Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:51:04.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Blind in the Right Eye: Weimar as a Test Case*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Moshe Zimmermann
Get access

Extract

The most frightening debacle of democracy is not caused by a revolution or a coup d'etat but by the creeping process of delegitimization, in which the Giant's leap (“Quantensprung”) is hardly conceivable. The most notorious example to date is the Weimar Republic, as the German Reich was called between 1918/9–1933. This example has served as a constant warning for all democratic systems since then, and is therefore always present and relevant.

It is not for a social or cultural historian to intervene in a purely professional discussion of jurists or legal historians concerning the question of constitution, law and democracy. His aim is to concentrate on the complex relationship between the social and cultural contexts and the constitutional text and subtext.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , Summer 1998 , pp. 395 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1998

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.)

Footnotes

**

Richard Michael Koebner Professor of German History, Faculty of Humanities, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

References

1 For historical analyses cf.: Schulze, Hagen, Weimarer Demokratie 1917–1933 (München, 1983)Google Scholar (concerning the constitution, pp. 86–104); Kolb, Eberhard, Die Weimarer Republik (München, 2nd ed., 1988)Google Scholar; Peukert, Detlef, Die Weimarer Republik (Frankfurt, 1987) 219–226 Google Scholar; Moeller, Horst, Weimar. Die unvollendete Republik (München, 4th ed., 1994)Google Scholar (“Beispiel der Justiz”, pp. 173–179).

2 Stolleis, Michael, The Law Under the Swastika. Studies in Legal History of Nazi Germany (Chicago, 1998) 5.Google Scholar

3 Cf., Sinzheimer, Hugo and Fraenkel, Ernst, Die Justiz in der Weimarer Republik. Eine Chronik (Berlin, 1968)Google Scholar; Jasper, Gotthard, “Justiz und Politik in der Weimarer Republik”, (1982) VfZ 167–205 Google Scholar; Hattenhauer, H., “Zur Lage der Justiz in der Weimarer Republik”, in Erdmann, K.D. and Schulze, H., eds., Weimar, Selbstpreisgabe einer Demokratie (Düsseldorf, 1984) 169–176 Google Scholar; Huber, Ernst R., Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte seit 1789 (Stuttgart, Bd. 6, 1981, Bd. 7, 1984)Google Scholar; Angermund, Ralph, Deutsche Richterschaft 1919–1945 (Frankfurt, 1991).Google Scholar

4 On the circumstances of his assassination, see Kessler, Harry Graf, Walther Rathenau (Berlin, 1928) 356–363.Google Scholar

5 Verhandlungen des Reichstags (Stenographische Berichte, Bd. 356) 8041–8072.

6 Jasper, Gotthard, Der Schutz der Republik. Studien zur staatlichen Sicherung der Demokratie in der Weimarer Republik 1922–1930 (Tübingen, 1963).Google Scholar

7 Müller, Ingo, Furchtbare Juristen (München, 1987) 19–23.Google Scholar

8 H., und Hannover, E., Politische Justiz 1918–1933 (Frankfurt, 1966) 138–141.Google Scholar

9 The Law, valid for only 5 years, was prolonged for a further 2 years (until 23 July 1929) and substituted shortly afterwards by a watered down version, just as the Republic was entering its final crisis.

10 Hannover, supra n. 8, at 53–104.

11 Müller, supra n. 7, at 21–22.

12 Hannover, supra n. 8, at 107–112.

13 Rasehorn, Theo, “Rechtspolitik und Rechtssprechung” in Bracher, , Funke, and Jakobsen, , eds., Die Weimarer Republik 1918–1933 (Düsseldorf, 1987) 412 Google Scholar; Schulz, Birger, Der Republikanische Richterbund (Frankfurt, 1982) 65–69.Google Scholar

14 Hannover, supra n. 8, at 145–151; Broszat, Martin, Hitler and the Collapse of Weimar (Leamington Spa, 1987).Google Scholar

15 H. Moeller, supra n. 1, at 176, refers to Zarnow, Gottfried, Gefesselte Justiz (Munich, 1931–1932)Google Scholar, which was an overall attack against the alleged “blindness in the left eye”.

16 Manvell, Roger and Fraenkel, Heinrich, Doktor Goebbels (London, 1968) 82.Google Scholar This warning was repeated by the member of the Reichstag Goebbels in 5 February 1931. See, Deuerlein, Ernst, ed., Der Aufstieg der NSDAP in Augenzeugenberichten (München, 1974) 347–348.Google Scholar

17 I. Müller, supra n. 7, at 29; Deuerlein, ibid., at 327–339.

18 Schmitt, Carl, Die Geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1923)Google Scholar; “Das Reichsgericht als Hüter der Verfassung” (1929) in Verfasungsgerichtliche Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1924–1954 (Berlin, 1958); Der Begrif des Politischen (München, 1932).

19 “Es würde nicht etwa die Politik juridifiziert, sondern die Justiz politisiert”; “Mißbrauch der Justizförmigkeit”. Carl Schmitt, (1929) ibid., at 97–100.

20 Kempner, Robert M., Der Verpaßte Nazi-Stopp (Frankfurt, 1983).Google Scholar

21 Cf. Hannover, supra n. 8, at 18; H. Moeller, supra n. 1, at 177; Heiber, Helmut, Universität unterm Hakenkreutz. Teil l: Der Professor im Dritten Reich (München, 1991) 68–81 Google Scholar; Jansen, Christian, Professoren und Politik. Politisches Denken und Handeln der Heidelberger Hochschullehrer 1914–1935 (Göttingen, 1992) 189–194, 250–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Gumbel, Emil, Zwei Jahre politischer Mord (Berlin, 1921)Google Scholar; idem., Denkschrift des Reichsjustizministers zu ‘Vier Jahre politischer Mord’ (Berlin, 1924); idem., Vom Fememord zur Reichskanzlei (Heidelberg, 1962).

23 Müller, supra n. 7, at 25.

24 Ibid., at 28.

25 Blasius, Dirk, Geschichte der politischen Kriminalität in Deutschland 1800–1980 (Frankfurt, 1983) 102–109.Google Scholar

26 Gumbel, Emil, Vier Jahre, 92.Google Scholar

27 Blasius, supra n. 25, at 106.

28 Müller, supra n. 7, at 30–31; Herbert, Ulrich, Best. Biographische Studien über Radikalismus, Weltanschauung und Vernunft 1903–1989 (Bonn, 1996) 112–119.Google Scholar

29 Heiber, supra n. 21, at 81.

30 Münch, Ingo von, ed., Gesetze des NS-Staates (Paderborn, 1994) Doc. 1, 25–27, 45–48, 55.Google Scholar

31 Stolleis, supra n. 2.

32 Cf. Friedrich, Jörg, Freispruch für die Nazi-Justiz (Reinbek, 1983) 54–58.Google Scholar

33 Stolleis, supra n. 2, at 155–166.

34 Weber, Petra, Carlo Schmid 1896–1979 (München, 1996) 613–618.Google Scholar