Politics in Imperial Germany (London, 1982), pp. 87–105, 118–19, 148–9; Konrad Jarausch, Enigmatic Chancellor. Bethmann Hollweg and the Hubris of Imperial Germany (Madison, WI, 1966), p. 101; Lamar Cecil, Wilhelm II (2 vols., Chapel Hill, NC, 1989 and 1996), vol. 2, Emperor and Exile: 1900–1941, pp. 189–92.
118. Johannes Burkhardt, ‘Kriegsgrund Geschichte? 1870, 1813, 1756 – historische Argumente und Orientierungen bei Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges’, in id. et al. (eds.), Lange und Kurze Wege, pp. 9–86, here pp. 19, 36, 37, 56, 57, 60–61, 63.
119. Kossert, Masuren, p. 241.
120. Benjamin Ziemann, Front und Heimat. Ländliche Kriegserfahrungen im südlichen Bayern 1914–1923 (Essen, 1997), pp. 265–74.
121. Gerald D. Feldman, Army, Industry and Labor in Germany, 1914–1918 (Princeton, NJ, 1966), pp. 31–3; the reference to ‘shadow governments’ is from Crown Prince Rupprecht von Bayern, In Treue fest. Mein Kriegstagebuch (3 vols., Munich, 1929), vol. 1, p. 457, cited in ibid., p. 32.
122. For a narrative overview of the partnership, see John Lee, The Warlords. Hindenburg and Ludendorff (London, 2005).
123. Cited from a speech by the industrialist Duisberg in Treutler to Bethmann Hollweg, 6 February 1916, GStA Berlin-Dahlem, HA I, Rep. 92, Valentini, No. 2. On the Hindenburg cult, see Roger Chickering, Imperial Germany and the Great War 1914–1918 (Cambridge, 1988), p. 74; Matthew Stibbe, ‘Vampire of the Continent. German Anglophobia during the First World War, 1914–1918’, Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex (1997), p. 100.
124. Lansing to Oederlin, Washington, 14 October 1918, in US Department of State (ed.), Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States (suppl. I, vol. 1, 1918), p. 359.
125. Cecil, Wilhelm II, vol. 2, p. 286.
126. Ernst von Heydebrand und der Lasa, speech to Landtag of 5 December 1917, cited in Croon, ‘Die Anfänge des Parlamentarisierung’, p. 124.
127. Toews, Hegelianism, p. 62.
128. Hermann Beck, The Origins of the Authoritarian Welfare State in Prussia. Conservatives, Bureaucracy and the Social Question, 1815–1870 (Providence, RI, 1993), pp. 93–100.
129. On Wagener and Gerlach, see Hans-Julius Schoeps, Das andere Preussen. Konservative Gestalten und Probleme im Zeitalter Friedrich Wilhelms IV. (3rd edn, Berlin, 1966), pp. 203–28.
130. On the links between Stein and Schmoller, see Giles Pope, ‘The Political Ideas of Lorenz Stein and their Influence on Rudolf Gneist and Gustav Schmoller’, D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University (1985); Karl Heinz Metz, ‘Preussen als Modell einer Idee der Sozialpolitik. Das soziale Königtum’, in Bahners and Roellecke (eds.), Preussische Stile, pp. 355–63, here p. 358.
131. James J. Sheehan, The Career of Lujo Brentano: A Study of Liberalism and Social Reform in Imperial Germany (Chicago, 1966), pp. 48–52, 80–84.
132. Erik Grimmer-Solem, The Rise of Historical Economics and Social Reform in Germany 1864–1894 (Oxford, 2003), esp. pp. 108–18.
133. Hans-Peter Ullmann, ‘Industrielle Interessen und die Entstehung der deutschen Sozialversicherung’, Historische Zeitschrift, 229 (1979), pp. 574–610; Gerhard Ritter, ‘Die Sozialdemokratie im Deutschen Kaiserreich in sozialgeschichtlicher Perspektive’, Historische Zeitschrift, 249 (1989), pp. 295–362; Wehler, Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, vol. 3, pp. 907–15.
134. Gerhard Ritter, Arbeiter im Deutschen Kaiserreich, 1871 bis 1914 (Bonn, 1992), esp. p. 383; J. Frerich and M. Frey, Handbuch der Geschichte der Sozialpolitik in Deutschland, vol. 1, Von der vorindustriellen Zeit bis zum Ende des Dritten Reiches (3 vols., Munich, 1993), pp. 130–32, 141–2.
135. Andreas Kunz, ‘The State as Employer in Germany, 1880–1918: From Paternalism to Public Policy’, in W. Robert Lee and Eve Rosenhaft (eds.), State, Society and Social Change in Germany, 1880–1914 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 37–63, here pp. 40–41.
17 Endings
1. Harry Count Kessler, Diary entry, Magdeburg, 7 November 1918, in id., Tagebücher 1918–1937, ed. Wolfgang Pfeiffer-Belli (Frankfurt/Main, 1961), p. 18.
2. Ibid., p. 24.
3. Jürgen Kloosterhuis (ed.), Preussisch Dienen und Geniessen. Die Lebenszeiterzählung des Ministerialrats Dr Herbert du Mesnil (1857–1947) (Cologne, 1998), p. 350.
4. Bocholter Volksblatt, 14 November 1918, cited in Hugo Stehkamper, ‘Westfalen und die Rheinisch-Westfälische Republik 1918/19. Zenturmsdiskussionen über einen bundesstaatlichen Zusammenschluss der beiden preussischen Westprovinzen’, in Karl Dietrich Bracher, Paul Mikat, Konrad Repgen, Martin Schumacher and Hans-Peter Schwarz (eds.), Staat und Parteien. Festschrift für Rudolf Morsey (Berlin, 1992), pp. 579–634.
5. Edgar Hartwig, ‘Welfen, 1866–1933’, in Dieter Fricke (ed.), Lexikon zur Parteiengeschichte (4 vols., Leipzig, Cologne, 1983–6), vol. 4, pp. 487–9.
6. Peter Lesńiewski, ‘Three Insurrections: Upper Silesia 1919–21’, in Peter Stachura (ed.), Poland between the Wars, 1918–1939 (Houndsmills, 1998), pp. 13–42.
7. Prussia lost about 16 per cent of its surface area as a consequence of the territorial adjustments that followed the defeat of 1918. These encompassed the Memel area (Lithuania), the land removed from West Prussia to form the Free City of Danzig, the bulk of the old provinces of West Prussia and Posen, as well as small sections of Pomerania and East Prussia (to Poland), North Schleswig with the islands of Alsen and Röm (to Denmark), Eupen and Malmédy (to Belgium), a part of the Saar region (placed under international administration, with coal mines under French control), the Hultschin district of Upper Silesia (to Czechoslovakia) and parts of Upper Silesia (to Poland, following local plebiscites). In all, Prussia’s territorial losses amounted to 56, 058 square kilometres; the total on 1 November 1918 was 348, 780 square kilometres.
8. Cited in Horst Möller, ‘Preussen von 1918 bis 1947: Weimarer Republik, Preussen und der Nationalsozialismus’, in Wolfgang Neugebauer (ed.), Handbuch der preussischen Geschichte, vol. 3, Vom Kaiserreich zum 20. Jahrhundert und Grosse Themen der Geschichte Preussens (Berlin, 2001), pp. 149–301, here p. 193.
9. Gisbert Knopp, Die preussische Verwaltung des Regierungsbezirks Düsseldorf in den Jahren 1899–1919 (Cologne, 1974), p. 344.
10.Möller, ‘Preussen’, pp. 177–9; Henry Friedlander, The German Revolution of 1918 (New York, 1992), pp. 242, 244.
11. Heinrich August Winkler, Weimar 1918–1933. Die Geschichte der ersten deutschen Demokratie (Munich, 1993), p. 66.
12. Hagen Schulze, ‘Democratic Prussia in Weimar Germany, 1919–33’, in Dwyer (ed.), Modern Prussian History, pp. 211–29, here p. 213.
13. Gerald D. Feldman, The Great Disorder. Politics, Economics and Society in the German Inflation 1914–1924 (Oxford, 1997), pp. 134, 161.
14. In a classic study of German civil–military relations after the First World War, John Wheeler Bennett argued that the Ebert–Groener pact sealed the fate of the Weimar Republic; most other historians have taken a more moderate view. See John Wheeler Bennett, The
