The Sword and the Sceptre: The Problem of Militarism in Germany. III: The Tragedy of Statesmanship – Bethmann Hollweg as War Chancellor (1914–1917); IV: The Reign of German Militarism and the Disaster of 1918 by Gerhard Ritter (review)

REVIEWS 235 ture. This appliesnot only to the forcedunificationof the Protestant church in Prussia, butalsotothefar-reaching implications of theaccession of Frederick William •v. The authorisbetteron themovements whichdominated thereligious-and indirectly thepolitical-life of thecountry, particularly theneo-Pietists andthe 'Friends of Light.' Whereas eighteenth-century pietists wantedto workthrough changing the heartsof Protestants, the neo-Pietists in the firsthalf of the nineteenthcentury aimedatsecuring control ofchurch o.rganisation. The neo-Pietists, whohad close linkswith thearistocracy, wereactivein theological faculties and seminaries, and developed their organs of publicity.Initially, their main efforts weredesigned to breakthe holdrationalism had acquiredoverthe majorityof pastors by 1815.Frederick Williamn•andhisminister Altenstein stillhadenough of theeasy-going eighteenth-century tolerance left in themneverto feelquiteat homewith theimpetuosity, sometimes bordering onfanaticism, oftheneo-Pietists. While FrederickWilliam•v showed muchmoresympathy thanhisfatherboth to the Protestant opponents of the unifiedchurchand to the Catholicminority in the kingdom,his accession strengthened the handsof the neo.-Pietists and worsened thesituation of theiropponents. Politically, theneo-Pietists wereConservativein their outlook.This may well explainwhy the authoritiesallowed them far more freedomin questioning churchpolicythan they did the Old Lutheransor, indeed,the.'Friendsof Light' who becamefairly influentialin the •84os.The Licht[reundetendedto be moderateliberalsor radicalsin politics .Also,while the neo-Pietists wishedto work throughexistingchurchorganisation ,someof the Lichtfreundesought independence. The neo-Pietists representeda strongforcein the church,but the dissidents werehopelessly divided. The storyaccording to the title issupposed to cover•848, but the treatmentin a shortepilogue is inadequate. The book,whichis the resultof intensive research , couldhavebeenimprovedout of recognition by carefuleditorialrevisionandbya betterarrangement of thematerial. FRANK EYCK Universityo[ Calgary The Swordand the Sceptre:The Problemo[ Militarism in Germany.n•: The Tragedy o[ Statesmanship-Bethmann Hollweg as War Chancellor(•9•4 - •9•7); w: The Reigno[ GermanMilitarismandtheDisaster o[ •9•8. C•.RHAm• R•TT•.R. Translatedby •E•NZ Nom•.N.Coral Gables,Fla., Universityof Miami Press, •97•-3. PP.x, 6! !; viii, 496.$•8.oopervolume. Gradually,historians who are not specialists of Germanyare beinggiventhe opportunity to savour theintense debate whichdominated, divided,andonoccasionevenhumiliatedthe German historicalprofession in the •96os.In i96i Fritz Fischer'sGriff nach der Weltmacht (literally, 'Grasp for World Power,' but weaklytranslated in the I966 Englisheditionas 'Germany's Aimsin the First World War') launchedthat debateby suggesting that an analysis of German war aimsbetween•9•4 and •9•8 pointedto a 'continuityin Germanhis- 236 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW tory from the first to the second world war.' The suggestion-initially it was little more-was remarkably akin to A.J.P. Taylor'scontemporaneous but independentassertion , in his Originsof the SecondWorld War, that Hitler's basicforeignpolicygoalswerereallyno differentfrom thoseof hispredecessors . Taylor couldeasily be dismissed by mostGermanhistorians asbothan incurableGermanophobe and a controversy-monger. However,a similarcharge from the penof a serious colleague, whopreviously had donerespectable work onGermanProtestantism in thenineteenth century, wasa differentmatter. After Friedrich Meinecke'sdeath in •954, Gerhard Ritter, until his own deathin I967, wasthedoyen of Germanhistorians. His knowledge wasencyclopaedic ,his versatilityadmirable.He was,in fact, more than an historian;he symbolized a pedagogic and scholarly tradition.In the i95oshe had begun workonhismaghum opus, a critical multi-volume examination oftherelationshipin modernGermanhistory between 'statecraft andmilitarism.' A yearbefore Fischer's book appeared,the secondvolumeof Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerkhad alreadytakenRitter'sstoryto the outbreakof the war in •9•4. The initial two volumes,the first dealingwith the period •74ø to •89o, had received virtuallyunanimous criticalacclaim.They wereregarded asa sound, thorough, and- in viewof the highscholarly standards, immense learning,and reputationof their author-almost unquestionably classic statement on their subject.After •96• Ritter's viewsbecame'classic' for reasons other than those which he had intended. When he had read Fischer's bookhe wrote: 'I couldnot put the bookdown withoutfeelingdeepmelancholy; melancholy and anxietywith regardto the cominggeneration ...' The father,the septuagenarian whohad experienced the Great War as an adult, was addressing the prodigalson.Although Ritter claimedin the prefaceto histhird volume,whichappeared originally in 1964, that its 'basicconcept... was already fixed in •96•,' the fact alone that this volumecovers onlythreeyears in time, •9•4 to •9•7, andisaslongasthefirst twovo}umes together, whichtreat •75 years, suggests that Fischer's treatise had a determining influence on thisbook.The contents reinforcethisimpression. The textitselfavoids a polemical tone;theveryextensive notes(pp.495-587), however,oftenspitvenom. The third volume,particularly, of Ritter'sworkis fascinating, not onlybecauseit is a lucid, argumentative, and well-documented statement on an immensely importanthistorical controversy...