Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-05T23:28:09.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Andreas Hillgruber: Historian of “Grossmachtpolitik” 1871–1945

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review-Article
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Weber, Max, Gesammelte Politische Schriften (Tübingen, 1958), p. 23, ed. Winckelmann, JohannesGoogle Scholar. An English-language translation is in Runciman, W. G., ed., Max Weber: Selections in Translation (Cambridge, 1978), p. 266Google Scholar. “We must grasp that the unification of Germany was a youthful spree, indulged in by the nation in its old age; it would have been better if it had never taken place, since it would have been a costly extravagance, if it was the conclusion rather than the starting-point of German power-politics on a global scale.”

2. Plessner, Helmuth, Die verspätete Nation: Über die politische Verführbarkeit bürgerlichen Geistes (Stuttgart, 1959)Google Scholar; Dehio, Ludwig, Deutschland und die Weltpolitik im 20. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt, 1955)Google Scholar; Schieder, Theodor, “Europa im Zeitalter der Nationalstaaten und europäische Weltpolitik bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg,” in Handbuch der europäischen Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1968), vol. 6Google Scholar; Schieder, Theodor, “Staatensystem als Vormacht der Welt 1848–1918,” in Propyläen Geschichte Europas (Berlin, 1977), vol. 5Google Scholar; Schieder, Theodor, “Europa im Zeitalter der Weltmächte,” in Handbuch der europäischen Geschichte (Stuttgart, 1979), vol. 7.Google Scholar

3. Hillgruber's, edited works include: Von El Alamein bis Stalingrad: Aus dem Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrtnacht (Munich, 1964)Google Scholar; Chronik des Zweiten Weltkrieges: Kalendarium militärischer und politischer Ereignisse 1939–1945 (Frankfurt, 1966)Google Scholar, with Ger hard Hümmelchen; Probleme des Zweiten Weltkrieges (Cologne, 1967)Google Scholar; Hitlers Tischge- spräche im Fährerhauptquartier 1941–1942 (Munich, 1968), originally edited by Picker, HenryGoogle Scholar; Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht (Wehrmachtführungsstab) 1940–1945, vol. 4, pt. 1 (Frankfurt, 1969)Google Scholar; and Staatsmänner und Diplomaten bei Hitler: Vertrauliche Aufzeichnungen über Unterredungen mit Vertretern des Auslandes 1939–1941, 2 vols. (Frankfurt, 19671970)Google Scholar. Published monographs, in addition to those being reviewed, in clude: Hitler, König Carol und Marschall Antonescu: Die deutsch-rumänischen Beziehungen 1938–1944 (Wiesbaden, 1954, 1965)Google Scholar; Hitlers Strategic: Politik und Kriegführung 1940–1941 (Frankfurt, 1965)Google Scholar; Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik (Hanover, 1965)Google Scholar; Bismarcks Aussenpolitik (Freiburg, 1972)Google Scholar; Deutsche Geschichte 1945–1972: Die “deutsche Frage” in der Welt politik (Frankfurt, 1974)Google Scholar; Der Zenit des Zweiten Weltkrieges: Juli 1941 (Wiesbaden, 1977)Google Scholar; and Sowjetische Aussenpolitik im Zweiten Weltkrieg (Düsseldorf, 1979).Google Scholar Finally, note should be taken of several important articles: Der Faktor Amerika in Hitlers Strategic 1938–1941,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte: Beilage zur Wochenzeitung “Das Parlament19 (05 1966): 121Google Scholar; Riezlers Theorie des kalkulierten Risikos und Bethmann Hollwegs politische Konzeption in der Julikrise 1914,” Historische Zeitschrift 202 (1966): 333–51Google Scholar; Japan und der Fall ‘Barbarossa’: Japanische Dokumente zu den Gesprächen Hitlers und Ribbentrops mit Botschafter Oshima von Februar bis Juni 1941,” Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau 18 (1968): 312–36Google Scholar; Grundzüge der nationalsozialistischen Aussenpolitik 1939–1945,” Saeculum 24 (1973): 328–45Google Scholar; and England in Hitlers aussenpolitischer Konzeption,” Historische Zeitschrift 218 (1974): 6584.Google Scholar

4. Germany and the Two World Wars (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), trans. Kirby, William C.Google Scholar. From the original German title, Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege.

5. See, for example, Gardner, Lloyd C., Economic Aspects of New Deal Diplomacy (Madison, Wis., 1964)Google Scholar; LaFeber, Walter, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–1966 (New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Kolko, Gabriel, The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1943–1945 (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Schröder, Hans-Jürgen, Deutschland und die Vereinigten Staaten 1933–1939: Wirtschaft und Politik in der Entwicklung des deutsch-amerikanischen Gegensatzes (Wiesbaden, 1970)Google Scholar; Russett, Bruce M., No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II (New York, 1972)Google Scholar; and Berger, Henry W., “Crisis Diplomacy, 1930–1939,” in Williams, William Appleman, ed., From Colony to Empire Essays in the History of American Foreign Relations (New York, 1972), pp. 293336.Google Scholar

6. Weinberg, Gerhard L., The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany: Starting World War II 1937–1939 (Chicago and London, 1980), p. 657 n. 3Google Scholar, simply states “my view is smewhat different”; Weinberg, , World in the Balance: Behind the Scenes of World War II (Hanover and London, 1981), p. 82 n. 13,Google Scholar again informs the reader that Hillgruber's “interpretation is not, however, followed here.”

7. See House of Commons, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 204, col. 81ff.Google Scholar The speech was given on Feb. 9, 1871, as leader of the Conservative opposition.

8. Cited in Deutsche Grossmacht- und Weltpolitik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, p. 50. Original in Lepsius, J. et al. , eds., Die grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, 2 (Berlin, 1922): 64ff., doc. no. 246.Google Scholar

9. On this see Kennedy, Paul, The Rise of the Anglo-German Antagonism 1860–1914 (London, 1980).Google Scholar

10. These arguments were first set forth in a famous article of Hillgruber's, , “Riezlers Theorie des kalkulierten Risikos,” Historische Zeitschrift 202 (1966): 333–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; reprinted in Deutsche Grossmacht- und Weltpolitik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, pp. 91–107. Similar arguments were proposed three years later by Jarausch, Konrad H., “The Illusion of Limited War: Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg's Calculated Risk, July 1914,” Central European History 2 (1969): 4876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. See my review of Die gescheiterte Grossmacht, in German Studies Review 5 (10 1982): 428–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Hillgruber, Die gescheiterte Grossmacht, p. 69; derived from Maxelon, Michael-Olaf, Stresemann und Frankreich: Deutsche Politik der Ost-West Balance (Düsseldorf, 1972).Google Scholar

13. Broszat, Martin, Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik 1939–1945 (Stuttgart, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Der Staat Hitlers (Munich, 1969)Google Scholar; and Mommsen, Hans, Beamtentum im Dritten Reich (Stuttgart, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Cited in Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege, p. 68.

15. See, for example, Gatzke, Hans W., Germany and the United States: “A Special Relationship?” (Cambridge, Mass., 1980), p. 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a somewhat more judicious treatment, see Weinberg, Gerhard L., “Germany's Declaration of War on the United States: A New Look,” in World in the Balance, pp. 7595.Google Scholar This article first appeared in the Brooklyn College Studies on Society in Change, no. 21: Germany and America: Essays on Problems of International Relations and Immigration, ed. Trefousse, Hans L. (Brooklyn, 1980), pp. 5470.Google Scholar

16. Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege, pp. 127–28; Die gescheiterte Grossmacht, pp. 106–7.

17. An initial evaluation was undertaken by Thomas Nipperdey in his review of Deutsche Grossmacht-und Weltpolitik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, in Historische Zeitschrift 229 (1979): 378–79Google Scholar. I am indebted to Nipperdey for some of my observations in this section of the review article.

18. Hillgruber most percipiently states his position on the matter in an article on Delbrück, Hans: Deutsche Grossmacht- und Weltpolitik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, pp. 122–34.Google Scholar Originally published in Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, ed., Deutsche Historiker (Göttingen, 1972), 4:4052.Google Scholar

19. For excellent examples of his craft, see the articles: “England in Hitlers aussen-politischer Konzeption,” “Der Faktor Amerika in Hitlers Strategic 1938–1941,” and “Japan und der Fall ‘Barbarossa,’” in Deutsche Grossmacht- und Weltpolitik im 19. und 20, Jahrhundert, pp. 180–252.

20. A superb case in point is the piece, “Die ‘Krieg-in-Sicht’ Krise 1875—Wegscheide der Politik der europäischen Grossmächte in der späten Bismarck-Zeit,” Deutsche Gross macht- und Weltpolitik im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, pp. 35–52. Originally published in Schulin, Ernst, ed., Gedenkschrift Martin Göhring: Studien zur europäischen Geschichte (Wiesbaden, 1968), pp. 239–53.Google Scholar

21. Credit should also be given to three other fine works on this subject: Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Nationalsozialistische Aussenpolitik 1933–1938 (Frankfurt, 1968)Google Scholar; Hilde-brand, Klaus, Deutsche Aussenpolitik 1933–1945: Kalkül oder Dogma? (Stuttgart, 1973)Google Scholar; and Rich, Norman, Hitler's War Aims: Ideology, the Nazi State, and the Course of Expansion, 2 vols. (New York, 19731974).Google Scholar Nor should it be overlooked that a good deal of the work on the Soviet Union was pioneered by Weinberg, Gerhard L., Germany and the Soviet Union, 1939–1941 (Leiden, 1954).Google Scholar

22. I mean this in the sense that Hitler had fully recognized the need to establish German hegemony over the Continent as a prerequisite for subsequent expansion overseas. General Wilhelm Groener had grasped this “lesson” at least by May 1919: “We struggled unconsciously for world dominion before we had secured our continental position. This, of course, I can say only in the most intimate circles, but anyone who looks at the issue relatively clearly and historically cannot remain doubtful of it.” Cited in Fischer, Fritz, Krieg der Illusionen: Die deutsche Politik von 1911 bis 1914 (Düsseldorf, 1969), p. 1.Google Scholar Situation report by Groener to his staff at army headquarters on May 19,1919. See also Herwig, Holger H., “Admirals versus Generals: The War Aims of the Imperial German Navy 1914–1918,” Central European History 5 (1972): 208–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Thies, Jochen, Architekt der Weltherrschafi: Die “Endziele” Hitlers (Düsseldorf, 1976)Google Scholar, has brilliantly shown how Hitler's rebuilding of Berlin was to reflect the Reich's new global dimensions. Hillgruber supervised the early stages of this book. For the German army's role in the war of annihilation in the East, see especially the superb work by Streit, Christian, Keine Kameraden: Die Wehrmacht und die sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen 1941–1945 (Stuttgart, 1978).Google Scholar

24. In a review of Die gescheiterte Grossmacht that appeared after this review article was first submitted, Jäckel, Eberhard, in Historische Zeitschrift 234 (1982), 373–75,Google Scholar opined that no other historian had proved so “unrelenting, learned, and convincing” as Hillgruber on the issue of Kontinuität or Diskontinuität in recent German history.

25. Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege, p. 67; Die gescheiterte Grossmacht, p. 106. The citations are from von Bernhardi, Friedrich, Deutschland und der nächste Krieg (Berlin and Stuttgart, 1912), pp. 89ff., 172Google Scholar; and Hitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf (Munich, 1939), p. 650.Google Scholar

26. Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege, pp. 117, 126; Die gescheiterte Grossmacht, pp. 76, 104–5.

27. See Mason, T. W., “Some Origins of the Second World War,” in Robertson, E. M., ed., The Origins of the Second World War (London, 1971), p. 124Google Scholar; and greatly expanded in Mason's, Sozialpolitik im Dritten Reich (Opladen, 1977), pp. 238ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. A fine example of this type of history is Maier, Charles J., Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton, 1975).Google Scholar

29. Both points were raised by Mommsen, Wolfgang J. in his review of Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege, in Historische Zeitschrift 209 (1969): 694–96.Google Scholar

30. Notable among edited works are especially Kriegstagebuch des Oberkommandos der Wehrmacht, Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier, and Staatsmänner und Diplomaten bei Hitler, among monographs, Hitler, König Carol und Marschall Antonescu, Hitlers Strategie, and Bismarcks Aussenpolitik;, and among works of synthesis, Deutschlands Rolle in der Vorgeschichte der beiden Weltkriege, and Die gescheiterte Grossmacht. The latter category should also include Hillgruher's, contribution, “Entwicklung, Wandlung und Zerstörung des deutschen Nationalstaates 1871–1945,” to: Katalog zu “1871—Fragen an die deutsche Geschichte: Historische Ausstellungen im Reichstagsgebäude und in der Paulskirche in Frankfurt am Main aus Anlass der hundertsten Wiederkehr desjahres der Reichsgründung 1871” (Berlin, 1971), PP. 171203.Google Scholar