Trump is a Prussian: Hatred, Politics, and “The Shortest History of Germany”
James Hawes’ The Shortest History of Germany demonstrates a certain strand of essentialist political fixation that is not uncommon in modern conceptions of German history, both academic and popular. Never had I read a serious work of history that so uncompromisingly and haughtily blames one group of people for virtually all of the major tragedies in a country’s history until I finished this book.
Interestingly, I enjoyed most of the read. He covers more than 2,000 years of history about as well could be done with about 200 pages. He elegantly summarized key moments of German history into a thematic narrative. Oddly though, by the time I reached the end, I was surprised it was able to be published at all.
Within the first few pages, Hawes begins to develop a few themes that dominate the rest of the book. He fundamentally believes that since the Roman Empire crept past the Rhine and into Germanic lands, Germany has actually been two entirely different countries with the Elbe acting as the border.
At first, this conception seems unproblematic. It is true that different areas will have different cultural influences. Western and southern Germany were indeed aided by the economy of Rome and later by the Carolingian Empire. Northern and eastern Germany were more influenced by the economy of the Baltic and naturally had to be more involved with their eastern neighbors. There was also a difference in religion. The south and west were predominately Catholic and the north and east were predominately Protestant. Although there was still a degree of religious diversity in all areas of Germany.
Hawes throws around this theme at nearly every chance he gets. Every few pages feature a nondescript map of Germany that illustrates the contrast between the west and the east. This theme started as an interesting mental framework but over the course of the book, it becomes beyond tiring. Over the course of the narrative, he sneaks opinions into his facts until he finally reveals his politics in the last few chapters. He never introduces any complexities or exceptions to his model of a Roman west and a savage east.
I do not have a problem with frameworks like this. They are great to keep in mind while studying German history. It’s great to be aware that western Germany would likely be more concerned about the happenings in France and England while the east would be concerned with Austria and Russia but Hawes somehow transforms an abstract framework into the entire story of the German-speaking world.
This work not only divides Germany into these two spheres, but it also actively and unapologetically takes sides in an effort to pigeonhole distinct political views while oversimplifying historical events in order to do so.
I am not naive enough to believe that history and modern politics are able to be separated (or even necessarily should be separated) but I believe it is the duty of historians to point out bias when they come upon it, especially if the bias is simple-minded and presents an essentialist black-and-white worldview as is the case for this work. I would be less inclined to respond to the work if it was either honest about its political nature or did not attempt to be an authoritative, accessible, and standard summary of Germany designed to be consumed by the public.
The book does not advertise itself as a manifesto or to be a perspective on history but rather as a completely trustworthy guide to history. The cover of the book features the words “comprehensive” and “authoritative” yet it is totally unaware of its alienating partiality.
Hawes believes that western Germany is superior to eastern Germany because it has a long history of being more integrated with, what many still refer to as, “the West”. Roman ruins litter small sections of the southwest and many of the great cities of the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires can be found on this side of Germany. Since industrialization, the cities of the Rhine sit in the center of what many economists refer to as the Liverpool–Milan Axis.
Ultimately, it seems that Hawes likes that in, some moments of modern history, this side of Germany was westward facing. Western Germans did, for a time, resist the dominant economic hegemony that evolved into global neoliberalism but after the World Wars, these western Germans were the ones most keen to enact the same economic model as the wars’ victors.
The book honors Konrad Adenauer, the chancellor of West Germany from 1949 to 1963, and his economic vision to be the most desirable of all. Adenauer sought a Germany where the “windows are open wide to the west… among the vineyards”. He essentially wanted an economic model directly in line with Anglosphere capitalism — this is what transformed into today’s global free-market corporatism.
In the book, the author seems to call any act of nonunification a situation that would leave “Europe to remain a mess of competing states”. Any economic model not directly in line with neoliberal Anglo-Saxon capitalist orthodoxy seems to be immediately called into question.
The author, as seen from his many published articles and Twitter feed, is a public supporter of the European Union and a harsh critic of the Brexit movement. It is acceptable for the author to have preferences for the political and economic situation of modern Europe and Germany regardless of whether I agree or disagree with him. It is however incredibly immature to project his hatred of his contemporary political rivals onto any historical force that was not conducive to his dream of a totally united and “Western” Europe.
He oversimplistically refers to the land south and west of the Elbe as “the real Germany”, “the historical Germany” and praises them for their connections to “the West”. He tactlessly compares germans east of the Elbe to modern Trumpists, Brexiters, and anti-globalists. He calls Eastern Germany:
- “essentially non-western”,
- “a region that will never be pleased”,
- “inherent state-worshipers”,
- and “entirely alien”
All of the quotes are from the last few pages of the book.
Additionally, he oversimplifies the entire history of Prussia as well. I find the following quotes to be grossly exaggerated and therefore inaccurate as well as extremely juvenile. He refers to Prussia as:
- “the great deformation”,
- “a mere client of Russia”,
- “that passing monster”,
- and “a country which by most of the normal standards of European nationhood — history, geography, political arrangements, religion — was entirely foreign”
These descriptions of states and people groups echo the immaturity of national histories and propaganda written in the 19th century. Language like this should not be used in any serious work of history.
He paints western Germany as almost free of sin and never as a corrupting force. While he constantly describes the northeast as foreign corrupters, not in tune with what he would see as the idyllic sensibilities of Rome, the Church, and “the almighty West”.
If Germany ever failed to reach any and every marker of “the West” throughout the last 2,000 years, the author indicates that the people have strayed into a forbidden path destined only for irrational extremists.
He portrays that each and any resistance to “the West” is what led to the horrors of the 20th Century when in reality this is an uninspired boiled-down anachronism. The evils of authoritarianism and fascism as well as the terrors of the eugenics movement are far from being simply and only aboriginal to Germania. Encouraging such black-and-white thinking like this is dangerous and deceitful.
The worst ideas of these atrocious times, like all ideas, are not native to any one place. I am not diminishing the horrors committed by East Elbians but for us to maturely understand any era of history, we need to be aware of the global context. Ideas are continuously moving and constantly shared, transferred, elaborated, altered, and reinforced by different individuals. Many individuals outside of Germany, and certainly outside of Prussia are guilty of the crimes of the 20th Century as well.
Of course, Hitler himself came from an Austrian Catholic background. Fascism, race science, and eugenics were largely developed abroad. The latter two evolved in highly “western”, industrial and progressive countries such as America, Britain, and France. To so irrationally condemn and dehumanize one group of people, those east of the Elbe, is to warp history to fit a modern political narrative and to absolve the involvement of other individuals and parties.
Overall, his analysis, if you can call it that, is simply demonizing one side of the Elbe and praising the other. He refers to the river as the Mason-Dixon line to insinuate a simple divide between good and evil.
This read made me wonder why such nonsense is so normalized. This book has high reviews, has many awards, presumably made a great sum of money, and is found in nearly every bookshop in the English speaking world. Once again, I did enjoy most of the read. I do not mean to antagonize the author but rather warn would-be readers of the book’s bias. It is a small book so I can excuse it for leaving out important events and nuances but it’s more difficult to accept because of its artless shoehorning of politics that the subject of history has grown too familiar with. It is unfortunate that this is and will be many’s first introductions to German or even European history.
