View the H-German Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-German's June 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-German's June 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-German home page.
Goerdelers_ Date: Monday, June 19, 2006 Usually I would not respond to reviews of my publications, but in the case of Professor Hoffmann's review of the "Politische Schriften Carl Friedrich Goerdelers", it seems to be necessary to point at several crude mistakes or misinterpretations. To characterize the edition as "compilation of writings by Goerdeler" is totally misleading and depreciating. It is obvious that only a selection of Goerdeler's papers was possible. Even to list all memoranda, letters, administrative documents and possible texts which have survived or can be found in the archives and which comprise several hundred pieces would have been a Sisyphean work and would not provide any significant information. Instead of that, the editors chose to collect a representative selection of documents reflecting Goerdeler's political ideas and initiatives. Certainly, this could not replace a systematic biography and implies a certain redundancy of arguments and topics taken into account. The editors mad quite clear why they did not include the "Wirtschaftsfibel", comprising several hundred pages. Similar deliberations led to the decision to leave out some of the prison papers and to abridge some texts dealing exclusively with private matters with no political relevance. The reviewer points to a lack of a biographical survey and systematic listing of Goerdeler's papers. Simultaneously he tries to disclose contradicting positions between the two editors, although he seems to acknowledge at least the work of Dr. Sabine Gillmann. But he does not pay attention to the fact that the edition contains a considerable percentage of hitherto unavailable and, in several cases, quite important documents for Goerdeler's political thought. Instead, he sharply criticizes the view presented in my introductory essay. He rejects above all my rather well balanced remarks concerning Goerdeler's position on the "Jewish question" and rejects my conclusion that Goerdeler supported a dissimilatory antisemitism, which goes back to the tradition of the German conservatives during the imperial period. Hoffmann interprets Goerdeler's proposal for a "solution of the Jewish question in his memoir "Das Ziel", written in 1941, as "a means to persuade the murderers to accept an alternative to murder" but overlooks the fact that Jews who had migrated to Germany after 1871 were excluded from German citizenship. It is utterly misleading to minimize Goerdeler's ideas simply because he used tactical deliberations in order to influence the Nazi government, as Hoffmann's interpretation implies.Simultaneously, he presents a rather distorted picture of my interpretation of the German resistance. In any case, it is deplorable, that Hoffmann's review puts the dissent over this issue into the foreground and denunciates the overdue edition of Geordeler's writings as scholarly unreliable. My remark, that Goerdeler even in 1937 tried to avoid direct criticism against Hitler because he still believed that is was possible to isolate him from his criminal advisors, does not contradict Geordeler's oppositional moves afer the November pogrom and the failure of the appeasement policy after March 1939. In spite of Peter Hoffmann's unfair and unjustified criticism of the edition of Goerdeler's papers, it is, I think, a lasting contribution to a better understanding of the German opposition against Hitler. Hans Mommsen