Hänel interpellation
The Hänel interpellation was a request to the Prussian government in November 1880. It was introduced in the Prussian House of Representatives , the second chamber of the Prussian state parliament , by the MP Prof. Albert Hänel and supported by the faction of the Progressive Party . The interpellation consisted of the question of how the Prussian government would react to the demands of the anti-Semite petition and whether a restriction of the rights of the Jews was intended.
The government's brief answer that no change in the legal situation was intended was followed by an extensive debate. This stretched over two days, during which members from all political groups took the floor. Even if only a few MPs wanted to openly support the demands of the anti-Semitic petition, representatives of the conservatives and the center expressed themselves in an anti-Semitic manner.
This was sharply rejected by the MPs of the Progressive Party ( Rudolf Virchow , Eugen Richter , Ludwig Loewe ) and the Liberal Association ( Heinrich Rickert , Alexander Meyer ). In particular, the home side's Progress Party , the court preacher Adolf Stoecker be submitted to the falsehood that he had not signed the Antisemitenpetition what its credibility damaged permanently.
prehistory
With the publication of the article "Our prospects" by Heinrich von Treitschke in the Prussian yearbooks and with the speeches of the court preacher Adolf Stoecker, who sought to establish an anti- liberal and state-socialist Christian-Social Workers' Party , the anti-Semitism that had been smoldering for several years received , from the late 1870s onwards with the Berlin movement . While the dispute initially took place in journalism (see Berlin Anti-Semitism Controversy ), more and more direct attacks against Jews followed, as in the so-called Kantorowicz affair . In this affair, the two teachers Bernhard Förster and Carl Jungfer harassed the passengers of a Berlin horse-drawn tram with their anti-Semitic comments on November 8, 1880, which resulted in a scuffle with the Jewish entrepreneur Edmund Kantorowicz.
Since the anti-Semites could not foreseeably hope to enforce their goals through legislation, they made four demands that were to be implemented in an administrative way: a restriction on the immigration of Jews, their exclusion from the public service ("official positions"), in particular as judges, her exclusion from teaching and the introduction of official statistics on the Jewish population. To this end, a petition was drawn up, which was distributed with a print run of 100,000 copies to collect signatures.
On November 12, 1880, 75 renowned scientists, entrepreneurs and politicians published the so-called Notabeln Declaration in the newspapers , in which the anti-Semitic movement was condemned. It was signed by the Lord Mayor of Berlin Max von Forckenbeck , the historian Theodor Mommsen , the natural scientist Rudolf Virchow , the industrialist Werner Siemens and the politician of the Liberal Association Heinrich Rickert .
The interpellation
The full title of the question read: “Interpellation of the MP Dr. Hänel, regarding the agitation against the Jewish citizens. ”And had the number 41 of the printed matter. The full text read:
“For some time now, there has been agitation against Jewish citizens in Prussia, which has given rise to regrettable excesses and wider unrest.
In pursuit of this agitation, a petition addressed to the Reich Chancellor and Prime Minister is distributed, which raises the requirements:
- that immigration of foreign Jews, if not prevented entirely, is at least restricted;
- that the Jews are excluded from all official (authoritative) positions, and that their employment in the judicial service - especially as single judges - finds an appropriate restriction;
- that the Christian character of the elementary school, even if it is attended by Jewish pupils, is strictly observed and only Christian teachers are admitted to it, but that in all other schools Jewish teachers are only employed in specially motivated exceptional cases;
- that the resumption of official statistics on the Jewish population would be ordered.
In doing so, the undersigned take the liberty of addressing the request to the Royal Government:
what is the position of the same demands that aim at the elimination of full constitutional equality for Jewish citizens?
Berlin, November 13, 1880.
Dr. Hänel. "
First day of debate on Saturday, November 20, 1880
The Vice President of the Prussian State Ministry , Count zu Stolberg-Wernigerode , agreed at the beginning to answer the interpellation immediately.
This was followed by Albert Hänel's reasoning for his interpellation. He recalled that Otto von Bismarck had insisted at the Berlin Congress in 1878 that Romania , Bulgaria , Montenegro and Serbia had to grant their citizens equal rights regardless of religion.
"Gentlemen, it was not some agitatory meeting, not a progressive party, not any other liberal party, not a Jewish society - although I must apologize for Lord Beaconsfield - but it was the meeting of the Representatives of the European powers; It was the first statesmen of Europe who solemnly proclaimed the principle that full recognition of religious parity and, consequently, full recognition of civil and civic equality of the Jews, was such an essential foundation of European civilization, indeed of state honor is that without recognition of this basis, entry into the European community of international law would have to be refused. "
Graf zu Stolberg-Wernigerode then answered the request by evading an assessment of the anti-Semite petition: the government was not yet aware of this. But he then confirmed that a change in the rights of the Jews was not intended.
“Then I must first state that such a petition, as mentioned here, has not yet reached the state government, and that it has therefore not been in a position to take its content into official consideration. Nevertheless, gentlemen, the state government does not hesitate to answer the question put to it by saying that the existing legislation declares the equality of religious denominations in civic relations and that the state ministry does not intend to change this legal situation. (Bravo! On all sides of the house.) "
At the request of both the right and the left, the debate was then opened.
The first speaker to speak was Dr. Reichensperger (Olpe) from the Center Party. He agreed that the rights of Jews should not be restricted, not even through administrative channels, but denied that the anti-Semite petition should be condemned. Behind the Berlin Congress of 1878 was something else:
“For in my eyes this fact is only a proof of the immeasurable international power that even that smallest minority has acquired in all countries. (Very correct! On the right and in the center.) "
After the MP Seyffarth, the conservative Dr. von Heydebrand and the Lasa . He denied being anti-Semitic and spoke out in favor of respecting the rights of Jews. However, he then blamed the Jews for the anti-Semitic movement:
“We hope and expect that, in the healthy sense of the more discerning part of our Jewish fellow citizens, we will succeed in breaking off these complaints, which arise from the great mass of the Christian people, through somewhat more tactful behavior and somewhat greater moderation in the use of their rights . "
Next, Rudolf Virchow spoke. He deplored the state government's response with the words:
“Well, gentlemen, if I have called the answer given by the Royal Government a correct one, I cannot deny that on the whole it could have been a little warmer. It was correct, but cool to the heart! "
He was followed by the MP Arthur Hobrecht and then the leader of the center, Ludwig Windthorst , who emphasized that he was not arguing for his parliamentary group, but personally. He also spoke out in favor of not diminishing the rights of Jews.
It was decided to continue the debate.
Second day of debate on Monday, November 22, 1880
The debate was reopened by Alexander Meyer . He pointed out that the mass immigration of Jews claimed by the anti-Semites was a chimera.
Then Julius Bachem was given the floor by the Center Party. He claimed that there was “progressive Jewish terrorism” in Berlin, for example. Then he used various anti-Semitic clichés:
“I recognize a Jewish question as present in two ways, in a socio-political, economic and moral-religious sense. ... It is also an equally indisputable fact that for some decades, especially in the last decade, there has been a tremendous shift in mobile and immobile property in favor of the Jews. "
This was partly done with "questionable and reprehensible means".
"Jews are the main bearers of the stock exchange business , the very dangerous excesses of which gave our Minister of Transport the catchphrase of the 'poison tree' stock exchange."
“This consideration also includes the international grain business, which is also essentially in Jewish hands, and to which we so often and at this moment again mainly owe the dubious manipulation of the poor man's loaf of bread. (Very correct! On the right.) "
Eugen Richter replied in what the Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums thought was a “detailed and brilliant speech”. He rejected the general suspicions of the Jews:
“These are just the worst turns of speech, which nowhere connect to facts (Oho!) Which contain very general suspicions of the Jewish character, (unrest) which always speak only of it: an essential, a stronger part of the Jewish than the Christian The population surrenders to that vice, tries in every way to suppress it, through deceit and unjust means to attain wealth. Where are the statistics to prove that? (Shouts on the right: Here, here!) On the contrary, the crime statistics are quite favorable for Jews. (Right of objection.) "
Politically, agitation against the Jews is also used as a means against the liberals :
“The MP Bachem himself speaks of the Jewish progressive press and the like. Because one cannot fight the liberals in their principles, (contradiction) against it is powerless in the big cities, - therefore the racial hatred is called to help, not only to fight against Judaism, but it is the desperate effort of the conservative endeavors; in order to stay afloat, one had to resort to such means, not just to fight the Jews, but to attack liberalism. Gentlemen, that is the real crux of the matter. (Very true!)."
It is now necessary to bring the anti-Semitic movement to light and attack:
“Gentlemen, it was just time to make public opinion aware of what was going on in the country, faced with a movement that was beginning to organize. Gentlemen, the House of Representatives is supposed to represent the conscience of the nation ; we appeal to this against that creeping movement in the dark. (Restlessness.) The interpellation, that was the flare which rose to mark all the mini-workers who are now at work, to arouse that movement. Gentlemen, now the attention in the country has been drawn to it, now the forces have been awakened, now they are thrown from the offensive onto the defensive. (Contradiction). "
He then turned to the actual anti-Semitic movement under the court preacher Stoecker, which he characterized as follows:
“Gentlemen, I am known as one who fought the social democratic movement from the beginning and in all stages in the most violent and decisive manner; But I have to say: in my eyes that Christian social movement is much more pernicious, much more dangerous than the social democratic one. (Call on the right: For you!) "
This is just as socialist as the Social Democrats, but is treated very leniently by the authorities in contrast to them:
“Gentlemen, the Social Democrats have been expelled and if they settle in Hamburg they will continue to be expelled until they migrate across the sea. The bearers of the Christian social movement remain, while this happens to the little ones, in respect and dignity in the circle of the powerful. Gentlemen, what these two movements have in common is that they put the state first; They say in their pamphlets - they are here in front of me - in their calls for election for Mr. Stocker: It is the fault of the legislation that your workers , wife and child, are gnawing on the hunger cloth! "
"My, gentlemen, I know very well that Herr Stocker gives private property more leeway in his speeches than the Social Democrats; but this takes a back seat in the entirety of its presentation. It is the state , the organization of work by the state, the responsibility of the state that it invokes, that is supposed to help the people, it is the state that it blames for having brought about the conditions in which we find ourselves . Gentlemen, you will not find anything of the following sentence in the speeches: Help yourself, and God will help you ; In the speeches you will find nothing of the following sentence: Everyone is the maker of his own happiness; You will find nothing there of the power of love, especially Christian love, which is supposed to help the other. "
Eugen Richter explicitly castigated Stöcker's personal attacks on Gerson Bleichröder :
“Gentlemen, no socialist has appeared so personally. There is rushed against the stock market, in every way mood is created in this direction. In the speech, the Social Democrats are even accused of not having rushed enough. Mr. Stöcker says: Why do the Social Democrats only make the masters and manufacturers responsible for their plight, why not the stock exchange? The stock market is to blame, but it is not under attack. So he incites them in the direction where, in his opinion, they have not done enough. "
Then he predicted the ultimate consequence of the anti-Semitic movement:
"Gentlemen! The whole movement has a very similar character as regards the ultimate goal, as regards the method, as the socialist one. (Shouting) That's what matters. The small gradual differences recede completely, that is precisely what is particularly perfidious about the whole movement, that while the socialists only turn against the economically wealthy , racial hatred is nurtured here, something that the individual cannot change and what only with it can be ended, that he is either beaten to death or taken across the border. "
Richter pointed out that leading anti-Semites had converted from the Social Democrats:
“This spring, Herr Körner was the candidate against my colleague Virchow , recommended by all socialist members of parliament ; Finn was Mendel's socialist candidate in the last election to the Reichstag . Now we see the gentlemen together with Mr. Stocker, they met at the same meeting; Herr Stöcker welcomes them and is happy to see them meet with him, and hopes that, even if there are differences, they belonged together. "We royal Prussian Social Democrats" that's what the gentlemen call themselves! "
The sympathizers of the anti-Semitic movement should consider the consequences of their actions:
“At that time, so-called conservative voices were loud here too (listen! Listen! Left) in 1865. The conservative party threatened us with kicking the workers' battalions, as we speak today of the Christian Socials in Berlin. It was my friend Schulze-Delitzsch who approached Wagener, recalling that parable of the Sphinx and saying: "There are two natures in man, one divine and one animal, - be careful not to call the beast awake in man, with her lion claws she will first tear those who dare to undertake it! ”I tell you that too: be careful, Christian socialists outside, to awaken the beast of wild passion in the crowds! They will not stand still in front of the clergy; they will soon deal with the masters. (Restlessness and movement.) "
Therefore, the government must now take a position, as Eugen Richter said in his closing words:
“Just to give the government an opportunity to discuss how it feels about it, including the Reich Chancellor, that is the reason why we have made the interpellation, and we are happy about the success and wish that from now on in the whole country in a vigorous reaction this anti-Semitic movement is put down, which is truly not enough to honor and adorn our country. (Bravo! Left, hissing right.) "
Adolf Stoecker responded to Eugen Richter in a speech in which he openly expressed his anti-Semitism:
“The question is rooted in religion , in the race , in constitutional law , but in its appearance - and in terms of statesmanship it cannot be understood otherwise - it is a socio-ethical question of great national importance. It consists in the fact that half a million Jewish fellow citizens, belonging to a different tribe, different from us in their religion, in their thinking, feeling, and willing are not always one with the German way, in our people they occupy a position which their numerical proportions do not at all corresponds. Equipped with a strong financial power , also with a lot of talent, this section of the population presses on our public life, not only in trade and industry, but also in communal matters, in school matters, yes, sometimes in church matters themselves! (Hear! Hear! Right. - Contradiction left.) "
Stoecker claimed not to have signed the anti-Semite petition. The progressive Dr. Langerhans asked for the stenographic transcript to be drawn up as quickly as possible in order to record this claim. The progressive Ludwig Loewe then contradicted various claims that Adolf Stoecker had made, based on one of his brochures, that, contrary to what was claimed at the meeting, he represented racial anti-Semitism:
"... after he said in that meeting that I cited that the Jewish question was not a racial question, that if it were a racial question it could only be ended and resolved by a death," says Herr Hofprediger Stöcker in the brochure ' modern Judaism 'in his second lecture on page 38:' on this ground of struggle there is race against race. ' (Listen! Listen! Left.) Yes, gentlemen, one can express it more decisively, of course not in a logical conclusion, not in such a way that the public prosecutor is forced to intervene, I say: it is possible to establish more clearly that one has called for murder and death? (Laughter to the right.) "
A motion to close the debate was rejected. The conservative Jordan von Kröcher , who attacked the Progressive Party and supported Adolf Stoecker, was given the floor:
“What you have achieved is that you have made propaganda for our petition in a way that we really could not have painted more beautifully; In doing so, you achieved that the Jewish question could be discussed here in a factual manner, and that Deputy Stocker had the opportunity to explain his principles in this matter. That's actually the whole thing, you haven't achieved anything else. "
Again, an end to the debate was refused. Heinrich Rickert replied to von Kröcher . He asked Stoecker to substantiate his claim:
"... the fourth part of the men who signed the well-known declaration against the baiting of Jews belong to those who took part in the witch's dance around the golden calf ."
He was followed by the conservative Strosser , who in turn supported Stöcker with claims such as:
“Gentlemen, on the contrary, now that full emancipation has taken place, we see the evil forces of Judaism to such an extent in the public field that the better always step back in silence and leave the worse in the field; Proof of this: this brutality of the press against everything that is sacred and dear to Christians. "
An application for an adjournment failed. After a brief comment from Eugen Richter, Rudolf Virchow and then Baron von Minnigerode spoke again. With brief remarks by Virchow, Franz, Bachem, Dr. Langerhans, Strosser, Stoecker, Dirichlet , Hobrecht, Richter, Virchow, Rickert, Stoecker, Loewe and again Virchow ended the debate.
aftermath
The Hänel interpellation was an important step in putting the anti-Semitic movement on the defensive. In the Reichstag election of 1881 , the Progress Party defeated its candidates in all six Berlin constituencies. The tense relationship of Adolf Stoecker to the truth made itself felt for the first time in the debate for the general public and continued. Eugen Richter judged Stoecker after the elections:
“I have to say, in fact, that these two passages describe Mr. Stocker's procedure in such a way that it would not be difficult for me outside the house to describe it with a short word. In parliamentary terms, I can only say that the Honorable Stöcker has not yet acted scrupulously in the most desirable way in presenting actual circumstances. (Great amusement on the left.) "
The demands of the anti-Semite petition were , however, tacitly accepted by Otto von Bismarck's government , particularly the Prussian Interior Minister Robert Viktor von Puttkamer . From 1884 there were restrictions on the immigration of Jews to Prussia. During the expulsions from Poland in 1885/86, a relatively large number of Polish Jews, around 10,000 out of a total of 35,000, were expelled from the country. Separate statistics for the Jews were also introduced in the following census. Disabilities in the advancement and recruitment of judges and teachers are more difficult to grasp. In 1896 an attempt was made with the “assessor paragraph” to provide a legal basis for discrimination not only against Jews, but generally against non-noble applicants.
reception
On the occasion of Albert Hänel's death , the magazine of the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith paid tribute to his commitment and that of his party comrades in the Hänel interpellation in 1918 . She was referring to an article from June 1, 1918 in the Freising newspaper .
See also
literature
-
The Jewish question before the Prussian Parliament , 1880
- Print: The Jewish question. Negotiations of the Prussian House of Representatives on the interpellation of Dr. Hänel on November 20 and 22, 1880. Reprinted separately from the official stenographic reports of the House of Representatives. W. Moeser Hofbuchhandlung, Berlin 1880
Individual evidence
- ↑ Our prospects. Prussian Yearbooks, 1879. Online (PDF; 1.2 MB)
- ↑ http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1803&language=german
- ^ The Jewish question before the Prussian Diet. Berlin 1880. [1]
- ^ The Jewish question before the Prussian Diet. Berlin 1880. [2] , [3]
- ↑ Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums, 1880, Issue 51 (December 21, 1880), p. 805.
- ^ The Jewish question before the Prussian Diet. Berlin 1880, pages 55-66. [4] , [5]
- ↑ Protocols of the Reichstag, 1881 / 82.1, 5th legislative period, 27th session, January 17, 1882.
- ↑ Eugen Richter: Political ABC book, 9th edition. Publishing house "Progress, AG", Berlin 1898, article 'Assessorenparagraph' [6]
- ^ Journal of the Central Association of German Citizens of Jewish Faith (1895–1922) Issue 9 (September 1, 1918), pp. 351–353, [7]