, Jean Baptiste, 103 Baker, James A., 439, 440, 1073 Baker, Jonnie, 191 Baker, Josephine, 49 Baker, Thomas, 585 Bakunin, Mihail, 82 Balch, Emily Greene, 193 Balhaus, Michael, 515 Ball of Fire (film), 1143 Ballads and Other Poems (Longfellow), 696 Ballhaus, Michael, 512 Ballin, Albert, 480–482 Balsells, Alfredo, 1040 Baltic (liner), 1160 Baltimore Correspondent, 880 Baltimore Wecker (Baltimore Watchclock), 678, 972 Bananas, 112–114, 115. See also Americanization; Humboldt, Alexander von; McDonald’s Restaurant Bancroft, Aaron, 115–116 Bancroft, George, 70, 115–118, 306, 325, 437, 453, 459, 532, 780, 1037, 1045. See also American students, at German universities; Encylcopedia Americana; Everett, Edward; German Unification; Göttingen, University of; Humboldt, Alexander von; Transcendentalism Bancroft Treaty, 117 Bandel, Ernst von, 986 Bang, Hermann, 798 Banks, Dennis, 1131 BAOR. See British Army of the Rhine Baptists, 59, 239 Barbarossa, 336 Barbie, Klaus, 118–119, 651–652, 653. See also Argentina; Braun, Wernher von; Latin America, Nazis in Barclay, Robert, 887 Barker, Lex, 727 Barlaeus, Caspar, 722 Barmen Declaration, 156

Barnard, George, 884 Barons, Slave, 678 Barrios, Justo Rufino, 143 Bart-Cisinski, Jakub, 988 Bartgis, Mathias, 906 Bartholdt bill, 808 Bartholdy, Albrecht Mendelssohn, 1085 Bartz, Fritz, 119–120 Bases, U.S., in West Germany, 1069–1071 closing of, 1071 NATO and, 1069, 1070 purpose of, 1069–1070 in the 1950s, 1070 in the 1960s, 1070 in the 1970s, 1070–1071 in the 1980s, 1071 See also American Occupation Zone; Canadian military forces, in West Germany; West Germany, in American foreign policy; World War II Basics of Natural History (Grundriß der Naturgeschichte; Burmeister), 196 Bastian, Gert, 603 Bates, Joshua, 1039 Baucke (Paucke), Florian, 93–94 Baudissin, Adelbert Heinrich, Count, 120–122, 684. See also Forty-Eighters Baudissin, Christian Carl, Count, 120 Bauer, Henry, 387 Bauer, Walter, 674, 680 Bauhaus, 122–126, 333, 466 Americanization and, 124 Nazism and, 124 See also Americanization; Einstein, Albert; Ford, Henry; Gropius, Walter Adolph; Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig Baum, Martin, 239–240, 240 Baumann, Eugene Achilles, 223, 635 Baur, Clara, 244

Baur, Ferdinand C., 938 Bayer, Herbert, 125, 126, 862 Bayer, Nannie, 387 BDF. See Federation of German Women’s Clubs Beale, Joseph H., 388 Beals, Walter, 840 Beard, Charles A., 1085, 1086 Beard, Miriam, 1085 Beasley, Richard, 851 Beaulieu, Priscilla, 903 Beaumont, Francis, 974 Bebel, August, 669, 1152–1153 Beck, Karl, 1047, 1060 Becker, August, 82 Becker, João, 127. See also Brazil Becker, Peter, 313 Becker, Philip, 127–129, 187–188. See also Buffalo, New York Becker, Rudolf, 407, 441 Becker, Ulrich, 175 Beckmann, Max, 129–130 “The Bedouin Song” (Taylor), 1021 Bee-Hive (Pastorius), 871 The Beehive (Der Bienenstock; Seghers), 967 Beer, 130–133, 257 assimilation and, 101 breweries and, 132–133, 246, 247, 755–756, 818 brewing process and, 131, 246 in Chicago, 132 in Cincinnati, 244–245 famous names and, 130 lager, 132, 246 in Milwaukee, 131, 755–756 near, 246 in New York City, 818 origin of word, 130–131 pop-top can and, 133 prohibition and, 132 See also Chicago; Milwaukee; New York City Beer Hall Putsch, 478

INDEX Beer Riot of 1855, 231, 232 Beethoven, Ludwig von, 402, 799, 800 The Beginning of Art in the Jungle (Anfange der Kunst im Urwald; Koch-Grunberg), 617 Behemoth: The Spirit and Structure of National Socialism (Neumann), 564, 811 Behrendt, Richard, 865 Behrendt, Walter Curt, 794 Behrens, Peter, 466, 751 Beissel, Conrad, 312–314, 604, 889, 905, 906, 937, 1123 Beissel, Henry, 681 Beissel, John Conrad, 873 Bek, William, 284 Belafonte, Harry, 902 Bellecourt, Clyde, 1131 Bellecourt, Vernon, 1131 Belleville Library, 618 Belleviller Zeitung (Belleville Newspaper), 494 Bellini, Vincenzo, 476 Belmont, August, 375–376, 818 The Beloved Returns (Lotte in Weimar; Mann), 719 Ben-Hur (film), 1189 Benalcázar, Sebastian de, 255 Benecke, Georg Friedrich, 459 Benedictines, 994, 995, 996 Benjamin, Walter, 47, 517, 626 Bennett Law, 755 Bennett Malini (Singmaster), 973 Bent (Sherman), 891 Berchelmann, Adolph, 374 Berg, Alban, 47, 949 Berg, Maria Magdalena von, 105 Berg, Sibylle, 688 Berger, Ludwig, 574 Berger, Thomas, 1050 Berger, Victor L., 133–134, 753, 756, 757, 758, 759. See also Espionage and Sedition Act;

Milwaukee; Milwaukee socialists; World War I, German Americans and Bergmann, Carl, 801 Bergmann, Max, 577, 580, 581 Bergner, Elisabeth, 278 Berl, Ernst, 585 Berlanga, Tomás de, 112 Berlau, Ruth, 180 Berlin Club Dada, 491 Berlin crisis of 1961, 214 Berlin in Stones (Das Steinerne Berlin; Hegemann), 495 Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario, 138–141 acculturation in, 140 German language in, 140 immigration to, 139, 141 Nazism propaganda in, 141 during World War I, 140–141 during World War II, 141 See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Ontario; Turner Societies; Waterloo, Ontario; Waterloo County, Ontario Berlin Philharmonic, 632 Berlin Trade Society (Berliner Handelsgesellschaft), 743 Berlin Wall, 135–137, 161 building of, 422, 1138 fall of, 450, 1072, 1139 Radio Free Europe and, 911 See also German Unification; Halvorsen, Gail S.; West Berlin Berliner Ensemble, 180 Berliner Freie Presse (Berlin Free Press), 778 Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung (Berlin Illustrated Newspaper), 886 Berliner Journal, 137–138, 855, 856, 857, 925. See also Newspaper press

1217

(U.S.), German language in; Ontario; Rittinger, John Adam Berliner Tageblatt (Berlin Daily), 158, 559, 663, 776 Bernays, Karl L., 92 Berndt, Julius, 986 Bernoulli, Carl Gustav, 142–143. See also Humboldt, Alexander von Bernstorff, Johann Heinrich Andreas Hermann Albrecht, Count von, 143–145, 807, 1169–1170. See also Sternburg, Hermann Speck von; Treaty of Versailles; World War I Bertelsmann company, 258 Bertling, Karl O., 80 Bertuch, Friedrich Justin, 1088 Best, Jacob, 132 Best, Marshall A., 520 The Best Years of Our Lives (film), 1189 Bethe, Hans, 397, 577 Bettendorff, Johann Philipp, 165 Bettina, 265, 266 Between the Lines (Frazier), 1180 Beusch, Agathe Margarethe. See Meyer, Agathe Margarethe Beutler, Hans, 584 Bey, Jocob, 446 Bibleotheca Herziana Library, 423 Bibliographisches Institut, 746 Bieber-Böhm, Hanna, 193 Biedenkapp, Georg, 387, 678 Bienek, Horst, 1049 Bienville, Jean Baptiste le Monye de, 698 Bierce, Ambrose, 958 Biermann, Wolf, 687, 688 Biernatzki, Johann Christoph, 975 Bierstadt, Albert, 556, 662

1218

INDEX

Big Coalition, 161 Bigelow, Poultney, 1048 Bikerman, Jacob, 584 Biller, Maxim, 688 Billinger, Karl. See Massing, Paul W. Billmeyer, Michael, 906 Bimeler, Joseph Michael, 889 Bimpage, Heinrich, 92 Binder, Heinrich, 541 Biow, Hermann, 884 Birney, Alice McClellan, 609 Biro, Lajos, 1144 Birth of a Nation (film), 1016 Bischoff, Rev. Christian, 59 Bischoff, Wilhelm Christian, 635 Bishop, J. Leander, 484 Bismarck, Herbert von, 144 Bismarck, Otto von, 86, 117, 121–122, 169, 334, 336, 541, 601, 665, 733, 754, 904, 944, 1047, 1097 Anti-Socialist Law and, 145–146. See also Anti–Socialist Law German unification and, 436–437 Hermann the Cheruscan and, 985 Morocco and, 354 Motley and, 780, 781 Schurz and, 954 Bitburg war cemetery, 89, 146–148. See also World War II Bizet, Georges, 901 Bjorkander, Britta, 628 A Black Fellow (Der braune Knabe; Biernatzki), 975 Black Heart, 191 Black market, chewing gum and, 228 Black Panthers, 267 Black Record: Germans Past and Present (Vansittart), 1086, 1087 Black Star Picture Agency, 333 Blackwell, Elizabeth, 1193 Blackwell, Emily, 1193 Blaeu, Joan, 722 Blaine, James G., 953

Blair, Francis Preston, Jr., 92 Blaker, Eliza Cooper, 609–610 Blanqui, Louis-Auguste, 1126 Blatz, Albert, 755 Blatz, Valentin, 755, 759 Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna, 487 Bleichröder, 743 Blenker, Ludwig, 64, 371 Bliss, Elizabeth, 116 Bloch, Ernst, 47, 261, 396, 626, 686, 909 Bloch, Felix, 149–150. See also Intellectual exchange, U.S.-German Bloch, Konrad, 580, 581 A Blond Dream (Ein blonder Traum; film), 350 Blond Venus (film), 1003 Blood Brothers (Blutsbrüder; film), 919 The Blood of the Eagle (Das Blut des Adlers; Welskopf-Henrich), 1130–1131 Bloody Marsh, Battle of, 405 Blossfeldt, Karl, 885 Blow, Susan Elizabeth, 607–608, 609, 610 The Blue Angel (Der Blaue Engel; film), 1003, 1199 Blue jeans, 229 Bluebeard’s Eighth Wife (film), 1143 Blum, Martha, 675 Blume, Renate, 920 Blümel, Bartholomäus, 254 Blumenau-Zeitung (Blumenau Newspaper), 908 B’nai B’rith, 16, 86, 89, 150–152, 1065, 1066 American Jewish identity and, 151 founders of, 150 Holocaust and, 152 international Jewish solidarity and, 151–152 Jewish charitable and communal institutions founded and supported by, 151 Jewish solidarity and,

151–152 Nazism and, 152 purpose of, 150–151 secrecy of, 151 sister organization of, 151 suborganizations of, 152 Zionism and, 152 See also Antisemitism; Judaism, Reform; Migration, GermanJewish; Unabhängiger Orden Treuer Schwestern The Board of Delegates of American Israelites, 654 Board of Emigration Commissioners, 431 Board of Public Works, Washington, D.C., 249 Boas, Franz, 324, 556, 559, 706, 935, 1074, 1075 Bodenstein, Max, 585 Bodmer, Johann Jakob, 682 Bodmer, Karl, 152–155, 556–557, 1140. See also Indians, in German literature; Pietism; WiedNeuwied, Prince Maximilian of Bodroûic, Marica, 688 Boehm, Martin, 426 Boehme, Jacob, 314, 887 Boer War, 203 Boernstein, Heinrich, 676, 1063 Boeschenstein, Hermann, 680 Bogart, Humphrey, 697, 1092 Bohle, Wilhelm, 644, 645–646 Bohlen, Henry, 64, 942 Böhm, Johann Heinrich, 165 Böhm, Leopold, 95 Böhm (Boehm), John Philip, 425 Böhme, Jakob, 1043 Bohn, John L., 753 Bohr, Niels, 149 Bokum, Hermann, 833 Böll, Heinrich, 891 Bolschwing, Otto von, 652

INDEX Bolton, Herbert, 612 Boltzius, Johann Martin, 889 Bolzius, Rev. John Martin, 404 Bombs Away (Steinbeck), 522 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich, 155–156, 432. See also German students, at American universities; Harnack, Mildred Fish Bonn, Wilhelm, 376–377 Bonpland, Aimé, 109, 530, 531 Bonstedt, Friedrich, 1047 Bookchin, Murray, 83 The Bookman, 312 Boos-Waldeck, Count Joseph of, 40, 41 Boranga, Karl, 739 Borchard, Hermann Georg, 177 Borchert, Wolfgang, 1051 Borden, Robert, 141, 205 Borkenau, Franz, 378, 865 Bormann, Martin, 839 Born, Max, 397, 460, 1075–1076 Börne, Ludwig, 907, 974 Börnstein, Heinrich, 92, 677, 834, 835 Boss, Christian, 247 Boss, Sigmund G. von, 157 Bosse, August von (pseud. H. Schönau), 157 Bosse, Georg von, 156–158. See also Egg Harbor City, New Jersey; Hexamer, Charles J.; National German American Alliance; Schurz, Carl; World War I Boston Symphony, 633, 782–783, 801 The Bounty (Der Kopflohn; Seghers), 966 Bouquet, Henry, 544 Bourgeois d’Orvanne, Alexander, 41 Bourke-White, Margaret, 886 Boveri, Margaret, 158–159. See also American Occupation Zone;

Denazification Bowen, Herbert W., 1093 Bowering, Marilyn, 675 Bowler, Robert B., 1010 Bowman, Isiah, 1079 Boxer Rebellion, 331, 828 Boy-Ed, Karl, 1169 Boy Scouts, 710 Boyle, Kay, 1048, 1051 The Boys from Brazil (film), 340, 653 Brace, Charles Loring, 845 Brackebusch, Ludwig, 159–160, 197. See also Argentina; Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad Bradford, Andrew, 905 Bradford, William, 1194 Bradley, Omar, 1175, 1178 Bragg, General, 299 Brahms, Johannes, 799–800, 949 Brandenberger, Erich, 1175 Brando, Marlon, 574 Brands, Michael, 245 Brandt, Willy, 136, 160–162, 438, 1072, 1100, 1137, 1138. See also Berlin Wall; West Berlin Brandywine Art Group, 619 Der Braumeister (The Brewmaster), 132 Braun, Volker, 687 Braun, Wernher von, 163–164, 915. See also Latin America, Nazis in Bravo, 903 Brazil, 165–171 anti-Semitism in, 172–173 ban on foreign political parties in, 171 ban on German language in, 170, 171, 173, 174 Catholicism in, 174, 183 colonization of, 165 ethnic group mandate in, 170 Federalist Revolution in, 168 festivities and, German-

1219

Brazilian, 334–337 German culture in, 168–170 German exile in, 172–175. German immigrants in, 166–169 German Jewish refugees in, 172–175 German monks in, 165 German refugees in, 172–175 German settlement areas in, 165m, 167t immigration policies in, 172 immigration quotas in, 170 immigration to, 23, 24, 28–29, 30t, 183, 1105, 1106 marginalization of German immigrants in, 167–169 national education system in, 170 National Socialist German Worker’s Party in, 170–171 Nazi propaganda in, 170–171 religion in, 176–178 slavery in, 176 during World War I, 169–170, 1183–1184 during World War II, 171 See also Brazil, German exile in; Brazil, religion in; Brummer; Forty-Eighters; Fritz, Samuel; German migration, to Latin America; Koseritz, Karl von; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Markgraf, Georg; Volga Germans; Vonder-Heydt’sches Rescript Brazil: A Land of the Future (Brasilien: Ein Land der Zukunft; Zweig), 175, 527 Brazil, the New World

1220

INDEX

(Brasilien, die Neue Welt; Eschwege), 318 Brecht, Bertolt, 47, 179–181, 261, 447, 491, 493, 562, 637, 685, 908–909, 1199. See also Adorno, Theodor; Intellectual exile; Lang, Fritz; Mann, Thomas; Reinhardt, Max; Zuckmayer, Carl Bred in the Bone (Singmaster), 973 Brehm, Alfred Edmund, 245 Breit, Gregory, 1142 Bremen, 181–182 Bremen (ship), 828, 1158 Bremer, Fredericka, 752 Bremerhaven, 181–182 immigration to, 181–182 during World War I, 182 during World War II, 182 See also Hamburg; Norddeutscher Lloyd Brentano, Lorenz, 230, 231, 540, 541 Bretzner, Christoph Friedrich, 1045 Breuer, Marcel, 125, 467 Breuhaus, F. A., 508 Breund, Ludwig A., 387 Breweries in Cincinnati, 246 in Milwaukee, 755–756 in New York City, 818 Brewing Industry and the Brewery Workers’ Movement in America (Schlüter), 945 A Bridge Too Far (film), 338 Brinkmann, Rolf Dieter, 687 Brion, Pierre, 843, 844 Brisbane, Albert, 1127 British Army of the Rhine (BAOR), 212 British Commonwealth/ Empire Air Training Plan and, 1186 Broch, Hermann, 518 Brockhausen, Fred, 758 Broderick, John, 523 Bromfield, Louis, 1049 Brontë, Emily, 1189 Brooks, James L., 515 Brooks, Mel, 703

Brown, Dee, 560 Browne, John Ross, 1048, 1063 Bru, Laredo, 992 Brucker, Josef, 758 Bruckman, Henriette, 1065 Brueghel, Pieter (the Elder), 129 Brüggemann, Friedrich, 407–408 Brummer, 94, 183. See also Argentina; Brazil; Koseritz, Karl von Brundage, Avery, 847, 848 Brüning, Heinrich, 184–186, 463–464, 1036. See also Great Depression; Intellectual exile; Morgenthau Plan; Shuster, Georg Naumann; Treaty of Versailles Bryan, Anna, 609, 610 Bryan, Walter, 1114 Bryan, William Jennings, 53, 128, 821 Bryant, Clara, 358 Bryant, Sebastian, 681–682 Brzezinski, Zbigniew K., 390 Buber, Martin, 657 Buch, Hans Christoph, 281, 687, 688 Buchanan, James, 769 Buchanan, Robert, 1010 Buchberger, Johann, 809 Bücher, Karl, 794 Büchner, Georg, 501 Buck, George, 188, 956 Bückner, Edmundo, 1184 The Buddenbrooks (Die Buddenbrooks; Mann), 717–718 Budge, Henry, 377 Budge, Schiff, and Company, 377 Budge, William, 716 Budzislawski, Hermann, 261 Buechel, Eugene, 557 Buena Vista Social Club (film), 1133–1134 Buffalo, New York, 127–129, 186–189 Amana Colonies in, 55–56 during American Civil War, 186

Catholicism in, 187 German culture in, 187–188 German leadership in, 187–188 immigration to, 186 Nazism propaganda in, 189 during post-World War II era, 188–189 during World War I, 188 during World War II, 189 See also Cincinnati; Friends of the New Germany; Hexamer, Charles J.; National German American Alliance; Schwab, Frank X. Buffalo Bill (Büffel-Wilhelm; William F. Cody), 190–192, 546, 559. See also Indians, in German literature Buffalo Bill’s Wild West Show, 190–192 Buffalo Child Long Lance, 559 Buffalo Federation of German Societies, 189 Buffalo German Insurance Company, 128 Buffalo Orpheus, 188 Buffalo Post, 187 Buffalo Synod, 709 Buffalo Times, 956 Buffalo Volksfreund (People’s Friend), 880 Buffaloer Arbeiter Zeitung (Buffalo Workingman’s News), 187, 188 Büffel-Wilhelm. See Buffalo Bill Buhl, Herman, 317 Buhle, Mari Jo, 1152 Bulge, Battle of the, 1175–1176 Bulletin of the German Historical Institute, 423–424 Bulletin of the Leo Baeck Institute, 658 Bülow, Bernhard von, 329, 372 Bundy, McGeorge, 771

INDEX Bunsen, Georg, 374 Bunsen, Gustav, 374 Bunsen, Johann Ernst Friedrich Gustav, 1026 Bunsen, Robert, 882 Buonarotti, Philipp, 1126 Burden of Dreams (documentary), 501–502 Bürger- und Bauernzeitung (The Town and Country Journal), 929 Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGBCivil Code), 690, 691 Bürgerzeitung (Citizens Newspaper), 542 Bürgerzeitung und Illinois Staatszeitung, 542 Burgess, John William, 195–196, 388. See also Göttingen, University of; World War I The Burial Ground of Ancon (Das Todtenfeld von Ancon; Stübel and Reiss), 922–923, 1019 Burkart, Hermann Joseph, 762 Burkholder, Benjamin, 924–925 Burks, Allen L., 1114 Burleson, Albert, 319, 1165 Burmeister, Carl Hermann Conrad, 196–197. See also Argentina; Brackebusch, Ludwig; Humboldt, Alexander von Burmeister, Hermann, 94, 159 Burritt, Ruth, 608 Burschenschaft Araucania, 238 Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee (Begrabt mein Herz an der Biegung des Flusses; Brown), 560 Busch, Adolphus, 130, 133, 373, 1029, 1076, 1165 Busch, Moritz Julius, 715–716 Buschbeck, Adolph, 63, 64 Buschheuer, Else, 688 Bush, George H. W., 438, 439, 959, 1073

Bush, George W., 616, 688 Bush, Prescott, 198 Business, U.S.-Third Reich, 198–200 Ford Motor Company and, 198–200 General Motors and, 198, 199–200 See also Lindberg, Charles; Ford, Henry; World War II Bustamante administration, 742 Butler, Nicholas Murray, 70, 195 B.W. Huebsch, Inc., 520 Byrnes, James F., 68 Byrnes, John, 916–917 Byron, Lord, 116 Byuschanse brothers, 963 Cabet, Étienne, 266, 497, 1126 The Cabin Book, or National Characteristics (Das Cajütenbuch oder nationale Charakteristiken; Sealsfield), 265 The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari; film), 342 Cagliostriana (Griesinger), 466 Cahensly, Peter Paul, 201–202, 754, 993. See also St. Raphael’s Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants Calderón, Fanny, 623 Calendar. See German almanacs Calhoun, John C., 469 California, 111, 226 California Freie Presse (California Free Press), 880 California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech), 303 “Call to Arms” (Mumford), 794 Calles, Plutarco Elías, 1052 Calloway, James N., 1114

1221

Calvert, George Henry, 1045 Camacho, Manuel Avila, 735 Campe, Hoachim Heinrich, 682 Campfire in the Country of the Indians (Lagerfeuer im Indianerland; Rieder), 559 Canada anti-German sentiment in, 208–209 during Cold War, 211 German assimilation in, 202–203 German immigration to, 207, 211 German Jewish refugees in, 208 German Labor Front in, 207 German language in, 202, 204, 205, 209 German settlement in, 203 Germans in, during World Wars I and II, 202–211 during Great Depression, 207 Hutterites in, 210, 211 immigration to, 6–11, 33–34 Mennonites in, 202, 206, 207, 210–211 National Socialist German Worker’s Party in, 207 nativism in, 203, 204 NATO and, 212–215 Nazism propaganda in, 207 during post-World War I era, 206–208 religion in, 202–203 during World War I, 1169–1170, 1184–1185 during World War II, 209–211, 1186–1188 See also Berlin, Ontario; Ontario; Nova Scotia Canada Museum und Allgemeine Zeitung (Canada Museum and General Newspaper), 855 Canadian military forces, in

1222

INDEX

West Germany, 212–216 Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR), 1169–1170 Der Canadische Bauernfreund (The Canadian Farmer’s Friend), 855, 1120 Canadische Volkszeitung (Canadian People’s Newspaper), 855 Canby, Edward S., 859–860 The Candle and the Flame (Viereck), 1097 Capa, Robert, 886 The Captain of Köpenick (Der Hauptmann von Köpenick; Zuckmayer), 1199 Captivity narratives, 543–545 Car industry, Americanization and, 78 Cárdenas, Lázaro, 614, 735, 744 CARE. See Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe Carel, Alexis, 671 Carey, Mathew, 306–307 CARIA. See Committee for the Support of German Jewish Refugees Caribbean, immigration to, 24 Cario, O. R., 142 Caritas, 259 Carlu, Jean, 862 Carlyle, Thomas, 357, 400, 1043 Carmichael, William, 1053 Carnegie Corporation, 1076 Carot, Jean Baptiste Camille, 155 Carpeaux (Karpfen), Otto Maria, 174 Carr Line, 480 Carranza, Venustiano, 216–217, 734, 744, 858. See also Mexico Carstens, Karl, 443 Carter, Jimmy, 615, 849, 920 Carvajal, Gaspar de, 500

Carvalho e Melo, José Sebatião de, 165–166 Carver, George Washington, 1114 Casa Publicadora Concórdia, 407 Casablanca Conference, 218–219. See also Tehran Conference; World War II Casablanca (film), 257 Casas, Bartolomé de las, 255 The Case Law System in America (Präjudizienrecht und Rechtsprechung in Amerika; Llewellyn), 690 The Case of Lena Smith (film), 1003 Case-Sponible sound system, 512 Casement, Sir Roger, 749–750 Cassandre, A. M., 862 Cassel, Hans, 584 Cassirer, Ernst, 562, 1013 Cassirer, Paul, 129 Castell-Castell, Count Carl of, 41, 265 Castro, Cipriano, 1093 Castro, Fidel, 1014 Catherine II, 1101 Catherine the Great, 598 Catholic Center Party, 184 Catholic German Women’s Organization (KDF; Katholischer deutscher Frauenbund), 219, 221 Catholic Herald, 458 Catholic Kolping Society, 247 Catholic priests, and Latin America, Nazis in, 652 Catholic Publishing Company (CPC), 457, 459 The Catholic Spirit in Modern English Literature (Shuster), 969 Catholic Tribune, 457, 458 Catholic Women’s League of Wisconsin, 221

Catholic Women’s Union (CWU), 219–222 birth control laws and, 221 Child Labor Amendment and, 220, 221, 222 class differences and, 221 maternal assistance programs of, 219, 220–221, 222 patron saint of, 220, 222 social reform and, 219–220, 220–221 traveler’s aid networks of, 221 during World War I, 221–222 See also German Catholic Central-Verein; German American Women’s Organizations Catholicism, 7–8 in Brazil, 174, 176–178, 183 in Buffalo, New York, 187 in Chile, 237–238 in Cincinnati, 242 See also American churches; Religion Catlin, George, 154 CCA. See Container Corporation of America CCAR. See Central Conference of American Rabbis CCS. See Church of Christ, Scientist CDG. See Council for a Democratic Germany CEH. See Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification Center Party, 458 Central America colonization of, 254–256 immigration to, 24 Central American Indian languages, 43–44, 45 Central-Blatt and Social Justice, 420, 421, 604, 605

INDEX Central Committee of the Freie Deutsche Jugend (FDG; Free German Youth), 389, 390 Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), 16, 594 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Radio Free Europe and, 911 Central Labor Union, 417 Central Park, 222–225 aesthetics of, 224–225 bridges in, 225 German landscape architecture in, 222, 223–224 indigenous rock and plants in, 224 landscape design competition and, 223 as outdoor picture gallery, 225 social vision for, 223–224 See also Landscape architects, German American Central-Verein. See German Catholic CentralVerein Century, 973 Cezanne, Paul, 129 Chaco War, 642 Chadwick, George, 800 Chagall, Marc, 563 Chamberlain, Houston Stewart, 321 Chambre 666 (film), 1133 Chamisso, Adelbert von, 225–227, 556. See also Literature (German), Indians in; Kino, Eusebius Franciscus; Travel literature, GermanU.S. Chancellorsville, Battle of, 299, 371 Chandler, Raymond, 1144 Channing, William Ellery, 357 Chaplin, Charles, 180, 338, 343, 1003 Chapman, Victor, 1159 Chapter of Perfection, 603

Character-washing (Charakterwäsche; Schrenk-Notzing), 159 Charell, Erik, 1091 Chargaff, Erwin, 577, 582 The Charge into Paititi (Borstoß nach Paititi; film), 317 Charles III, 740 Charles IV, 530 Charles V, 93, 254, 863, 945 Che Lumumba Club, 267 Chemen des Dames, 332 Chemnitzer Freie Presse (Chemnitz Free Press), 778 Chenal, Pierre, 1017 Cherusker, Hermann der, 336 Chewing gum, 227–229 americanization and, 227 black market and, 228 GIs and, 227–228 history of, 227 opposition toward, 229 sale of, in American Occupation Zone, 228 as silent protest, 229 World War II and, 227 See also Americanization; Coca-Cola; Consumerism; McDonald’s Restaurant Chiapas: Geography of a Mexican State (Chiapas. Geografia de un Estado Mesicano; Helbig), 496–497 Chicago, 229–233 Altgeld and, 51–53 during American Civil War, 229–230, 231–232 anti-German sentiment in, 230, 233 beer in, 132 cultural institutions in, 232–233 economic growth in, 229, 230–231 German associations in, 231 German businesses in,

1223

232 German culture in, 230 German-language press in, 232–233 German neighborhoods in, 232 Hull-House and, 38–39, 40 immigration to, 229, 230–231, 539–540 Nazism propaganda in, 233 population of, 229, 230–231 during post-World War I era, 233 prohibition era in, 231 urban violence in, 229 during World War I, 233 during World War II, 233 See also Addams, Jane; Altgeld, John P.; Anarchists; Bauhaus; Cincinnati; 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; Forty-Eighters; German American Bund; Haymarket Riot; Hecker, Friedrich; Heym, Stefan; Illinois; Illinois Staatszeitung; Intellectual exile; Judaism, Reform (North America); Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig; Salomon, Edward S.; Socialist Labor Party Chicago Abendblatt, 810 Chicago Arbeiter Zeitung (Chicago Workers’ Newspaper), 542 Chicago fire of 1871, 232 Chicago Katholisches Wochenblatt (Catholic Weekly), 880 Chicago Relief and Aid Society, 232 Chicago Symphony, 232, 800 Chicago Tribune, 291, 541, 619 Chicago Vorbote (Harold), 977

1224

INDEX

Chicago World Fair of 1893, 193 Child Labor Amendment, 220, 221, 222 Children of Fortune (Glückskinder; film), 344 Children of God (K. K. Ben Yeshurun) synagogue, 243 Childs, David, 422 Chile, 234–239 agriculture, trade, and industry in, 236 during American Civil War, 238–239 colonization in, 234, 235–236 conquest of, 254, 255 economic development in, 236 German entrepreneurs in, 236 German language in, 234, 238 German-language press in, 234, 237 German organizations in, 238 hospitals in, 238 immigration to, 24, 29, 234, 235–236 naturalized German Chileans in, 239 Nazi propaganda in, 237, 238 religion in, 234, 237–238 schools in, 236–237 during World War I, 236, 239 during World War II, 236, 238, 239 See also Latin America; individual countries in Latin America Chile: Its Regional Geographical Individuality and Structure (Chile-seine länderkundliche Individualität und Struktur; Weischet), 1122 Chipman, Norton P., 1147 Chomsky, Noam, 83, 533

Chotjewitz, Peter O., 687 Christian Democratic Union (CDU; Christlich Demokratische Union), 146, 186, 439 Christian Front, 410 Christian National Trade Union, 184 Der Christliche Apologete (The Christian Apologist), 242 Christopher Street, 890 Chronicle of the volcanic hazards and earthquakes in Ecuador, with some remarks on other countries in Central and South America between 1533 and 1797 (Crónica de los fenómenos volcánicos y terremetos en el Ecuador, con algunas noticias sobre otres paises de la América central y meridional, desde 1533 hasta 1797; Wolf ), 1151 Chrysler, 258 Church of Christ, Scientist (CCS), 57 Church of God (Freikirchlicher Bund der Gemeinde Gottes), 60, 426 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. See Mormons Church of Scientology, 57 Church of the Nazarene (Kirche der Nazarener), 60 Church of the United Brethren in Christ, 426 Churches. See American churches Churchill, Winston, 218, 773 Nuremberg trials and, 839 and postwar Germany, plans for, 1081–1082 Tehran Conference and,

1022–1023 World War II and, 1171, 1172 CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency CIAM. See Congresses International of Architecture Modern CIC. See Counterintelligence Corps Cincinnati, 239–247 during American Civil War, 241 anti-German sentiment in, 241, 244, 246–247 beer and beer gardens in, 244–245 churches in, 247 German breweries in, 246 German culture in, 243–245 German influence in, 245–246 German-Jewish immigrants in, 242–243 German language in, 247 German-language press in, 243 German music ban in, 247 German neighborhoods in, 240 German organizations in, 243–244 German population in, 240 German professionals in, 240 industry in, 240 nativism in, 240–241 political influence in, 240–242 prohibition era in, 247 Protestants and Catholics in, 242 religion in, 240, 242–243 schools in, 244 during World War I, 241, 245, 246–247 during World War II, 240 See also American Civil War, German particpants in; Beer; Forty-Eighters; Hecker, Friedrich; Judaism, Reform (North

INDEX America); Landscape architects, German American; Newspaper Press (U.S.), Germanlanguage in; Roebling, Johann Augustus; Roebling, Washington Augustus; Strauch, Adolph; Turner Societies; Verein; Willich, August von; Wise, Isaac Mayer Cincinnati (barge), 239–240 Cincinnati Horticultural Society, 245 Cincinnati Republikaner (Cincinnati Republican), 1146 Cincinnati Symphony, 245, 631, 632, 801 Cincinnati Zoological Society, 245 CIP. See Jewish Community of São Paulo Cities and Culture of North America (Städteund Kulturbilder aus Nordamerika; Ratzel), 914 The Cities of South America (Die Städte Südamerikas; Wilhelmy), 1145 Citizen’s Advisory Committee on the Fitness of America’s Youth, 292 City Girl (film), 798 City Planning House (Hegemann), 495 Civil aviation, 978–979 Civil Liberty and SelfGovernment (Lieber), 668 Civil rights movement, 434 Civil Service Law (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums), 562 Civil War. See American Civil War Civilian internees and German prisoners, 1167–1169 Civilization and Wilderness (Zivilisation und

Wildniss; Sedgewick), 558–559 Clark, Mark, 1173 Clark, William, 1090, 1140 Clarke, Hans T., 581 Classical Reform, 301, 594 Clauss, Otto, 1001 Claussen, Johann Georg, 182 Clay, Henry, 107 Clay, Lucius D., 67, 77, 274, 413, 433, 448, 774, 915–916, 1037, 1083, 1136 Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, 775 Clemens, Olivia, 1063–1064 Clemens, Samuel. See Twain, Mark Cleveland, Grover, 53, 128 Cleveland Wächter am Erie (Watchman on the Erie), 907 The Climates of the Earth (Die Klimate der Erde; Hettner), 505 Clodius, Christian August Heinrich, 968 Clouzot, Henri-Georges, 901 Clubs. See German American clubs Cluss, Adolf (pseud. C. Lange), 248–249. See also Landscape architects, German American Coca-Cola, 227, 229, 250–251 advertisements of, 250–251 Americanization and, 78, 250 brands and, 250 consumerism and, 250, 257 Nazism and, 250 slogans of, 250–251 during World War II, 250 See also Americanization; Chewing gum; Consumerism; McDonald’s Restaurant Code Civil (Code Napoleon), 690 Cody, William F. See Buffalo Bill Coffee: The Epic of a

1225

Commodity (Jacob), 521 Coffee Mill (Kafeemuehle), 382 Cogswell, Joseph Green, 325, 326, 453, 1037, 1045 Cohen, Naomi W., 21 Cohn, Alfred E., 1077 Cohnstaedt, Wilhelm, 680 Cold War, 135, 136, 261, 364 Canada during, 211 denazification and, 276 German unification and, 438 Mexico during, 737 Paraguay during, 867 space race and, 164 Cole, Taylor, 390 Cole, Thomas, 154 Colegio Alemán school, 733–734, 736–737 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 1043 Collected Writings (Gesammelte Schriften; W. Humboldt), 533 Collier’s, 619 Colomb, Maria Elizabeth von, 532 Colombia conquest of, 255 immigration to, 24 Colombian-German Air Transport Company (SCADTA; Sociedad Colombo-Alemana de Transportes Aéreos), 978–982 competition and, 980–982 Deutsche Luft Hansa and, 980–981 during the Great Depression, 981–982 in Latin America, 979–982 monopoly of, 980 PAN AM and, 980, 981–982 Syndicato Condor and, 980–981 See also Lindbergh, Charles A.; Treaty of Versailles Colonial Empires and

1226

INDEX

Colonial Projects of Our Days (Die Kolonialreiche und Kolonisation-sprojekte der Gegenwart; Deckert), 273 Columbian German Air Transport Company. See Sociodad Colombo Alemana de Transportes Aéros Columbu, Franco, 959 Columbus, Christopher, 112, 114, 373, 660 Columbus Platform, 594 Commentary, 381 Commercial Advertiser, 187 Committee for the Support of German Jewish Refugees (CARIA; Comisão de Assistência aos Refugiados Israelitas da Alemanha), 173 Committee on Public Information (CPI), 252–253, 1164 Division of Work with the Foreign-Born, 252 film distribution and, 253 Friends of German Democracy and, 252–253 German militarism and, 252, 253 purpose of, 252, 253 Speaking Division, 252, 253 See also Lieber, Francis; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz; World War I Committee to Investigate Un-American Activities, 411 Commons, John R., 484 The Commonweal (Schuster), 969 Communism, 265 film (American) and, 339 Communist Party, 83, 267, 268 Community of True Inspiration (Wahre Inspirations-Gemeinde),

54–55 Compañía Minera de Peñoles, 743 The Companions (Die Gefährten; Seghers), 966 Complete Dictionary of the English and German Languages (Flügel), 355–356 Comte, Auguste, 168 Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics (Stallo), 243 “Concerning the Nature of North American United States or: Concerning the Bases of the Political Situation of the North Americans” (Duden), 284–285 Concord (English schooner), 873 Concordia Lutheran Church, 242 Condamine, Charles Marie de la, 395 The Condition of Man (Mumford), 794 Condor, 234 Confederation of Citizens of the German Reich (VDR; Verband Deutscher Reichsangehöriger), 734 Conference Committees for Democracy and Socialism, 268 Conference of Algeciras of 1906, 329 Conference on Jewish Material Claims, 657 Conference on Material Claims against Germany, 90 Confessing Church, 156 The Confessional Lutheran, 710 Confessions of a Barbarian (Viereck), 1097 Confessors of the Glory of Christ, 961 Confluence of the Fox River

and the Wabash (Bodmer), 154 Confronting History (Mosse), 777 Congress of Vienna of 1815, 659 Congresses International of Architecture Modern (CIAM), 467 A Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur’s Court (Mark Twain), 1064 Conquista, 254–256. See also Mining; Schmidel, Ulrich Conried, Heinrich, 800 Conservative Judaism, 594 Constanzia (Stroheim), 1017 Constitutional Government and Democracy (Friedrich), 390 Construction. See Aufbau Consumerism, 256–258 American culture and, 256 American myths and, 257 Americanization and, 256 anti-American sentiment and, 258 assimilation and, 100 automobile industry and, 258 Coca-Cola and, 250, 257 cultural programs and, 257–258 democratization and, 257 disposable incomes and, 257 film and, 256–257, 345 German youth rebellion and, 258 McDonald’s Restaurant and, 258 media and, 258 MTV and, 258 and U.S. government, influence of, 257–258 See also Coco-Cola; Hollywood; Mass consumption; McDonald’s Restaurant; Volkswager Company Container Corporation of America (CCA), 125 Continental Drift and the

INDEX Geology of the South Atlantic Ocean (Kontinentaldrift und Geologie des südatlantischen Ozeans; Maack), 714 Continental Society for the Diffusion of Religious Knowledge over the Continent of Europe, 59 A Contribution to the Characteristics of the Botokudian Language (Ein Beitrag zur Charakteristk der botokudischen Sprache; Ehrenreich), 295 Contributions to the Ethnology of Brazil (Beiträge zur Völkerkunde Brasiliens; Ehrenreich), 295 Contributions to the Lore of Brazil’s Mountains (Beiträge zur Gebirgskunde Brasiliens; Eschwege), 318 Contributions to the Natural History of Brazil (Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens; WiedNeuwied), 1140 Conversations-Lexicon (Brockhaus Konversations-Lexicon), 667 Conversations with Goethre in the Last Years of His Life (Gespräche mit Goethre in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens; Eckermann), 401 Cooder, Ry, 1133 Cook, Walter W. S., 563 Coolidge, Calvin, 271, 290, 1197 Cooper, Gary, 279, 863 Cooper, James Fenimore, 453, 555–556, 557, 558, 559, 676, 684, 834, 965, 1045 Cooper, Sarah Brown

Ingersoll, 608–609, 610 Cooperative for American Remittance to Europe (CARE), 259–261 The Cordillera States (Die Cordillerenstaaten; Sievers), 971 Corinth, Lovis, 129 Corman, Roger, 697–698 Cornelius, Hans, 47 Cornwallis, Edward, 830 Corpus Schwenkfeldianorum, 960, 963 Cosby, William, 1194–1195 Cosmopolitan, 619 Cosmos (A. Humboldt), 531, 532 Cotí, Otilia Lux de, 1040 Cotta, Baron von, 488 Cotta’s Morgenblatt (Morning Journal for Educated Readers), 975 The Cottonpickers (Die Baumwollpflücker; Traven), 1052 Coughlin, Charles, 589 Coughlin, Father, 410 Council for a Democratic Germany (CDG), 261–262. See also Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt, Fromm, Erich; Intellectual exile; Lorre, Peter; Mann, Thomas; Morgenthau Plan; Neumann, Franz L.; Tehran Conference; Thompson, Dorothy; Vansittartism; Zuckmayer, Carl Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany (CRALOG), 259–261 Council of States, 68 Counselor at Law (film), 1189 Counterintelligence Corps (CIC), 652 Counterrevolution and Revolt, 720, 721 The Country and the People

1227

of the Union (Land und Leute in der Union; Douai), 974–975 Courant, Richard, 460 Der Courier, 205 The Courier (Der Courier; Baudissin), 121 The Court of Mexico (Kollonitz), 622 Cousin, Victor, 1043 Covarrubias, Miguel, 862 The Covered Wagon (Hough), 619 Cowley, Malcolm, 520 Cox, George B., 241 Cox, James, 897 CPC. See Catholic Publishing Company CPI. See Committee on Public Information CPR. See Canadian Pacific Railway CRALOG. See Council of Relief Agencies Licensed for Operation in Germany Crawford, Johnson, 840 Creeds of Christendom (Schaff ), 939 Creel, George, 252, 253 Cretin, Bishop Joseph, 766 Crèvecoeur, Michel St. Jean de, 1045 Crick, Francis, 582 Crime and Punishment (Dostoyevsky), 1003 The Croesus of Philadelphia (Der Krösus von Philadelphia; Strubberg), 1018 Cromberger, Hans, 760–761 Cromberger, Jacob, 254 Cronenberg, David, 1134 Crosland, Alan, 1091 Cross, James, 1050 Crossing (Überfahrt; Seghers), 967 The Crusaders (Heym), 507 Crüsemann, Carl Eduard, 826–827 Cuba, S.S. St. Louis and, 991–992 Cukor, George, 1092

1228

INDEX

Cultivation of Germanity (Deutschtumspflege), 441 Cultural and Social Society of Brazilian Jews (SIBRA; Sociedade Israelita Brasileira de Cultura e Beneficência), 173 Cultural Impressions from California (Californische Kulturbilder; Kirchhoff ), 613 Cultural relations program, U.S., in West Germany, 365–367 The Culture of Cities (Mumford), 794 Cundinamarca valley, 255 Cunha, Flores da, 337 Cunningham, Imogen, 885 Cuno, Wilhelm, 271 Currie, Arthur, 1185 Curtiz, Michael, 697, 1092 “A Custom of the Island of Cea” (Coustume de l’Isle de Cea”; Montaigne), 526 CV. See German Catholic Central-Verein CWU. See Catholic Women’s Union Czinner, Paul, 1091 Czolgosz, Leon, 83 D-Day, 1174–1175 Da Fonseca, J. R., 407 DADD. See German Academic Exchange Service Daedalus, 381 DAF. See German Laborers Front Dafoe, John, 203 Daily American Tribune, 457, 458 Daily Tribune, 457 Damrosch, Leopold, 799–800 Dandridge, Dorothy, 902 Danish-German war, 827 Danish War, 575

Dante, 586, 695, 794 Dänzer, Carl, 92 Darlan, Jean-Francois, 219 Darmstaedters (Gesselschaft der Vierziger; Society of the Forty), 265–266. See also Adelsverein; Fredericksburg, Texas; New Braunfels, Texas; Sealsfield, Charles; Texas; Weitling, Wilhelm Darrieux, Danielle, 1143 Darrow, Clarence, 53 Darwin, Charles, 320, 409, 626, 1151 Dassin, Jules, 1092 Daughter’s Institute (Töchter Institut), 755 Davenport, Charles Benedict, 323 Davidson, David, 1050 Davis, Angela Yvonne, 51, 267–268, 810, 1068. See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Frankfurt School; Marcuse, Herbert Davis, Bette, 278, 1189 Davis, Frank, 267 Davis, Gray, 959 Davis, Harry, 512 Davis, Jefferson, 1147 Davis, Norman, 1079 Davis, Sally, 267 Davis, Sammy, Jr., 902 Davis, William Morris, 505 Dawes, Charles G., 269, 271–272 Dawes Plan, 269–272. See also Great Depression; Treaty of Versailles; World War I Daws Commmittee, 269, 272 Day of Freedom-Our Army (Tag der FreiheitUnsere Wehrmacht; film), 316–317 DCR. See Defence of Canada Regulations De Bois, Coert, 992

De Bry, Theodor, 373, 1044 De Fire Djaevle (Bang), 798 De Gaulle, Charles, 1070 De Kalb, Johann, 600 De Leon, Daniel, 977, 978 De Soto, Hernando, 373 De Stijl movement, 123 De Wette, Wilhelm, 357 The Dead on the Island Djal (Die Totel auf der Insel Djal; Seghers), 966 The Dead Stay Young (Die Toten bleiben jung; Seghers), 967 Dean, James, 78, 1132 Dean Reed: From My Life (Dean Reed. Aus meinem Leben), 920 Deane, Charles, 620 Deane, Silas, 1053 Dearborn Independent, 199 Deaver, Michael, 146, 148 Die Deborah, 17, 243, 1150 Debs, Eugene, 753, 758, 978 Debye, Peter, 149 Decartelization, Americanization and, 78 Decentralization, 66 Deception (film), 342 The Decision (Die Entscheidung; Seghers), 967 Deckert, Friedrich Karl Emil, 272–273. See also Sievers, Wilhelm Declaration of Potsdam of 1945, 66 DEFA. See Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft Defence of Canada Regulations (DCR), 208, 209 Degener, Eduard, 836 Degenerate Art, 129, 130 “Degenerate Music” exhibit of 1938, 49 Deiler, J. Hanno, 700, 816 Deitschlänner (Deutschländer), 287 DELAG. See German Airship Corporation

INDEX Delaplain, A. C., 990 Delbrück, Max, 577, 582 d’Elhuyar, Fausto, 762 d’Elhuyar, Juan, 762 Demilitarization, 66 Democracy in America (Tocqueville), 468 Der Democrat, 248 Democratic New Beginning, 439 Democratization, 66 consumerism and, 257 Demokrat (The Democrat), 188 The Demon of the Himalayas (Der Dämon of the Himilayas; film), 316 Denazification, 66, 67, 273–276 approaches to, 274 Cold War and, 276 defendant categories and, 275 during German occupation, 273, 274–275 NSDAP and, 274 problems of, 275 program magnitude and, 274, 275 purges and, 274–275 war tribunals and, 274–275 See also Nuremberg Trials; World War II Dengler, Adolph, 64–65 Denis, Paul Camille, 674 Department of External Affairs, 209 DesBrisay, Mather Byles, 832 Description of British Guiana (Schomburgk), 948 Description of His Journey (Reissbeschreibung; Seppenburg), 93 A Descriptive Catalogue of Maps Relating to America Mentioned in Hakluyt’s Great Work (Kohl), 620 The Desert Fox (film), 338

Despatchs and True News about the Rise and Expansion of Christendom among the Heathens in the New World, also about the Persecution and Salvation of the Chief Apostolic Priests (Sendschreiben und warhaffte Zeytunggen, Von Aussgang un Verweiterung des Christenthums bey den hayden in der neuer Welt Auch von Vervolgung und Heiliskeit der Geistlichen Apostolischen Vorsteher), 739 Dessent, 381 Destiny (Der Müde Tod; film), 342 Detroit Post, 954 Deutsch, 287, 288 Deutsch-Amerikanisches Magazin (German American Magazine), 243 Deutsch Zeitung von Mexico (German Newspaper of Mexico), 733 Deutsche Bank, 743 Deutsche Blätter (German Pages), 908 Deutsche Brüssler Zeitung (German Brussels Newspaper), 248 Der Deutsche Canadier und Neuigkeitsbote (The German Canadian and News Messenger), 855 Deutsche Evangelische Blätter für Brasilien (German Evangelical News for Brazil), 282, 283, 442 Deutsche Film Aktiengesellschaft (DEFA), Indian films of, 546–550 titles of, 546 Deutsche Frauen-Zeitung (German Women’s

1229

Newsletter), 84 Deutsche Geographische Blätter (German Geographical News), 630 Deutsche Grauenzeitung (German Women’s Journal), 754 Die Deutsche Hausfrau (The German Housewife), 907 Der deutsche Kirchenfreund (The German Church Advocate), 938 Deutsche La Plata Zeitung (German La Plata Newspaper), 95 Deutsche Luft Hansa, 980–981 Der Deutsche Pionier (The German Pioneer), 243 Deutsche Post (German Mail), 442, 928–929 Deutsche Presse (German Press), 857 Der Deutsche Reformer (The German Reformer), 1120 Der Deutsche (The German), 184 Der deutsche Vorkämpfer (The German Pioneer), 1097–1098 Deutsche Werkbund, 794 Deutsche Zeitung fuer Chile (German Newspaper for Chile), 237 Deutsche Zeitung (German Newspaper), 138, 406, 442, 625, 855 Deutscher Literaturfonds, 281 Deutscher Werkruf und Beobachter (German Wake-Up Call and Observer), 411 Deutschland, 287, 1156, 1157–1158 The Development of a Novel (Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus; Mann), 719 The Development of

1230

INDEX

Geographical and Ethnological Knowledge of Central America in the 16th Century (“Die Entwicklung der länderund völkerkundlichen Kenntnisse über Mittelamerika im 16. Jahrhundert”; Termer), 1024 The Devil Is a Woman (film), 1003 The Devil’s General (Des Teufels General; Zuckmayer), 1200 Dewey, John, 123, 261, 609, 610 DGIA. See Foundation for German Humanities Institutes Abroad Dhein, Carlos, 747, 1001 Dial, 401, 402 Dialectic of Enlightenment (Dialektik der Aufklärung; Horkheimer and Adorno), 48, 517–518 Dianetics (Hubbard), 57 Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific with a United States Government Expedition (Tagebuch einer Reise vom Mississippi nach den Küsten der Südsee; Möllhausen), 556, 768 DIAS, 912 Díaz, Félix, 858 Díaz, Porfirio, 216, 733 Dickinson, Emily, 312 Dickstein, Samuel, 87, 393, 394 Die Sierra Madre de Chiapas (Waibel), 1107 Die volkswehr (The People’s Defense), 464 Dieffenbach, Anton, 887 Dieseldorff, C. W., 276 Dieseldorff, Erwin Paul, 276–277, 935. See also Sapper family

Dieseldorff, H. R., 276 Dieterle, William, 277–278, 514, 697, 921. See also Hollywood, Leni, Paul; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Reinhardt, Max Dietrich, Joseph “Sepp,” 1175, 1176 Dietrich, Marlene Magdalene, 278–280, 512, 513–514, 574, 637, 703, 1003, 1199. See also Films (German), American influence on; Hollywood; Jannings, Emil; Reinhardt, Max; Sternberg, Josef von Dilger, Hubert “Leather Breeches,” 63 Dimension, 281 Dimension2, 280–281. See also Literature (German), the U.S. in; Literature (German American), in the nineteenth century; Literature, German Canadian Discoveries in Mexico (Entdeckungen in Mexico; Kisch), 614 Dishonored (film), 1003 Disney, Walt, 164, 1104 Dittenhoefer, Isaac, 150 Divina Commedia (Dante), 586 Döblin, Alfred, 518, 686 Dobrizhoffer, Martin, 93, 94, 282. See also Argentina; Paraguay Doctor Faustus (Doktor Faustus; Mann), 312, 719, 950 Dodd, Martha, 478 Dodd, William E., 86–87, 478 Dodsworth (Lewis), 663 Dohms, Hermann Gottlieb, 282–283, 407, 441. See also Brazil, religion in; Germanism, in Rio Grande do Sul Dolgoff, Sam, 83

Döll, Friedrich Wilhelm, 882, 883 Dollfuss, Engelbert, 583 Don Carlos (Motley), 780 Dönitz, Karl, 839 Donovan, William J., 1087 Don’t Come Knocking (film), 1134 Dorn, Melchior, 960 Dornberg, John, 422 Dorner, Isaak A., 938 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, 697, 1003 Doty, Paul M., 583 Douai, Adolf, 834, 835, 974–975 Double Indemnity (film), 1144 Douglas, Stephen A., 538, 821, 895 Douglass, Frederick, 103, 104, 105, 972, 975 Dr. Strangelove (film), 339 Drabsch, Gerhard, 560 Dracula (film), 797 Dragon in the Forest (Plant), 891 Dreher, Anton, 246 Dreiser, Theodore, 1048 Drescher, Martin, 387 Dresdner Bank, 743 Droysen, Johann Gustav, 195 Dryander, Johannes, 997 Du Bois, W. E. B., 1048 Du Bois, William, 304 Du Bois, William Edward Burghardt, 49 Du Roy, Adolf, 679 Du Roy, Anton, 679 Du Roy, Wilhelm, 679 Dubuis, Oscar, 635 Duchamp, Marcel, 563 Ducos, Armand, 41 Duden, Gottfried, 121, 283–285, 498, 656, 787, 974, 1046. See also Travel literature, Germany-U.S. Duetsche Amerikanische National Bund, 805 Duff, James M., 384, 836 Duguid, Fortescue, 1170 Dulk, Albert, 464 Dulles, Allan, 1037

INDEX Dungeon poetry (Kerkerpoesien; Weitling), 1126 Dunker, Wilhelm, 882 Dunkers, 239, 313 Dunt, Detlef, 285–287, 315. See also Ernst, Friedrich; Texas; Travel literature, Germany-U.S. Duponceau, Peter S., 307 Dupont, Edwald André, 574, 654 Duss, Susanna, 484 Dutch, 287–288. See also German unification; Pennsylvania German (Dutch); Pensylvania German (Dutch) language Dutch-Guyana: Experiences and Adventures of a 43-year Stay in the Colony of DutchGuyana (HolländischGuiana. Erlebnisse und Erfahrungen während eines 43jährigen Aufenthalts in der Kolonie Surinam; Kappler), 602 Duvivier, Julien, 697, 1003 Dwight, Edwin, 1046 Dwight, Henry Edwin, 587 Dwight, Sarah, 116 Dyhrenfurth, Günther O., 316 The Dying Indian to His Son (Der sterbende Indianer an seinen Sohn; Seume), 968 EAC. See European Advisory Commission Eagle Horn, 191 Eagleton, Terry, 381 Eames, Charles, 126 Early History of Saxonburg (W. Roebling), 928 East German Academy of Sciences, 422 East Germany (Childs), 422 East Germany (GDR; German Democratic

Republic), 69 antisemitism in, 90 study of, in U.S., 421–423 and U.S., relations between, 1071–1073 East Rider (film), 1132 Easter March (Ostermärsche) movement, 390 Eastman, George, 885 Ebel, Johann Wilhelm, 783 Ebenezer, Georgia, 404, 405 Ebenezer Society, 55 EBF. See European Baptist Federation Ebrard, Johannes August Heinrich, 928 Eby, Benjamin, 139, 1115 Eby, Elias, 925 Ecclesiastical Miscellanies from and about North America (Kirchliche Mittheilungen aus und über Nordamerika), 694 Echeverría, Luis, 736 Echo Germanica, 857 Eckener, Hugo, 289–290, 1198. See also Treaty of Versailles; Zeppelin Eckerlin, Israel, 313, 314 Eckerlin, Samuel, 313 Eckermann, Johann Peter, 454 Eckermann, Peter, 401 Eckhardt, Heinrich von, 744, 1158 ECSC. See European Coal and Steel Community Eddy, Mary Baker, 57 Ederle, Gertrud, 291–292 Ederle, Margaret, 291 Edict of Nantes of 1685, 830 Edison, Thomas, 124, 512 Edison Illuminating Company, 358 Edison Manufacturing Company, 341 The Education of Man (Fröbel), 609 Educational Alliance, 16 Edward VII, 1000 Edwards Law, 539 EG. See Evangelican Association Ege, George, 762

1231

Egg Harbor City, New Jersey, 157, 292–294. See also Fredericksburg, Texas; Hermann, Missouri; New Braunfels, Texas Eggenhofer, Nicholas, 619 Egmont (Goethe), 780 Egos and Civilization (Marcuse), 720 Egoyan, Atom, 1134 Ehinger, Georg, 254 Ehinger, Heinrich, 254 Ehrenberg, Herman, 1026 Ehrenfeuchter, Friedrich August Eduard, 928 Ehrenreich, Paul Max Alexander, 295–296, 1001. See also Argentina; Brazil; Steinen, Karl von den Eichler, Moritz, 244 Eichmann, Karl Adolf, 96, 296–297, 651, 652. See also Argentina; Latin America, Nazis in 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 297–300. See also American Civil War; Chicago; Hecker, Friedrich; Salomon, Edward S.; Schurz, Carl; Schimmelpfennig, Alexander Ein Robinson (film), 317 Einhorn, David, 15, 17, 18, 300–301, 592, 593, 595, 621, 622, 1149–1150. See also Judaism, Reform (North America); Kohler, Kaufmann; Wise, Isaac Mayer Einhorn, Karl Friedrich, 459 Einstein, Albert, 21, 88, 124, 302–305, 562, 575–576, 819, 1075–1076, 1141, 1142, 1199. See also Intellectual exchange; Wigner, Eugen(e) Paul Eirich, Frederick, 583

1232

INDEX

Eisenacher Social Democratic Labor Party (Eisenacher Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei), 669 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 67, 292, 507 Battle of the Bulge and, 1175 North African landings, during World War II and, 1173 Rhine crossing, during World War II and, 1178 Eisenhower administration, 367, 1071 Eisenman, Peter, 90 Eisenstaedt, Alfred, 886 Eisler, Hanns, 949 Eizenstat, Stuart, 90 El Dorado, 255 El Dorado, or, Adventures in the Path of Empire (Taylor), 1021 El País, 868 Elbe, Joachim von, 1180 ELCA. See Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Elective Affinities (Die Wahlverwandschaften; Goethe), 401–402 Eliot, Charles, 224 Eliot, Charles W., 373, 796 Eliot, John, 937 Elisabeth Irwin high school, 267 Elkins, Herschel, 473 Ellen Levis (Singmaster), 973 Elliot, S. R., 1170 Ellwanger, George, 635 Elsner, Richard, 752 Eltges, Joseph, 189 Emanu-El, 150 Embden, Gustav, 580 Emergency Federation of Peace Forces, 39 Emergency Immigration Restriction Act of 1921 (Johnson Act), 19 Emergency Organization of German Anti-Fascists (Notgemeinschaft

Deutscher Antifaschisten), 173 Emergency Relief Appropriation Act, 411 Emergency Rescue Committee, 563 Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 357, 400, 607, 1041, 1042, 1045 Emigrant House, 182 Emigrant Stories (emigrantengeschichten; Griesinger), 465 Emigration Act of 1832, 181 Emil and the Detectives (Emil und die Detektive; film), 1143 Emmerich, Lothar, 512 Emmerich, Roland, 346, 514 Emperor William the Great (Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse), 827 Empress of China (trading vessel), 107 EMTV, 258 Enabling Act, 185 Encyclopaedia Americana, 305–311 contributors to, 307 German authors in, 308–309 German philosophers and theologians in, 309–310 German scholars in, 308, 310 German scientists in, 310 Germany in, 307–308 weakness of, 310–311 See also Adelung, Johann Christoph; Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward; Göttingen, University of; Humboldt, Wilhelm von; Lieber, Francis; Ticknor, George; Transcendentalism; Vater, Johann Severin The End of Violence (film), 1134 Ende, Amalie (Amelia) von, 311–312

See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska Ende, Heinrich von, 311 Ender, Thomas, 809 Endler, Adolf, 688, 1050 Endlicher, Stephan, 892–893 Enemy at the Gates (film), 339 Enerle, Josef, 1049 Engel, Georg, 490 Engelhardt, Heinrich Adolph, 635 Engels, Erich, 345 Engels, Friedrich, 248, 668, 1145 England’s World Domination and the War (englands Weltherrschaft und der Krieg; Hettner), 505 Engleman, Sophia, 618 The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser (film), 501 Ense, Karl August Varnhagen von, 103 Enslin, Gotthold Frederick, 1007 Enzensberger, Hans Magnus, 281, 686, 1049 Ephrata, 312–314. See also Germantown, Pennsylvania; Mann, Thomas; Pennsylvania; Pietism; Weiser, Conrad Ephron, Nora, 703 ERASMUS, 400, 435 Erasmus, 534 Erb, Abraham, 1115, 1119 Erb, John, 1115 Erd, Franz Ignatz, 242 Erdoes, Richard, 1131 Erhard, Ludwig, 1099 Erich, Bruno, 1049 Erikson, Erik, 562 Erkenbrecher, Andreas (Andrew), 245, 246, 1011 Erlanger, Raphael, 62 Ernst, Andrew H., 245 Ernst, Friedrich, 40, 41, 286, 287, 314–316. See also Adelsverein; Duden, Gottfried;

INDEX Dunt, Detlef, Texas Ernst, Johann Friedrich, 1025–1026 Ernst, Max, 563 Ernst August I, 459 Ernst II, 784 ERP. See European Recovery Program Ertl, Hans, 316–317. See also Hollywood Ervendberg, L. C., 814 The Escape (Die Retung; Seghers), 966 Eschwege, Wilhelm Ludwig von, 318, 638, 762–763. See also Brazil; Mining Espionage Act of 1917, 900 Espionage and Sedition Act, 319–320, 1164, 1165. See also Newspaper Press (U.S.), German language in; World War I, German Americans and; World War I, German prisoners and civilian internees in Esquire, 890 An Essay on Liberation, 720–721 Estermann, Immanuel, 584, 585 Et in terra pax (May), 726 Ethical Culture Society, 622 The Ethics of Lao Tse with special emphasis on Buddhist Morality (Die Ethik Laotses mit besonderer Bezugnahme auf die buddhistische Moral; Rotermund), 928 Ethnic German Coordination Office (Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle), 645 Ethnological Museum (Museum für Völkerkunde), 295 Ethnology (Völkerkunde; Ratzel), 914 Ettwein, John, 888 Eugenic News, 323 Eugenics, 320–325. See also

Antisemitism; Intellectual exchange Eugenics movement anti-immigrant sentiments and, 322, 323 Criminologists and, 321–322 European intellectuals and, 321–322 euthanasia program and, 324–325 financial assistance for, 323 Holocaust and, 325 Jews and, 321 marriage prohibition and, 322–323 NSDAP and, 323 roots of, 320 sterilization program and, 322, 323, 324 in U.S., 322–323, 324 Well of Life program and, 323–324 during World War I, 323 Euler, William D., 141, 206 Europa (ship), 828 European Advisory Commission (EAC), 1023, 1080–1081 European Baptist Federation (EBF), 59 European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), 363 European Community, 114 European Defense Community, 364–365 European Economic Community (EWG; Europäische Wirtschaftsunion in Germany), 114 European Recovery Program. See Marshall Plan European Russia (Das europäische Russland; Hettner), 505 Euthanasia, 324–325 Evangelical Alliance (Evangelische Allianz), 60 Evangelical and Reformed Church, 427

1233

Evangelical Association (EG; Evangelische Gemeinschaft), 58 Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession, 283 Evangelical Lutheran Church, 240 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), 711 Evangelical Lutheran Synod, 710 Evangelical Synod of North America, 427 Even Dwarves Started Small (Auch Zwerge haben klein angefangen; film), 500 Evens in eight years of Brazilian history (Rerum per Octennium in Brasiliae...historia; Markgraf ), 722 Everett, Edward, 306, 307, 325–327, 453, 459, 1037, 1038, 1045. See also American students, at German universities; Bancroft; George; Encyclopedia Americana; Göttingen, University of; Motley, John Lothrop; Ticknor, George Evian Conference of 1938, 208 EWG. See European Economic Community The Excursion of the Dead Young Girls (Der Ausflug der toten Mädchen; Seghers), 967 Excursions of a Naturalist (Wandertage eines Naturforschers; Ratzel), 914 Exile. See Intellectual exile The Exiles (Robinson), 834 Expressionist movement, 123 Eymann, Conrad, 205 Eyring, Henry, 584

1234

INDEX

Fabacher, Joseph, 700 Fabri, Friedrich, 928 The Fabulous Baker Boys (film), 515 Fachhochschulen, 400 Fairbanks, Douglas, 343 Faith and Beauty (Glaube und Schönheit; film), 317 The Faith (Das Vertrauen; Seghers), 967 Faith for Living (Mumford), 794 Fajans, Kasimir, 584 Falckner, Daniel, 603 Falin, Valentin, 1138 Falk, Peter, 1133 Falklands War, 96 Falkner, Justus, 889 La Fanciulla del West (The Child of the West; Puccini), 190 Fanck, Arnold, 316–317 Fankuchen, Isidor, 583 Far East, U.S.-German entente in, 329–331. See also Sternburg, Hermann Speck von; Venezuelan crisis Faraway, So Close! (film), 1134 Farrar, Geraldine, 801 Fassbinder, Rainer Werner, 351–352, 447, 1133 Fata Morgana (Douai), 834 Fata Morgana (film), 500 The Fatherland, 1098 Fatherland (Schutzhäftling Nr. 880; Lewis), 664 Faulhaber, Hermann, 749 Faulhaber, Marie, 749 Faupel, Wilhelm, 331–332, 606, 642, 644. See also Argentina; Latin American, German military advisers in; Latin America, Nazi party in; Treaty of Versailles Fauser, Jörg, 687 Faust (Goethe), 326, 402, 695, 696, 1021, 1022 Favor (Gefallen; Mann), 718 Favores Celestiales (Kino), 612

Fawcett, Millicent Garrett, 565 FAZ. See Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation FDG. See Central Committee of the Freie Deutsche Jugend Feder, Ernst, 174 Federal Association of Environmental Citizens’ Iniatives (BBU; bundesverband Bürgerinitiativen Umweltschutz), 603 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 304, 305, 412, 671 Federal Chancellory (Bundeskanzleramt), 281 Federal Farm Credit Act of 1916, 420 Federal Institute of Technology, 163 Federal Republic of Germany. See West Germany Federalist Revolution, 168 Federation of Baptist Congregations, 59 Federation of Evangelical Free Churches (VEF; Vereinigung Evangelischer Freikirchen), 60 Federation of Foreign German Associations (Verband Deutscher Vereine im Ausland), 171 Federation of Free Church Pentecost Congregations (Bund Freikirchlicher Pfingstgemeinden), 60 Federation of German American Clubs, 413 Federation of German Associations (Verband Deutscher Vereine), 171 Federation of German Women’s Clubs (BDF;

Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine), 192–194. See also Addams, Jane; International Council of Women Federation of Synods, 283 Federmann, Nikolaus, 255 Federspiel, Jürgen, 689, 1050 Fedora (film), 1144 Feingold, Russell, 1179 Feininger, Andreas, 333. See also Bauhaus; Photography Feininger, Lyonel, 123, 333 Feldmann, Nikolaus, 1044 Felheimer, Alfred, 246 Fellini, Federico, 447 Felmming, Paul, 695–696 Felsenthal, Bernhard, 592, 593, 1149 Feminism, anarchism and, 82 Fenwick, Bishop Edward, 658 Ferdinand, Emperor, 551 Fererbach, Friedrich, 600 Ferguson, John H., 999 Ferneding, Joseph, 242 Ferrocarriles Nacionales de México, 743 Fest-Commers, 335–336 Festivities, GermanBrazilian, 334–337. See also Brazil; German unification (1871); Treaty of Versailles Festschriften, 334 Fettweis, Leopold, 241 Feuchtwanger, Lion, 108, 261, 518, 521, 523, 524, 525, 563, 663, 664, 908 Feuerbach, Ludwig, 928, 1126 Fichte, Hubert, 688 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 667 Fichte-Bund, 410 Fick, Adolf, 691 Fick, Heinrich H., 244 Fielden, Samuel, 52, 490 Fifteen Years in America (Fünfzehn Jahre in Amerika; Lenk), 656

INDEX Film (American), 338–340 ban on, in Germany, 342, 343 consumerism and, 256–257 export of, 341, 343, 344–345, 346 German Communism and, 339 mad scientists and, 339–340 Nazism and, 338–339 See also Hollywood Film (German) “angry young men” movement and, 345 “author film” and, 347 Autorenfilme and, 347 ban on American films and, 342, 343 censorship, local tax policy and, 342 consumerism and, 345 distribution system of, 341 emigration of filmmakers, actors and, 343, 344 export of, 342–343 feature-length narrative and, 341 German filmmakers and, 353 “German” style of, 341, 342 heimatfilme and, 345 Indianer Filme and, 345–346, 352–353 international film industry and, 341 Nazi films and, 350–351 Nazism and, 344 New German Cinema and, 346, 347, 351, 352–353 Parufamet and, 343 during post-World War I era, 342 during post-World War II era, 345–347, 351–353 purification of, 345 reconstruction of Germany identity and, 351–353 socialist principles and,

345–346 state regulation, audience taste and, 343–344 techniques of, 341 television spectators and, 346–347 U.S. duality in, 348–350 U.S. image in, 347–353 U.S. influence on, 340–347 video store and, 346–347 during World War I, 341–342, 348 during World War II, 344–345 See also Dietrich, Marlene; Herzog, Werner; Indian films, of DEFA; Jannings, Emil; Lang, Fritz; Leni, Paul; Lorre, Peter; Lubitsch, Ernst; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Sternberg, Josef von; Wenders, Wem; Wilder, Billy Film industry German, end of, 514–515 Hollywood and, 511–514 Final Solution (Endlösung), 296–297 Finckenstein, Count, 37 Findeisen, Theodore, 245 Finnish-American National Evangelical Lutheran Church, 710 Firmian, Leopold Maximilian Graf, 659 First Church of Christ, Scientist, 57 First Fever, Second Fever, Fortune (Febris primna, Febris secunda, Fortuna; Hutten), 534 First International Dada Fair (Erste Internationale Dada-Messe), 491 First Moroccan Crisis, 329, 354–355. See also Far East, U.S.German entente in; Sternburg, Hermann Speck von; Venezuelan crisis

1235

Fischer, Adalbert, 725–726 Fischer, Adolph, 490 Fischer, Albert, 580 Fischer, Martin, 441 Fischer, Wilhelm L., 223, 845 Fisher, Franklin, 156 Fisher, Henry Francis, 41, 42 Fisher, Laura, 608 Fisher-Miller Colony, 41, 42 Fisher-Miller Grant, 266 Fishing Grounds and the Fishing Industry of the West Coast of North America (Fischgründe und Fischereiwirtschaft an der Westküste Nordamerikas; Bartz), 119–120 Fishing industry, 119 Fitzcarraldo (film), 501 Fitzgerald, F. Scott, 686 Five Days in June (5 Tage im Juni; Heym), 507 Five Graves in Cairo (film), 1143 Flaherty, Robert, 798 Flanders, 254 Fleischer, Richard, 697 Fleischmann, Charles, 241 Fleischmann, Consul, 375 Fleischmann, Julius, 241 Fleming, Donald, 582 Fleming, Victor, 574 Flemming, Paul, 695–696 Flexner, Abraham, 303 The Flora of Brazil (Flora brasiliensis; Martius), 723 Flores, Bartholomé (Barthel Blümlein; Bartholomäus Blumen), 234 Flügel, Felix, 355–356 Flügel, Johann Gottfried, 355–356. See also American students, at German universities; List, Friedrich; New Orleans Fly, Edwin Maxwell, 467 Flying Star (Fliegender Stern;

1236

INDEX

Wölfel), 560 Foch, Marshal, 1160 Fodor, Mike, 398 Foerster, Friedrich Wilhelm, 1087 Foesterling, Herman, 341 Folk Literature of the Selknam Indians (Gusinde), 470 Folk Literature of the Yamana Indians (Gusinde), 470 Follen, Charles (Karl), 356–358, 400, 695, 780, 1046, 1047, 1060, 1073. See also Fuller, Margaret; Muench, Friedrich; Ticknor, George; Transcendentalism; Turner Societies; Intellectual exchange Follen, Paul. See Follenius, Paul Follenius, Paul (Paul Follen), 787 FONG. See Friends of the New Germany Fontane, Theodor, 685 Foote, Danella, 1114 Ford, Emma, 52 Ford, Gerald R., 614 Ford, Henry, 124, 198, 199, 358–359, 671, 1102 Americanization and, 76 See also Business, U.S.Third Reich; Fordism; Great Depression Ford, John, 358, 1133 Ford Foundation, 433 Ford Model T, 358, 360 Ford Motor Company, 358, 360, 1102–1103 and Nazi Germany, business between, 198–200 Ford-Werke AG, 199–200 Fordism, 360–361 Americanization and, 78–79, 361 See also Americanization; Bauhaus; Ford, Henry; Gropius, Walter Adolph; Volkswagen Company

Fordtran, Charles, 315 A Foreign Affair (film), 351 Foreign Affairs, 1035 Foreign Organization (AO; Auslandsorganisation), 735 Foreign Organization of the Nazi Party, 410 Foreign policy, U.S. European Defense Community and, 364–365 integration strategy in West Germany and, 363–367 Marshall Plan and, 363–364, 365 Mutual Security Program and, 364 Occupation Statute and, 363 Petersberg Agreement and, 363 Pleven Plan and, 364 and West Germany, influence on, 362–367 in West Germany, Cold War and, 364 in West Germany, cultural relations program and, 365–367 in West Germany, Korean War and, 364 in West Germany, NATO and, 364, 365 Förster, Auguste, 193 Förster, Bernhard, 368–369, 867. See also Antisemitism; Paraguay Forster, Georg, 683 Förster-Nietzsche, Elisabeth, 368–369 Fortune magazine, 992 The Forty. See Darmstaedters Forty-Eighters, 7, 64, 84, 92, 121, 369–372, 375–378 German-American novel and, 833 as ISZ editors, 540, 541 as newspaper editors, 370

political parties and, 370–371 See also American Civil War, German participants in; Griesinger, Karl Theodor; Hecker, Friedrich; Kap, Friedrich; Kindergartners; Newspaper Press (American), German language in; Osterhaus, Peter J.; Schimmelpfennig, Alexander; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz; Verein; Willich, August von Forty-first National Saengerfest, 245 Foster, Charles R., 422 Foundation for German Humanities Institutes Abroad (DGIA; Stiftung Deutsche Geisteswissenschaftlich e Institute im Ausland), 423 Four D Program, 66 Four Devils (film), 798 Four-Minute Men, 252 Four-Year Plan, 650 Fourier, Charles, 497, 1043, 1126, 1127 Fourteen Points, 1162–1163 Fox, William, 512–513, 797 Fox Film Company, 512 Fox Film Corporation, 512 Fox Hills Studios, 512 Fraenkel, Ernst, 686 Fraenkel-Conrat, Heinz, 581 Francis I, 166, 723 Franciscis, Erasmus, 682 Franck, James, 233, 460, 577 Francke, August Hermann, 888 Francke, Kuno, 372–373, 1074. See also Münsterberg, Hugo; Intellectual exchange Franco, Francisco, 304, 645 Franco-German War of 1870, 639

INDEX Franco-Prussian War, 139, 232, 368, 415, 437, 575, 665 Frank, Bruno, 1044 Frank, Hans, 839 Frank, Josef, 794 Frank, Karl (a.k.a. Paul Hagen), 261, 262 Frank and Gans company, 377 Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper, 803 Frank Wildman’s Adventures on Land and Water (Fritz Waldau’s Abenteuer zu Wasser und zu Lande; Gerstäcker), 558 Frankenstein (film), 339 Frankford Land Company, 443 Frankfurt am Main citizens of, in U.S., 373–378 Forty-Eighters and, 375–378 Texas war for independence and, 373–375 Wrigley’s Company in, 227 See also American Civil War, financial support of Frankfurt Bankers for; HamburgAmerican Parcel Shipping Joint Stock Company; Koerner, Gustave; Migration, German-Jewish; Milwaukee; New York City; Schiff, Jacob Henry Frankfurt Association for the Protection of Emigrants (Frankfurter Verein zum Schutz der Auswanderer), 375 Frankfurt bankers, 375–377 financial support of, for American Civil War, 61–62, 376 Frankfurt Metal Society (Frankfurter

Metallgesellschaft), 743 Frankfurt School, 378–381, 517. See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Frankfurt am Main, citizens of, in U.S.; Horkheimer, Max; Intellectual exile; Marcuse, Herbert; New York City Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ; Frankfurt General News), 158, 159 Frankfurter Zeitung (Frankfurt News), 158, 289, 627, 890, 966 Franklin, Benjamin, 446, 452, 453, 683, 822–823, 874–875, 894, 905 Steuben and, 1006 Treaty of 1785 and, 1053 Franz, Otto, 1184 Frazier, Tom, 1180 Fredegar, 987 Fredendall, Lloyd, 1174 Frederic, Harold, 1048 Frederica, Georgia, 404–405 Frederick the Great, 600 Fredericksburg: Texan Colony of the German Nobility Club (Friedrichsburg, Die Colonie des deutschen Fürsten-Vereins in Texas; Strubberg), 1018 Fredericksburg, Texas, 381–385 during American Civil War, 384 annual festivals in, 385 education in, 384 German language in, 384 German-language press in, 384 religion in, 383–384 during World War I, 384–385 See also Adelsverein; Meusbach, John O.;

1237

New Braunfels, Texas; Neuces, Battle of the; Texas Fredericksburg Heritage Foundation, 385 Free German Youth. See Central Committee of the Freie Deutsche Jugend Free Schools Act of 1834, 962 Freedom and Slavery under the Star-Spangled Banner (Freiheit und Sklaverei unter dem Sternenbanner; Griesinger), 974 Freeman, Douglas S., 1087 Freemasons, 417 Freemen’s Society (Freimännerverein), 242 Freethinkers’ women’s clubs, 415–416 Freiburger Schule of filmmaking, 316 Freie Presse (Free Press), 138, 173, 188, 241, 243, 246, 247, 542 Freies Deutschland (Free Germany), 614, 908 Freiheit (Freedom), 385–387, 778–779, 958. See also Anarchists; AntiSocialist Law; Buffalo, New York; Most, Johann; New York City; Newspaper Press (American), German language in Freiheit Publishing Association, 387 Freikorps Görlitz (Freikorps Faupel), 332 Freiligrath, Ferdinand von, 684, 696 Frémont, John, 64, 494, 665, 788, 953 French and Indian War, 874 French Encyclopedists, 889 French Gymnasium, 163 French Society for the Propagation of the Faith, 658 Freud, Sigmund, 380, 395,

1238

INDEX

562, 720 Freund, Ernst, 387–388. See also Burgess, John William Freund, Karl, 514, 797, 1188 Freundlich, Herbert, 584 Freyreiss, Georg Wilhelm, 1139 Freytag, Gustav, 684 FRG. See West Germany Frick, Wilhelm, 839 Fried, Erich, 686–687 Friedensfest (Peace Festival), 139 Friederici, Georg, 935 Friedlein, Emanuel, 1066 Friedman, Perry, 389–390. See also Reed, Dean Friedrich, Carl Joachim, 390–391. See also American Occupation Zone; Foreign policy, U.S., and Western Germany, influence on Friedrich, Johann, 452 Friedrich, Prince, 42, 382 Friedrich, Wilhelm, 487 Friedrich Augustus II, 586 Friedrich I, 871 Friedrich II, 336, 502–503, 1006, 1053, 1054 Friedrich III, 864 Friedrich Krupp firm, 640 Friedrich von Zollern (Griesinger), 466 Friedrich Wilhelm III, 707–708, 989 Friedrich Wilhelm Institute, 117 Friedrich Wilhelm IV, 989 Friedrichs, Jakob Aloys, 441 Friend of Mankind (Der Weltfreund; Werfel), 521 Friends of German Democracy, 252–253 Friends of the Gegenwart, 173 Friends of the New Germany (FONG), 87, 189, 391–394, 410

decline of, 393–394 origin of, 391–392 UGS and, 392–393 un-American activities investigation and, 393 Fries, Jakob Friedrich, 667 Friesen, Gerhard Johann (pseud. Fritz Senn), 680 Frisch, Max, 687, 689, 1050 Frischmuth, Barbara, 281 Fritsch, Karl von, 922, 1019 Fritz, Samuel, 165, 394–395. See also Brazil, 394 Fritzsche, Hans, 839 Fröebel, Friedrich, 95, 606–611, 715, 951, 952 Fröbel, Julius, 1046 Fröbel, Luise Levine, 607 Froebel, Julius, 974 From America (Auß America), 739 From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (Kracauer), 627 From Mexico (Aus Mexico; Ratzel), 914 From Mexico to the Mosquitia (Von Mexiko bis zur Mosquitia; Helbig), 497 From Roroima to the Orinoco (Vom Roroima zum Orinoko; Koch-Grunberg), 617 Fromm, Erich, 378, 379, 381, 395–396, 562, 564, 819. See also Frankurt School; Intellectual exile, Marcuse, Herbert; Mexico The Front Page (Hecht) Fruton, Joseph, 581 Fuchs, Emil, 396 Fuchs, Klaus, 208, 396–398. See also Stalin Note; Braun, Wernher von Fuchs family, 783

Fugger, Jacob, 254 Fugger company, 93, 254, 255 Fugitive Pieces (Michael), 675 Fuhrmann, Louis, 188 Fulbright, James William, 398, 399, 1050 Fulbright Act, 433 Fulbright Commission, 434, 435 Fulbright Program, 398–400, 433–434. See also German students, at American universities; Intellectual exchange Fuller, Margaret, 357, 400–402, 1041, 1045. See also follen, Charles; Transcendentalism Fuller, Samuel, 1132 Fülöp-Miller, René, 526 Funk, Walther, 839 Funke, Alfred, 409 Fur trade, 105–106 Gabel, Kurt, 1180 Gabin, Jean, 697 Gagern, Friedrich Freiherr von, 1047 Galeen, Henrik, 1091 Galileo, 180 Gall, Ludwig, 1046 Gallatin, Albert, 106, 116, 453 Galton, Francis, 322 Gambrinus Stock Brewery, 247 Gandhi, Mahatma, 519 Gans, Emil, 441 Gansweidt, Mathias, 409 Garbo, Greta, 278, 1143 Gard, Roger Martin du, 528 Gardel, Carlos, 982 Gardiner, James, 210 Garfield, James A., 953 Garibaldi, Giuseppe, 84 Garrison, William Lloyd, 357 Die Gartenlaube (The Arbor), 929–930, 975 Gärth, Franz, 374

INDEX Gary, Joseph E., 489 Garza, Maria Antonio Veramendi, 812 Garza, Rafael C., 812 Gaulle, Charles de, 214 Gauß, Carl Friedrich, 459 Gay, John, 179 GDR. See East Germany GDR Bulletin, 422 GDR Studies in Culture and Society, 422 Gegenwart (Today), 173 Geiger, Abraham, 15, 301, 591 Geisel, Ernesto, 403. See also Brazil Geisel, Wilhelm August, 403 Gellert, Christian Fürchtegott, 682 General Archive of Ethnography and Linguistics (Allgemeines Archiv für Ethnographie und Linguistik; ed. Vater and Bertuch), 1088 General Assembly of German Catholic Societies, 201 General Council of Congregational Christian Churches, 427 General Electricity Company. See Allgemeine ElektricitätsGesellschaft General Federation of Women’s Clubs, 415 General German Workers Association (Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverein), 669 General History of Virginia, New England, and the Summer Isles (J. Smith), 544 General Motors, 78 and Nazi Germany, business between, 198, 199–200 The General Mythology and Its Ethnological Bases

(Die allgemeine Mythologie und ihre ethnologischen Grundlagen; Ehrenheich), 296 General Peter Mühlenberg (Wollenweber), 835 The General Principles of the Philosophy of Nature (Stallo), 243 General Regional Geography (Allgemeine Länderkunde; Deckert), 273 General Synod, 709 Generals Die in Bed (Harrison), 1185 Genius and Madness (Lombroso), 321 Genscher, Hans-Dietrich, 439 Genthe, Arnold, 884 The Geographic-Economic Character of North America’s Countries (Die Länder Nordamerikas in ihrer wirtschaftgeographische n Ausrüstung; Deckert), 273 Geographische Zeitschrift (Geographic Journal), 505 Geography: Its History, Nature, and Methods (Die Geographie, ihre Geschichte, ihr Wesen und ihre Methoden; Hettner), 505 Geography and Geology of Ecuador (Geografía y Geología del Ecuador; Wolf ), 1151 Geological Pictures from Brazil (Geognostische Gemählde von Brasilien; Eschwege), 318 Geology and geography of the Vila Velha Region, in the State of Paraná and thoughts on carboniferous glaciers in Brazil (Geologia e

1239

geografia da região de Vila Velha, Estado do Paraná e considerações sôbre a glaciação carbonifera no Brazil; Maack), 714 George, Manfred, 108, 908 George C. Marshall Space Flight Center, 164 George II, 404, 831 George III, 503, 791 George VI, 209 George Washington Birthday Exercises, 631 Georgia, 403–405 American Revolution in, 405 colonial period in, 403–405 German communities in, decline of, 405 German settlements in, 404 immigration to, 403–405 Gericke, Wilhelm, 801 Gerlach, Arthur von, 921 Gerlach, Kurt Albert, 378 Gerlach, Walther, 584 German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD; Deutscher Akademische Austauschdienst), 398–399, 432, 433, 434 German Academy of the Arts (Deutsche Akademie der Künste), 180 German Agricultural Settlements in the South American Grasslands, the Pampas and Gran Chaco (Deutsche Ackerbausiedlungen im südamerikanischen Grasland, Pampa und Gran Chaco; Wilhelmy), 1145 German Aid Society, 232 German Airship

1240

INDEX

Corporation (DELAG; Deutsche Luftschiff-AktienGesellschaft), 290 German almanacs (Kalender), in Rio Grande do Sul, 405–409, 442 agriculture section in, 408 entertainment section in, 409 home medicine section in, 408 legal education section in, 408 popular, 405–406 regional, 407–408 religious, 406–407 reminiscences section in, 408–409 structure of, 408–409 women sections in, 408 German American, 1199 German American Bund (Amerikadeutscher Volksbund), 87, 209, 233, 392, 394, 410–412, 631. See also Antisemitism; Buffalo, New York; Friends of the New Germany; Kuhn, Fritz Julius German American Business League, 410 German-American Central Alliance of Pennsylvania, 505, 805 German American clubs, in West Germany, 412–413 in American Occupation Zone, 413 See also American Occupation Zone; GIs, in West Germany; Bases, U.S., in West Germany German American Cultural Center, 816 German-American Economic Bulletin, 1098 German American

Friendship Week, 413 German American Fulbright Program, 398–400 German-American Mining Corporation, 742 German-American Mining Society (DeutschAmerikanischer Bergwerksverein), 763 German American professorial exchange program, 1074, 1075, 1076–1077 German-American Progressive Associations, 666 German-American United, 666 German American Women’s Organizations, 413–418 during Franco-Prussian War, 415 freethinkers’ women’s clubs and, 415–416 lodges of secret societies and, 416–417 political refugees and, 415 self-improvement and leisure activities and, 415 Socialist movement and, 416 trade unions and, 416–417 Turner movement and, 416 women’s church groups and, 414–415 during World War I, 415 See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; FortyEighters; Kindergartners; Milwaukee; Sons of Hermann; Turner Societies; Verein German American Young Ladies Institute, 311–312 German Archaeological Institute, 423 German-Argentine Cultural Institution

(Institución Cultural Argentino-Germana), 96 German Association for the League of Nations (Deutsche Liga für den Völkerbund), 144–145 German Association of Canada (Deutscher Bund Kanada), 207 German-Austrian-Hungarian Aid Society, 246 A German Baron (Ein deutscher Baron; Arming), 835 German calendar. See German almanacs German Canadian Business and Professional Organization, 141 German-Canadian Press Association (DeutschKnadischer Pressverein), 856 German Catholic CentralVerein (CV), 219, 220, 221, 222, 418–421, 457, 604, 605 founding of, 418, 419 membership in, 418 original purpose of, 418 social reform mission of, 419–420 See also Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr.; Kenkel, Frederick P. German Chilean Association (DCB; DeutschChilenische Bund; Liga ChilenaAlemana), 237, 238 German Club, in Mexico, mexicanization of, 736 German Communist Party (KPD), 490–491 German Conspiracies in America: From an American Point of View, by an American (Münsterberg), 796 German Day (Deutscher Tag), 336–337, 393 German Democratic

INDEX Republic. See East Germany German Dictionary (Versuch eines vollständigen grammatisch-kritischen Wörterbuches der hochdeutschen Mundart, mit beständiger Vergleichung der übrigen Mundarten, besonders aber der Oberdeutschen), 43 German Educational Support Law, 435 A German (Ein Deutscher; Ruppius), 930 The German Element in the United States (Das deutsche Element in den Vereinigten Staaten; Bosse), 156–157 German Emigration Company, 40, 42 The German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and other states (Die Duetsche EvangelischLutherische Synode von Missouri, Ohio und anderen Staaten), 709 German flag, in Latin America, 735 German Foreign Affair Institute (DeutschesAusland-Institut), 410 German Foreign Office (AA; Auswärtiges Amt), 1169–1170 German Foreign Relations Ministry, 169 German Historical Institute (GHI), 423–424 book series of, 423–424 funding of, 423 research of, 424 seminars, symposia, conferences and, 423, 424 travel grants of, 424 See also American students, at German universities; German

students, at American universities; East Germany, study of, in U.S. German House (Deutsches Haus), 231, 816 German identity, reconstruction of, and German film, 351–353 The German Institute (Das Deutsche Institute), 243 German Jesuits, 111, 394–395, 573 in Argentina, 93–94 in Mexico, 738–740 name/identity changes of, 739–740 German Jewish Club, 108 German Jewish refugees in Brazil, 172–175 in Canada, 208 in Cuba, 991–992 national relief organizations for, 173 in New York City, 819–820 racism and, 34 on S.S. St Louis, 992–993 in U.S., 992 See also German refugees; Jewish refugee scientists; Migration, German-Jewish German Labor Front (DAF; Deutsche Arbeitsfront), 1103–1104 in Canada, 207 German Land Company, 851 German language Americanisms in, 71–74 assimilation and, 98, 99–100 in Ontario newspaper press, 855–857 in U.S. newspaper press, 822–826 See also Iowa, German dialects in; Kansas, German dialects in; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) language;

1241

Texas, German dialects in; under individual countries and U.S. cities and states German-language societies, 3–5 German Lodge, 816 German Lutherans, 5, 8 German Lyceum (Liceo Aleman), 469 German Methodist Church, 384 German-Mexican Mining Society (DuetschMexihanischer Bergwerks-Verein), 763 German Mutual Insurance Company, 247 German National Alliance, 410 German National Assembly, 196 German National Bank, 247 German National Socialist Party (NSDAP), 630–631 German National Theater, 815 German organizations and misconception of prevention of assimilation, 99–100 See also individual organizations German People’s Association (Deutscher Volksverein), 368 German prisoners and civilian interness, 1167–1169 “barbed-wire disease” (neurasthenia) and, 1168 disciplinary problems and, 1168 enemy aliens and, 1167 German-language press and, 1167 internment camps and, 1168 treatment of, 1168 Treaty of Versailles and, 1168 German prisoners and

1242

INDEX

civilian interness (cont.) See also Canada, Germans in, during World Wars I and II; Committee on Public Information; Espionage and Sedition Act; Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in German Protestants, 8 German Reading and Culture Society, 243 A German Reading Book for Beginners (Deutsches Lesebuch für Anfanger; Follen), 356 German Red Cross (Deutsche Rote Kreuz), 259 German Reformed Church, 424–427 first ministers of, 425–426 first theological seminary of, 427 German language in, 426–427 origins of, 424–425 See also Georgia; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod; Pietism; Schaff, Phillip German refugees in Brazil, 172–175 cultural activities of, 174–175 in New York City, 818 political activities of, 173–174 political organizations for, 173–174 See also German-Jewish refugees; Immigration German scare, 428. See also Brazil German School in Mexico (Deutsche Schule von Mexico), 733–734, 736–737 German Settlement Society

of Philadelphia (Deutsche AnsiedlungsGesellschaft zu Philadelphia), 498 German Singing Association (Deutscher Sängerbund Rio Grande do Sul), 334 German Social Union, 439 German societies. See individual societies German Societies of Americans of German Descent, 292 German Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft), 232, 369, 815, 816 German Society of New York City, 107 German Society of Pennsylvania, 428–429 founding of, 428 mission of, 428 during World War I, 429 during World War II, 429 See also German Society of the City of New York; Hexamer, Charles J.; National German American Alliance; Pennsylvania German Society of the City of New York, 430–431 purpose of, 430 See also Astor, John Jacob; German Society of Pennsylvania; New York City; Steuben, Frederick von German-South American Bank (DeutschSüdamerikanische Bank), 743 German State Association (Deutscher Staatsverband), 246, 247 German Student Body (Deutsch Studentenschaft), 562 German students, at

American universities, 432–435. See also American Occupation Zone; American students, at German universities; Bonhoeffer, Dietrich; Fullbright Program; Kelly, Petra German Theater (Deutsches Theater), 247, 573 German unification (1871), 436–437. See also Bancroft, George; German unification (1990) German unification (1990), 438–440 Cold War and, 438 NATO and, 438–440 Ten-Point Program and, 438–439 Two-Plus-Four Accord and, 439, 440 Warsaw Pact and, 438–440 See also Berlin Wall; German unification (1871); Stalin note; West Berlin German Universities: A Narrative of Personal Experiences (Hart), 486 German universities, American students at, 69–71 German University Rectors conference, 398–399 German Veterans Association (Duetscher Kreiger-Verein), 335 German war reparations, 269–272, 461, 1056, 1079 German Weapons and Ammunition Factory (Ludwig Loewe Konzern; Deutsche Waffenund Munitionsfabrik Berlin-Karlsruhe), 640–641 German Youth Activities (GYA), 448

INDEX German youth rebellion. See Youth rebellion The German Youth’s Cry for Help (Der Hülferuf der deutschen Jugend; Weitling), 1126 German Zeppelin Shipping Company (Deutsche Zeppelin Reederei), 508 Germania, 335 Germania-Herold, 756 Germania in America (Germania in Amerika; Griesinger), 465 Germania Musical Society, 799 Germania Orchestra, 799 Germanic Museum at Harvard, 372, 373 Germanism, in Rio Grande do Sul, 440–442 almanacs and, 442 characteristics of people and, 442 definition of, 440 ethnic identity and, 441 German-language press in, 442 language and, 441 objective of, 441 religion and, 442 resistance to assimilation and, 441 songs and, 441 Germanisms, in the English language, 74–75 The Germans: An Inquiry and an Estimate (Schuster), 969 Germans in Southern Brazil and Southern Chile (Das Deutschtum in Südbrasilien und Südchile; Hettner), 504–505 The Germans in the American Civil War (Die Deutschen in Amerikanischen Bürgerkriege), 62 “The Germans of South Brazil” (Maack), 714 Germantown, Pennsylvania architecture in, 444–445

cattle network in, 445 economic development of, 445–446 flax network in, 445–446 German language in, 445 immigration to, 444 paper industry in, 446 population of, 444 slavery in, 443 See also Pastorius, Francis Daniel; Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) language; Sauer, Christoph; Schwenkfelders Germantowner Zeitung (Germantown Paper), 938 Germany and the United States in World Politics (Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten in der Weltpolitik; Vagts), 1085–1086 Germany beyond the Wall (Smith), 422 Germany (De L’Allmagne; De Staël), 308 Gerolt, Friedrich von, 437, 763 Gersdorff, Pauline von, 120 Gershwin, George, 902 Gershwin, Ira, 902 Gerstäcker, Friedrich, 558–559, 676, 678, 684, 769, 833, 930, 975, 1046 Gerstner, Franz Anton von, 674 Gert, Valeska, 446–447. See also Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt; Reinhardt, Max Gesselschaft der Vierziger. See Darmstaedters Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei; political police), 837 Gettelman, Adam, 755 Gettysburg, Battle of, 299 Gibbons, Floyd, 1155–1156 Gibbons, Cardinal James, 754 Gibbons, Phoebe Earle, 876 Gichtel, Johann Georg, 314

1243

Giedion, Sigfried, 125, 361, 794 Gielen, Michael, 245 Gildenhaus Funeral Home, 247 Gildersleeve, Basil L., 459, 588 Gillespie, Robert A., 383 Gillespie County Historical Society, 385 Gilman, Daniel C., 588 Gilman, Franz, 484 Giraud, Henri, 1173 Girotti, Mario (Terence Hill), 727 GIs, in West Germany, 365–366, 448–451 African Americans and, 50 in American Occupation Zone, 448 and Berlin Wall, fall of, 450 chewing gum and, 227–228 criminality of, 448, 450 drug abuse and, 450 German and American relations and, 449 during Iraq war, 451 during Korean War, 448–449 “little Americas” and, 449 military families of, 449 prostitution industry and, 448 racial violence and, 450 during Vietnam War, 449–450 during World War II, 448 See also American Occupation Zone; African Americans; Bases, U.S., in West Germany; Denazification; German American Clubs, in West Germany; Halvorsen, Gail S.; West Berlin Gissibl, Fritz, 393, 394, 631 Gissibl, Peter, 394 Glacial Geomorphology of

1244

INDEX

the de los Largos Region (Geomorfologia glacial de la Region de los Largos; Weischet), 1122 Glassmaking, 451–453 Globus, 273 Glossary of the Languages of Brazil (Glossaria linguarum brasiliensium; Martius), 724 Gloucester Farm and Town Association, 293–294 Gluecksohn-Waelsch, Salome, 577 Glünder, Friedrich, 673–674 Gneist, Rudolf von, 195, 388 Gobineau, Joseph-Arthur de, 321 Godard, Jean-Luc, 1133 Goebbels, Joseph, 76, 158, 163, 344, 478, 644, 646 Goegg, Amand, 1047 Goeppert-Mayer, Maria, 1142 Goergen, Hermann Matthias, 175 Goerl, W., 407 Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 116, 230, 325–326, 357, 401–402, 453–455, 485, 677, 683, 684, 695–696, 780, 861, 862, 864, 907, 1021, 1022, 1038, 1039, 1043, 1045. See also Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward; Harmony Society; Humboldt, Alexander von; Literature (German), the U.S. in; Panama; Pennsylvania; Travel literature, German-U.S. Goethe Institut Buenos Aires, 96 Goethe-Institut Inter Nationes, 281 Göhring: The Executioner of the Third Reich

(Heartfield), 491–492 Gold, Ernest, 514 Gold! (Gerstäcker), 559 Goldberger, Ludwig Max, 1047 The Golden Legend (Longfellow), 696 Goldman, Emma, 83, 779, 958 Goldsborough (Heym), 507 Goldschmidt, Adolph, 1076 Goldschmidt, Johanna, 607 Goldschmidt, Richard Benedict, 455–456. See also Intellectual exile; Loeb, Jacques; World War I, German prisoners and civilian internees in Goldwater, Barry, 795 Goll, Claire, 1048 Goll, Iwan, 686 Goltz, Baron von der, 1053 Goltz, Friedrich, 691 Goltz, Horst von der, 1169–1170 Gone with the Wind (film), 257 Gong, Alfred, 686 Goñi, Uki, 653 Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr., 420, 457–458. See also German Catholic Central-Verein; Kenkel, Frederick P. Gonzalez, Manuel Benitez, 992 The Good Fairy (film), 1189 Goodnow, Frank, 388 Goodrich, James W., 284 Goodyear company, 290 Goossens, Eugene, 245 Göppert-Mayer, Maria, 460, 577 Gorbachev, Mikhail, 400, 438, 439, 440, 1072, 1073 Gordan, Paulus, 174 Gores, Joe, 1132 Görgen, Hermann Matthias, 174 Göring, Hermann, 572, 645–646, 648, 649, 670, 839, 840, 1198 Gorky, Maxim, 519

Göschen, Georg Joachim, 968 The Gospel of the Poor Sinner (Das Evangelium eines armen Sünders; Weitling), 1126–1127 Gotthelf, Jeremias, 409 Göttingen, University of, 459–460. See also American students, at German universities; Bancroft, George; Everett, Edward, Intellectual exchange; Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth; Ticknor, George Gottschalk, Thomas, 728 Goulart, J., 403 Gouveia, Peter de, 738 “Government and Politics in Germany” (Loewenstein), 693 Grabau, Johannes, 709, 1111 Graetz, Erich, 865 Graf, Oskar Maria, 108, 909, 1049 Graf Zeppelin (airship), 290 Graffenried, Christian von, 761 Graham, Martha, 516 Grammar of the English Language (Flügel), 355 Grammer, Anton, 247 La Grande Illusion (film), 1017 Granger, Steward, 727 Grant, Madison, 323 Grant, Ulysses S., 18, 654, 664, 665–666, 859, 933, 954, 972, 993, 1147 Grass, Günter, 281 Gratz, Rebecca, 17, 654 Grave, Jean, 387 Gray, Allan. See Zmigrod, Josef GRC Women’s League (DRK Frauenbund von Wisconsin), 221 Great Depression, 19, 29, 56, 76, 94, 189, 227, 269, 272, 359, 421, 429, 460–464, 499,

INDEX 606 banking and financial crisis and, 461–462 banking system collapse and, 462, 463 Canada during, 207 decline in industrial production and, 463 deficit in demand and, 462–463 German-language press during, 825–826 Germany’s policy during, 463–464 intellectual exchange, U.S.-German, during, 1076 Latin America during, German military advisers in, 642–643 New Braunfels, Texas, during, 814 New Deal and, 463 rise of fascism and, 463 SCADTA during, 981–982 stock market collapse and, 461, 464 unemployment crisis and, 463 U.S. policy during, 463 See also Brüning, Heinrich; Dawes Plan The Great Dictator (film), 338 The great fishing areas of the world (Die großen Fischereiräume der Welt; Bartz), 120 The Great Train Robbery (film), 341, 512 The Great Waltz (film), 1003 Great War Veterans Association, 205 Greater New York Film Rental Company, 512 Greed (film), 1016 Greeley, Horace, 401, 664, 666, 954, 1021 Green Memories (Mumford), 794 Green Party, 602, 603 Greene, Graham, 1014 Greenebaum, Henry, 231 Greenhut, Joseph B., 934

Gregory, Samuel, 1193 Gregory, Thomas, 1165 Greil, Patrick, 766 Grenke, Art, 206 Grenville, John, 658 Grey, Zane, 619 Griebl, Ignatz, 393 Griesinger, Karl Theodor, 464–466, 684. See also Forty-Eighters; New York City; Novel, German American; Travel literature, German-U.S. Griesinger, Theodor, 834, 974 Griffins, Horace, 1114 Griffith, David W., 1016 Griggs, Edward Howard, 518 Grillparzer, Franz, 625 Grimm, Hermann, 372 Grimm, Jacob, 285, 459 Grimm, Reinhold, 281 Grimm, Wilhelm, 285, 459 Grinnell, Julius S., 489 Griswald, Rufus, 1021 Groeber, Hermann, 954 Gronau, Israel Christian, 404, 889 Groos, Johann Jacob, 1028 Gropius, Walter Adolph, 122–126, 361, 466–467, 562, 750, 751, 794, 862. See also Bauhaus; Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig Grosse, Ernst, 265 Grossmann, Rudolf, 387 Grosz, George, 490 Grottkau, Paul, 145, 758 Grove, Frederick Philip (Felix Paul Greve), 680 Gruber, Eberhard Ludwig, 54–55 Grubetsch (Seghers), 966 Gruenewald, Max, 657 Grün, Anastasius, 684 Grünbein, Durs, 688 Grünberg, Carl, 378, 701 Grund, Franz Josef, 467–469. See also Schurz, Carl Grünewald, Matthias, 129

1245

The Guaikuru Group (Die Guaikuru-Gruppe; Koch-Grunberg), 616 Guarantees of Harmony and Freedom (Garantien der Harmonie und Freiheit; Weitling), 1126 Guatamala, 142–143 Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH; Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico), 1039–1041 Guggenheim, Meyer, 15 Guided Missile Development Group, 164 Guinzburg, Harold, 519, 520 Guitry, Sacha, 1017 Güldin, Samuel, 425, 889 Gulflight (American tanker), 1155 Gumperz, Julian, 378 The Guns of Navarone (film), 338 Gunther, John, 1048 Gurr, David, 675 Gurrelieder (Songs of Gurre; Schonberg), 949 Gusinde, Martin, 469–470. See also Chile Guth, Eugen, 583 Guttmann, Alexander, 594 Gutzkow, Karl, 974 GYA. See German Youth Activities Gymnasts Movement (Turnerbewegung), 243, 334 Gysi, Klaus, 1073 Habe, Hans, 108 Haber, Fritz, 1075 Habermas, Jürgen, 267, 381 Hackett, Frances, 519 Hackländer, Friedrich Wilhelm, 976 Haeckel, Ernst, 928, 950 Haenke, Thaddäus, 471–472, 948. See also Humboldt,

1246

INDEX

Alexander von Hagelstange, Rudolf, 1049 Hagen, Paul. See Frank, Karl Hagenbeck, Carl, 245 Hager, Kurt, 920 Hague Convention of 1907, 1168 Hahnemann, Samuel, 1192 Haines, Henrietta B., 607 Hainisch, Marianne, 566 The Haitian Wedding (Die Hochzeit von Haiti; Seghers), 967 Die Halbinsel Yucatán (Termer), 1025 Half-Breed Tract, 568 The Halfbreed (Der Halbindianer; Möllhausen), 558 Halfeld, Adolf, 686 Haliburton, Thomas Chandler, 925 Halifax, 829–830, 832–833 Hall, G. Stanley, 610 Hall, George, 662 Hall, James Norman, 1160 Hallean Annals (Hallische Nachrichten; Mühlenberg), 545 Halleck, Fitz-Greene, 107 Halleck, Henry Wager, 972 Haller, Albrecht von, 682, 683 Hallgarten, Charles, 376, 377 Hallgarten, George, 1085 Hallowell, Anna, 608 Halvorsen, Gail S., 472–474. See also American Occupation Zone; West Berlin; West Germany, in U.S. foreign policy Hamburg, 474–475. See also Bremerhaven; Hapag, Norddeutscher Lloyd Hamburg-American Parcel Shipping Joint Stock Company. See Hapag Hamburg-Amerika Linie, 480 Hamburger, Viktor, 577

Hamilton, Alice, 193 Hamilton, Andrew, 1195 Hamilton, Robert, 1194 Hamilton County Fire Insurance, 247 Hammer, Conrad, 956 Hammer, Fritz W., 979 Hammer, Werner, 175 Hammerstein, Oscar, I, 476, 902. See also Kunwald, Ernst; Much, Karl; Music (American), German influence on Hammerstein, Oscar, II, 476 Hammett, Dashiell, 278, 1132–1133 Hammett (film), 1132–1133 Handbook of Military Government in Germany, 67 Handbook of Natural History (Handbuch der Naturgeschichte; Burmeister), 196 Handicapped Future (Behinderte Zukunft; TV documentary), 500 Handke, Peter, 686, 1050, 1133 Hanfstaengl, Edgar, 477 Hanfstaengl, Egon, 477, 478–479 Hanfstaengl, Ernst, 477–480. See also Antisemitism Hanfstaengl, Helene, 477, 478 Hanfstaengl, Kitty, 477 Hanrieder, Wolfram, 362–363 Hans, Alfons, 407 Hans Ertl: War Correspondent (Hans Ertl als Kriegsberichter; film), 317 Hans Ertl-Bolivian Jungle (Hans Ertl-Bolivien Urwald; film), 317 Hans Staden (film), 997 Hanseatic League, 741, 743 Hansen, Marie, 1022 Hapag (HamburgAmerican Parcel

Shipping Joint Stock Company; HamburgAmerikanischePaketfahrt-AktienGesellschaft), 377, 475, 480–482, 743, 826, 827. See also Hamburg; Bremerhaven; Norddeutscher Lloyd Hapag-Lloyd, 828–829 Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft, 482 Happel, Eberhard Werner, 682 Har Sinai Association (Har Sinai Verein), 591 Harbou, Thea von, 349, 637, 638 Hardenberg, Friedrich von. See Novalis Harding, Warren G., 271, 897 Harig, Ludwig, 281 Harka, der Sohn des Hauptlings (WelskopfHenrich), 1129 Harkort, Friedrich, 673 Harlan, Veit, 1092 Harmony Society, 482–484. See also Pennsylvania Harms, Klaus, 708 Harnack, Arvid, 484, 485 Harnack, Mildred Fish, 484–485. See also bonhoeffer, Dietrich; Intellectual exchange Harper’s, 619 Harper’s Weekly, 803, 804, 954, 1064 Harris, John, 512 Harris, Shepherd L., 1114 Harris, William T., 607–608, 610 Harrison, Charles, 1185 Harrison, Elizabeth, 608, 609, 610 Harrison, Wallace, 126 Harrison, William Henry, 469 Hart, James Morgan, 486. See also American students, at German universities;

INDEX Göttingen, University of Hartmann, Franz, 487 Hartranft, John F., 964 Harvard German Society, 357 Hasenclever, Peter, 762 Hasenclever, Wilhelm, 1047 Hassaurek, Frederick, 242, 243 Hatch, Ella Snelling, 607 Hatch Act, 411 Hauck, Albert, 283 Hauck, Johann (John), 245–246 Hauff, Reinhardt, 352 Hauff, Wilhelm, 907 Hauptmann, Bruno, 393 Hauptmann, Elisabeth, 179 Hauptmann, Gerhart, 519, 685 Hauser, Otto R., 753 Haushofer, Karl, 914 Hauthal, Rudolf Johannes Friedrich, 488. See also Meyer, Hans Havel, Vaclav, 912 Hawaii, 226 Hawkes, John, 1050 Hawks, Howard, 1143 Haydn Society, 244 Hayes, Rutherford B., 953, 954 Haymarket Riot, 52, 83, 145–146, 232, 489–490, 539 ISZ and, 542 See also Altgeld, John P.; Anarchists; AntiSocialist Law; Chicago Hearst, William Randolph, 824, 1197–1198 Heart of Glass (Herz aus Glas; film), 501 Heart of the World (film), 1016 Heartfield, John, 490–493. See also Brecht, Bertolt; Heym, Stefan Heartfield, Wieland, 490 Hebbel, Friedrich, 684 Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society, 16 Hebrew Union College, 593–594

Hebrew Union CollegeJewish Institute of Religion (HUC-JIR), 595 Hecht, Ben Hecht, Jonas, 150 Hecker, Friedrich, 63, 231, 240, 243–244, 298, 299, 369, 371, 493–494, 618, 684, 933, 1047, 1145. See also American Civil War, German participants in; Chicago; 82nd Illinois Volunteer Infantry Regiment; FortyEighters; Sigel, Franz; Travel literature, German-U.S.; Willich, August von Heckmann, Herbert, 687 Hedin, Sven, 119 Heebner, Melchior, 962 Heeren, August, 116 Hegel, Georg Friedrich Wilhelm, 116, 379, 380, 720, 926 Hegemann, Alice (née Hess), 494 Hegemann, Ida Belle (née Guthe), 495 Hegemann, Werner, 494–495. See also Intellectual exile; Landscape architects; Mumford, Lewis Heidegger, Martin, 48, 719, 1013 Heidelberg Exchange Center (Heidelberger Austauschtelle), 432 Heimatfilme, 345 Heine, Heinrich, 507, 669, 684, 695, 907, 974 Heine, Wilhelm Peter, 64–65, 477 Heineken, Hermann, 828 Heinemann, Barbara. See Landmann, Barbara Heinrich, Anton, 680, 833 Heinrich, Peter, 925 Heinrich, Thomas, 663 Heinrich von Ofterdingen (Novalis), 402

1247

Heinzen, Karl, 82, 186, 1047, 1127 Heisenberg, Werner, 149, 460 Helbig, Karl Martin Alexander, 496–497. See also Waibel, Leo Heinrich Heller, Fritz, 174 Hell’s Heroes (film), 1188 Helm, Samuel, 186 Helms, Anton Zacharias, 762 Hemophilia Twinning Program, 591 Henni, Johann Martin, 242, 754 Henni’s Wahrheits-Freund (Henni’s Friend of Truth), 242 Henreid, Paul, 514 Henri, Florence, 124 Henry, Patrick, 792 Henry, Prince, 372–373 Henry C. Kohn & Esser, 753 Henry Ford Peace Plan Commission, 520 Henry I, 988 Hensel, Kerstin, 688 Henshel, George, 801 Henson Company, 258 Hep-Hep riots of 1819, 85 Herbart, Jean, 715 Herbst, Alban Nikolai, 689 Herbst, Josephine, 1048 Hercules (Herakles; Herzog), 500 Herder, Johann Gottfried, 283, 683, 1022, 1045 Hereditary Genius (Galton), 322 Hereditary Health Court, 324 Herff, Ferdinand von, 265–266, 266 Hergesheimer, Joseph, 1048 Hering, Gisela, 473 Herman, Baron Beno von, 1114 Hermann, Karl Friedrich, 459 Hermann, Missouri, 497–499. See also Duden,

1248

INDEX

Gottfried; Egg Harbor City, New Jersey; Ephrata; FortyEighters; Fredericksburg, Texas; Harmony Society; New Braunfels, Texas; Pennsylvania; Transcendentalism Hermann the Cheruscan, 985, 986 Hernandez, Danny, 959 Herold, Ted, 902 Herrmann, Johann, 656 Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine, 774 Hershey, Milton, 876 Herting, Johanna, 926 Hertle, Daniel, 541 Hertwig, Richard, 455 Hertz, Paul, 261 Herzog, Werner, 347, 352, 500–502, 797, 1132, 1133. See also Film (German), U.S. influence on; Fulbright Program; German students, at American universities; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Wenders, Wim Hesburgh, Theodore M., 970 Heschel, Abraham Joshua, 594 Hesing, Anton Casper, 230, 539, 541, 542 Hespeler, Wilhelm, 1117 Hess, Rudolf, 391–392, 644, 645, 646, 839 Hesse, Hermann, 562 Hesse-Cassell, 502–503 Hesselbrock, John O., 246 Hessians, 6, 502–504, 832, 850. See also Nova Scotia, Ontario; Seume, Johann Gottfried; Steuben, Frederick von Hettner, Alfred, 504–505, 1107 Heuck, Hubert, 244 Heuss, Theodor, 159

Hexamer, Charles James, 158, 429, 505–506, 805, 896. See also Forty-Eighters; German Society of Pennsylvania; Milwaukee; National German-American Alliance; Politics, German Americans and; World War I; World War I, German Americans and Hexamer, Ernst, 505 Heydrich, Richard, 296 Heydt, Baron August von der, 1105 Heydt Edict (Von-derHeydt’sches Reskript), 166, 1105–1106. See also Avé-Lallemant, Robert Christian Berthold; Brazil Heym, Stefan, 233, 493, 507–508, 687, 688, 1049. See also Intellectual exchange; World War II, German American soldiers in Heyne, Moriz, 460 HICOG. See High commissioner for Germany Higginson, Henry, 782, 801 High and Low: The Vistas of Bolivia (Arriba, Abajo: Vistas de Bolivia; film), 317 High commissioner for Germany (HICOG), 65, 69 High Dutch (Hochdeutsch), 287–288 High German Society (Hochdeutsche Gesellschaft), 833 Highest Health Council, 109 Highsmith, Patricia, 1132 Hilberseimer, Ludwig, 125 Hilbert, David, 1141 Hildenbrandt, Fred, 447 Hill, Joe, 83

Hill, Patty Smith, 609, 610 Hill, Terence. See Girotti, Mario Hillers, John, 557 Hillgärtner, Georg, 541 Himmler, Heinrich, 296, 297, 645, 646 Hindenburg, Paul von, 184–185, 323, 508, 645, 866 Hindenburg disaster, 508–510, 1198. See also Zeppelin Hintze, Paul von, 144 Hirsch, Emil, 231, 594, 622 Hirsch, Mathilde Einhorn, 301 Hirsch, Samuel, 591, 592, 593, 1148, 1149 Hirschfeld, Christian Cayus Lorenz, 223–224 Hirsh, Emil, 301 Historia de Abiponibus (Dobrizhoffer) “Historical Progress and American Democracy” (Motley), 781 History: The Last Things before the Last (Kracauer), 627 History and Class Consciousness (Lukács), 47 History of American Manufacturers from 1608 to 1860 (Bishop), 484 History of Barbados (Schomburgk), 948 History of Creation (Geschichte der Schöpfung; Burmeister), 196 A History of Militarism (Vagts), 1086 History of Modern Germany (Holborn), 511 History of the Abipones (Historia de Abiponibus; Dobrizhoffer), 94 The History of the Atlantic Ocean (Die Geschichte des Atlantischen

INDEX Ozeans; Ihering), 537 History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (Irving), 453 History of the Revolt of the Netherlands (Geschichte des Abfalls der vereinigten Niederlande von der spanischen Regierung; Schiller), 780 History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (G. Bancroft), 116, 117, 118 Hitchcock, Alfred, 697 Hitchcock, Henry Russell, 589 Hitchens, Christopher, 616 Hitler, Adolf African Americans and, 49 Americanization and, 76 antisemitism and, 87 Autobahnen and, 1103 Battle of the Bulge and, 1175 Bauhaus and, 124, 125 Becker and, 127 Bonhoeffer and, 156 Brüning and, 184, 185–186 and business, U.S.-Third Reich, 198, 199 Canadians and, 1185 declaration of war against U.S. and, 1171 Dietrich and, 279 Eckener and, 290 Einstein and, 302 eugenics movement and, 320, 323 film (American) and, 338, 339–340, 344 film industry and, 512 FONG and, 392 Ford and, 359 Förster-Nietzsche and, 369 German resistance to, 219

Hanfstaengl and, 477–480 Harnack and, 484 Hindenburg and, 508 Hollywood and, 514 and Indians, in German literature, 559 and Latin America, Nazi economic policy in, 647, 648, 650, 651 and Latin America, Nazi Party in, 643, 644, 646 May and, 726 Mexico and, 735, 744 NSDAP and, 477, 478 Olympic games and, 848 and Papen, 865, 866 SCADTA and, 982 Schuster and, 969 Schutz and, 954 Sternburg and, 332 suicide of, 1179 systematic atrocities against civilians and, 837–838 Thompson and, 1036 Vansittartism and, 1086, 1087 Viereck and, 1098 Volksgemeinschaft and, 1103 Volkswagen and, 1103 Wagner and, 675 Weizsäcker and, 148 Hitler: The Last Ten Days (TV documentary), 340 Hitler-Stalin pact, 651 Hitler Youth, 199, 237 Hitler’s Daughter (TV documentary), 340 Hitler’s Germany, the Nazi Background to War (Loewenstein), 693 Hito Hito (film), 317 HIV/AIDS, 591 Hoan, Daniel Webster, 753, 759–760 Hobbes, Thomas, 1013 Hobson, Peregrine Thomas, 830–831 Hoch, Hannah, 491 Der Hoch-Deutsch

1249

Americanische Calender (The HighGerman American Calendar), 937 Der Hoch-Deutsch Pennsylvanische Geschicht-Schreiber (The High-German Pennsylvanian Chronicler), 937 Hochhuth, Rolf, 281, 687 Hochstetter, Ferdinand von, 109 Hochwächter (The High Watchman), 243 Hodges, Courtney, 1175, 1176, 1178 Hodgson, Claire, 932 Hoeffgen, Robert B., 540 Hoffman, Friedrich, 882 Hoffman, Johann Christian Konrad von, 928 Hoffmann, Balthasar, 961 Hoffmann, Christopher, 962 Hoffmann, Francis, 538–539 Hoffmann, Johannes, 174, 175 Hoffmann, Theodore, 394 Hoffmann-Harnisch, Wolfgang, 175 Hoffmeister Albert, 209–210 Hofmann, Gert, 689 Hofmannsthal, Hugo von, 921 Hogan’s Heroes (TV series), 340 Hohenstein, Peter, 583 Hohermuth, Georg, 255 Holborn, Hajo, 510–511, 811. See also Intellectual exile; Neumann, Franz Holden, William, 1144 Holdheim, Samuel, 300, 301, 591 Holitscher, Arthur, 1048 Hollander, Frederick, 514 Holleben, Theodor von, 372, 1005 Hollywood, 511–515 Americanization and, 76 German actors in,

1250

INDEX

513–515 German composers in, 514 German directors in, 513–515 German film studios and, 512–513 German producers in, 512–513 kinetoscope and, 512 nickelodeons and, 512 See also Dieterle, William; Dietrich, Marlene; Jannings, Emil; Korngold, Erich Wolfgang; Lang, Fritz; Leni, Paul; Lorre, Peter; Lubitsche, Ernst; Murnau, Friederich Wilhelm; Preminger, otto; Schwarzenneger, Arnold; Sternberg, Josef von; Stroheim, Erich von; Wilder, Billy Holm, Hanya, 515–516 Holocaust, 85, 594–595 B’nai B’rith and, 152 deniers or minimizers of, 91 eugenics movement and, 325 German soldier victimhood and, 147–148 historians’ debate and, 89 memorialization and, 90–91 reparations to survivors of, 90 Holocaust (TV documentary), 340 Holtfreter, Johannes, 577 Holthusen, Hans Egon, 1049 Holtreter, Johannes, 577 Holwede, Baron von, 532 Holy Alliance, 94 Holy Trinity parish, 242 Holywood Tribune, 278 Homestead Act, 1101 Hone, Philip, 430–431 Honecker, Erich, 90, 422, 920, 1072–1073

The Honeymoon (film), 1003, 1016 Hood, Thomas, 1046 Hooker, Joseph, 859 Hootenanny-Klub Berlin, 389 Hoover, Herbert, 463 Hoover, J. Edgar, 305, 632 Hoover Directive of 1930, 19, 20 Hopper, Dennis, 1132 Horkheimer, Max, 47, 48, 88, 378–380, 381, 517–518, 720, 1049. See also Adorno, Theodor Wiesengrund; Antisemitism; Frankfurt School Hörl, Veit, 255 Horn, Werner von, 1170 Horne, Marilyn, 902 Horney, Karen, 562 The Horse Thief (Der Pferdedieb; film), 341 Hostages (Der Fall Glasenapp; Heym), 507 Hotel Imperial (film), 1143 Hough, Emerson, 619 The House of Frankenstein (film), 339 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), 87, 180 Houston, Sam, 40–41, 374, 1026 Houtte, Louis van, 1009 How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck (film), 500–501 Howard, Graeme, 198 Howard, Oliver Otis, 63, 942 Howells, William Dean, 1063 Howitt, William, 1046 HUAC. See House UnAmerican Activities Committee Hubbard, L. Ron, 57 Huber, Jacob, 761 Huber, Zeno, 700 HUC-JIR. See Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Huch, Ricarda, 409

Huck, John A., 132 Hudepohl, Louis, 246 Hudepohl-Schoenling brewery, 246 Hudnut, Joseph, 125, 495 Hudson and Mohawk Railroad Company, 107 Hudson’s Bay Company, 106 Huebsch, Adolph, 519 Huebsch, Ben W., 518–528 Huefel-Comuy, 235 Huerta, Victoriano, 216, 858. See also Carranza, Venustiano; Mexico; World War I Huerta government, 744 Huessler, George, 635 Hugenberg, Alfred, 343 Hughes, Charles Evans, 271, 808, 879, 896–897 Hughes, Howard, 1004 Hugo, Victor, 655, 1091 Hull, Charles, 38 Hull, Cordell, 86, 87, 649, 773, 1079 Hull-House, 38–39, 40, 193–194 Human Geography (Anthropogeographie; Ratzel), 914 Human Rights-Between Idealism and Realism (Tomuchat), 1039 Humanist Socialism (ed. Fromm, Bloch, and Marcuse), 396 Humanity, How It Is and How It Ought to Be (“Die Menschheit, wie sie ist und wie sie sein sollte”; Weitling), 1126 Humboldt, Alexander Georg von, 532 Humboldt, Alexander von, 44, 94, 109, 112, 116, 139, 142, 196, 307, 453, 471, 530–532, 556, 623, 731, 762, 768, 864, 893, 975, 1039, 1090. See also Adams, John Quincy; Bancroft, George; Panama;

INDEX Taylor, (James) Bayard; Ticknor, George. Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 43, 45, 307, 532–533, 715. See also Adelung, Johann Christoph; Humboldt, Alexander von; Vater, Johann Severin Humphrey, Doris, 516 Humphrey, Hubert H., 603 Hunt, William Morris, 662 Hürlimann, Thomas, 689 Hurok, Sol, 516 Husserl, Edmund, 47, 1013 Huston, John, 697 Hutchins, Robert, 863 Hutten, Philipp von, 255 Hutten, Ulrich von, 533–535 Hutterites, 9–10 in Canada, 210, 211 Hynicka, Rudolph K. “Rud,” 241 Hyperion, a Romance (Longfellow), 695–696 I Claudius, 1003 I puritani (Bellini), 476 Ibáñez, Carlos, 606 Ibero-Amerikanisches Institut, 332 Ibsen, Sigurd, 519 ICD. See Information Control Division Ickes, Harold, 671 ICW. See International Council of Women Ida: Gräfin von Salmandingen (Griesinger), 466 Identity. See German identity IG Farben, 77, 199 Ihering, Hermann Friedrich Albrecht von, 537. See also Brazil IIE. See Institute of International Education IKU. See International Kindergarten Union Illinois, 538–540

immigration to, 538 See also Altgeld, John P.; Chicago; FortyEighters; Haymarket Riot; Illinois Staatszeitung; Koerner, Gustave; World War I, German Americans and Illinois Institute of Technology, 233 Illinois Stattszeitung (ISZ; Illinois Public News), 231, 232–233, 538, 540–542, 618 Forty-Eighters as editors for, 540, 541 Haymarket Riots and, 542 Prohibition and, 540–541 See also Chicago; FortyEighters; Haymarket Riot; Illinois; Milwaukee; New Yorker Staats-Zeitung; Newspaper Press, German-language in the U.S.; Schurz, Carl Illustrations on the Natural History of Brazil (Abbildungen zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens; WiedNeuwied), 1140 Immigration, 121 acculturation and, 7–8, 11 to Argentina, 23, 24, 29, 30t, 94–95 assimilation and, 98–99, 100, 102 to Berlin (Kitchener), Ontario, 139, 141 to Brazil, 23, 24, 28–29, 30t, 166–169, 170, 183, 1105, 1106 to Bremerhaven, 181–182 to Buffalo, New York, 186 to Canada, 6–11, 33–34, 207, 211 to the Caribbean, 24 to Central America, 24

1251

to Chicago, 229, 230–231, 539–540 to Chile, 24, 29, 234, 235–236 to Cincinnati, 242–243 to Colombia, 24 connections to society of origin and, 8, 10 to the Dakotas, 1101–1102 to Georgia, 403–405 to Germantown, Pennsylvania, 444 to Illinois, 538 indentured servants and, 6 to Indiana, 550–551 to Iowa, 566–567 to Kansas, 1101–1102 to Latin America, 23, 27–30, 33–34 to Louisiana, 699 to Mexico, 24, 30, 731–732 to Milwaukee, 752 to Minnesota Holy Land, 764–766 to New Braunfels, Texas, 813 to New Orleans, 815–816 to New York City, 431, 817, 818–820 Norddeutscher Lloyd and, 828 to North America, 5–11 to Nova Scotia, 6, 829–830, 830–832, 832–833 to Ontario, 850, 851–852, 852–853, 854 to Oregon, 1101–1102 origin of Germans Americans and, 3–5 to Paraguay, 29–30, 867 to Pennsylvania, 425, 426, 428–429, 444, 872–873, 960, 961, 963 to São Paulo, 28–29 settlement areas in, 3–5 Immigration (cont.) to South America, 23–25 to Texas, 987, 989, 990,

1252

INDEX

1025, 1026, 1027, 1028–1029 twentieth-century pattern changes in, 33–34 to United States, 6–11, 33–34 to Uruguay, 24, 30 to Venezuela, 24 to Waterloo, Ontario, 1119, 1121 to Waterloo County, Ontario, 1115–1116, 1117, 1118 See also Amish; AntiSocialist Laws; Assimilation, of Germans, in U.S.; Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario; Canada, Germans in, during World Wars I and II; Chicago; FortyEighters; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Hessians; Migration, German-Jewish; New Orleans; New York City; Newspaper press (U.S.), Germanlanguage in; Nova Scotia; Ontario; Pietism; Politics, German Americans and; Schurtz, Carl; Texas; World War I, German Americans and Immigration Act of 1917, 19 LPC Clause, 19, 20 Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, 323 Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United States through Foreign Immigration and the Present State of Naturalization Laws (Morse), 659 Impressionen über Sinclair Lewis (Zweig), 664 Impressions from a

Tenement House (Bilder aus der Miethkaserne; Stürenburg), 834 IMT. See International Military Tribunal In Amerika (Gerstäcker), 975 In Both Hemispheres (In beiden Hemisphären; Sutro-Schücking), 834 In Defense of the National Interest (Hans Morgenthau), 771 In the Far West: German Settlers in North America: A True Story (Im Fernen Westen, deutsche Ansielder in Nordamerika: Eine wahre Erzählunt; Lenk), 656 In the High Andes of Ecuador, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi, etc.: Travels and Studies (In den Hoch-Anden von Ecuador, Chimborazo, Cotopaxi etc. Reisen und Studien; H. H. J. Meyer), 747 In the Tide of Time or Capital and Labor (Im Strom der Zeit oder Kapital und Arbeit; Messmer), 835 Independence Day (film), 346 Indian captivity, 542–545 captivity narratives and, 543–545 number of captives and, 543 See also Mühlenberg, Heinrich Melchior; Staden, Hans; Travel literature, GermanU.S. Indian Country on the Caribbean Sea (Indioland am Karibischen Meer; Helbig), 497 Indian films, of DEFA, 546–550.

See also Buffalo Bill; Film (German), American influence on; indianerfilme; Literature (German), Indians in; May, Karl; Welskopf-Heinrich, Liselotte The Indian Man (Die Indianergeschichte; Drabsch), 560 Indian novel (IndianerRoman), 557–560 Indian slave trade, 255 Indian Types from the Amazon (Indianertypen aus dem Amazonasgebiet; KochGrunberg), 617 Indiana, 550–554 first settlers in, 550–551 German architecture in, 552–553 German folk tradition in, 552 German language in, 551–552 immigration to, 550–551 religious architecture in, 553–554 See also Beer; Leopoldine Foundation Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (film), 339 Indianerfilm (German Western film), 345–346, 352–353, 548. See also Indian films Indians, in German literature, 554–560 fiction and nonfictional texts about, 557–560 idiomatic sayings and, 555 Indian novel and, 557–560 Indianthusiams and, 555 travel literature and, 555–557 See also Bodner, Karl; Buffalo Bill; Chamisso, Adelbert

INDEX von; Duke Paul Wilhelm of Württemberg; Humboldt, Alexander von; Indian captivity; Indian films, of DEFA; Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von; May, Kar; Möllhausen, Balduin von; Sealsfield, Charles; Strubberg, Frederic Armand; WelskopfHenrich, Liselotte; Wied-Neuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu, W. The Indians of North America (Die Indianer in Nord-Amerika; F. Pierz), 765 Indianthusiams (Indianertümelei), 555 The Inequality of Human Races (De Gobineau), 321 Information Control Division (ICD), 68 Institute for Advanced Study, 88, 302, 303 Institute for Art History, 423 Institute for Social Research, 47, 48, 267, 378, 517 Institute of International Education (IIE), 432 “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field” (General Orders No. 100; Lieber), 668 Integralism, 561–562. See also Brazil; Latin American, and Nazi economic policy; Latin America, Nazi Party in Intellectual exchange, U.S.German, 1073–1077 American students, at German universities and, 1073–1074 Carnegie Corporation

and, 1076 German American professorial exchange program and, 1074, 1075, 1076–1077 German scholars and, 1073 German scientists and, 1073, 1075–1076 during Great Depression, 1076 during Nazi era, 1076–1077 during post-World War I era, 1075–1076 reform of education and research institutions and, 1074–1075 Rockefeller Foundation and, 1076, 1077 student exchange programs and, 1076 world exhibitions of 1893 and 1904 and, 1074 during World War I, 1075 during World War II, 1077 See also American students, at German Universities; AmerikaInstitut; Bloch, Felix; Follen, Charles; Francke, Kuno; Fulbright Program; Göttingen, University of; Intellectual exile; Jewish refugee scientists; Lieber, Francis (Franz); Münsterberg, Hugo; Schurz, Carl; Warburg, Felix M. Intellectual exile, 562–564. See also Adorno, Theodor; Bauhaus; Brecht, Bertolt; Einstein, Albert; Frankfurt School; Fromm, Erich; Gropius, Walter; Huebsch, Ben W.; Jewish refugee scientists; Kracauer,

1253

Siegfried; Lang, Fritz; Mann, Thomas; Marcuse, Herbert; Morgenthau, Hans J.; Neumann, Franz; Schoenberg, Arnold Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees, 34 International Congress of Women, 40 International Council of Women (ICW), 193, 194, 565–566 first international meeting of, 565 first presidents of, 565 main concerns of, 565–566 See also Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine International Education Series, 610 International film industry, 341 The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem (Der Internationale Jude; H. Ford), 199, 359 “The International Judicial Function: Its Nature and Its Limits” (Hans Morgenthau), 770 International Kindergarten Union (IKU), 610 International Lutheran Council, 707 International Military Tribunal (IMT), 571–572, 837, 839–840. See also War tribunals International Research and Exchanges Board (IREX), 422 International Society for Racial Hygiene (ISRH), 323 International Society for Social Research, 379 International Style, 122, 589 International Style:

1254

INDEX

Architecture since 1922 (Johnson and Hitchcock), 589 International Swimming Hall of Fame, 292 International Theosophical Brotherhood (Internationale Verbrüderung; Theosophische Gesselschaft), 487 International Women’s Conference of 1893, 193 International Workers of the World (IWW), 83 International Workingmen’s Association (Internationale Arbeiter Association), 976 Into the Wilderness (Bis in die Wildniss; Strubberg), 1017 Intolerance (film), 1016 Intra-German Basic Treaty of 1972, 1072 Introduction to Cosmography (Cosmographiae Introductio; Waldseemüller), 1108 Iowa Amana Colonies in, 53, 55–56 German dialects in, 566–569 immigration to, 566–567 See also Amana colonies Die Iowa, 457 Irala, Martin Domingo, 946 Iraq war, GIs, in West Germany, during, 451 IREX. See International Research and Exchanges Board Irling, Johann, 738 Irma la Douce (film), 1143 Irving, Washington, 107, 116, 453, 558, 587, 1045 Isaac, Lazarus, 452 Isaacs, Samuel, 17 Isaacson, Walter, 615 Isenburg-Birstein, Prince

Karl von und zu, 993 The Island of Bangka (Die Insel Bangka; Helbig), 496 The Israelite, 17, 243, 1150 ISRH. See International Society for Racial Hygiene ISZ. See Illinois Stattszeitung It Can’t Happen Here (Lewis), 664, 1036 Itten, Johannes, 123 Ives, C. Joseph, 769 Iwonski, Carl, 1029 IWW. See International Workers of the World J. and W. Seligman company, 376 Jackson, Andrew, 117, 311, 469, 894 Jackson, Claiborne, 63 Jackson, Jonathan, 267 Jackson, Robert H., 571–572, 839. See also Nuremberg trials Jackson, Thomas “Stonewall,” 63, 299, 942 Jackson, William Henry, 884 Jacob, Heinrich Eduard, 521 Jacob, John, 817 Jacobi, Frederich Heinrich, 1013, 1043 Jacob’s Blessing (“Der Segen Jacobs”; Kohler), 621 Jacobson, Egbert, 862 Jacobson, Israel, 591 Jacoby, Leopold, 1047 Jacoby, Ludwig Sigismund, 58 Jacques, Norbert, 638 Jaeckle, Edwin, 189 Jaeger, Fritz, 1107 Jaenicke, Adolph, 635, 636 Jagger, Mick, 501–502 Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig, 334, 335, 667, 1059, 1060 Jahn, Hans Henny, 686 Jahnke, Ernest Lee, 88 Jahreszeiten (Seasons), 104 Jamaica, 572–573 slavery in, 572 James, Henry, 1048 Jameson, Frederick, 381

Jan und Jutta (WelskopfHenrich), 1128 Jane’s Fighting Ships, 1157 Jannings, Emil, 278, 513–514, 573–574, 703, 797, 921, 1003, 1199. See also Dietrich, Marlene; German film, American influence in; Hollywood; Lubitsch, Ernst, Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Reinhardt, Max; Sternberg, Joseph von Jansen, Carl, 406, 409 Jara, Victor, 919 Jarmusch, Jim, 1134 Jasper, William, 405 Jay, John, 790, 1053, 1054 Jay Treaty, 37, 106, 790 “Jazede” (Gerstäcker), 975 Jazz, 49 Americanization and, 76 JDC. See Joint Distribution Committee Jefferson, Thomas, 106, 225, 531, 532 Treaty of 1785 and, 1054 Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW), 57 Jelinek, Elfriede, 688 Jensen, H. D., 1142 Jeremiah: A Drama in Nine Scenes (Zweig), 525 Jessing, John Joseph, 575. See also Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in Jessner, Leopold, 277, 654 Jessup-Malik Agreement of 1949, 1136 Jesuits. See German Jesuits Jet Pilot (film), 1004 Jewish Community of São Paulo (CIP; Congregação Israelita Paulista), 173 Jewish press, 17 Jewish Publication Society (Jüdische Publikations Gesellschaft), 378 Jewish refugee scientists, 575–586 in biochemistry, 577,

INDEX 580–581 citations, Nobel prizes, and major contributions of, 576, 577, 578–579t, 580, 581, 584, 585 dismissals and forced emigrations of, 576–577, 578–579 in industry, 585–586 in Manhattan Project, 576 in molecular biology, 582 in physical chemistry, 584–585 in polymer chemistry, 582–584 See also Einstein, Albert; German Jewish refugees; Intellectual exile; Migration, German-Jewish; Wigner, Eugen(e) Paul Jewish Religious Association (Israelitischen Religions-gesellschaft), 377 Jewish Society for History (Jüdische Gesellschaft für Geschichte), 378 Jewish Theological Seminary, 594 Jewish Women’s Congress, 17 Jewish World Congress, 1072 Jews, eugenics movement and, 321 Jews and Judaism in the Work of Rembrandt (Jude und Judentum im Werk Rembrandts; Seghers), 966 Jezebel (film), 1189 João VI, 176 Jodl, Alfred, 839 Johann, King of Saxony (pseud. Philalethes), 586–587, 1089. See also Adams, John Quincy; Motley, John Lothrop; Ticknor, George; Travel literature, GermanyU.S.

John VI, 166 John XXIII, 786 Johns Hopkins University, 588–589 Johnson, Alvin, 495, 563 Johnson, Andrew, 117, 665 Johnson, Blind Willie, 1133 Johnson, Cornelius, 848 Johnson, Eastman, 662 Johnson, Harvey J., 421 Johnson, Lyndon B., 136, 795 Johnson, Philip Cortelyou, 125, 126, 589–590. See also Rohe, Ludwig Mies van der Johnson, Uwe, 689 Johnson, Walter, 1087 Johnson Act. See Emergency Immigration Restriction Act of 1921 Johnson administration, 1072 Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067, 66–67, 774, 1082 Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), 18, 173, 1112–1113 Joint Shareholder Association for the Construction of Small Tenement Housing (Aktiengesellschaft zum Bau kleiner Wohnungen), 376 Joint Synod of Ohio, 709 Joist, Johann Heinrich, 590–591 Jones, Henry, 150 Jones, Jesse, 508 Jonny Steals Europa (Jonny Stiehlt Europa; film), 349 Jonny Strikes Up (Jony spielt auf; Krenek), 49 Joseph and His Brothers (Joseph und seine Brüder; Mann), 719 Joseph II, 843 Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, 132–133 Journal für Makromolekulare Chemie (Journal for

1255

Macromolecular Chemistry), 584 Journal für Praktische Chemie (Journal of Practical Chemistry), 584 Journal of Brazil, or Mixed News from Brazil Collected on Scientific Journeys (Journal von Brasilien oder vermischte Nachrichten aus Brasilien auf wissenschaftlichen Reisen gesammelt; Eschwege), 318 Journal of Chemical Physics, 584 Journal of Polymer Science, 584 Journal of the RGS, 948 A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, with Remarks on Their Economy, 844 Journey into the Rocky Mountains of North America to the High Plains of New Mexico (Reise in den Felsengebirgen NordAmerikas bis zum Hoch-Plateau von NeuMexico; Möllhausen), 769 Journey through the Andes of South America; from Cordova to Cobija in the year of 1858 (Reise durch die Andes von SüdAmerika, von Cordova nach Cobija im Jahre 1858; Tschudi), 1058 Journey to Brazil in the Years 1815 to 1817 (Reise nach Brasilien in den Jahren 1815 das 1817; Wied-Neuwied), 1140 Journey to Brazil (Reise nach Brasilien; Burmeister), 196 Journey to Texas, With Information about This Land for Germans Planning to

1256

INDEX

Go to America (Reise nach Texas, nebst Nachrichten von diesem Lande für Deutsche, welche nach Amerika zu gehen beabsichtigen; Dunt), 285–286, 315 Journey to the Missions (Reise in die Missionen; Baucke), 94 Journeys through South America (Reisen durch Südamerika; Tschudi), 1058 Joyce, James, 518 Juárez, Benito, 622 Jud Süss (Feuchtwanger), 524 Judaism, Reform (North America), 15, 16–17, 301, 591–595 Classical Reform and, 594 Columbus Platform and, 594 first Reform congregation and, 592 first Reform rabbis and, 592 German language and, 592 during the Holocaust, 594–595 national religious platform of, 592–594 Pittsburgh Platform and, 594 roots of, 591–592 Zionism and, 594 See also American churches; Chicago; Cincinnati; Einhorn, David; Kohler, Kaufmann; Lesser, Isaac; Migration, German-Jewish; New York; Religion; Wise, Isaac Mayer Die Jüdische Wochenschau (The Jewish Weekly), 96 Julian, Rupert, 1016 Jung-Stilling, Johann Heinrich, 906 The Jungle Cycle (Dschungel

Zyklos; Traven), 1052 Junker, Detlef, 424 Jürgens, Curd, 514 JW. See Jehovah’s Witnesses Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (film), 627 Kadelburg, Gustav, 677 Kafka, Franz, 562, 685 Kähler, Martin, 283 Kaiser, Georg, 686, 1049, 1091 Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics, and Human Heredity, 323 Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Biology, 455 Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry, 323 Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Physics, 302 Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, 456, 576 Kaiserfeier, 334–335 Kalbfleisch, Joachim, 925 Kalender für die Deutschen in Brasilien (Calendar for Germans in Brazil), 928 Kallen, Horace M., 261 Kaltenbrunner, Ernst, 839 Kaltschmidt, Albert, 1169–1170 Kaminski, Ludwig, 407 Kammerhueber, Wilderich von, 249 Kammerspielfilm, 797 Kandinsky, Wassily, 123, 950 Kansas German dialiects in, 597–599 immigration to, 1101–1102 See also Amish; Brazil; Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) language; Volga Germans, in the U.S. Kansas-Nebraska Act, 92, 538, 895 Kansas State Home for the

Feebleminded, 322 Kant, Hermann, 967 Kant, Immanuel, 82, 357, 379, 1041 Kant’s Critizue of Judgment as the Connective Element between Theoretical and Practical Philosophy (Kants Kritik der Urteilskraft als Bindeglied zwischen theoretischer und praktischer Philosophie”; Horkheimer), 517 Das Kapital (Marx), 758 Kapp, Friedrich, 372, 600–601, 1047. See also Bancroft, George; Forty-Eighters; Schurz, Carl; Steuben, Frederick von; Travel literature, GermanyU.S. Kappler, August, 601–602. See also Paraguay Karenga, Ron, 267 Karl Pollitz company, 376 Kaschnitz, Marie Luise, 891 Käsebier, Gertrude, 885 Kästner, Erich, 1143 Katholischer Westen (Catholic West), 457 Katholisches Wochenblatt (Catholic Weekly), 605, 821 Kattenbusch, Ferdinand, 283 Katz, Richard, 175 Katzer, Friederich, 754 Kaufmann, Walter, 1050 Kaufmann, Wilhelm, 62 Kaulbach, Mathilde “Quappi” von, 129–130 KDF. See Catholic German Women’s Organization KdF. See Strength through Joy Keane, James J., 458 The Kechua Language (Die Kechuasprache; Tschudi), 1058 Keel, Daniel, 281

INDEX Keeler, Ralph, 1046 Kehr, Eckart, 1085 Keil, Ernst, 929 Keitel, Wilhelm, 839–840 Keller, Gottfried, 685 Keller, Willy, 175 Kellermann, Bernhard, 685 Kelley, Florence, 52, 193 Kelley, Petra. See German students, at American universities Kellog’s Corn flakes, 250 Kelly, Jack, 956 Kelly, John, 602 Kelly, Joseph, 957 Kelly, Petra, 434, 602–603 Kelpius, Johann, 603–604. See also Ephrata; Germantown, Pennsylvania; Pietism Kelpius, John, 889 Kenkel, Frederick P., 420–421, 604–605. See also German Catholic Central-Verein; Gonner, Nicholas E., Jr. Kennedy, John F., 135–136, 161, 164, 686, 959 West Berlin and, 1138 Kennedy, Joseph, 198, 670 Kennedy administration, 1137 and United States, and East Germany, relations between, 1072 Kent, Rockwell, 520 Kenyon Review, 381 Kern, Maximillian, 635–636 Kerouac, Jack, 688, 1067 Kerr, Alfred, 1048 Kerschpamer, Antonio, 611 Kersten, Kurt, 108 Kessler, George Edward, 635, 636 Kessler, Harry Graf, 685 Ketteler, Bishop Von, 458 Key, Ellen, 519 Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin, 974 Keynes, John Maynard, 1056 KFUO radio, 707 Khrushchev, Nikita, 135,

1137 Kierkegaard, Søren, 47, 380 Kiesinger, Kurt, 1099 Kiesling, Hans von, 606, 642. See also Chile; Faupel, Wilhelm; Latin America, German military advisors in Kiessow, Gerhard, 393 Kilian, Herman, 990 Kilian, Jan, 989–990 Kinder Journal (Children’s Journal), 856 Kindergarten Messenger (Peabody), 607 Kindergartners, 606–611. See also Addams, Jane; Annecke, Mathilde Franziska; Chicago; Milwaukee; New York City; Schurz, Agathe Margarethe; Schurz, Carl; Transcendentalism; Zakrzewska, Marie Elizabeth Kinetoscope, 512 King, Mackenzie, 208, 209, 212 The King David Report (Der König David Bericht; Heym), 507 The King Steps Out (film), 1003 Kings of the Road (Im Lauf der Zeit; film), 351, 352 Kinkel, Gottfried, 684, 953, 1047 Kino, Eusebius Franciscus, 611–612. See also Mexico, German Jesuits in Kinski, Klaus, 500, 501, 727 Kinski, Nastassia, 1133, 1134 Kirch Group, 258 Kirchhoff, Alfred, 999 Kirchhoff, Theodor, 613. See also Travel literature, GermanyU.S. Kirk, Raymond, 583 Kirkland, John, 1038

1257

Kirsch, Sarah, 281 Kirst, Hans Hellmut, 686 Kisch, Egon Erwin, 613–614, 735, 908, 1048. See also Intellectual exile; Mexico; Travel literature, GermanyU.S. Kissinger, Henry, 21, 614–616, 628, 629, 770. See also Kraemer, Fritz Gustaz Anton; World War II Kitchener, Lord Horation Herbert, 141 Kitchener, Ontario. See Berlin/Kitchener, Ontario Kitchi-Gami or Stories from the Upper [Great] Lakes (Kohl), 620 Klarsfeld, Beate, 119, 652 Klarsfeld, Serge, 119 Klauprecht, Emil, 676, 834 Klee, Gotthold, 656 Klee, Julius Ludwig, 655 Klein, Felix, 460, 1074 Klein-Rogge, Rudolf, 574 Kleinau, Elke, 952 Kling, Henry, 150 Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian, 683 Klopstock, Friedrich Gottlieb, 968, 1022 Klotz, Jakob Emil, 1117 Klutschak, Heinrich W., 679 Knäpper, Erich, 407, 441 Kniestedt, Fritz, 173 Knife in the Head (Messer im Kopf; film), 352 Knight-Ridder journalistic empire, 822 Knights of Labor (KOL), 417, 752 Knights of Pythias, 417 Knoll, Georg, 409 Knopf, Alfred A., 520–521 Know-Nothing Party, 99, 240–241, 293 Knudsen, William, 198 Köbner, Julius, 59 Koch, Eleonore, 175 Koch, Gertrud, 627

1258

INDEX

Koch, John C., 752 Koch-Grunberg, Christian Theodor, 616–617. See also Brazil; Meyer, Herrmann Koch-Weser, Erich, 174 Kodak, 585–586 Koehler Brewery, 246 Koehn, Willi, 644 Koenig, Paul, 1157, 1158 Koeppen, Wolfgang, 689, 1049 Koerner, Gustave Philipp, 92, 538, 618, 788. See also Altgeld, John P.; American Civil War, German participants in; Frankfurt am Main, citizens of, in U.S.; Hecker, Friedrich; Illinois Staatszeitung; Politics, and German Americans; Schurz, Carl Koerner, William Henry Detlef, 619. See also Indiana Koester, Heinrich B., 603 The Kohinoor (Hammerstein), 476 Kohl, Helmut, 89, 438–439 Bitburg war cemetery and, 146–148 Kohl, Johann Georg, 620–621. See also Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth; Travel literature, Germany-U.S. Kohler, Johanna, 621 Kohler, Johanna Einhorn, 301, 621 Kohler, Kaufmann, 301, 592, 594, 621–622. See also Chicago; Einhorn, David; Judais, Reform (North America); New York City KOL. See Knights of Labor Kölbing, Friedrich Ludwig, 679 Kollenberg, Baron Rüdt von, 735

Kollonitz, Paul von, 622–623. See also Humbolt, Alexander von; Mexico; Travel literature, GermanyU.S. Kolnai, Aurel, 794 Kölnische Zeitung (Cologne Newspaper), 914 Kolonie Zeitung (Colony Newspaper), 908 Kolping, Adolph, 1096 Komenda, Erwin, 1103 Königin Luise (German ship), 481 Königsberger Prozess, 783 Koon, Valentine, 150 Kooning, Willem de, 862 Koppe, Carl Wilhelm, 741 Koppers, Wilhelm, 470 Korean War, 364 GIs, in West Germany, during, 448–449 Körner, Emil, 239, 606 Körner, Gustav, 63, 374 Körner, Karl Theodor, 402 Kornfeld, Gertrud, 584, 585 Korngold, Erich Wolfgang, 514, 623–625. See also Hollywood, Intellectual exiles; Reinhardt, Max; Schönberg, Arnold Korngold, Julius Leopold (pseud. Paul Schott), 623–624 Kortner, Fritz, 261 Koseritz, Karl von, 183, 406, 409, 441, 625–626, 928–929. See also Brazil; Brummer; German almanacs, in Rio Grnde do Sul; Germanism, in Rio Grande do Sul; Printing and publishing; Schurz, Carl Koseritz’ Deutsche Zeitung, 442, 626 Kosyk, Mato, 988, 990–991 Kotzebue, August von, 357 Kotzebue, Otto von, 225, 556

Kovalevskaia, Sofia, 460 Kracauer, Siegfried, 47, 563, 890 Kraemer, Fritz Gustav Anton, 614–615, 628–629. See also Kissinger, Henry; World War II Kramer, G., 407 Kramer, Stanley, 280 Krapotkin, Petr, 82 Kraucauer, Siegfried, 626–627. See also Frankfurt School; Intellectual exile; Lang, Fritz; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm; Sternberg, Josef von Kraus, John, 607 Kraus, Theresa Barbara, 785 Kraus Alumni Association, 610 Krause, Arthur, 629–630 Krause, Aurel, 629–630 Krause, Karl Christian Friedrich, 95 Krause-Boelte, Marie, 607, 608, 609, 610 Krausert, Michael, 54–55 Krauss, Angela, 1050 Krauss, Werner, 655, 921 Krebs, Hans, 580, 581 Kreisel, Henry, 674, 680 Kreisler, Fritz, 800, 801 Krenek, Ernst, 49 Kretzschmar, Hans, 642 Krez, Konrad, 409, 678 Kriebel, Christopher, 961 Kriege, Hermann, 1126 Kriege, Matilda, 607 Kroc, Roy, 727 Kroetsch, Robert, 680–681 Kroetz, Franz Xaver, 688 Krögger, Tim, 409 Krohn, Hellmuth von, 979, 980 Krüger, Hardy, 514 Krüger, Horst, 1049 Krüger, Michael, 281 Krumwiede, Marianne. See Philippi, Marianne Krusenstern, Adam Johann von, 1089 Ku Klux Klan, 189, 410, 631

INDEX Küchler, Jacob, 266 Kuecherer, John, 186 Kuechler, Jacob, 836, 837, 1028 Kühn, Dieter, 687 Kuhn, Fritz Julius, 87–88, 394, 410, 411–412, 630–631. See also Antisemitism; Denazification; Friends of the New Germany; German American Bund Kuhn, Loeb, and Company, 377 Kundek, Joseph, 551 Kundt, Hans, 642 Kunert, Günter, 281, 1050 Kungler, Henriette, 120 Künne, Bruno, 441 Kunth, Gottlob Christian, 532 Kuntze, Reinhold, 515 Kunwald, Ernst, 631–633, 801. See also Hammerstein, Oscar; Muck, Karl; Music (U.S.); world War I, German Americans and Kunze, Gerhard Wilhelm, 412 Kürnberger, Friedrich, 684 Kurscher, Arthur, 179 Kurt Imme Sails to India (Kurt Imme fährt nach Indien; Helbig), 496 La Mennais, Félicité Robert de, 1126 La Plata Ruf (La Plata Call), 96 Lachmann, Edmund, 776 Lachmann, Hans, 776 Lachmann, Salomon, 776 Laconia (Cunard liner), 1155–1156 Ladies’ Home Journal, 39, 1035 Laemmle, Carl, 511, 512, 513, 655, 1016, 1188 Laet, jan de, 722 Lafayette, Marquis de, 116, 357, 793 Lafayette Escadrille,

1159–1160 Lagarde, Paul de, 321 Laiboldt, Bernhard, 64 LAKGD Project. See Linguistic Atlas of Kansas German Dialects Project L’Alibi (film), 1017 Lamprecht, Gerhard, 1143 Land and People in America (Land und Leute in Amerika; Griesinger), 465 Land of Plenty (film), 1134 Land of Spring (Land des Frühlings; Traven), 1052 Landgräber, Clemens, 63 Landmann, Barbara (née Heinemann), 54 Landsberger, Franz, 594 Landscape architects, German American, 635–636. See also Central Park; Cincinnati; Olmsted, Frederick Law; Strauch, Adolph Landscape Pictures of Brazil (Landschaftliche Bilder Brasiliens; Burmeister), 196 Lang, Fritz, 180, 342, 343, 348–349, 512, 514, 562, 627, 636–638, 697, 1132. See also Brecht, Bertolt; Dietrich, Marlene; Hollywood; Indians, in German literature; Lubitsch, Ernst; May, Karl Frederich; Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm Lange, C. See Cluss, Adolf Langenheim, Frederick, 883 Langenheim, William, 883, 1026 Langer, William L., 391 Langes, Albert, 718 Langham, Lillian May, 1005 Langmantel, Valentin, 947 Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von, 638–639, 1139. See also Brazil; Martius,

1259

Carl Friedrich Philipp von; Natterer, Johann Baptist; WiedNeuwied, Maximilian Alexander Philipp Prinz zu Langsdorff, Hans, 45 Lanochi, Vicente, 738 Larsen, Viggo, 341 Larson, Jim, 191 Las Casas, Bartholomé de, 1044 Lasker, Eduard, 86 Lasserre, Jean, 156 The Last Command (film), 1003 The Last Laugh (film), 797 The Last of the Mohicans (Der Letzte Mohikaner; Cooper), 555, 557 The Last Warpath (Der letzte Kriegspfad; Misch), 560 Laszlo, Nikolaus, 703 Latin America German flag in, debate over, 735 German military advisers in, 639–643. See also Faupel, Wilhelm; Kiesling, Hans von immigration to, 23, 27–30, 33–34 Nazi economic policy in, 647–651 Nazi Party in, 643–646. See also Faupel, Wilhelm Nazis in, 651–653. See also Barbie, Klaus; Braun, Wernher von; Eichmann, Adolf; Nuremberg trials printing and publishing in, 908 SCADTA in, 979–982 Laube, Heinrich, 684, 974 Lauck, Gary, 91 Laurence, Margaret, 675 Lautz, William, 188 Law, Annie, 610 Law, John, 698 Law and Economy (Weber), 924

1260

INDEX

Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases, 324 Law for the Restoration of the German Civil Service (Gesetz für die Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums), 576 Lawrence, D. H., 518 Lawrence, T. E., 866 Laws, Annie, 609 Lazard Speyer-Ellissen company, 376 Lazarsfeld, Paul, 48 LC-C. See Lutheran ChurchCanada LC-MS. See Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod Le Corbusier (né CharlesEdouard Jeanneret), 466, 750, 751 Leacock, Stephen, 925 Leade, Jean, 603 League for Civil Rights (Liga für Menschenrechte), 173 League of Austrian Women’s Associations (Bund österreichischer Frauenvereine), 566 League of Friendship, 810 League of Nations, 628, 1056, 1162 Leather-Stocking Tales (Cooper), 557 Lederer, John, 556 Lee, Arthur, 1053 Lee, Robert E., 1147 Leeser, Isaac, 17, 301, 593, 653–654, 1149. See also Judaism, Reform (North America); Migration, GermanJewish Lefevere, André, 281 Legal Aid Society of New York, 431 Léger, Fernand, 862 The Legitimate One and the Republicans (Der Legitime und die

Republikaner; Sealsfield), 557–558 Leguía, Augusto B., 642 Lehenbauer, Albert, 407 Lehman, Gottfried Wilhelm, 59 Lehmann, Hartmut, 424 Lehmann, Max, 460 Lehmann, Paul, 156 Lehre und Wehre (Doctrine and Defense), 1109, 1111 Leidy, Daisy, 1062 Leigh, Janet, 1004 Leiningen, Prince Carl Emich III of, 40, 41 Leiningen-Westerburg-AltLeiningen, Count Victor August of, 40, 41 Leininger, Barbara, 543, 544 Leininger, Regina, 543, 544–545 Leipziger Zeitung (Leipzig Newspaper), 173 Leland, Charles Godfrey, 676, 1063 Lemonius, William, 572 Lenau, Nikolaus, 684 Leni, Paul, 277, 343, 513, 654–655, 1091, 1188. See also Hollywood Lenk, Margarete, 655–656. See also duden, Gottfried; Travel literature, GermanyU.S. Leno, Jay, 960 Lenroot, Irvine, 134 The Lenz Papers (Die Papiere des Andreas Lenz; Lenz oder die Freiheit; Heym), 507 Leo Baeck Institute, 656–658. See also New York City Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook, 657–658 Leo House, 201 Leo XII, 659 Leo XIII, 190, 201, 221, 457, 575, 754, 993 Leon, Daniel de, 1152 Leonard, Robert Z., 703

Leonard, William Ellery, 484 Leonhart, Rudolf, 834 Leopoldine, Empress, 166, 659, 809 Leopoldine, Princess, 723 Leopoldine Foundation, 658–659. See also LudwigMissionsverein Leopoldine Mission Society, 551 Lerner, Alan Jay, 516 Lerner, Max, 262 LeRoy, Marie, 543, 544 Les Feux de la Saint-Jean (Stroheim), 1017 Leskoschek, Axel von, 175 Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 356, 907, 1022 Lessons of Darkness (Lektionen in Finsternis; film), 502 Lester, Elliot, 798 Letter Exchange with Bonn (Briefwiechsel mit Bonn; Mann), 719 The Letter (film), 1189 Letters of a Defunct (Briefe eines Verstorbenen; Pückler-Muskau), 1009 Letters of Joe Klotzkopp, Esq. (“Briefe vun Joe Klotzkopp, Esq.”; Rittinger), 925 Letters of Obscure Men (Epistolarum obscurorum virorum; Hutten), 534 Letters on Silesia (Adams), 38 Letters on the Kindergarten (Fröbel), 609 Die letzten Zeiten der Grävenitz (Griesinger), 466 Leupold, Dagmar, 688 Leuteritz, Karl, 868 Leutsch, Ernst Ludwig von, 459 Leutze, Emanuel Gottlieb, 660–662 paintings of, 660–662 Lewis, G. N., 584

INDEX Lewis, Jerry, 698 Lewis, Meriwether, 1090 Lewis, Sinclair, 662–664, 686, 1036, 1048. See also Huebsch, Ben W.; Mann, Thomas; Thompson, Dorothy; Travel literature; Germany-U.S.; Zuckmayer, Carl Ley, Robert, 644, 839 Leyendecker, Johann, 384 Leyh, Eduard, 834 Liberal Republican movement, 664–666. See also Forty-Eighters; Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in; Politics, and German Americans; Schurz, Carl; Sigel, Franz Liberty Bonds Crusade, 247 Libeskind, Daniel, 90 Licht-Freund (Light-Friend), 789 Lieber, Ernst, 458 Lieber, Francis (Franz), 305–308, 666–668, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1060, 1073. See also Burgess, John William; Encyclopaedia Americana; Turner Societies Liebermann, Max, 129 Liebig, Justus, 1073 Liebknecht, Karl, 757 Liebknecht, Wilhelm, 145, 668–669. See also Anarchists; AntiSocialist Law; Haymarket Liebmann, Robert, 1199 Lietzemaier, Alwine, 602 Life magazine, 333, 886 Life of Schiller (Carlyle), 357 The Life of the European Slave (Europäisches Sklavenleben; Hackländer), 976 Life of Washington (A. Bancroft), 116

The Light Face (Das Helle Gesicht; WelskopfHenrich), 1131 Light over White Rocks (Licht über weissen Felsen; WelskopfHenrich), 1130 Like a Mighty Army: Hitler versus Established Religion (Schuster), 969 Lilienfeldt, Julia, 333 Lilienthal, Max, 243, 591 Lincoln, Abraham, 18, 63, 117, 187, 311, 325, 370, 494, 618, 654, 665, 668, 859, 895, 941, 957, 1147 Nast and, 803 Schurz and, 953, 954 Turner societies and, 1061 Lincoln, Labor, and Slavery (Schlüter), 945 Lincoln National Bank, 247 Lindbergh, Anne, 393 Lindbergh, Charles Augustus, 198, 393, 670–672, 981, 1144. See also Antisemitism; Ford, Henry Lindheimer, Ferdinand, 814 Lindner, Richard, 862 Lingg, Louis, 490 Linguistic Atlas of Kansas German Dialects (LAKGD) Project, 599 Link, Conrad, 58 Linné, Carl von, 112–113 Linth, Arnold Escher von der, 882 Lipmann, Fritz, 577, 580–581, 582 Lippmann, Walter, 1035, 1162 List, Friedrich, 356, 672–674 Das Literarische Echo (Literary Echo), 312 Literature, Canadian, Germany and Germans in, 674–675.

1261

See also Literature, German Canadian Literature, German, the U.S. in, 681–689. See also Americanization; Brecht, Bertolt; Duden, Gottfried; Goethe, and the U.S.; Griesinger, Karl Theodor; Hecker, Friedrich; Heym, Stefan; Marcuse, Herbert; May, Karl Friedrich; Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin; Münsterberg, Hugo; Ruppius, Otto; Strubberg, Friedrich August; Weitling, Wilhelm Literature, German American, in the nineteenth century, 675–679 drama, theater and, 677 erosion of Germanlanguage literature and, 678–679 historical novels and, 676–677 of refugees and emigrants, 677–678 regional, 676 religious, 677 serialized novels and, 676 See also Anarchists; Forty-Eighters; May, Karl Friedrich; Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin; Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in; Pennsylvania German (Dutch) language; Ruppius, Otto; Sealsfield, Charles; Strubberg, Friedrich August; Weitling, Wilhelm Literature, German Canadian, 679–681 cultural heritage and, 680–681

1262

INDEX

German-language belles letters and, 679, 680 journalism and, 680 memoirs, travel writings and, 679–680 realist fiction and, 680 See also Ontario; Rittinger, John Adam Little Dieter Needs to Fly (film), 502 The Little Foxes (film), 1189 “Little Red Riding Hood” (Grimm brothers), 285 The Littler Herr Friedmann (Der kleine Herr Friedmann; Mann), 718 Littmann, Ulrich, 399 LIVE OAK, 214 Living Images of America (Lebende bilder aus Amerika; Griesinger), 465 Lizzie Borden (opera), 890 Llewellyn, Karl Nickerson, 689–691 Llewellyn, William Henry, 690 LLL. See Lutheran Laymen’s League Lloyd, David, 870 Lloyd, Henry D., 53 Locke, John, 1041 Loeb, Jacques, 456, 691–692 Loeb, Solomon, 940 Loeb, Theresa, 940 Loeb and Co., 79 Loewe, Frederick, 514, 516 Loewenstein, Karl, 692–693. See also American Occupation Zone; Intellectual exile Loewi, Otto, 580 Löffler, Josias Friedrich Christian, 784 Logan, James, 869, 871, 1123 Löhe, Johannes Konrad Wilhelm, 694 Löhe, Wilhelm, 709 Lohenstein, Daniel Casper von, 682 Lohmann, Dietrich, 514

Lombroso, Cesare, 321–322 London Agreement, 839, 1135 London Protocol, 135, 1135 The London Times, 750 Long, Breckenridge, 88 Long, Huey, 589 Long, Lutz, 848 Longfellow, Henry Wadsworth, 459, 620, 694–696, 1045. See also American students, at German universities; Follen, Charles; Göttingen, University of; Ticknor, George Longstreet, General, 299 Loofs, Friedrich Armin, 283 Looking Further Forward: An Answer to Looking Backward by Edward Bellamy (Michaelis), 834 Loos, Theodor, 574 Lopez-Cobos, Jesus, 245 Lorand, Stefan, 886 Lorre, Peter, 261, 514, 696–698, 1003 Los Angeles (airship), 290 Löser, Franz, 810 The Lost Weekend (film), 1144 Lotusblüthen (Lotus Blossoms), 487 Louis, Herbert, 1122 Louis, Joe, 49 Louisiana, 698–700 Gallicized and anglicized German names in, 698 German cultural, social, and economic influence in, 699–700 German culture in, 700 German settlement in, 698, 700 immigration to, 699 religion in, 700 See also Beer; Duden, Gottfried; New Orleans; Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in Louys, Pierre, 1003

Love Letters from Engadin (Liebsebriefe aus dem Engadin; film), 317 Love without Illusions (Liebe Ohne Illusion; film), 345 Low Dutch (Niederdeutsch), 287–288 Löwe (Lowe), Adolph, 701–702. See also Frankfurt School; Intellectual exile Lowell, A. Lawrence, 796 Lowell, James Russel, 1045 Löwenstein, Hubertus Prinz zu, 819 Lowenthal, Leo, 378, 379–380, 381, 626 Lubitsch, Ernst, 342, 343, 513, 573, 574, 702–703, 901, 1132, 1143. See also Dietrich, Marlene; German film U.S. influence in; Hollywood; Jannings, Emile; Preminger, Otto; Reinhardt, Max Lucas, Margaret Bright, 565 Luce, Henry R., 886 Lucerne Memorial, 202 Luckenmeyer, Jeanne, 144 Lucky Victim: An Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times 1933-1946 (Schmitt), 1180 Ludendorff, Erich von, 701 Ludvig and Irmãos company, 406 Ludwig, Emil, 1087 Ludwig, Ernst Reinhold, 406 Ludwig, Otto, 406 Ludwig, Paula, 175 Ludwig I, 703, 704 Ludwig-Missionsverein, 658, 703–704. See also Leopoldine Foundation Luján, Rosa Elena, 1052 Lukács, George, 47, 966 Lulsius, Levinus, 1044 Lundestad, Geir, 362 Lunenburg, 830–832 Lungkwitz, Hermann, 1029

INDEX Luria, Salvador, 582 Luschan, Felix von, 705–707. See also Eugenics Lusitania, 1155, 1156–1157 Lusk, Lillian, 619 Luther, Hans, 394 Luther, Martin, 80, 81, 888, 960, 1111 Lutheran Church, 54, 55, 483. See also American churches; Religion Lutheran Church-Canada (LC-C), 707 Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LC-MS), 707–711, 1109 beliefs of, 707 confessionalism and, 707 development of, 707–708 hymnals, 711 membership in, 707, 709 method of Bible interpretation of, 711 See also Duden, Gottfried; Löhe, Johannes Konrad Wilhelm; Pietism; Walther, Carl Ferdinand Wilhelm The Lutheran Emigrants in North America (Agende für christliche Gemeinden des lutherischen Bekenntnisses), 694 The Lutheran Hour (radio program), 710 Lutheran Laymen’s League (LLL), 710 Lutheran Seminary, 283 The Lutheran Witness, 707, 709 Lutheran Women’s Missionary League (LWML), 710 Lutheran World Federation, 707 Der Lutheraner (The Lutheran), 709, 1109 Lutterbeck, Walter, 174 Luxemburger Gazette, 457 LWML. See Lutheran Women’s Missionary League

Lynen, Feodor, 581 M. A. Gruenebaum and Ballin company, 376 Maack, Reinhard, 713–714. See also Brazil McAlmon, Robert, 1048 Macao (film), 1004 McCarthy, Joseph, 305 McClellan, George B., 371 McClernand, John, 859 McCloy, John, 69, 970, 1082 McClure’s, 39 McCormack Act, 411 McCormick, Anne O’Hare, 1079 Macdonald, Angus, 1186–1187 McDonald, Dick, 727 McDonald, Mac, 727 McDonald’s Restaurant, 76, 727–729 consumerism and, 258 founder of, 727 in Germany, employee treatment and, 728 in Germany, number of, 729 in Germany, reputation of, 729 overseas markets and, 728 See also Americanization; Chewing gum; Coca Cola; Consumerism MacDowell, Edward, 800 McGarrity, Joseph, 750 McGovern, James, 1050 Mach, Ernst, 691–692 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 1013 McIlwain, Charles Howard, 776 Mack, Alexander, 603, 889 Mackenna, Benjamín Vicuña, 235 McKinley, William, 39, 83, 241, 387 MacLaren, Donald, 1185 McLaren, Priscilla Bright, 565 McRae, Colin D., 836–837 Madame Du Barry (film), 342 Madero, Francisco, 216, 743, 858

1263

Madero government, 744 Madison, James, 107 Madonna of the Prairies (Hough), 619 Maenz, Andreas, 784 Maenz, Jacobina, 784 Maenz, Johann Liborius, 784 Maeser, Karl Gottfried, 715–717. See also Humboldt, Wilhelm von Maeser, Reinhard, 717 The Magazine G, 751 Magellan, Ferdinand, 93 The Magic Mirror (Singmaster), 973 The Magic Mountain (Mann), 794 Mahler, Gustav, 466, 801 Maimonides, Moses, 1013 Main Street (Lewis), 662 Maitoba Free Press, 203 Major-Post-Office-Journal (Ober-Post-AmtsZeitung), 62 The Making of a Paratrooper, Airborne Training and Combat in World War II (Gabel), 1180 The Making of “Hulk” (film), 502 Malaspina, Alejandro, 471 Maltby, Margaret Eliza, 460 The Maltese Falcon (Hammett), 278, 1132 Maltz, Albert, 1048 Mamoulian, Rouben, 279 Man and the Moon (film), 164 The Man from Colorado (Der Mann aus Colorado; TV program), 919 Man in Space (film), 164 Mangold, Ferdinand, 635 Manhattan Opera House, 476 Manhattan Project, 149, 304, 397 Manifesto from Free Primal Christianity to the German People (Köbner), 59

1264

INDEX

Mann, Erika, 663 Mann, Heinrich, 261, 563, 574, 717, 908, 1003, 1199 Mann, Horace, 607 Mann, Klaus, 663, 689, 1049 Mann, Mary Tyler Peabody, 607 Mann, Thomas, 108, 180, 262, 312, 521, 562, 717–719, 794, 950, 1049, 1199. See also Aufbau; Brecht, Bertolt; Intellectual exile Männerchor societies, 800 Mannheimer, Isaac Noah, 1148 Manning, William T., 87 Manteuffel, Hasso, 1175, 1176 Mapa del Interior de la República Argentina (Brackenbusch), 160 Mapa fitogeográfico do Estado do Paraná (Maack), 714 Mapa geológico do Estado do Paraná (Maack), 714 Maracaibo, Lake, 255 Marathon Man (film), 339 Marbach, Adolph, 1110 Marcel, Gabriel, 395 March, Otto, 494 March of Dimes, 413 Marcuse, Herbert, 88, 267, 268, 379, 380, 381, 396, 562, 686, 719–721. See also Adorno, Theodore W.; Frankfurt School; Horkheimer, Max Marenholtz-Bulow, Baroness von, 610 Margaretha, Herbert, 583 Margolin, Charles, 520 Margona, Demetrius di, 766 Maria Theresa, 1096 Mariaux, Walter, 174 Mario and the Magician (Mario and der Zauberer; Mann), 718 Mark, Hermann, 583–584, 1141

Markbreit, Leopold, 241 Market National Bank, 241 Markgraf, Georg, 721–722. See also Brazil Marlitt (Eugenie John), 930 The Marquesians and the Art (Die Marquesaner und ihre Kunst; Steinen), 1001 Marr, Wilhelm, 321 The Marriage of Maria Braun (Die Ehe der Maria Braun; film), 351–352 Mars and Beyond (film), 164 Marshall, George C., 363, 917 Marshall, Louis, 940, 1113 Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program), 68, 257, 363–364, 365, 391, 917 Martin, Jacques, 551 Martin, Paul, 344, 350 Martin Luther (Singmaster), 973 Martini, Martino, 611 Martins, Gaspar Silveira, 168 Martius, Carl Friedrich Philipp von, 638, 722–724, 809. See also Brazil; Natterer, Johann Baptist Maruhn, Siegfried, 1051 Marvel, Carl S., 584 Marwedel, Emma Jacobina Christina, 608, 952 Marx, Eleanor, 669 Marx, Karl, 47, 248, 380, 395, 396, 518, 562, 668, 701, 720, 757, 758, 1126, 1128, 1145 Marxhausen, Conrad, 676 Mary Kreuzer (Ruppius), 930 Mary Wigman School of Dance, 516 Mason, William, 799 Mass consumption, 256–258 Americanization and, 78–79 debate over, 256 See also Consumerism

Mass culture, Americanization and, 78 Mass production, Americanization and, 78–79 Massing, Paul W. (pseud. Karl Billinger), 664 Mast, Charles, 1173 Mathematical Studies on America (Progymnastica Mathematica Americana; Markgraf ), 722 Matiauda, Heriberta, 1014 Matter, Herbert, 125 Matthiessen, Francis Otto, 257 Mauch, Christof, 424 Maulin, Anna Catherina. See Zenger, Anna Catherina Maurer, Johann Georg, 784 Maximilian, Archduke (of Austria), 622, 984 Maximilian, Emperor (of Mexico), 732 Maximilian I (of Bavaria), 704 May, Emma, 726 May, Ernst, 794 May, Joe, 349, 636–637, 654, 1143 May, Karl Friedrich, 190, 546–547, 548, 555, 559, 560, 637, 684, 724–727, 769, 964, 1068, 1199. See also Indians, in German literature Mayan ruins, 142 Mayer, Carl, 797–798 Mayr, Suzette, 681 Maytag Corporation, 56 Mazger, Paul Heinrich Wilhelm Albert, 283 MC. See Methodist Church The Meaning of Geneva, Where Capital Lives, There Can Be No Peace (Heartfield), 492 The Meaning of Life (Der Sinn des Lebens; film), 317

INDEX Means, Russell, 1131 MEC. See Methodist Episcopal Church Medeiros, Borges de, 127 Media, consumerism and, 258 Megerle, Johann Ullrich, 677 Mehring, Walter, 1049 Meier, Hermann Henrich, 826–827 Meier, Johann Jakob, 153 Meinecke, Friedrich, 510 Meiser, Wilhelm (Wilhelm Master), 454 Meitner, Lise, 582 Melford, George, 1091 Melish, John, 483 Melville, Hermann, 1045 Memorandum about Mt. Cotopaxi (Memoria sobre el Cotopaxi y su última erupcion; Wolf ), 1151 Memories of Texas (Erinnerungen aus Texas; Willrich), 834 The Memphis Belle (film), 1189 Men Must Act (Mumford), 794 Men on Sunday (Menchen am Sonntag; film), 1143 Mencken, H. L., 1048 Mendelsohn, Erich, 794 Mendelssohn, Felix, 277 Mendelssohn, Moses, 14, 591 Mendès, Lothar, 1091–1092 Mendoza, Pedro de, 93, 255, 945–946 Mengele, Josef, 96, 651, 652–653, 868–869 Mennonites, 5–6, 9–10, 80, 138, 139 in Canada, 202, 206, 207, 210–211 in Ontario, 850, 851 in Paraguay, 867 Volga Germans and, 1101 Merau-Brentano, Sophie, 683 Mercantil Tipografia, 407 Mercedes, 258

Mercersberg Review, 938 Merchandising AG, 258 Meredith, Michael, 1134 The Merida Cordellera (Die Cordillera von Merida; Sievers), 971 Meriweather, William H., 813 Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 719 Merry-Go Round (film), 1016 The Merry Vineyard (Der fröhliche Weinberg; Zuckmayer), 1199 Merzbacher, Leo, 591 Messersmith, George, 87 Messmer, Jacob J., 835 Messmer, Sebastian, 220, 458, 785 Messter, Oskar, 341 “A Method of Prayer” (Kelpius), 603 Methodist Church (MC), 59 Methodist Episcopal Church (MEC; Bischöfliche Methodistenkirche), 58 Methodists, 58–59. See also American churches; Religion Metropolis (film), 343, 349 Metropolitan Opera, 800 Metternich, Baron, 468, 659, 683, 809, 965 Metz, Christian, 54, 55 Metzler, Hugo, 407 Meusebach, John O., 42, 382–383, 729–731, 1027. See also Adelsverein; Fredericksburg; New Braunfels; SolmsBraunfels, Prince Carl von; Texas Mexican Petroleum Company, 743 Mexico, 731–737 banking in, 743 during the Cold War, 737 Colegio Alemán school in, 733–734, 736–737 German churches in, 734 German Club in,

1265

mexicanization of, 736 German colony in, 733–734 German industrialists in, 733 German Jesuits in, 738–740. See also Kino, Eusebius Franciscus German language in, 733 German-language press in, 733 German-Mexican relations in, 741–745. See also Carranza, Venustiano; Hapag; Mining; Volkswagen Company German migrant community in, 732 German population in, 733 German school in, 733–734, 736–737 Germans merchants in, 734 immigration to, 24, 30, 731–732 military in, 744 Nazi Party in, 735 during post-World War II era, 736 self-segregation of Germans in, 733–734 tourism in, 745 trade in, 741–744, 745 during World War I, 216–217, 734, 744 during World War II, 735–736, 744–745 See also Carranza, Venustiano; German migration, to Latin America; Humboldt, Alexander von; Intellectual exile; Kish, Egon Erwin; Latin America, Nazi Party in; Seghers, Anna; Volkswagen Company; World War I Mexico and the Mexicans (Mexico und die Mexicaner; Sartorius), 936

1266

INDEX

Meyen, Johann Jakob, 683 Meyer, Adolph, 466 Meyer, Agathe Margarethe (née Beusch), 951 Meyer, Else, 748 Meyer, Hannes, 124 Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph, 488, 746–747, 950. See also Meyer, Herrmann Meyer, Heinrich Adolf, 952 Meyer, Heinrich Christian, 951 Meyer, Hermann, 746, 747–749, 1001. See also Brazil; Meyer, Hans Heinrich Joseph; Steinen, Karl von den Meyer, Hermann Julius, 746 Meyer, Joseph, 746 Meyer, Kuno, 749–750. See also Amerika Institut; World War I Meyer, Margarethe, 607 Meyer, Michael A., 657 Meyerhof, Otto, 580, 581, 692 Mezes, Sidney, 1162 MGM studio, 343 Michael, Anne, 675 Michaelis, Richard, 834 Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig, 124, 125, 126, 233, 466, 750–751. See also Bauhaus; Gropius, Walter Mieth, Benjamin, 715 Migration, German-Jewish, 13–32, 85, 88, 95–96, 242–243 1654-1820, 13–14 1820-1917, 14–18 1918-1932, 18–19 1933-1945, 19–22, 21t during American Civil War, 17, 18 on S.S. St Louis, 992–993 See also Antisemitism; B’nai B’rith; Einhorn, David; Einstein, Albert; German Jewish refugees; Jewish refugee scientists; Judaism, Reform (North America);

Kissinger, Henry; Leeser, Isaac; Schiff, Jacob Henry; Schönberg, Arnold; Warburg, Felix Moritz; Wise, Isaac Mayer Mikan, Johann Christian, 723, 809 Milestone, Lewis, 574 Milik-Verlag, 490 Military Intelligence, 1167 Military Tribunal of Lyon, 119 The Millennium (Sinclair), 491 Miller, Burchard, 41 Miller, Frederick, 130, 133, 755 Miller, Heinrich, 906 Miller, Henry, 1050 Miller, John, 874 Miller, John Heinrich, 421, 823 Miller, Peter, 313, 314 Millet, Jean François, 155 Millikan, Robert Andrew, 303, 1075–1076 The Million Dollar Hotel (film), 1134 Milwaukee, 230, 752–756 anti-German sentiment in, 756 beer culture in, 131, 755–756 breweries in, 755–756 German cultural life in, 754–755 German girls’ school in, 755 German influence in, 755–756 German language in, 754 German-language press in, 754 German political influence in, 752–754 German schools in, 754 German settlement in, 752 immigration to, 752 religion in, 754 during World War I, 756 See also Anneke, Mathilde Franziska; Beer; Berger, Victor L.;

Cahensly, Simon Peter Paul; Kindergartners; Milwaukee Socialists; Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in; St. Raphael’s Association for the Protection of German Catholic Emigrants; Steuben, Frederick von; Steuben Society of America; World War I, German Americans and Die Milwaukee Arbeiter Zeitung (Milwaukee Workers’ Paper), 758 Milwaukee Journal, 756 Milwaukee SocialDemocratic Publishing, 753 Milwaukee Socialist movement, 133 Milwaukee Socialists, 757–760 during World War I, 759 See also Berger, Victor L.; Haymarket Riot; Milwaukee; Newspaper press (U.S.), German language in; Weitling, Wilhelm The Mind of the Primitive Man (Boas), 556 Minhag America (Wise), 1150 Minima Moralia (Adorno), 48 Mining, 760–763. See also Brazil; Conquista; Eschwege, Wilhelm Ludwig von; Humboldt, Alexander von; Mexico; Mexico, German-Mexican relations in Minnesota Holy Land, 763–767 Benedictines in, 766, 767 Catholic missions in, 764–766 cultural imprint of, 764 European settlement in, 764–766

INDEX Franciscan sisters mission in, 766–767 immigration to, 764–766 Indian missions in, 765 missions and parishes in, 764–767 origin and growth of, 764–766 See also Indians, in German literature; LudwigMissionsverein; Pierz, Francis X. Misch, Jürgen, 560 Mission Ridge, Battle of, 299 Missouri, 152 Missouri Historical Review, 284 Missouri River valley, 120 Mistress of the World (Herrin der Welt; film), 349 Mitchum, Robert, 1004 Mithridates (Adelung and Vater), 43–45, 1088–1089, 1090 Mitic, Gojko, 548–549 Mitre, Bartolome, 947 Mitropoulos, Dimitri, 862 Mitscherlich, Alexander, 675 Mitscherlich, Margarete, 675 Mittag, Martin, 186 Mitteis, Heinrich, 1008 Mitterand, François, 146 Mittwochs-Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftliche Unterhaltung, 117 Mockett Law, 807 Model T Ford, 1102–1103, 1104 Model Treaty of 1776, 1054 Modernism, 122 Moerlein, Christian, 246 Moholy-Nagy, Laszlo, 123, 125, 126, 862 Moller, August, 641 Möllhausen, Heinrich Balduin von, 556, 557, 558, 676, 678, 684, 767–769. See also Humboldt, Alexander von; Indians, in German literature; May, Karl;

Württemberg, Paul Wilhelm von Molnar, Ferenc, 637 Moltke, Helmut von, 117 Moltke, Helmuth James Count von, 1036, 1037 MOMA. See Museum of Modern Art Mommsen, Theodor, 70, 117, 195, 904 Momper, Walter, 1139 Monroe, James, 871–872 Monroe, Marilyn, 901 Monroe Doctrine, 659, 665, 1092, 1094 Montaigne, Michel Eyquem de, 526 Montgomery, Bernard, 1175–1176, 1178 Mooney, James, 198 Moore, Billy, 919 Moore, Henry, 862 Moore, Stanford, 581 Moral Culture of Infancy, and Kindergarten Guide (Peabody and Mann), 607 Morawetz, Herbert, 583 Morel, Benedict Augustin, 321 Moreno, García, 1151 Morgan, John Pierpont, 377, 827 Morgenblatt für gebildete Leser (Morning News for Educated Readers), 104 Der Morgenstern (Morning Star), 1120 Morgenthau, Hans J., 562, 770–771, 1081, 1082. See also Intellectual exile; Kissinger, Henry Morgenthau, Henry, Jr., 66, 772–774, 1023, 1037 Morgenthau Plan, 66, 186, 772–774, 1081–1082. See also American Occupation Zone; Denazification; Nuremberg trials; U.S., postwar Germany and; World War II

1267

Morínigo, Higinio, 868 Moritz, Johann, 722 Mormonism, 715–716. See also Religion Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints), 57, 715, 1072. See also American churches; Religion Morocco, First Moroccan Crisis and, 354–355 Morocco (film), 1003 Morris, William, 122 Morrissey, Paul, 1133 Morsbach, Lorenz, 460 Morse, Samuel F. B., 532, 659 Morton’s Hope (Motley), 780 Moscow Declaration, 839 Moseley, George Van Horn, 410 Moses, Siegfried, 657 Mosquito Coast, Moravian missionaries in, 774–775 MOSSAD, 296 Mosse, Felicia, 776 Mosse, George Lachmann, 776–777. See also Intellectual exile; Plant, Richard Mosse, Rudolf, 776 Most, Helene, 387 Most, Johann, 82, 83, 145, 385, 386, 387, 777–779, 958. See also Anarchists; AntiSocialist Law; Freiheit; Schwab, Justus H. Motion Picture Patents Company, 512 Motley, John Lothrop, 325, 586, 587, 780–781. See also American students, at German universities; Bancroft, George; Follen, Charles, Göttengen University Motz, Hans, 583 Motz, John, 137, 138, 925 Motz, William J., 925 Moulin, Jean, 118 Mountain Film (Bergfilm),

1268

INDEX

316 The Mountain System of Bogota (Die Kordillere von Bogota; Hettner), 504 Movement for a Free Germany (Movimento dos Alemães Livres), 173–174 Movement of German AntiFascists (Movimento dos Alemães Antinazis), 173 Movietone Newsreels, 512–513 Mowrer, Edgar Ansel, 1048, 1087 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 623, 799 Mrs. Miniver (film), 1189 MTV, consumerism and, 258 Muck, Karl, 633, 781–783, 801 Boston Symphony and, 782–783 See also Hammerstein, Oscar; Kunwald, Ernst; Music (U.S.), German influence on; World War I, and German-Americans; World War I, German prisoners and civilian internees in Muckenhalter, Benno, 766 Mucker, 783–784 definition of, 783 Mucker Prozess, 783 “The Mud Turtle” (Lester), 798 Muehlheim Federation of Free Church Protestant Congregations (Mühlheimer Verband Freikirchlicher Evangelischer Gemeinden), 60 Muehlsiepen, Rev. Henry, 904 Muench, Aloisius, 785–787. See also American Occupation Zone; Denazification;

Milwaukee Muench, Friedrich, 787–789. See also Duden, Gottfried; Koerner, Gustave; Travel literature, GermanU.S. Muench, Joseph, 785 Muhlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad, 789–790, 791. See also Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior; Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior, 545, 789, 790–792, 889. See also Muhlenberg, Frederick Augustus Conrad; Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel; Pennsylvania; Pietism; Weiser, Conrad Muhlenberg, John Peter Gabriel, 790–791, 792–793. See also Muhlenberg, Henry Melchior; Steuben, Frederick von Muhlenberg, Peter, 875 Muhlhauser, Gottlieb, 246 Muhlhauser, Henry, 246 Müller, Christoph Gottlob, 58, 59 Müller, Elias, 460 Müller, Elisabeth, 784 Müller, Fritz, 142 Müller, Johannes von, 683 Mulliken, Robert S., 584 Mumford, Lewis, 495, 793–795. See also Gropius, Walter Adolf; Mann, Thomas; Zuckmayer, Carl Munch, Edvard, 129 Münch, Friedrich, 92 Münchhausen, Karl Ludwig von, 968 Münchmeyer, Heinrich Gotthold, 724, 725 Münchmeyer, Pauline, 726 Münchner Illustrierte Presse (Munich Illustrated

News), 886 Mundt, Carla, 104 Muni, Paul, 277–278, 514 Munich Crisis, 646 Munsberg, Pedro, 1184 Münsterberg, Hugo, 80, 372, 686, 795–796, 1048, 1074. See also Amerika Institut; Francke, Kuno; Intellectual exchange, U.S.-German The Murderers Are among Us (Die Mörder Sind Unter Uns; film), 351 Murdoch, Rupert, 258 Murnau, Friedrich Wilhelm, 277, 343, 501, 513, 573, 627, 796–798, 921, 1091. See also German film, American influence in; Herzog, Werner; Hollywood; Jannings, Emil; Reinhardt, Max Murphy, William Walton, 62 Murray, Anna, 104, 105 Murray, John, 1046 Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), 124–125, 493 Music, Americanization and, 76, 77 Music (U.S.), German influence on, 799–801 Boston Symphony and, 801 Chicago Symphony and, 800 Cincinnati Symphony and, 801 Metropolitan Opera and, 800 New York Philharmonic and, 799–800, 801 opera and, 800 orchestral music and, 799–800 Philadelphia Orchestra and, 800 See also Hammerstein, Oscar I.; Kunwald, Ernst; Muck, Karl

INDEX Mussolini, Benito, 127, 198, 652, 1171, 1182 Mutiny on the Bounty (Nordhoff and Hall), 1160 Mutis, Don Jose Celestino, 530 Mutual Help Society (Gemeinnütziger Verein), 334 Mutual Security Program, 364 My Battle (Mein Kampf; Hitler), 91, 359, 478 My Bondage and My Freedom (Sclaverei und Freiheit; Douglass), 104, 975 My Flesh and Blood: A Lyric Autobiography with Indiscreet Annotations (Viereck), 1098 My Journey to the German Colonies in Rio Grande do Sul (Meine Reise nach den deutschen Kolon