In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • "Global Mission":The Goethe Society of Weimar in the Third Reich
  • W. Daniel Wilson

The lore and even the research surrounding the Goethe Society of Weimar (Goethe-Gesellschaft) in the Third Reich have generally been guided by an apologetic tendency, in spite of intermittent scholarly critique of some of the protagonists.1 This defensive posture is summed up in a statement by Hans Wahl from March 1946, when he was seeking to convince the Soviet Military Administration in Germany to allow the society to take up its activities again:

Ich darf hinzufügen, daß die Goethe-Gesellschaft während der vergangenen Jahre die übliche Gleichschaltung nicht erfahren hat, nach wie vor nach ihren alten Satzungen arbeitet und das Führerprinzip nicht eingeführt hat. Sie hat ferner keinerlei Förderung durch die NSDAP erhalten. Diese hat vielmehr die Gestalt Goethes und sein Lebenswerk als gegnerische Kraft betrachtet und behandelt.

[I might add that the Goethe Society did not experience the usual "coordination" [Gleichschaltung] during the last years, to this day it still has its old constitution [from 1928] and did not introduce the Führer principle. Furthermore, it received no [financial] support from the Nazi party, which viewed and treated the figure of Goethe and his life's work as an opposing force.]2

This statement consists mainly of half-truths or outright untruths: the Goethe-Gesellschaft indeed did not experience the "usual" Gleichschaltung (coordination), but rather a "softer" version that gave them many benefits; the constitution of 1928 was retained, but it was repeatedly violated; the Führer principle was not introduced explicitly, but it certainly was implemented in practice, in modified form; the society did receive some modest financial support (for students to attend meetings). The most important untruth: the Nazi regime did not view Goethe as an "opposing force," but rather as a genius who demonstrated the superiority of German culture.

In the following I want to show that the Goethe Society had a privileged place in the Third Reich, successfully achieving regime approval for its reinterpretation of Goethe as a precursor of the Third Reich. Despite this favored status, the society nevertheless practiced what the Germans call "vorauseilender Gehorsam" (preemptive obedience), voluntarily and eagerly [End Page 19] adapting to party ideology and supporting the regime's aims, particularly in foreign policy.3

But why study the Goethe Society? Even today, it is considered Germany's most important literary society, and between its founding in 1885 and the mid-twentieth century, that was even more the case. Because Goethe formed and forms a key aspect of German identity, the major organization representing his legacy was automatically of considerable importance in cultural politics. And the history of the society in the Third Reich offers a unique glimpse into an organization that made profound concessions to power and managed thereby to maintain a position of some influence, while at the same time betraying the legacy of Goethe and, to a lesser extent, its Jewish members. It also affords a microstudy of the compromises made by cultural elites of varying political persuasions.

The Goethe-Gesellschaft was founded on June 20–21, 1885 in Weimar, the same year that Goethe's remaining heirs died, bequeathing Goethe's literary papers to the Grand Duchess Sophie of Weimar. She initiated feverish activity to bring them to the public—most notably in the standard edition of Goethe's works that carries her name—and as part of those efforts provided the impetus for the society's founding. It was led by a president and two vice presidents; major decisions were taken by its executive board (Vorstand), which was meant to express the society's national scope by representing all regions. An executive committee (Arbeitsausschuss, previously engerer Vorstand) made provisional decisions between the annual meetings of the executive board, and a local managing committee in Weimar (Ortsausschuss, previously Geschäftsführender Ausschuss) organized the day-to-day affairs of the society. After the First World War, local branches (Ortsgruppen, later Ortsvereinigungen) were formed, which pressured the leadership to introduce democratic reforms; the most important of these was the Berlin branch, which had many Jewish members who led these demands and met with opposition among...

pdf

Share