The relationship of economic policy and democracy in the Weimar Republic is the topic of a lively debate currently being conducted in the Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte and other publications. The dispute started with Tim B. Müller’s ‘plea for an “optimistic”, non-teleological reading of the history of German democracy after 1918′, in which he argued that ‘the sources clearly reveal the enabling of democracy as a form of government and way of life as the political goal of economic policy.’
This garnered a vicious response by Claus-Dieter Krohn, who accused Müller of “selective perception” and even “ignorance”. For Krohn, Müller’s argument for a more open and contingent view of Weimar politics is “nothing more than a useless gimmick or, even worse, pure ideology.’
This was echoed by Christoph Lieber in a preface to Macht und Krieg. Hegemoniekonstellationen und Erster Weltkrieg, who warned of a ‘social-historical amnesia’ (sozialgeschichtliche Amnesie) in the latest research of contemporary German history.
Addressing this criticism, Paul Köppen added a measured response, in which he defended the perspective of an ‘openness’ of Weimar history.
The Weimar Republic is back on the research agenda in Germany. Stay tuned for more!
OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Jochen Hung (January 27, 2015). A “Historians’ Quarrel” about Weimar. Weimar Studies Network. Retrieved January 18, 2025 from https://doi.org/10.58079/vbn8