Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:29:47.103Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Edgar Julius Jung: The Conservative Revolution in Theory and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Larry Eugene Jones
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of the conservative theorists who rose to prominence during the last years of the Weimar Republic, none stood more directly in the eye of the storm that descended upon Germany in 1933–34 than Edgar Julius Jung (1894–1934). His Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen, first published in 1927 and then again in a revised and expanded edition in 1930, has been called the bible of German neo-conservatism and played a major role in crystallizing antidemocratic sentiment against the Weimar Republic. But Jung was more than a theorist; he was also a political activist deeply committed to a conservative regeneration (Erneuerung) of the German state. In 1930–31, for example, Jung was actively involved in the efforts of the People's Conservative Association (Volkskonservative Vereinigung or VKV) to create a new conservative movement to the left of the German National People's Party (Deutschnationale Volkspartei or DNVP) after its takeover by film and press magnate Alfred Hugenberg.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 142 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1988

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

The author would like to take this opportunity to express his appreciation to all of those who assisted at one point or another in the completion of this article. The research for this article was made possible by a Summer Faculty Fellowship from Canisius College. Grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Humanities Center made it possible to write the article under ideal circumstances. Gerald Feldman, Franklin Ford, Karl-Martin Grass, and Hans Mommsen all read preliminary drafts of the article and were extremely helpful with suggestions as to how it might be strengthened. The author is particularly indebted to Dr. Grass for his lengthy letter of 31 May 1989.

1. Struve, Walter, Elites against Democracy: Leadership Ideals in Bourgeois Political Thought in Germany, 1890–1933 (Princeton, 1973), 321.Google Scholar

2. On Jung's involvement in practical politics, see above all else the excellent dissertation by Grass, Karl-Martin, “Edgar Jung, Papenkreis und Röhmkrise 1933/34” (unpub. diss., Heidelberg, 1966)Google Scholar, as well as the extremely informative personal retrospective by Forschbach, Edmund, Edgar J. Jung: Ein konservativer Revolutionär 30. Juni 1934 (Pfullingen, 1984).Google Scholar

3. The expression “conservative revolution” was first used by the Austrian poet and playwright Hugo von Hofmannstahl in a speech at the University of Munich on 10 Jan. 1927. See Hofmannstahl, Hugo von, Das Schriftum als geister Raum der Nation (n.p. [Munich], n.d. [1927])Google Scholar. For further information on the concept, see the more recent contributions by Bullivant, Keith, “The Conservative Revolution,” in The Weimar Dilemma: Intellectuals in the Weimar Republic, ed. Phelan, Anthony (Manchester, 1985), 47–70Google Scholar, and Herf, Jeffrey, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge, 1984), 18–48.Google Scholar

4. The Jung Nachlass (hereafter cited as NL Jung) is currently in the possession of Karl-Martin Grass. The author would like to express his gratitude to Dr. Grass for having granted him access to the Jung Nachlass. On the organization and labelling of the Jung Nachlass, see Grass, “Jung, Papenkreis und Röhmkrise,” 2: 92.

5. On World War I as a generational experience, see Wohl, Robert, The Generation of 1914 (Cambridge, 1979), esp. 203–37Google Scholar. For the best source of biographical information on Jung, see Grass, Friedrich, “Edgar Julius Jung (1894–1934),” Pfälzischer Lebensbilder, 1 (1964): 320–48Google Scholar. See also the biographical sketch in Jenschke, Bernhard, Zur Kritik der konservativ-revolutionären Ideologie in der Weimarer Republik: Weltanschauung und Politik bei Edgar Julius Jung (Munich, 1971), 9–29.Google Scholar

6. Jung's disillusionment was a fairly typical experience for those Germans who had fought at the front in World War I. In this respect, see the fascinating study by Eksteins, Modris, The Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (Boston, 1989), esp. 254–61, 292–98.Google Scholar

7. On the intellectual roots of Jung's political thought, see his letter to Pareto, 16 Jan. 1930, NL Jung, IXa.

8. On Jung's relationship with Ziegler, see Ziegler, Leopold, “Edgar Jung: Denkmal und Vermächtnis,” Berliner Hefte für Geistiges Leben 4 (1949): 1–12, 115–35.Google Scholar

9. For further details, see Grass, F., “Jung,” 325–28.Google Scholar

10. On Jung's activities on behalf of the DVP organization in the Palatinate, ibid., 323–24, 331–32.

11. Jung, Edgar, Die geistige Krise des jungen Deutschland: Rede vor der Studentenschaft der Universität München (Berlin, n.d. [1926]).Google Scholar

12. Jung, , “Die Tragik der Kriegsgeneration,” Süddeutsche Monatshefte 27, no. 8 (05 1930): 511–34Google Scholar. In a similar vein, see Jung, , “Vom werdenden Deutschland,” Schweizersche Monatshefte 7, no. 1 (04. 1927): 11–22, and no. 2 (May 1927): 76–88Google Scholar.

13. Jung, Edgar J., Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen: Ihr Zerfall und ihre Ablösung (Berlin, 1927), esp. 60–70, 99–156Google Scholar. To supplement this admittedly brief summary of Jung's political philosophy, see the relevant sections in Struve, Elites against Democracy, 317–52, and Petzold, Joachim, Wegbereiter des deutschen Faschismus: Die Jungkonservativen in der Weimarer Republik (Cologne, 1978), 310–19Google Scholar, as well as the more extended treatment in Jenschke, Zur Kritik der konservativ-revolutionären Ideologie, 30–152. It is curious, however, that Jung received only cursory treatment in Klemperer, Klemens von, Germany's New Conservatism: Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, 1967), 121–24, 201–14.Google Scholar

14. In this respect, see Jung to Pechel, 12 Nov. 1927, and 21 Feb. 1928, both in the unpublished papers of Rudolf Pechel, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, vol. 76 (hereafter cited as BA: NL Pechel, 76). For a further indication of Jung's ties to the German industrial elite, see his letters to Luther, Springorum, and Reusch, 21 Dec. 1929, as well as Reusch to Jung, 25 Dec. 1929, and 20 Mar. 1930, all in NL Jung, IXa. For the second edition of Jung's book, see Jung, Edgar J., Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen: Ihr Zerfall und ihre Ablösung durch ein Neues Reich (Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar. The second edition of the book went through two printings of five thousand each and was more than twice as long as the edition published in 1927. Of the various sections that made up the book, those on nation, society, state, and law, ibid., 129–369, and on economics, ibid., 421–513, seem to have undergone the most extensive and fundamental revision.

15. Jung to Grossmann, 13 Feb. 1930, NL Jung, IXa. For a further elaboration of Jung's political objectives, see the position paper which he prepared at the beginning of 1928 under the title “Über die Bildung der ‘neuen’ Front,” n.d., BA: NL Pechel, 76.

16. For example, see Jung, , “Zu neuen Ufern,” Das Staatsschiff 1, no. 3 (17 12. 1929): 97–99.Google Scholar

17. Jung to the editor-in-chief of the Rheinisch-Westfälische Zeitung, 5 Sept. 1929, NL Jung, IXa.

18. Jung to Pechel, 21 Feb. 1928, BA: NL Pechel, 76.

19. Jung to Wiessner, 3 Feb. 1930, NL Jung, O.

20. Volkskonservative Stimmen: Zeitschrift der Volkskonservativen Vereinigung 1, no. 1 (1 02. 1930)Google Scholar. On the founding of the VKV, see the entry in the diary of Karl Passarge, 30 Jan. 1930, in Passarge's unpublished papers, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, vol. 2/23–26, as well as the standard, though somewhat dated, secondary account in Jonas, Erasmus, Die Volkskonservativen 1928–1933: Entwicklung, Struktur, Standort und staatspolitische Zielsetzung (Düsseldorf, 1965), 57–60.Google Scholar

21. In this respect, see Jung to Pechel, 13 Jan. 1930, BA: NL Pechel, 77, and Jung to Grossmann, 13 Feb. 1930, NL Jung, IXa.

22. Treviranus to Jung, 18 Feb. 1930, NL Jung, O.

23. Jung to Pechel, 24 Mar. and 2 May 1930, both in BA: NL Pechel, 77.

24. Jung to Pechel, 27 Mar. 1930, BA: NL Pechel, 77.

25. Jung to Luther, 13 June 1930, NL Jung, IXa. On the relationship between the People's Conservatives and the Brüning government, see Roeske, Ulrich, “Brüning und die Volkskonservativen (1930),” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft 19 (1971): 94–15.Google Scholar

26. Jung to Brandi, 24 July 1930, NL Jung, O. For Jung's views on fascism, see his article, “Die Bedeutung des Faschismus für Europa,” Deutsche Rundschau 227, no. 3 (06 1931): 178–87Google Scholar, as well as his somewhat broader treatment of the fascist phenomenon in “Die deutsche Staatskrise als Ausdruck der abendländischen Kulturkrise,” in Deutschlands Weg in der Zeitenwende, ed. Haushofer, Karl and Trampler, Kurt (Munich, 1931), 109–24.Google Scholar

27. Volkskonservative Stimmen, 26 July 1930, no. 26. On the negotiations that led to the founding of the KVP, see the reports from Blank to Reusch, 21, 23, and 24 July 1930, all in the unpublished papers of Paul Reusch, Haniel-Archiv, Duisburg-Ruhrort, vol. 4001012024/7 (hereafter cited as Haniel-Archiv, NL Reusch, 4001012024/7). For its initial objectives, see Westarp, , “Das Ziel konservativen Zusammenschlusses,” Neue Preussische (Kreuz-)Zeitung, 23 07 1930, no. 208.Google Scholar

28. For further details, see Jung to Pechel, 25 July 1930, BA: NL Pechel, 77, and Jung to Treviranus, 25 and 28 July 1930, NL Jung, IXa.

29. Jung to Pechel, 11 Aug. 1930, BA: NL Pechel, 77.

30. On the outcome of the 1930 election, see Jonas, Volkskonservativen, 87–88. On the DHV's involvement in the KVP's founding and in its 1930 campaign, see Hamel, Iris, Völkischer Verband und nationale Gewerkschaft: Der Deutschnationale Handlungsgehilfen-Verband 1893–1933 (Frankfurt a.M, 1967), 233–38Google Scholar, and Jones, Larry Eugene, “Between the Fronts: The German National Union of Commercial Employees from 1928 to 1933,” Journal of Modern History 48 (1976): 471–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Jung, “Konservative Erneuerung,” Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, 14 Sept. 1930, no. 250.

32. For further details, see Treviranus to Lettow-Vorbeck, 24 Sept. 1930, and Dreising (Bavarian KVP) to Lettow-Vorbeck, 29 Sept. 1930, both in the unpublished papers of Paul Lettow-Vorbeck (Bestand N103), Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, Freiburg, vol. 59.

33. In this respect, see Jung to Mündler, 6 Oct. 1930, and Jung to Treviranus, 7 Oct. 1930, both in NL Jung, IXa.

34. Jung to Hüter, 25 Oct. 1930, NL Jung, IXa.

35. Jung to Treviranus, 5 Jan. 1931, BA: NL Pechel, 102.

36. For an indication of Jung's frustration over the direction in which the People's Conservative movement seemed to be heading, see Jung, Rundschreiben 1, n.d. [Dec. 1930], BA: NL Pechel, 77. The strain that had developed in Jung's relations with the movement's national leadership can also be seen in the letter from Dähnhardt to Jung, 13 Dec. 1930, NL Jung, O.

37. Treviranus to Lejeune-Jung, 9 Dec. 1930, in the unpublished papers of Kuno Graf von Westarp in the possession of his grandson, Friedrich Freiherr Hiller von Gaertringen (hereafter cited as NL Westarp).

38. Jung to Treviranus, 13 Dec. 1930, NL Jung, O.

39. In this respect, see Lindeiner-Wildau to Pechel, 18 Dec. 1930, BA: NL Pechel, 85, and Jung to Pechel, 23 Dec. 1930, ibid., 77.

40. Vorbreitender Ausschuss der Volkskonservativen Bewegung zu deutscher Erneuerung, “Aufruf!” n.d. [Jan. 1931], BA: ZSg 1–275/1. The founding of this organization can be dated from Pechel's letter to the state headquarters of the Bavarian KVP, 28Jan. 193 r, BA: NL Pechel, 78.

41. Jung to Pechel, 23 Dec. 1930, BA: NL Pechel, 77.

42. For example, see Gattineau (I. G. Farben) to Jung, 15 Nov. and 20 Dec. 1930, both in NL Jung, O.

43. Reusch to Jung, 2 Jan. 1931, Haniel-Archiv, NL Reusch, 400101293/11. See also Reusch to Jung, 27 and 29 Dec. 1930, ibid. Unfortunately, neither the original draft of Jung's appeal nor Jung's letters to Reusch have survived in either the Jung or Reusch Nachlass.

44. On Glum's activities, see his letter to Krupp, 28 Dec. 1930, in the Historisches Archiv der Friedrich Krupp GmbH, vol. FA IV E 153 (hereafter cited as HA Krupp, FA IV E 152), as well as the transcript of his lecture, “Das geheime Deutschland: Vortrag vor dem politischen Ausschuss der ASTAG in Bonn,” 20 Feb. 1931, ibid., IV E 776.

45. On efforts to bring the two men together, see Reusch to Krupp, 25 Dec. 1930, and 5 Jan. 1931, HA Krupp, FA IV E 152.

46. Lejeune-Jung to the members of the VKV leadership ring, 16 Feb. 1931, NL Westarp.

47. Westarp to Wallraf, 24 Feb. 1931, NL Westarp.

48. Vereinigung, Volkskonservative, ed., Konservatives Manifest, Volkskonservative Flugschriften, no. 4 (Berlin, 1931)Google Scholar. For Jung's response to this document, see the declaration which he and Walther Otto, the leader of the Bavarian VKV, read into the minutes of the meeting of the VKV leadership ring, 18 Mar. 1931, NL Westarp. On the convention itself, see the report of Treviranus's speech, “Wohin geht unser Weg,” 15 Feb. 1931, in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 Feb. 1931, nos. 77–78, as well as the article by Lejeune-Jung, , “Reichstagung der Konservativen,” Volkskonservative Stimmen, 21 02. 1931, no. 7.Google Scholar

49. For example, see the copy of an unsigned letter to Jung, 19 Aug. 1931, BA:NLPechel, 78.

50. Draft of a letter to Brüning, n.d., appended to Jung to Pechel, 14 Aug. 1931, BA: NL Pechel, 78. For further information on this undertaking, see Jung to Klein, 14 Aug. 1931, NL Jung, M.

51. Jung, , “Aufstand der Rechten,” Deutsche Rundschau 58, no. 2 (11. 1931): 81–88.Google Scholar

52. For example, see the remark by Jung on the occasion of the Harzburg demonstration recorded by F. Grass, “Jung,” 338.

53. Forschbach to Jung, 27 Nov. 1931, NL Jung, X.

54. Jung to the business manager of the East Prussian Hindenburg Committee, 4 Apr. 1932, quoted in F. Grass, “Jung,” 337–38.

55. Jung to Mündler, 7 May 1932, NL Jung, N.

56. NL, “Neubelebung von Weimar?” Deutsche Rundschau 58, no. 1 (06 1932): 153–62.Google Scholar

57. For example, see Jung, , “Deutschland und die konservative Revolution,” in Deutsche über Deutschland: Die Stimme des unbekannten Politikers (Munich, 1932), 369–83.Google Scholar

58. For Jung's initial reaction to Papen's appointment and the composition of his cabinet, see the recollection in Forschbach, Jung, 44–45.

59. In this respect, see Pechel, Rudolf, Deutscher Widerstand (Erlenbach-Zunch, 1947), 76Google Scholar, and Papen, Franz von, Der Wahrheit eine Gasse (Munich, 1952), 353–54Google Scholar. Papen's subsequent contention in Papen, Franz von, Vom Scheitern einer Demokratie 1930–1933 (Mainz, 1968), 401 n. 135Google Scholar, that his relationship with Jung did not begin until after his appointment as vice-chancellor in the Hitler cabinet has been more than adequately demonstrated to be inaccurate. For example, see Grass, F., “Jung,” 339–40Google Scholar, and Grass, K.-M., “Jung, Papenkreis und Röhmkrise,” 34–47Google Scholar, as well as Jung's own account of his collaboration with the Papen government in Jung to Mundler, 2 Aug. and 17 Oct. 1932, both in NLJung, IXa.

60. On the ideological underpinnings of the Papen government, see Knoll, Joachim H., “Der autoritäre Staat: Konservative Ideologie und Stattstheorie am Ende der Weimarer Republik,” in Lebendiger Geist: Hans-Joachim Schoeps zum 50. Geburtstag von Schülern dargebracht, ed. Diwald, Hellmut (Leiden and Cologne, 1959), 200–24Google Scholar, and Braatz, Werner, “Two Neo-Conservative Myths in Germany 1919–32: The ‘Third Reich’ and the ‘New State,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 32 (1971): 569–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Jung, , “Revolutionäre Staatsführung,” Deutsche Rundschau 59, no. 1 (10. 1932): 1–8.Google Scholar

62. Jung, , “Deutsche Unzulänglichkeiten,” Deutsche Rundschau 59, no. 2 (11. 1932): 81–86.Google Scholar

63. Jung, , “Verlustbilanz der Rechten,” Deutsche Rundschau 59, no. 4 (01. 1933): 1–5.Google Scholar

64. See Jung's remarks to Pechel, 30 Jan. 1933, quoted by K.-M. Grass, “Jung, Papenkreis und Röhmkrise,” 47.

65. Jung, , “Einsatz der Nation,” Deutsche Rundschau 59, no. 6 (03. 1933): 155–60.Google Scholar

66. See the speeches by Papen, Hugenberg, and Seldte at the opening demonstration of the Combat Front in the Berlin Sport Palace on 11 Feb. 1933, in the Neue Preussische (Kreuz-) Zeitung, 13 Feb. 1933, no. 44. For further details, see Hoepke, Klaus-Peter, “Die Kampffront Schwarz-Weiss-Rot: Zum Scheitern des national konservativen ‘Zähmungs’-Konzept an den National-sozialisten im Frühjahr 1933,” Fridericiana: Zeitschrift der Universität Karlsruhe, no. 36 (1984): 34–52.Google Scholar

67. See, for example, the lament in the diary of the DNVP's Reinhold Quaatz, 1–4 Mar. 1933, in Quaatz's unpublished papers, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, vol. 17.

68. Papen, Franz von, An die deutschen Studenten: Rede, gehalten 21. Februar 1933 im Auditorium Maximum der Universität Berlin (Berlin, n.d. [1933])Google Scholar, reprinted as “Der Sinn der Zeitwende,” in Papen, Franz von, Appell an das deutsche Gewissen: Reden zur nationalen Revolution, Schriften an die Nation, nos. 32/33 (Oldenburg, 1933), 12–24.Google Scholar

69. In particular, see the text of Papen's speech, “Wesen und Ziel der deutschen Revolution,” 24 Mar. 1933, in Papen, , Appell an das deutsche Gewissen, 25–42.Google Scholar

70. For Jung's reaction to these developments, see his letter to Gritzbach, 7 Mar. 1933, in the unpublished records of the vice chancery, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, Bestand R 53, vol. 74/131 (hereafter cited as BA: R 53/74/131).

71. For further details, see the aide-mémoire by Forschbach, “Vier Tage, die Deutschland zum Verhängnis wurden: Meine Erlebnisse und Beobachtungen in Berlin und Potsdam vom 20. bis 23. März 1933,” in the unpublished papers of Edmund Forschbach (Bestand I–199), Archiv für Christlich-Demokratische Politik at the Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung, Sankt Augustin, vol. 041/1 (hereafter cited as ACDP: NL Forschbach, I–199/041/1), reprinted in Repgen, Konrad, “Ungedrückte Nachkriegsquellen zum Reichskonkordat: Eine Dokumentation,” Historisches Jahrbuch 99 (1979): 407–13.Google Scholar

72. For further details on these developments, see Gaertringen, Friedrich Hiller von, “Die Deutschnationale Volkspartei,” in Das Ende der Parteien 1933, ed. Matthias, Erich and Morsey, Rudolf (Düsseldorf, 1960), 599–616Google Scholar, and Berghahn, Volker R., Der Stahlhelm—Bund der Frontsoldaten 1918–1935 (Düsseldorf, 1966), 263–74.Google Scholar

73. For example, see Hugenberg to Hitler, 19 Apr. 1933, in the unpublished papers of Alfred Hugenberg, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, vol. 89/94–96.

74. For the most detailed account of this undertaking, see Tschirschky, Fritz Günther von, Erinnerungen eines Hochverräters (Stuttgart, 1972), 99–105.Google Scholar

75. In addition to the collection cited above, n. 68, a second volume under the same title was published in the fall of 1933. See Papen, Franz von, Appell an das deutsche Gewissen: Reden zur nationalen Revolution, Schriften an die Nation, nos. 51/52 (Oldenburg, 1933).Google Scholar

76. Jung, Edgar L., Sinndeutung der deutschen Revolution (Oldenburg, 1933).Google Scholar

77. Ibid., 10–24, 46–50, 78–92, 98–103. See also Jung, , “Die christliche Revolution,” Deutsche Rundschau 59, no. 11 (09. 1933): 142–47.Google Scholar

78. For the most detailed contemporary report on the Maria Laach conference, see the long article by Spael, Wilhelm, “Die dritte soziologische Sondertagung des Katholischen Akademikerverbandes in Maria Laach: Die nationale Aufgabe im Katholizismus—Idee und Aufbau des Reiches,” Kölnische Volkszeitung, 30 07 1933Google Scholar. For further information, see Spael, Wilhelm, Das katholische Deutschland im 20. Jahrhundert: Seine Pioniere- und Krisenzeiten 1890–1945 (Würzburg, 1964), 308–10Google Scholar, and Breuning, Klaus, Die Vision des Reiches: Deutscher Katholizismus zwischen Demokratie und Diktatur (1929–1934) (Munich, 1969), 207–11.Google Scholar

79. On Jung's appearance at the Maria Laach conference, see Forschbach, Jung, 80–81.

80. For the text of Papen's remarks, see Papen, , “Zum Reichskondordat,” Der katholische Gedanke: Eine Vierteljahrsschrift 6 (1933): 331–35.Google Scholar

81. Jung to Tschirschky, 20 Oct. 1933, BA: R 53/93/31.

82. Forschbach, Jung, 89.

83. Undated excerpt from a letter from Jung to Reusch, appended to a letter from Reusch to Springorum, 12 Jan. 1934, Haniel-Archiv, NL Reusch, 400101290/36b.

84. Springorum to Reusch, 22 Feb. 1934, Haniel-Archiv, NL Reusch, 400101290/36b.

85. Jung to Hässig, 6 Oct. 1933, NL Jung, P.

86. Jung, manuscript of a lecture entitled “Sinndeutung der konservativen Revolution in Deutschland” at the University of Zurich, 7 Feb. 1934, NL Jung, VIII. See also the report of his lecture in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 8 Feb. 1934, no. 228.

87. “Denkschrift Edg. Jungs an Papen, verfasst im April 1934,” ACDP: NL Forschbach, I–199/014/2. A copy of this memorandum has also been deposited in the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich, FA 98, 2375/59.

88. For an excellent source of information on the growing unrest in Germany in the spring of 1934, see the reports from the spring and early summer of 1934 in Deutschland-Bercht der SOPADE 1, no. 1 (17 May 1934): 9–22, and no. 2 (26 June 1934): 99–122, 164–74. On the background to the political crisis in the summer of 1934, see Mau, Hermann, “Die ‘zweite Revolution’—Der 30. Juni 1934,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 1 (1953): 119–37Google Scholar, and Krausnick, Helmut, “Der 30. Juni 1934: Bedeutung—Hintergründe—Verlauf,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte: Beilage zur Wochenzeitung “Das Parlament” 3, no. 25 (30 06 1954), 317–24Google Scholar, as well as the classic study by Wolfgang Sauer, “Die Mobilmachung der Gewalt,” in Bracher, Karl Deitrich, Schulz, Gerhard, and Sauer, Wolfgang, Die nationahozialistische Machtergreifung: Studien zur Errichtung des totalitären Herrschaftssystems in Deutschland 1933/34 (Cologne and Opladen, 1960), 897–966Google Scholar. See also the excellent dissertation by Grass, K.-M., “Jung, Papenkreis und Röhmkrise,” 171–98Google Scholar. The 1963 Marxist dissertation by Gossweiler, Kurt, Die Röhm Affäre: Hintergründe—Zusammenhänge—Auswirkungen (Cologne, 1983)Google Scholar, is a serious misreading of the nature of the conservative opposition to the Nazi regime and fails to take the efforts of Jung and his confederates at all seriously.

89. It is extremely difficult to reconstruct the full range of contacts which Jung and other members of the vice chancery developed in the second half of 1933 and first half of 1934. For the most reliable account of Jung's activities during this period, see Grass, K.-M., “Jung, Papenkreis und Röhmkrise,” 199–212Google Scholar. See also Grass, F., “Jung,” 343–44Google Scholar; Tschirschky, Erinnerungen, 102–5, 154–55; Forschbach, Jung, 83–104; and Pechel, Widerstand, 76–77. For an indication of the speculation that existed in conservative circles at this time, see Sommerfeldt, Martin, Ich war dabei: Die Verschwörung der Dämonen 1933–1939: Ein Augenzeugenbericht (Darmstadt, 1949), 56–62, 65–70.Google Scholar

90. Schleicher to Moysischewitz, 16 Apr. 1934, quoted in its entirety in Forschbach, Jung, 105. The original of this letter is in the possession of Karl-Martin Grass.

91. Tschirschky, Erinnerungen, 103. A further indication of Reusch's close association with Jung in the summer of 1934 is the letter which he had his representative in Berlin, Martin Blank, deliver to Jung by hand in mid-June 1934. See Reusch to Blank, 15 June 1934, Haniel-Archiv, NL Reusch, 4001012924/12. No copy of Reusch's letter has survived, most likely because Reusch apparently had all of his correspondence with Jung destroyed after the latter's arrest and murder.

92. On Jung's plans to assassinate Hitler, see Leopold Ziegler's account of his conversation with Jung on 21 May 1934, in Ziegler, “Edgar Jung,” 125–35. See also Forschbach, Jung, 110–13.

93. Tschirschky, Erinnerungen, 172–79.

94. Ibid., 164–72.

95. Forschbach, Jung, 114–15.

96. Tschirschky, Erinnerungen, 172. For Papen's totally inaccurate, if not self-congratulatory, account of the speech and its origins, see Papen, Wahrheit, 345–49.

97. Papen, Franz von, Rede des Vizekanzlers von Papen vor dem Universitütsbund Marburg, am 17. Juni 1934 (Berlin, n.d. [1934]), 9.Google Scholar

98. Ibid., 10–11.

99. Ibid., 14–15.

100. Tschirschky, Erinnerungen, 171.

101. Papen, “Befehl an das Haus!” 18 June 1934, BA: R 53/49/28. On Papen's meetings with Hitler on 18 and 19 June 1934, see his letter to Hitler, 27 June 1934, in the records of the adjutant to the Reich chancery (Bestand NS 10), vol. 50/15–16. Again, see the misleading account of these developments in papen, Wahrheit, 349–50.

102. It is clear from the entry for 28 June 1934, in Das politische Tagebuch Alfred Rosenbergs aus den Jahren 1934/35 und 1939/40 ed. Seraphim, Hans-Günther (Göttingen, 1964), 31Google Scholar, that Hitler had ordered Jung's arrest three days earlier and that he had decided no later than 27 June 1934 to take action against the vice chancery. In this connection, see the increasingly vehement public attacks that Hess, Rudolf, “Von der Revolution zum Aufbau,” 25 June. 1934, in Reden (Munich, 1934), 15–32Google Scholar, and other Nazi leaders began to make against the forces of social and political reaction in the last week of June 1934.

103. On Jung's arrest and death, see Grass, F., “Jung,” 346–47Google Scholar. On the events in the vice chancery, see Papen, Wahrheit, 351–58, and more reliably Tschirschky, Erinnerungen, 181–89. For a list of those killed in connection with the purge see Bennecke, Heinrich, Reichswehr und der “Röhm-Putsch” (Munich and Vienna, 1962), 87–88.Google Scholar