The State, the Nation, and the Jews: Liberalism and the Antisemitism Dispute in Bismarck's Germany

7. Dissent and Consensus in the Berlin Antisemitism Dispute

Treitschke formulated the positions that triggered the Dispute in the context of his analysis of the growing precariousness of international relations. The continued existence of the kleindeutsche nation-state is the supreme value underlying his analysis.The international situation makes enforcing national cohesion,including religiosity and moral culture (Sittlichkeit),more urgent, and this is the framework for his discussion of antisemitism. Treitschke claims antisemitism is a “symptom” of a general anti-liberal trend. While he expresses ambivalence about the demotic elements of the antisemitic movement,he strongly welcomes the“deeper”reality to which the symptom is said to refer. His position on the concept of the nation is complicated by a tension between on the one hand his reference to Volksgeist as a central analytical category, and on the other hand his elitist and hierarchical conception of society: he celebrates ethnos but demonizes demos.While earlier forms of Jew-baiting (especially the events of 1819) are dismissed as“medieval ,”liberal anti-antisemitism is denounced as merely reversed Jew-baiting, equally anachronistic and illegitimate. The current anti-Jewish campaign is characterized as a legitimate and considered reaction against the negative (side) effects of Jewish emancipation. Treitschke emphasizes that the“Jewish question”is more acute and of a different character in Germany than in neighboring countries and that it cannot be suppressed easily: antisemitism is an authentic expression of a general anti-liberal tendency of the Volksgeist (although articulated in different ways by members of different social Seven.DissentandConsensusintheBerlinAntisemitismDispute 172 The Berlin Antisemitism Dispute groups). While he rejects some specific articulations of antisemitism, he welcomes the general tendency. Antisemitism: Demagoguery,Pretext,Upper- or Lower-Class Phenomenon, or Resulting from a Lack of Liberty? Graetz, Meyer, Breßlau, and Joël reject Treitschke’s interpretation of antisemitism as a“symptom”of a change in the Volksgeist. They assert that the antisemitic movement is a marginal phenomenon and merely a product of demagoguery and manipulation,in particular by enemies of Bismarck,of the Reich,and of National Liberalism.Naudh supports Treitschke except for two significant aspects: he identifies current antisemitism with all previous forms of Jew-hatred and argues that there has been an uninterrupted continuity of “eternal” antisemitism since the time of Moses. Further, he defends the more populist forms of antisemitism against Treitschke’s bourgeois elitism and—elaborating on a remark made by Treitschke himself—develops a nationalist-populist criticism of the bourgeois concept of Bildung. Bamberger and Oppenheim, like other liberal commentators, agree with Treitschke’s view that antisemitism is a partial aspect of a wider anti-liberal agenda. Bamberger suggests that it originates within the educated class and is less significant in the lower classes, but despite being a minority view he believes it should not be underestimated. Oppenheim goes as far as calling antisemitism a “pretext.” He holds responsible the triumph of realpolitik and the brutalization of political culture,partly as an effect of the experience of warfare. Although he warns that civilizational progress can be reversed, he remains all in all optimistic. Cassel adds a different perspective with his remark that the Jews are“begrudged”the benefits of emancipation because society as a whole does not enjoy liberty. Antisemitism: Nationalist or Anti-Nationalist? While Cassel denounces antisemitism as an“exuberance”of nationalism,in the“Declaration of the Notables”it is argued that antisemitism is parochial and particularist and that it threatens national unity. All those who can make beneficial contributions should be integrated and assimilated into the DissentandConsensusintheAntisemitismDispute 173 nation. Out of all the documents, the Declaration asserts most unequivocally the link between the defense of Jewish emancipation and that of the liberal socioeconomic order. It is significant that Treitschke fails at first to understand that the Declaration is directed against himself, among others . Mommsen asserts that the success of national unification has created antisemitism as its“deformed child”which is now threatening its“parent,” national unity. Although he shows himself confident that national unity will survive this (self-incurred) backlash, he writes that it does grave damage to the nation. The German Jewish Question, the Belated Nation, and the Immigration of Unassimilable Polish Jews A peculiar characteristic of Treitschke’s argument (as far as I can see, shared by no other anti-Jewish writer of the time) is the claim that there is not just a“Jewish question”but a specifically German“Jewish question.”Treitschke...