Political geographers of the past III German geographical research in the Nazi period: a content analysis of the major geography journals, 1925–1945

POLITICAL

GEOGRAPHY

QUARTERLY,

Vol. 5, No. 3, July 1986,267-281

Political geographers of the past III German geographical research in the Nazi period: a content analysis of the major geography journals, 1925-1945 HENNING HESKE Geographisches Institut, Universitit Diisseldorf, Universititsstrasse 1, D-4000 Diisseldorf 1, West Germany

Introduction The topic of this paper lies in the overlap between two disciplines, geography and the history of science. Using a content analysis of the three major geographic journals during the period 1925-1945, the author examines the changes in German geographic research that occurred between the last years of the Weimar Republic and the Nazi period. These changes are related to the inner and external political relations of the German Reich. The general purpose of the study is to examine the entanglements of geography and politics in the Nazi period, a subject of special interest to political geographers and one that has been relatively neglected since the immediate postwar years. This paper is, therefore, a study in political geography because it investigates the political dependence and falsification of the discipline of geography by a specific governmental system. Geographers rarely engage in political self-reflection: the danger of neglecting the political implications of what we do is shown by German history from 19 18 to 1945. The ideology of the German professors during the Weimar Republic (1919-1932), seeing themselves as non-political and therefore as objective scientists, was partly responsible for the ‘Selbst-Gleichschaltung’ (self-adaptation) of the universities and National Socialism that occurred between 1933 and 1945. In German literature on the history of geography, one finds little questioning of the political responsibility of scientists. Most writers seem to be concerned with justifying their own research speciality. Therefore, using analysis of journals published between 192 5 and 1945, it is possible to examine how far it is true to say ‘that interests, forces, propaganda, and brainwashing techniques play a far greater role than is commonly believed in the growth of our knowledge and in the growth of science’ (Feyerabend, 1979: 25). In the history of German geography, only two articles are directly concerned with these important questions. Troll (1949) published a description and summary of work in the Nazi period, but his work remained essentially non-political and criticized only a few persons specifically. Although Troll did not ‘analyse’ geography in the Nazi period, his article seems to have provided German geographers with an excuse not to re-examine the links between geography and 0260-9827/86/03

0267-15

503.00

0 1986 Butterworth

& Co (Publishers)

Ltd

268

Gwmun geographic research in the Nazi period

politics, blaming the entanglements on the ‘geopolitics’ school and the influence of Haushofer, an aberration which was conveniently dismissed as anon-geo~aphic’. Except for the disappearance of political geography as an important subject area after 1945 (Ossenbriigge, 1983), the legacy of geography from the Nazi period had little impact on postwar German geography. After Troll’s obligatory article, the discipline immediately returned to ‘objective’ geographic research. Sandner (1983) has tried to rectify this situation with an important contribution on the theme of ‘censorship, self-censorship and pressure to conform in the Third Reich’ by examining the files of the Geugraphische Z;eitschrift, showing the effects of political pressures on the editors and authors of this journal. Apart from Troll and Sandner, only Schulte- Althoff (197 l), investigating the relationships between the development of German geography and political trends during the ‘Im~rialism’ period, 1875-1914, showed how geography was affected by the spirit of the times. Geographers moved from positions of neutral scientific experts to agitators for an imperiahstic colonial policy. This paper is in the spirit of Schulte-Althoff’s work, focusing instead on the later period when the Nazis rose to power. To understand the relationship between geography and the political realm, it is first necessary to sketch the organization of German geography earlier this century. After this, some of the important issues related to the school of ‘geopolitics’, the most influential branch of geography during the Nazi period, are discussed before the key concepts of geopolitics are examined in the light of available evidence on their (mis)use by academics and politicians. Nazi politics and geography became ideologically entangled. The main section of this paper is a content analysis of the three major geographic journals in the German Reich, documenting shifts in emphasis of themes, regions and terms from the Weimar Republic through to the end of the Nazi period in 1945.

Changes

in the organization

of German

geography,

1933-1945

At the 1934 German Geographers’ Convention, the merging of the ‘Hochschullehrerverband’ (Organization of the University Teachers of Geography), and the ‘Verband deutscher Schulgeographen’ (Organization of Geography Schoolteachers) with the Central Committee of the ‘Deutscher Geographentag’ (German Geographers’ Convention) took place. The ‘Verband deutscher Schulgeographen’ had already become the ‘Sachgruppe Geographie im NSLB’ (Geography Group of the National Socialist Teachers’ League). In order to complete National Socialist control of the discipline’s teachers, two different Reich officials were nominated to the general organization’s board. forever, three members each of the ‘H~hschullehrerverband’ and of the ‘Sachgruppe Geographie im NSLB’ constituted the central committee of the Geographentag. In this way the Nazi regime had ensured that the three organizations of professional geographers in Germany were headed by National Socialists. The many different geographic societies, which were dependent on the dues of their members, could still escape direct Nazi influence on their lectures and publications, but their ‘Gleichschaltung’ took place when the ‘Deutsche Geographische Gesellschaft’ (DGG-the German Geographic Society) was founded in 1941, acting as a holding company for the various geographic groups. As early as 1934, research funds were controlled by the Nazis when the directorship of the ‘Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft’ (German Research Council) was given to a party official. After this change geographers had no representative on this important body and also, later, none on the ‘Reichfor~hungsrat’ (Reich Research Council), its successor. The Nazi influence on the direction of research can be clearly seen in the example of colonial policy. in 1941, a colonial research division was

HENNING

269

HESKE

created in the ‘Reichforschungsrat’ and resulted in a lot of publications on possible colonial development. Even more, Nazi foreign policy had a direct effect on German geographic research. After 1933, a shortage of foreign currency, while promoting an autarky policy, reduced the possibility of Germans doing research abroad (see Troll, 1949).

Geopolitics

in the Nazi era

Lack of research on the role of geography in the Nazi period can be attributed to two related explanations. After 1945, Nazi-influenced geography became (conveniently) equated with geopolitics and this field in turn was personified by Karl Haushofer (see, for example, Troll, 1949). As a result, the work of Haushofer and his relationship with National Socialism has been extensively analysed (Matem, 1978; Jacobsen, 1979a, b, 1981; Scholler, 1982; Diner, 1984), but many important questions about this complex relationship of geopolitics and policy are still unanswered. There is no doubt that Karl Haushofer (1869-1946, military officer and later professor of geography) was the leading geopolitician in the Nazi period. As co-editor and later sole editor of the Zeitschriji fiir Geopolitik he could plot the course of German geopolitics during the last years of the Weimar Republic and during the Nazi period. By the middle of the 1920s the territorial expansion theme was well entrenched in his geopolitical publications. We must not forget, however, that Karl Haushofer could establish geopolitics in its important and influential role only because a lot of well-known geographers were also active in geopolitics. A study group for geopolitics was founded in 193 2 and geographers lectured on geopolitics at universities, so that geopolitics became accepted in the universities as an examination subject. Before 1945, Haushofer was not criticized by his German colleagues. The only strong, detailed critique of the time came from a Marxist (Wittfogel, 1929), and it did not appear in a scientific journal but in a political tract. In his paper, Wittfogel expresses clearly and convincingly the imperialist implications of the writings of Richthofen, Ratzel, Kjellen and Haushofer. The total dismissal of this 1929 critique, devastating as it was, attests to an abdication of the political responsibility of German geography. Wittfogel, himself, was put into several prisons and three concentration camps before he emigrated to the United States, where he became Professor of Chinese history at the University of Washington (Seattle). He completed and revised his ‘geohistoric’ ideas without notice from the geographic profession (Wittfogel, 1957). Further details on the history of geopolitics and political geography in Germany can be found in Matznetter ( 1977), Ante ( 198 l), and Boesler ( 198 3). A short critical reflection is given in Ossenbrtigge (1983). The lebensraum

concept

in Nazi ideology

and in German

geography

A brief review of one of the key concepts of geopolitics will illustrate the political-academic links in the Third Reich. The term lebensruum (literally, living space) was used for the first time by Friedrich Ratzel(1897) in his Politische Geogru@ie. However, it was only with his biogeographic study ‘Der Lebensraum’ (Ratzel, 1901) that the notion became well-known in the larger arena of science. Ratzel, who provided no definitions of the term, saw lebensraum as ‘the geographical region within which living organisms develop’ (Troll, 1949: 114; see also Smith, 1980). Although his work was mainly an analysis of plant and zoogeography, Ratzel’s clear Social Darwinistic characterization of the concept of lebensruum should not be overlooked. His emphasis of the existential meaning of lebensraum and his comparison with the critical battles which nations fight were adopted

270

German geographic research in the Nazi period

especially by the geopoliticians. Karl Haushofer considered lebensraum the basis for all foreign policy: he thought that German foreign policy had the task of defending and expanding German febensraum (Jacobsen, 1979b: 24). Hitler used the term lebensraum in Mein Kampf (1933); he had probably picked it up through the communication chain of Haushofer through Rudolf Hess (Haushofer’s student and later Hitler’s deputy) (Lange, 1965). Haushofer had been brought into contact with Hitler, whom he visited several times in 1924 while Hitler was in prison in Landsberg. By the middle 1920s Haushofer was advocating an expansion of Germany to the East, instead of an overseas colonial policy or a purely internal industrial intensification. Bracher et al. (1962: 227) believe that the (pseudo-scientific) expansion concept came from geopolitics via Hess into Mein Kampf: After this, the idea was accepted by the Nazis and supported their race doctrines. We can find one passage in Mein Kampf which appears to verify the influence of these geopolitical ideas. In this passage, Hitler draws a comparison between the pre-World War I foreign policy of Germany, which had focused on Southern and Eastern Europe and on colonial policy, and the new policy he advocates for a reorientation to the East and a bodenpolitik (literally, ground policy = settlement policy) for the future. Damit ziehen wir Nationalsozialisten bewusst einen Strich unter die aussenpolitische Richtung unserer Vorkriegszeit. Wir setzen dort an, wo man vor sechs Jahrhunderten endete. Wir stoppen den ewigen Germanenzug nach dem Stiden und Westen Europas und weisen den Blick nach dem Land im Osten. Wir schliessen endlich ab die Kolonial- und Handelspolitik der Vorkriegszeit und gehen tiber zur Bodenpolitik der Zukunft (Hitler, 1933: 742). The German historian, Joachim Fest (1974) sees in Mackinder’s (1904) ‘Heartland’ thesis the original idea, developed by Haushofer and promulgated by Hitler. From the beginning of the 1920s the Ostwendung (turn to the East), connected to the theme of lebensraum, was a common element in the writings of German historians. The East (Eastern Europe) was considered the homeland of the original Germans, and a historical parallel was drawn between the medieval colonization of the East and a future settlement strategy (Aubin, 1939; Klessmann, 1984). Such ideas of expansion became very popular in Germany in the middle of the 1920s with the rise of the Volk-ohne-Raum (people without space) Movement. It supported and reinforced the colonial-political thoughts of geographers such as Obst (1926). The movement had its rallying-point in the political novel Volk ohne Raum by Hans Grimm (1933), that appeared for the first time in 1926 and sold 265 000 copies by 1933. In this novel, the German, Cornelius Friebott, considers his homeland too confining and aspires to a larger lebensraum in Southern Africa. At the end of the novel, Grimm recognizes that the recovery of the German colonies is not the solution to the (pretended) problem. ‘Und such mit einem Stiicke Kolonie oder irgendeinem anderen pfiffigen Betruge wird die Enge niemals zum Raume’ (Grimm, 1933: 1286). The.logical consequence of this thought would call for an extension of lebensraum in Europe. The geopoliticians and the Nazi apologists gave two reasons for the demand for an expansion of the German lebensraum. First, they demanded the cancellation of the ‘unjust’ Treaty of Versailles (1922) in which the German Reich renounced all colonies and territorial expansion. The Polish Corridor which separated the Free City of Danzig (Gdansk) and East Prussia from the rest of the German Reich was a special source of displeasure among Germans. The second main argument was that, from the mid-1920s to the early 1930s the German Reich had a surplus of births over deaths of 800000-900000 per year. Besides the possible ‘solution’ to this population pressure, that of settling new territories (grtlnd und boden) with an autarchic policy, there were three other solutions, all rejected by the gee

HENNING

HESKE

271

politicians and by Hitler himself in Mein Km& They were birth control, inner colonization (intensification of settlement within existing borders) and expansion of export industries (Bracher et al., 1962: 746). We should also note that, between 1933 and 1945, the term lebensraum was also very frequently used outside academia but without general agreement on what the term meant. The attempts at clarification, such as in the Geographische hitscbrii in 1942, had little effect. Lebensruum remained a woolly term till the end of the Nazi period.

The major

geographic

journals

in Germany,

1925-1945

Before we consider the Nazi influence in journals, we must take up the question of the extent to which the journals represent the geographic literature of the time. Clearly German geographic researchers could publish their work in book format. The perusal of the voluminous review sections of the journals shows that, in the mid-1930s, about 500 geographic books appeared yearly and declined in number thereafter. At that time, the monograph series of the geographic institutes hardly existed. Most books would be classified today as semi-popular, having to meet sales targets. For specialized research works, there was not much opportunity for a commercial outlet. Most geographic books were textbooks, travel reports, atlases and semi-journalistic regional accounts. In essence, most researchers had to use the journals if they wanted to get into print. As a consequence, an examination of the most important geographic journals allows a representative cross-analysis of German research in the Nazi period. Dissertations and habilitations are included in this study only so far as they were reprinted in the journals. A comparable content analysis of such works and of textbooks would be interesting but is beyond the purpose of this present study. Between 1933 and 1945, there were six important geographic journals in Germany. The Zeitschrift fiir Geopolitik (1924- 1944, 195 1- 1968) was excluded from analysis because of its specialized subject-matter and because an analysis of this journal has been published (Harbeck, 1963). The Geographischer Anzeiger and the Zeitscbrif fiir Erdkunde were strongly Nazi-oriented, as can be seen by a perusal of their contents. The Geograpbiscber Anzeiger, published from 1900 to 1944, had a special issue in 1934 under the title ‘ ‘ ‘Blut und Boden”: Geographic Education in the New State’, and had articles under the titles of: ‘Race knowledge (rtissenkunde) and race history of mankind’, ‘Race knowledge and school ‘Race knowledge in geographic education’, ‘The colonial concept in geography’, geographic education’, ‘Geopolitics in geographic education’. The Zeitscbrijtfiir Erdkunde (published 1933-1944) appealed also mainly to teachers. Four didactic papers in 1934 were called: ‘Political education by geographic education’, ‘ The introduction of geopolitics in the primary school’, ‘National Socialism, geopolitics and ethnology’, and ‘Air defence questions in geographic education’: The aim of these articles was to reorient teachers to the Nazi way of thinking in geographic education, by ‘theoretical’ developments and preparation of teaching materials. Changes in the school curricula took some time and were accomplished only in 1937-1939. Before that, the new geographic education had to be undertaken without an established set of materials. The three journals covered by this survey were less influenced by contemporary political events. The Geograpbiscbe Zeitscbrift (GZ) was published from 1895 to 1944 in Leipzig, and is again a prominent geography journal, published in Wiesbaden since 1963. Alfred Hetmer ( 1895 - 1934) and Heinrich Schmitthenner ( 193 5 - 1944) were the only two pre World War II editors. A valuable insight into the problems of the GZ in the Nazi period is given in Sandner (1983). The second journal studied here is the Zeitscbrijii der Gesellscbaft fiir Erdkunde (Z~GJTE),published from 1866 to 1944, and again since 1949 as Die Erde in

272

Gemzun geographic research da the Nazi period

Berlin. The journal has a strong tradition of publishing the reports of research journeys and map supplements. The .Zf%fl was different from other g~graphi~ journals since it was a private journal, supported by member contributions. The last journal examined is Peterrnanns Geographis& M~~e~~~~ge~(PGM), published from 1895 to 1944, and again from 1948 in Gotha. Today it is the major geographic journal in the German Democratic Republic. Some critical remarks on this journal in the Nazi period are given in Kiihler (1981). For all academic journals in the Nazi period, the propaganda ministry-associationpublisher-editor chain determined the contents. Specific letters from the propaganda ministry through the association of journal publishers gave instructions to editors on how to treat sensitive topics (e.g. genetics) or topical events (e.g. the march of German troops into Austria in Spring 1938, or the unification of the Sudeten territories with the rest of the Reich in Autumn 1938) (Sandner, 1983). Besides the pressure from the topI there was direct censorship of contents (deletion of dates and maps, rnu~a~on of articles) and refusal of articles for personal reasons, such as when the author was Jewish. The ~~~~~s~~gs~~k (pressure to conform) was further exaggerated by a dependence by journals on finance for their printing supplies, which was controlled by the ‘Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft” (Emergency Association for German Science). During the war, the paper shortage was an additional burden. During the Nazi period, therefore, certain articles failed to appear and others were published in the geographic journals for both internal (editorial) and external (Ministry of Propaganda) pressures.

For the three journals that were least influenced by National Socialist ideology, their contents were examined from 1925 to 1945 to determine the changes that occurred after the Nazis came to power in 1933. Each article was dassified for content and the number of pages devoted to each topic was computed (rounded to the nearest half page). Contents were classified by regional category (as listed in X~bEes 2-4) and systematic interest (Table 1). The differentiation of the regions was done mainly from a historic-political viewpoint: for example, Japan and Italy were categorized separately, since both were allies of the Reich. Because of the special position of political geography in the Third Reich, it was separated from the rest of human geography for classification purposes (XabZe 1). An article could appear twice if its contents met both classification criteria-subject and regional classification. Reviews shorter than two pages were not classified. Because of the variable sizes of the journals, it is ina~ro~riate to use the absolute numbers of pages as an indicator of relative importance of the subject matter. Therefore, a percentage value {pV> was calculated for comparative purposes. pV= PV

where:

p/l x 100 - PNR

PA = number of pages in class A of the volume; Pv= total number of pages of the volume; and PNR = number of pages of ‘news and reviews’ in a volume.

This relative value can then be used for comparison across subject matter and journal. He&rich (1984) also used a quantitative analysis of journal articles in his attempt to identify Nazi influence in geographic journals. He classified 3654 articles from 4 joumak between 1920 and 1945 into 5 political categories: (1) propaganda papers; (2) papers supporting

273

HENNING HESKE

fascism; (3) papers useful to the Nazis; (4) papers opposing Nazi ideology; and (5) unclassified papers. Although the classification was very subjective based on the paper’s content, the overall results of Heinrich’s study match closely the results reported below. TABLE 1. Classification list for the journal analysis Subject

ckzsst~cation

Cartography

and surveying

Theory and methodology

of geography

Didactics of geography History of geography:

Historical geography Prehistorical geography Necrologies

News and reviews Physical geography:

Climatology Geomorphology and geology Geography of soils Hydrology and oceanography Plant and zoogeography

Human geography:

Geography Industrial, Population Geography

Political geography:

Geopolitics, including defence and military Ethnology and race knowledge Colonial geography

of settlements, including urban economic and rural geography and religion geography of transportation

A content analysis of three major geographic journals, 1925-l

94s

The results of classifying the papers in the three individual journals are shown in Tables 2-4. The interpretation focuses on the summary results as reported in Table 5. From the individual journal tables, it is striking that no subject or regional class shows a monotonic rise or fall in percentage values over time. Large deviations were the result of such special issues of the journals as, for example, a thematic issue devoted to the topic of colonial policy. If we take two time-periods, 1925-1932 (Weimar Republic) and 1933-1944 (Nazi period), and calculate the average values for subject classes for each journal (Table _5),we see that, with one exception, physical geography has the largest values in all three journals in both periods. This dominance is the result of physical geography’s strong theoretical base and well-developed set of applied methods, a sharp contrast to the other two fields. Only the Geographische ~itschrift made a determined effort to develop the theoretical basis of human geography. Geomorphological and geological works clearly outnumbered hydrological and climatological studies. Because human and political geography were essential parts of the Nazi propaganda machine, it is not surprising that the relative value of physical geography dropped 17 per cent in the PGM and 6.8 per cent in the GZ (Table 5). In contrast, the UGfi published an increasing amount of physical geography articles over time. We must conclude that physical geography played a surprisingly strong role in the publications of the Nazi period, a reflection of its well-entrenched position in the German geography of the time. Publications in physical geography were one of the few escape routes

Japan Asia (without Japan) Middle and South America USA Polar Regions Africa The Alps, Austria, Switzerland Scandinavia Spain. Portugal Rest of the World

Ge1mCly West Europe East Europe (incl. Soviet Union) Italy

Physical geography Human geography Political geography and geopolitics (incl. colonial geography) Cartography

_

7.3 4.1

7.3 1.8

_

7.3 23.4

24.1 50.1 8.7 4.1

384 219.5

pV - pNR

Number of pages (Pv)

31.9 3.6 8.6 _ _ 11.2 3.7 7.6 1.9 8.0 1.8 _

9.8 5.5

4.7 7.0

8.7 12.5 2.7 6.1 7.3

18.8 33.3 8.1 1.9 3.3

624 415

1927

26.7 12.7 5.8 3.4

560 328

1926

0.3 2.9 1.6 3.8 9.6

5.9 11.6 5.7 4.8 5.0 2.1 0.5

24.8 17.8 6.8 5.8 0.6

640 431.5

192X

3.3 10.2 0.6 1.7 0.9 6.9

-

17.4 5.7

7.3 6.5 5.8 0.7

640 440

1929

21.6 4.1 13.1 9.5 4.3 1.1 3.5 -

13.4 1.1 5.9 12.0

640 403.5

1930

9.6 6.6 0.8 -

3.8 6.7 6.6 8.5 14.5 -

24.0 15.9 5.4 4.8 7.9

640 386

1931

15.1 13.3 4.4 4.6 0.5 1.0 10.1 8.7 0.8

28.3

4.3

27.5 25.2 10.5

512 305.5

1932

12.2 _ 4.9 5.4 1.9 2.5 4.3 14.7 13.3 _ -

25.0 6.0 8.1 5.7 4.3

512 316.5

1933

4.4 _

9.3 _ 2.7 15.4 -

7.3 4.4 11.7 2.7 _

19.6 4.1 38.6 30.5 -

480 295.5

1934

7.4 10.0 0.4 4.1 8.2 6.8 2.9 15.1 0.3 1.6 _ _ 7.8

18.9 10.0 31.4 1.6

496 339.5

193js

1

32.5 10.5 2.4 6.1 3.8 1.3 0.8 2.5 2.0

25.0 14.8 5.3 4.2 4.5 4.0 2.9 4.2 3.7

20.4 29.9 9.0 1.0

472 311.5

1937

Z&schift

28.9 24.8 16.7 2.2 -

480 318

1936

The percentage values of the main subject and the regional sections in the Geographische

192j

2.

Ceographische Zailschr$

TABLE

1.0 _ 8.7 4.2

-

1.4 2.7 7.5 1.9 1.6 1.7 5.7 3.4

31.6 9.3 18.4 9.4 2.7

480 334

193x

12.0 14.9 1.7 0.8 13.9 3.2 4.7 7.9 6.2 -

8.2 25.2 28.2 6.8 0.6

400 265.5

1939

6.9 _ 5.8 10.0 16.7 6.1 4.0 9.2 13.8 2.1

.23.5 2.7 5.0 5.0 2.7

472 311

1940

-

11.1 7.9 10.3 3.5 12.4 11.1 3.2 0.5 13.9

14.9 27.4 18.9 1.3 0.5

508 396.5

1941

between 1925 and 1944

12.1 8.1 10.5 8.5 5.8 1.0 6.1 6.0

-

22.0 14.3 39.3 1.0 3.1

432 334.5

1942

12.1 9.4 _ _ _

17.9 4.6 36.6 3.9 _ 7.3 _

9.4 26.2 6.1 _

288 206.5

1943

6.3 11.2 _

1.5 17.2 12.3 _

10.0 11.6 35.4 11.9

168 134

1944

Asia (without Japan) Middle and South America USA Polar Regions Africa The Alps, Austria, Switzerland Scandinavia Spain, Portugal Rest of the World

Japan

CklIIIafly West Europe East Europe (ink Soviet Union) Italy

7.8 7.5

15.6 6.1

-

9.1

5.0 9.7

2.5 2.5

2.5 2.9

_

-

11.5 -

5.9 4.6

-

0.7 -

12.2 4.1 10.5

12.2 26.9

15.5 2.1

49.2 3.1

288 147.5

1926

3.8

-

4.1 1.0

1.4 6.2

11.8 8.2

-

10.3 2.4

1.4 4.8

19.4 8.9

384 208.5

1927

0.5

3.7 1.4

5.3 8.8 3.0 4.7 4.2

11.2 0.3

4.2 -

3.0 21.4

29.3 11.9

376 215

1928

4.3

1.9 5.1

3.5 25.7 2.2 7.8 8.1

9.5 1.9

3.0 -

14.1 3.8

31.4 4.3

340 185

I929

7.2 1.6 _ 4.6 17.9 7.2 5.9 5.5

8.6

_ 6.9 _

1.0 2.4 3.9 3.3 2.3 5.2

6.8 6.2

5.2 2.1

_ 5.8 4.1

0.7 13.0

22.8 10.7

332 153.5

1931

10.3 5.8 19.9

23.4 11.3

336 145.5

1930

3.4 2.7

1.5

1.9 2.3 2.3 18.8

7.7

7.3 7.7

2.7

25.7 21.8

332 130.5

1932

0.8 1.5 2.3

6.4 _. 7.2 7.6 19.7

4.5 -

3.6 6.2 1.5

7.1 2.7 15.4 14.5 3.3 6.5

10.9 1.2

6.4 6.8

9.5

14.8 4.4 5.6

20.7 17.2

384 169

1934

8.0

23.9 17.4

328 132

1933

-

20.2 3.5 7.4 3.1 3.9

6.0 -

3.3 -

24.4 3.9 5.0

17.1 6.8

464 258

193s

7.0 _

5.9 8.4 5.7 1.6 -

7.3

10.0 I.6 2.2

37.7 15.1

3.0 2.1 2.4

7.3 a.2 3.1 I.5 6.3

16.3 -

10.9

4.5 2.1 6.0

34.4 15.7

368 165.5

1937

2.9 3.4

4.7

7.9 5.5 1.0 13.0 8.7 16.3 4.6 4.3

12.8 4.7 3.1 1.0 6.8 _ 3.4 7.6

7.3 -

16.3 2.2

7.0

14.1

11.2

17.3 25.5

208 376

1939

27.4 17.5

384 191.5

193X

1.9 9.7

-

9.2 6.1 10.5 a.4 1.5 1.3 12.0

7.4 7.1

2.1 8.4

5.9

18.1 43.5

424 262

1940

Geographische Mitteihgen

388 185.5

1936

values of the main subject and the regional sections in Petemums

34.9 2.9

280 119

Numberofpages(I+) pV-pNR

Physical geography Human geography Political geography and geopolitics (incl. colonial geography) Cafrography

192s

Pelcrmanns Mitteilunnen

Geographische

TABLE 3. The percentage

3.1 12.2 7.3 -

-5.1 7.3 5.8 9.6 -

11.8 -

18.2

13.5

30.0 25.5

456 275

1941

4.5 2.4 4.9

1.7 6.6 5.6 9.4

2.4

16.1 -

1.1 24.8

3.6

11.4 24.6

472 319

1942

-

3.9 5.4

6.7 11.3 3.0

11.3 -

26.3

-

23.7 32.4

368 230

1943

16.2 4.0 -

7.3 _ -

15.7 2.8

35.1

-

32.1 16.2

213.5 312

1944

between 1925 and 1945

14.7 -

13.2 _ -

-

44.1

-

35.3 13.2

::

1945

f n

@ 0

%

Germany west Europe East Europe (in& Sovier Union) Italy Japan Asia (without Japan) Middle and South Am&a USA P&r Rq$ns Africa The Alps, Austria, Switz.erland Scandinavia Spain, Portugal Ret of rhe World

pV - pNR Physical geography Human geography Political gzography and geopolitics (incl. colonial geography) Cartography

Numberof pages (Pv)

;s 6.6 3.2

21.6 -

-

2.0 2.7

2.3

5.0 24.6

6,%

-

-

-

1.0

6.4

13.0 9.9 I.7 -

-

19.5

-

_ 7.9 -

38.5 4.0 1.0

29.6

19.5

38.8 ..^ 6.7

460 400.5

400 300.5

534 412

-

-

-6.1 10.4 1.0 12.5 7.1

3.4 8.8 24.6 -

32.8 7.7 -

432 297

7.0 2.9

_-

10.3 20.4 4.5 11.2 -

12.2 22.9 -

25.1 6.7 _ -

400 291

i.7 2.6

11.3 9.8 25.9 -

3.1 25.9 _

-

17.5 8.9 9.4 1.7

400 292

--

9.6

16.2 20.2 8.6

8.3 22.1 4.9

41.5 IO.5 3.7

400 296.5

-

-

IT.2 7.0 11.4

t3.9

10.0

11.6 4.9 14.4 -

60.9 5.1

400 316

16.9 4.0 0.7 7.8 2.5 2.8 9.1

14.6 7.3

15.1

29.2 13.6 15.6 4.6 3.0

400 301.5

16.8 15.4 5.0 5.0 7.5 9.0

20.1 7.5

9.5

46.7 17.8 1.0 1.0 -

400 298.5

8.3 _ -

-

is.7 6.5 ._ 34,O 3.7

62.1 0.7 -

400 229.5

11.3

8.4 2.2 3.8 20.0 14.9

22.8 3.5 -

65.9 5.6 2.2 -

400 274.5

R.0 _ -

-

Ii.9 16.7

12.3 ui.3 18.8 -

11.8

12,6 12.6 9.2

9.6 _ -

-

1::: 0.9 13.6 r.3 -

11.6 1.7 6.6 -

2.0

7.2

1.8

2.6 15.9 4.2 20.0 3.4 I.6

4.5 4.5 18.6

5.6

6.3

23.9

53.3

432 312

3.6

400 272

-. 7.5 -

-

0.8 25.6 0.6 1.8 17.7 12.3 0.8 12.0

-

-

15.0 2.6 5.1 44,4

--

39.0 2.3

48.4 -

17.2

24.6

436 331

hfB 9.3

3.4

432 30%

-

-

20.2 4.8 15.7 -

12.1 3.1 -

5.5 0.7 27.5

10.6

32.6

392 292.5

6.7

_

5.6

1.0 17.1 28.1 -

53.9 5.8 7.4 23.7

410 312.5

Erdkunde between 1925 and 1944

46.4

400 261

TABLE 4, The percentage values of the main subject and the regional sections in the Zeitschrift der Gcwlkha/tfiir

xx.9 5.4

8.1 .-

15.0 -

-,

61.9

142 130

HENNING

277

HESKE

TABLE 5. The average percentage values of physical, human and political geography for the periods 1925-1932 and 1933-1944

PGM

GZ

FieMs Physical geography Human geography Political geography

ZdGfE

192s1932

19331944

192s1932

19331944

192s1932

19331944

20.8 20.3 7.1

19.4 16.0 21.3

29.5 9.4 6.7

24.5 21.5 8.8

30.7 4.2 1.7

42.2 11.9 9.9

if one wanted to avoid Nazi pressure on scientific writings: one could claim scientific objectivity. In sharp contrast, most political-geographic contributions remained completely unscientific, a fact that most geographers were aware of. The attempts to move political geography and human geography to a more ‘objective-scientific’ basis were a dismal failure. Apart from Christaller’s (1933) theoretical work on central places, human and political geography remained descriptive and highly unscientific. Because the three geography journals most strongly influenced by the Nazis deliberately reduced the intake of physical geography papers, it is not surprising that the three journals in this content analysis were the main alternative for physical geographers who wished to reach a broad audience. In 193 3- 1944, the proportion of journal space devoted to human geography more than doubled from the low level characteristic of the pre-Nazi period. In the GZ, where human geography was already strongly represented, the shift after 1933 was towards political geography. A rapid rise in the political-geographic content of the ZdGfl is also noticeable in the 1933-1944 period. A special and recurring theme was the recovery of the German colonies in the political-geographic articles in all three journals. With such publications geographers, as in the Imperialist period (Schulte-Althoff, 1971), allowed their work to become perverted and misused for power-political ends. A closer investigation of the tables shows that in 1931 and 1932, just before Hitler’s seizure of power, political geography did not play a part in the publications of the PGM and ZdG@. This subject had been consistently represented only in the GZ. The impetus that political geography got from the Nazi spirit of the times can be seen from the fact that its highest percentage values between 1925 and 1940 occurred in 1933-1935, immediately after the Nazi seizure of power. In the GZ and the ZdGfl a second peak occurs in the 1941-1942 period. In the KM, it appears that the pressure to conform to the ideology was reduced in the later war years, and the journal saw no need to publish politicalgeographic articles during this period. Another possibility is that, for the geographers closest to the Nazi Party, political geography was not necessary and many may have doubted its propaganda value as time wore on. The Nazis wanted to use geography as a propaganda and schooling instrument in order to establish a ‘scientific’ justification for their policies; the geographic establishment in Germany, for reasons for choice or constraint, did not oppose this view. A distinctive example of the close ties between the discipline of geography and state policy is the special issue of the ZdGfE in 1941, entitled ‘The African Colonial Problem’ and occupying issues l-4 of the journal. The aim of the issue was to provide scientific justification for the recovery of the German colonies in Africa. Troll (1949), eight years after the special issue, wrote that the ZdG@ ‘made no significant concessions to pseudoscientific efforts such as racial theory, biased prehistorical study, geopolitics, etc.’ (p. 118). This statement is astonishing when we consider that Carl Troll, himself one of the leading

278

Gtmn

geographic research in the Nazi period

German geographers before and after the war, wrote the Iead article in the special issue, entitled Colonial area planning’ (Troll, 194 1). Another justification, that despite the great pressures on the GZ editors, they did not publish many pseudo-~ienti~c, po~ticaIiy biased articies in the 1930s and 194Os, is incorrect (Sandner, 1983). A small sample of such articles in the GZ includes: (1932) ‘The military-geographic site of the German Reich’; (1934) ‘Geography and strategy’, ‘The Germans as colonial people’, ‘German colonies and German geography’, ‘The German nationality in South Africa”; ‘About the political geography of the Adriatic Sea’; (1935) ‘The Saar voting on the 13th January 1935 ‘) ‘National (v~/&che) geography’; ‘Science and the struggle of nations’; (1936) ‘The Gap of Spada: Military geography of a fighting zone’, ‘The frontiers of the Memel region’; (1937) ‘The home ports of the British Navy’; (1938) ‘Austria-a land of the German Reich’, ‘The Abyssinian Campaign ’ , ‘The nature of the German-Austrians’, ‘The instability of the “historic’ ’ frontiers of Bohemia”, ‘Fundamental questions about the economic org~~~tions in tropicai colonial countries’. Cartography is an interesting case. Despite its obvious importance to the Nazis as a military instrument, the proportion of space devoted to cartography remained constant throughout the study period. Recognizing that “the German area will become the most important research field of the geographer’ (Volz, 1934: 4), many geographers turned their research attention to the homeland, despite the pressures and rewards for foreign-area research in German geography (Lichtenberger, 1979). This orientation can be seen clearly in the percentage values for German-area research in the PGM and the GZ. In the ZdGfl, the proportion of regional work on Germany reached only the fourth rank throughout the study period. After 1933 the research of many geographers was forcibly turned to the home area because of the difficulty of doing foreign-area work in a period of isolation. A critical aspect of the comparison over time is the relative ratio of articles on West and East Europe. Both regions were immediate neighbours of the German Reich, and Germany was at war with states in both regions during both world wars. it is noteworthy that East Europe had a clear predominance of research attention in all three journals, but especially in the ZdGfE. After the outbreak of war, the percentage values dropped precipitously for both regions. The exaggerated attention to East Europe has to be seen in connection with theories about the German reorientation to the East and notions of lebensraum which appeared in the 1920s. It is worth noting that most institutes engaged in research on the East (OS& funchung) were financially supported by private foundations (Klessmann, 1984; Kilhnl, 1984). The comparative lack of interest in West Europe resulted partly from the strained relations between Germany and these countries after the Treaty of Versailles. In September 1940, Japan and Italy contracted a three-powers pact with Germany, thereby sealing a military cooperation agreement. Tables 2-4 show that, in the case of Japan, geographic research interests were closely connected with political developments. it was only after 1938 that the flow of articles about Japan started, as German public interest in that state began. At the same time, the ideas of German geopoliticians were beginning to reach a Japanese audience (Takeuchi, 1980). Research on Italy experienced a comparative decline over the study period, a result, perhaps, of the greater attention paid to Germany’s closest ally in the three geography journals closest to the Nazi Party. Another clear example of the academic power-political ties is seen in the case of research on the Scandinavian countries. After the German invasion of Norway and Denmark in May 1940, these areas (especially Norway) became a favourite research site for German academics, most of whom were stationed there as military personnel. The key position of the f940 invasions is evident in the Scandinavian percentage values in the tables. Shifting interest towards the three areas outside Europe (Middle and South America,

HENNNG

HESKE

279

Africa and Asia) was also related to shifts in political concerns. Loss of the German colonies in Africa after World War I became the basis of increased interest in this continent after the Nazis came to power in 1933, contrasting with the continent’s relative neglect in the years of the Weimar Republic. Both the ZdGfE and the GZ published special issues on the theme of African colonies. In the 1920s German geographers found their new research area, after the loss of Africa, in Middle and South America. Their interest in the Americas was primarily of a physical geography nature since it was in these areas that Germans pioneered high-mountain research. After 193 3, it became difficult for Germans to do research in these areas, because of the scarcity of foreign currency. The interest in Asia was strongly focused on China as a result of the three chairs of Geography in China occupied by Germans, who were responsible for a large amount of research output on that region. A final point of interest is the treatment of Austria. After the 1938 anschluss (annexation), Austria ceased to exist as a separate state and was incorporated into the Reich. After 1938, articles on Austria were counted as part of the German total, while during 1938, all three journals had published articles on Austria which (geographically) justified the anschluss. Once again, geography and politics were inseparable. Summary

and conclusions

The leading historian of geography, Beck (198 1: 69), feels that German geography between 1933 and 1945 does not constitute a single epoch in the discipline’s history because an original conception of the field cannot be found in this period. This argument covers all aspects of the relationship of politics and geography. The results shown in this paper amplify the connection in Germany between 1925 and 1945. Therefore, we must see German geography as having had a special, individual character in the 1933-1945 period. This journal analysis has demonstrated the intimate temporal connections of Germany’s relations with Japan, Austria, and the Scandinavian countries, and its strong revanchist colonial interests in Africa, as important geographic research themes of the period. Political geography and regional accounts of the territories of special interest grew at the expense of physical geography. Human geography and, especially, political geography had a deep interest in daily political events and, of course, could be easily dyed in the appropriate political colours. The Nazi hierarchy advanced those branches of geography that suited their purposes, as the example of research on Austria clearly shows, and the case for Ostforschung in the 1930s. The statement of Feyerabend (1979: 25), quoted in the introduction, could be partially confirmed only. ‘Interests, forces, propaganda and brainwashing techniques’ did indeed play an important role in the development of a National Socialist geography, but for the ‘growth of our knowledge’ and of geography, they played only a destructive part. Geography, more than any other established science in Germany, consciously and unconsciously supported National Socialism and, even more, was active in its support before the Nazi seizure of power in 1933. Geography advanced an exaggerated national consciousness, supported colonial claims, adopted a biased lebensraum concept, developed a defence and military geography, and promulgated geopolitics, which acted to give a pseudo-scientific justification to German imperialistic claims. Political geographers have not reflected on the question of applied political geography, that is, how geography is intertwined with a political system and how far the research that geographers do is dependent on relationships with the political system. We need more study (see the work of Fahlbusch et al., 1986) not of geography as a value-free science, but of works that recognize that science is political. Only from such works can we learn and develop an essential political self-understanding within geography.

280

Gmnan geographic

research i91 the Nazi period

In this context, studies such as this, looking at other nations and time-periods, particular comparative interest.

would be of

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Dr J. Ossenbrtigge of the University of Hamburg and Dr J. O’Loughlin of the University of Illinois for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. Dr O’Loughlin corrected and edited the translation from the original German version.

References ANTE, U. (1381). Po~jtjsc~eGeograpbie. Braunschweig: W~t~~nn. AUBIN, H. (1939). Zur Erfarschung derdeutscben Ostbetuegung. Leipzig: Hirzel. BECK, H. (1981). Zur Geschichte der Geographie und des Erdkundeunterrichts 1799 bis 1980~Grundhnien und Einblicke. in Theotie und Gescbicbte des geogmpbischen Untewichts (W. Speding, ed.) pp. 61-83. Braunschweig: Westermann. MESLER,K.-A. (1983). Politiscbe Geographic. Stuttgart: Teubner. BRACHER,K. D., SAUER, W. AND SCHULZ,G. (1962). Die nutianalsoziulistische Machtergreifung, 2nd ed. Kliln, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CHRISTALLER,W. (1933). Die zentralen Orte in Siiddeutschkmd. Jena: Diss. DINER, D. (1984). ‘Grundbuch des Planeten’. Zur Geopolitik Karl Haushofers. Viertetjahreshefte f&r Z&tgescbichte 32, l-28. FAHLBUSCH,M., ROESSLER,M. AND &GRIST, D. (1986). Conservatism, ideology and geography in Germmy X920-45. Unpublished paper, University of Hamburg, Geographisches Institut. FEST,J. C. (1974). Hitler. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. FE~RABEND, P. (1979). Against Method: Outthe ofan Aaarchistic Theory ofKuo~~dge~ London: Versa. GRIM, H. (1933). V~lk ohne &urn (a novel). Miinchen: Langen-Miller. HARBECK, K. H. (1963). Die Zeitscbr@fir Geopolitik. Kiel: Diss. ~IEINRICH, H.-A. (1984). Die Wecbselbeziehunges zwiscben geograpbiscber Wissenschaft und Faschismus. Unpublished Diplomarbeit, Giessen. HITLER, A. (1933). Mein Kumpf, 37th ed. Miinchen: Eher. JACOBSEN,H. A. (1979a). Karl Hausbofer, Leben und Werk, two ~01s. Boppard: Boldt. JACOBSEN,H. A. (1979b). ‘Kampf urn Lebensraum’: Karl Haushofer’s ‘Geopolitik’ und der Nationalsozialismus. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschicbte (supplement to Das Parchment) B 34-35179, 17-29. JACOBSEN,H. A. (1981). ‘Kampf urn Lebensraum’: zur Rolle des Geopolitikers Karl Haushofer in Dritten Reich. German Studies Review 4, 79- 104. KLESSMANN,C. (1984). Osteuropaforschung und Lebensraumpolitik im Dritten Reich. Aus Politik uad .&itgescbicbte (supplement to Das Parlament) B 7/84,33-45. K&ILER, F. (1981). 125 Jahrgange van Petermanns ~graphi~h~ Mitteilungen: W~~ung~ im Profil der Zeitschrift. Petermanns ~ograpb~scbe Mit~i~~~geu 125, l-10, 109-I 15. Kfirnxx, R. (1984). Reichsdeutsche Geschichtswissenschaft. In HocbschuEe nnd Wisseusc~~ft im Lhitten Reich (J. Troger, ed.) pp. 92-104. Frankfurt: Campus. LANGE, K. (1965). Der Terminus ‘Lebensraum’ in Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’. Vierteljabresbeftefi2fZ&tgescbicbte 13,426-437. LICHTENBERGER, E. (1979). The impact of political systems upon geography: the case of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. Professional Geographer 3 1, 201-2 11. MACKINDER,H. J. (1904). The geographical pivot of history. Geographical JourrzuI23,421-437. MATERN, R. (1978). Karl Hausbofer undseine Geopolitik in den Jabren der Weirnurer Republik und des Dritten Reicbes. Karlsruhe: Diss. MATZNETTEIR,J., ED, (1977). Poiitiscbe Geograpbie. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. OBST, E. (1926). Wir fordern unsere Kolonien zurfick! Zeitschriftfiir Geopolitik 3, 152-160. OSSENBRISGGE, J. (1983). Recent developments in political geography in West Germany: an ahistorical reflection of the past, an apolitical analysis of the present, and possibihties for the future. Political Geography Quurter/y 2,71-80. &TZEL, F. (1897). Politische Geographte. Miinchen: Oldenbourg.

HENNING HESKE

281

RATZEL, F. (1901). Der Lebensraum: eine biogeographische Studie. In Festgabenfiir Albert Schtiffle, pp. 103189. Ttibingen: Iaupp. SANDNER,G. (1983). Die ‘Geographische Zeitschrift’ 1933-1944: eine Dokumentation iiber Zensur, Selbstzensur und Anpassungsdruck bei wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften im Dritten Reich. Geographische Zeitschrift 71,65-87, 127-149. SCHOLLER,P. (1982). Die Rolle Karl Haushofers fiir Entwicklung und Ideologie nationalsozialistischer Geopolitik. Erdkunde 36, 160-167. SCHULTE-ALTHOFF,F. J. (197 1). Studien zurpolitischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte der deutschen Geographic im Zeitalter des Imperialismus. Bochumer Geographische Arbeiten 9. Paderbom: Schoningh. SMITH, W. D. (1980). Friedrich Ratzel and the origins of Lebensraum. German Studies Review 3, 51-68: TAKEUCHI, K. (1980). Geopolitics and geography in Japan reexamined. Hitotsubashi Journal ofsocial Studies 12(l), 14-24. TROLL, C. (1941). Koloniale Raumplanung in Afrika. Z&tschft der Gesellschaffiir Erdkunde, 1-41. TROLL, C. (1949). Geographic science in Germany during the period 1933-1945: a critique and justification. Annals of the Assoctition of American Geographers 39,99-l 37. The complete German paper is published in Erdkunde 1 (1947), 3-48. VOLZ, W. (1934). Die nationalen Aufgaben der Geographic. Mitteilungen des Vereins der Geographen ati der Universitiil Leipzig 13, 1-11. WITTFOGEL,K. A. (1929). Geopolitik, geographischer Materialismus und Marxismus. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus 3, 17-51. Reprinted in Politische Geogsaphie (J. Matznetter, ed., 1977) pp. 183-232. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. WITWOGEL, K. A. (1957). Orientul Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.