A coexistence of traditional and progressive cultural phenomena

The "Golden Twenties" and their culture are still well known today. However, there were major differences. We spoke with Prof. Dr. Peter Hoeres from the Chair of Contemporary History. In his book "The Culture of Weimar – Breakthrough of Modernity" he examined the culture of the twenties.

Sprachrohr: What exactly are the Golden Twenties?

Prof. Dr. Peter Hoeres: First of all, one must say that the term is misleading. It does not refer to the entire twenties, but only to a five-year period. Specifically, the five years between 1924 and 1929. There was relative peace during that time. Before that were times of revolutionary turmoil, attempted uprisings from left and right, assassinations, the occupation of the Ruhr and, above all, hyperinflation. In 1924, a phase of relative stabilisation begins, which ends in 1929 with the global economic crisis.

Sprachrohr: How did the term Golden Twenties come about?

The term itself was only coined in retrospect after the Second World War. One cannot point to a specific author. Some also speak of "Weimar Culture" or the "Roaring Twenties". This is perhaps known through the series "Babylon Berlin".

Sprachrohr: Do you have the impression that the period is portrayed too positively?

Hoeres: If we look at the series "Babylon Berlin", we see a very strong concentration on a marginal and subculture. Everything focuses on Berlin. The focus there is on the underworld and party scene, which is also strongly modelled on contemporary ideas. This impression distorts the picture. But there was already a "drain" to Berlin. Many artists, writers, etc. were drawn there. It was the cultural capital where an incredible amount was happening. But Berlin cannot be equated with Germany. Here in Würzburg things looked different. Just as they did in the countryside, where most Germans lived.

Sprachrohr: Was there an upturn in the countryside nonetheless?

Hoeres: Economically, things were comparatively good in the countryside anyway. Bavaria, for example, was still very rural and very Catholic in character. You cannot compare that with the metropolises, which were regarded as dens of iniquity. For example, the later Pope Pius XII, as Nuncio in Munich and Berlin, was shocked by what we today venerate as "Weimar Culture".

Sprachrohr: When you mention permissiveness: how did this new openness come about? Was it a contrast to the war?

Hoeres: In the First World War, one must imagine society as a starving society. Added to this was the Spanish Flu. Many pleasures were not possible at that time. Many developments that we then observe had already begun around 1900. Starting with cinema, but also with various developments in the avant-garde, expressionism, etc. In the twenties, radio came along. "Americanism", as it was called at the time, arrived. That is, Charleston, jazz and American products. Of course, things changed. Women were more self-reliant during the First World War and then became more present in the working world through the type of office worker. This was very noticeable in the cities. There was a new self-confidence and also a certain loosening up. Censorship no longer existed. Very provocative plays were performed, which also addressed sexuality. There were variety shows, Tiller Girls, etc. There was advertising, poster art. It was a coexistence of traditional cultural phenomena with the avant-garde with progressive elements. And depending on where you were, one or the other dominated.

Sprachrohr: So the divide between countryside and city manifested itself in culture?

Hoeres: Exactly, for example, when we think of architecture we always think of the Bauhaus. It was strongly noticed and also opposed, but nobody built like the Bauhaus in the countryside. There was the Heimat style, which was also cultivated. What happened in Weimar or in Dessau played no role. It is a coexistence of traditional and modern phenomena.

Sprachrohr: You mentioned earlier that cultural and media trends like cinema already existed before. What influence did the democratic republic have on culture?

Hoeres: Basically, class barriers, that is, the nobility, were abolished as a legal institution. Equality of citizens applied. But ultimately it also comes down to money. Potentially, anyone could go to the opera and theatre, but it also depends on interest and money. I believe cinema had an equalising function because similar films were shown in cheap cinemas. For example, workers were mostly not interested in workers' films, but in historical films or Westerns. They preferred to see the same things as other social groups. The leaders of the labour movement did not like to see this. But these socially critical films, which are still highly regarded today, "Kuhle Wampe" etc., were more something for intellectuals. In the masses, the trend went towards lighter entertainment and enthusiasm for sport.

Sprachrohr: What role did radio play? Did it have a politicising effect by making news accessible to a broader audience?

Hoeres: Well, radio was educational radio. Like public broadcasting television used to be. Very word-heavy, lots of lectures, lots of official content. Demanding radio plays were also heard. It was used as a switching medium. That is different from today. It was, also through its public broadcasting structure, very much conceived as educational radio and rather apolitical in terms of politics. Already state-oriented and education-oriented and therefore not apolitical, but not subject to the influence of political parties.

Sprachrohr: The parties then sought public attention through their own newspapers.

Hoeres: There was milieu press in Germany. Each social group read its own newspaper. In Berlin there were the large corporations: Scherl, Mosse and Ullstein. There was illustrated press; the magazine. That was the hit. There was the general advertiser press; also here in Würzburg. That was a rather apolitical form. But even in Würzburg there was the Catholic "Volksblatt", the Social Democratic paper "Volksfreund" and one more oriented towards German nationalism. This shows, as one calls it in research, the pillarisation of society. These individual pillars lived alongside each other, sometimes they also clashed. That is, the working class, the Catholic and Protestant bourgeoisie.

Sprachrohr: Did the German Reich or the Weimar Republic open itself to the world through culture?

Hoeres: Yes, although German culture in the German Empire was not isolated either. You can see this, for example, in Impressionism. There was much exchange. In science, Germany was internationally leading until the First World War. Nobel Prizes went to Germany in large numbers. Heinrich Mann reacted very strongly to French literature. Thomas Mann first critically, then more positively. One can say that this trend towards Europe and exchange with the USA and also Russia was intensified. But it did not begin anew. Of course, also due to American films and music. And there was already a star cult. There are also parallel developments, for example the observation of the metropolis in literature; John Dos Passos in the USA about New York and Alfred Döblin in "Berlin Alexanderplatz". These are similar phenomena that occurred in the world simultaneously. As I said: an acceleration of internationality.

Sprachrohr: And how was this trend towards internationality received by the population or politics?

Hoeres: That varies. Americanism was often viewed critically, especially by conservatives. The left naturally also viewed capitalism in the USA critically. This was already much discussed. Weimar was a very discussion-minded society. There was sharp factional division, but also dialogue with one another. You see many intellectuals who were in exchange with each other, which one might not think today. It was already a very debate- and discussion-minded society.

Sprachrohr: Usually one thinks more of the violent confrontations. What was the political culture of the Weimar Republic like?

Hoeres: It was very polarised. Already from its origins: the revolution, which was accompanied by violence and counter-violence. There were coup attempts, political assassinations. But in the so-called Golden Twenties, things calmed down somewhat. Incidentally, the state did take action against extremes. This is often viewed a bit incorrectly today. The NSDAP was temporarily banned, as were sub-organisations, the SA. So not everything was tolerated. In the phase when it stabilised, there was certainly discourse. I would like to give an example. Ernst Jünger, for example, received Erich Maria Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front" very positively. Today, both Ernst Jünger and Erich Maria Remarque are understood as antipodes. But that is not true in either direction. They held each other in high regard. We must consider whether we are not putting things into pigeonholes too much nowadays. It was certainly a very interesting debate.

Sprachrohr: When looking at the twenties, do we look too much at the subsequent Nazi dictatorship?

Hoeres: Exactly, research today argues strongly against viewing Weimar necessarily from its end. There were many forward-looking trends. The constitution was better than is commonly assumed. One sees it from the perspective of catastrophe. That does not do full justice to the openness that existed in the twenties. They are rather political misfortunes; the failure of the last great coalition and the global economic crisis. But in these Golden Twenties there were also many political developments that pointed to stabilisation. The Stresemann era was a policy of understanding, which also made progress on what all Germans actually wanted, namely a revision of the Treaty of Versailles. And at the same time, one drew closer to the French, which was very difficult given the initial conditions.

Sprachrohr: Were people at that time more democratic than they are assessed to be? To what extent were people democrats?

Hoeres: There was already high participation in political processes. And the diversity of parties, which we criticise today, is also an expression of plurality and participation. There were many demonstrations. Many associations. Also Constitution Days, which were celebrated on a large scale. Society was politically mobilised and participated. So I would not say it was a society without democrats. In crisis situations, the desire for a substitute Kaiser who would provide orientation was already widespread. And at the margins there were forces like the KPD and the NSDAP that fundamentally wanted to overcome this. But until 1928 these were only minorities.

Sprachrohr: To what extent can one compare the twenties of that time with today? Currently there is also an international pandemic leading to an economic crisis. 

Hoeres: In Weimar there was the unfortunate constellation that so many crises hit a newly introduced political system. We have a system that has been tested for over 70 years, which is therefore more crisis-resistant and can generally handle economic crises better. Trust in the state's and politics' fundamental problem-solving competence is quite high. And the mechanisms are very stable. I believe the differences are quite substantial.

Sprachrohr: Professor Peter Hoeres, thank you very much for the conversation!