Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:20:24.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ruhrlade, Secret Cabinet of Heavy Industry in the Weimar Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Henry Ashby Turner Jr
Henry Ashby Turner Jr
Affiliation:
Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On the evening of January 9, 1928, twelve of the most prominent men of German heavy industry, attired in tuxedos, gathered at the Villa Hügel, the Krupp family's grandiose palace outside Essen, for the first meeting of the most mystery-shrouded industrial organization of the Weimar Republic: the Ruhrlade. The man responsible for its formation was Paul Reusch, managing director since 1908 of the coal, steel, and manufacturing combine Gutehoffnungshütte, and a respected figure in German industrial circles. After the First World War and the revolution, Reusch had been instrumental in organizing the Essener Montagsgesellschaft, an informal group of Ruhr industrialists which met in Essen once a month to consider matters of common interest. At the outset, the membership of the Montagsgesellschaft was small, but its admissions policy was liberal, so that within a few years it numbered forty-five. This proved too large a body for the conduct of confidential affairs, and after the group's meetings had been interrupted by the occupation of the Ruhr in 1923, Reusch and its other leaders decided not to revive it. Reusch continued, however, to feel a need for an informal, compact organization of the leading men of German heavy industry. In the fall of 1927 he drafted a charter for such a group, using as his model the statute of a small, highly selective prewar organization of Magdeburg industrialists, the Lade, whose name, the German word for chest or similar repository, apparently signified a commitment to secrecy.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , September 1970 , pp. 195 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. On Reusch's business career, see Herzog, Bodo, “Paul Reusch und das Deutsche Museum in München,” in Deutsches Museum, Abhandlungen und Berichte, XXXV (1967), Heft 3, 5–14;Google ScholarMaschke, Erich, Es entsteht ein Konzern. Paul Reusch und die GHH (Tübingen, 1969);Google ScholarSalin, Edgar, “Paul Reusch,” Mitteilungen der List-Gesellschaft, No. 8, 1957, pp. 194–200.Google Scholar

2. Reusch Papers, Historisches Archiv, Gutehoffnungshütte, Oberhausen, 400101290/96, Reusch to Kurt Sorge, Sept. 24, 1927; Fritz Thyssen Papers, Werksarchiv, August Thyssen-Hütte, Duisburg-Hamborn, Reusch to Thyssen, Nov. 25, 1921; Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach Papers (hereafter Krupp von Bohlen Papers), Krupp-Archiv, Villa Hügel. Essen, IV E 797, correspondence on meetings of the Montagsgesellschaft.

3. Reusch obtained a copy of the statute of the Lade from Kurt Sorge, a Krupp director who had belonged to the Magdeburg group while in charge of Krupp's Grusonwerke there: Reusch Papers, 400101290/96, Reusch to Sorge, Sept. 14 and Oct. II, 1927.

4. Reusch Papers, 40010124/11, Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen and Thyssen, Nov. 13, 1927; Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen and Thyssen, Nov. 22, 1927; memorandum, “Verzeichnis der Herren, welche von den Gesellschaftsgründern zum Beitritt aufgefordert wurden”; letters, Reusch to each of nine nominees, Nov. 22, 1927.

5. Springorum was apparently included as a replacement for his father, Friedrich Springorum, who belonged to the inner circles of the Ruhr and had retired two years earlier; see Mönnich, Horst, Aufbruch ins Revier. Hoesch 1871–1961 (Munich, 1962).Google Scholar

6. On the initial meeting: Reusch Papers, 40010124/11, Reusch to the other members regarding the wearing of tuxedos, Dec. 28, 1927; copies of both Reusch's draft and the final version of the bylaws, the latter dated Jan. 9, 1928.

7. The prohibition of guests was later waived on occasion by mutual consent of the members, as on May 11, 1929, when Friedrich Flick and Carl Friedrich von Siemens were invited to join the group to discuss the Young Plan: Reusch Papers, 40010124/12.

8. On Springorum's role as treasurer, see below. He also usually substituted for Reusch as presiding officer when the latter could not attend; see, for example, Springorum Papers, Hoesch Archiv, Dortmund, FIi 3, Reusch to Springorum, Mar. 25, 1931; Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Reusch to Springorum, Apr. 15, 1932.

9. The exceptions were Fickler and Silverberg, whose activities were limited to the coal industry.

10. This is revealed by the agendas of the group's meetings in the fall and winter of 1928: Reusch Papers, 40010124/11 and 12.

11. For examples, see ibid., 40010124/12: agenda for meeting of December 1928; Silverberg to Reusch, Jan. 5, 1929; Klotzbach to Reusch, Jan. 2, 1929; 400101290/32: Reusch to Poensgen, Jan. 10, 1929; Poensgen to Reusch, Jan. 14, 1929; 40010124/13: agenda for meeting of May 3, 1930. Springorum Papers, BIa 78, Springorum to Reusch, Jan. 22, 1930.

12. See the extensive Wilmowsky-Reusch correspondence in the latter's papers, 400101290/39 and 40. An example of the concessions to agriculture is provided by the Ruhrlade's agreement in 1928 to purchase 400,000 marks' worth of stock in a meat-processing factory in East Prussia, half the cost to be borne by the raw steel cartel (Rohstahlgemeinschaft), the other half by the coal industry; see ibid., 40010124/11, Haniel to Reusch, Mar. 6, 1928.

13. On the List-Gesellschaft: ibid., 40010124/14, agenda for May 4, 1928; 40010124/11, agenda for June 4, 1928. On the Reichsausschuss: ibid., 400101290/32, Reusch to Poensgen, Oct. 3 and 7, 1929. On Der Ring: 4001012024/10, Blank to Reusch, Nov. 1, 1932.

14. Evidence of one such concerted effort is in the Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 152, Poensgen to Krupp von Bohlen, Feb. 3, 1931; Krupp von Bohlen to Brüning, Feb. 7, 1931; Krupp von Bohlen to Springorum, Feb. 9, 1931. By 1932, at the latest, Brüning not only knew about the Ruhrlade but was aware of when its meetings took place; this is evident from an entry in the diary of Fritz Klein, editor of the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung and confidant of the chancellor: Klein Papers (in the possession of Klein's son of the same name, an East German historian), diary for Feb. 2, 1932. Brüning was either ill informed about the Ruhrlade or his memory later failed him, for in a letter he wrote in 1949 to Baron Wilmowsky, he inaccurately attributed membership in the group to a member of the Tengelmann family and alleged that the Ruhrlade had aided the Nazis financially in 1932; see the text in Treviranus, Gottfried, Das Ende von Weimar (Düsseldorf, 1968), pp. 308–309.Google Scholar

15. For examples, see Reusch Papers, 400101290/35, Silverberg to Reusch, Aug. 2, 1929; 40010124/14, agenda for meeting of Feb. 2, 1931, and agenda for meeting of May 4, 1931; 400101290/36, Reusch to Springorum, Apr. 22, 1931; also Springorum Papers, BIa 78, Springorum to Reusch, Apr. 20, 1931, regarding the Ruhrlade's plans to schedule a Protestkundgebung of the Langnamverein against the policies of the Brüning cabinet.

16. Samples of their domestic views may be found in Krupp von Bohlen's letter to Brüning, Feb. 7, 1931, cited in n. 14, above; Reusch to Brüning, July 30, 1931, copy enclosed in letter to Fickler, Aug. 12, 1931, Reusch Papers, 400101293/11. On foreign policy, see 4001012007/6, Reusch to Haniel, May 21, 1932.

17. Ibid., 40010124/11, Krupp von Bohlen to Reusch, June 7, 1928, invitation to such an outing at Blühnbach, the Krupp country retreat in Austria. Photographs of the group during a hunt at Blühnbach may be found in Edgar Bissinger, “Das Geheimnis der Ruhrlade,” in his pamphlet Männer und Mächte an Rhein und Ruhr (Essen, 1951), pp. 10–11Google Scholar. Despite the title of this article, it did nothing to dispel the mystery of the Ruhrlade, consisting mainly of misinformation.

18. For the correspondence on this excursion, see Springorum Papers, FIi 3; Reusch Papers, 40010124/13.

19. At the meeting of Jan. 11, 1932, Springorum and Winkhaus declined to join in a decision to purchase some of the stock of the tottering Darmstadt und Nationalbank until they had consulted with the board of overseers of Hoesch: Reusch Papers, 40010124/14, Haniel to Reusch. For Reusch, who ruled the Gutehoffnungshütte in autocratic fashion, no such consultations were necessary with his firm's board; when he needed funds for the activities of the Ruhrlade, he simply had them taken from a generous expense account at his disposal: ibid., 400101290/36, instructions from Reusch to bookkeeping department, in margin of letter, Springorum to Reusch, July 11, 1930.

20. The brief sketch of the Ruhrlade by Mariaux, Franz in the introduction to his edition of Paul Silverberg's Reden und Schriften (Cologne, 1951), pp. LXXIII–LXXVIII, is marred, along with other errors, by the assertion that the group was “unpolitisch” (p. LXXVI)Google Scholar. Mariaux's information, which was apparently drawn from interviews with Silverberg, has served as the basis for subsequent treatments of the organization, which neither add appreciably to his version nor correct his errors; cf. Lochner, Louis P., Tycoons and Tyrant (Chicago, 1954), pp. 176–77;Google Scholarvon Klass, Gert, Albert Vögler (Tübingen, 1957), pp. 169–74;Google ScholarLiesebach, Ingolf, “Der Wandel der politischen Führungsschicht der deutschen Industrie von 1918 bis 1945” (unpub. diss., Basel, 1957), pp. 64–67;Google Scholarvon Krosigk, Lutz Graf Schwerin, Die grosse Zeit des Feuers (3 vols., Tübingen, 1957–1959), II, 505–506;Google ScholarTreue, Wilhelm, “Der deutsche Unternehmer in der Weltwirtschaftskrise 1928 bis 1933,” in Die Staats-und Wirtschaftskrise des Deutschen Reichs 1929/33, ed. Conze, Werner and Raupach, Hans (Stuttgart, 1967), p. 94;Google ScholarRöseler, Klaus, “Unternehmer in der Weimarer Republik,” Tradition, XIII (1968), 232.Google Scholar

21. Kaelble, Hartmut, Industrielle Interessenpolitik in der Wilhelminischen Gesellschaft. Centralverband Deutscher Industrieller, 1895–1914 (Berlin, 1967), pp. 120–23, 214–22;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBertram, Jürgen, Die Wahlen zum Deutschen Reichstag vom Jahre 1912 (Düsseldorf, 1964), pp. 108f.Google Scholar

22. A badly misleading account of the handling of industry's political funds in the Republic appears in the recent volume by Heidenheimer, Arnold J. and Langdon, Frank C., Business Associations and the Financing of Political Parties (The Hague, 1968), pp. 37f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Kommission zur Sammlung, Verwaltung und Verwendung des Industriellen Wahlfonds, the central agency established in the Empire, functioned with diminishing effectiveness at the time of the 1919 and 1920 elections; when its executive secretary, Johannes Flathmann, died, apparently during 1924, it passed out of existence; see Turner, H. A. Jr., Stresemann and the Politics of the Weimar Republic (Princeton, 1963), pp. 69, 79;CrossRefGoogle Scholar also National Archives of the United States, Record Group 238, Pre- Trial Interrogations, Reichert, Jakob Wilhelm, Feb. 4, 1947.Google Scholar The Kuratorium für den Wiederaufbau des Deutschen Wirtschaftslebens, which according to Heidenheimer's account was a foundation of the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie, actually had nothing to do with that organization. The Kuratorium, unlike the Kommission, was not a national fund-raising agency but rather a regional political fund set up by the industrial firms and banks of Berlin. It functioned until the depression, though with amounts of money much smaller than those managed by the Ruhrlade. There is information on its activities in the papers of Carl Friedrich von Siemens in the Werner von Siemens-Institut, Munich, especially 4/Lf 519 and 4/Lf 646; also in the papers of the Deutsche Bank und Disconto Gesellschaft, in the Deutsches Wirtschaftsinstitut, East Berlin, especially the files of Eduard Mosler. The figures on the proportional distribution of the Kuratorium's funds among the parties in 1924, which derive from Radandt's, HansKriegsverbrecherkonzern Mansfeld (East Berlin, 1958), p. 15, and are based on these bank papers, are given inaccurately by Heidenheimer, Business Associations, pp. 37f.Google Scholar

23. By the terms of this arrangement, which was instigated by Albert Vögler in March 1924, each coal and iron firm contributed 2.50 gold marks per employee. The Gutehoffnungshütte's contribution for its coal mines was 38,120, for its iron and steel plants 36,500. See Gutehoffnungshütte, Historisches Archiv, “Allgemeine Verwaltung,” 400106/83, Eugen Wiskott, deputy chairman of the Bergbau-Verein, to members of the Verein, Mar. 18, 1924; ibid., “Zahlungen der GHH. anlässlich der Reichstags- u. Landtagswahlen 1924.”

24. Westarp Papers, Gärtringen, Reusch to Westarp, Dec. 16, 1927; Springorum to Westarp, Dec. 19, 1927; Westarp to Springorum, Dec. 20, 1927; Springorum to Westarp, Jan. 11 and 16, 1928; Walther Rademacher to Fritz Giesecke, Sept. 9, 1930. Reusch Papers, 400101290/39, Reusch to Wilmowsky, Dec. 10, 1927; 400101293/8b, Ernst Brandi to Reusch, Dec. 24, 1927. Gutehoffnungshütte, Historisches Archiv, “Allgemeine Verwaltung,” 400106/24, Springorum to Reusch, Dec. 19, 1927.

25. Reusch Papers, 40010124/11, Haniel to Reusch, Mar. 6, 1928, a report on the meeting of March 5, which Reusch had been unable to attend; 400101290/35, Silverberg to Reusch, Mar. 6, 1928, a similar report.

26. Vögler to Carl Duisberg, Mar. 2, 1932, Autographen-Sammlung von Dr. Carl Duisberg (hereafter Duisberg Papers), Werksarchiv, Farbenfabrik Bayer, Leverkusen.

27. Reusch Papers, 40010124/11, Karl Haniel to Reusch, Mar. 6, 1928.

28. There is much evidence of this in the voluminous correspondence of Blank with Reusch and Springorum in the Reusch Papers, particularly in 4001012024/9–11.

29. This estimate is based on records of the contributions to the Eisenseite levy of Reusch's firm, Gutehoffnungshütte (GHH). For the years 1928, 1929, and 1930, it was assessed, according to a formula based on its raw steel production, at the rate of 55,830 marks annually; see Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, correspondence with Springorum. Under the quota system of the steel cartel (Stahlwerks-Verband), GHH's share of raw steel production remained relatively constant during the last years of the Republic, amounting to approximately 9% of the aggregate production of the five firms constituting the Eisenseite (Stahlverein, Krupp, GHH, Klöckner, and Hoesch) see the reports of the cartel in the Historisches Archiv, Gutehoffnungshütte, “Statistik,” 4001302/2. Assuming that the other firms contributed proportionately to their raw steel production, one arrives at a total of approximately 620,000 marks annually for the Eisenseite levy. My tabulations for 1931 and 1932 derive from similar calculations.

30. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Springorum to Reusch, Mar. 30 and Sept. 24, 1931.

31. Ibid., Springorum to Reusch, Mar. 26, July 7, Oct. 13, 1932.

32. On Feb. 21, 1933, Springorum, writing to Reusch with regard to fund-raising activities for the March elections of that year, recommended adhering to what he described as the previous practice practice of having the coal industry bear 60% and the steel industry 40% of the heavy industrial levy: Reusch Papers, 400101290/36. On the other hand, Springorum's own records reveal that the monthly subsidies to political parties and politicians (see below) consisted of equal contributions from the Kohlenseite and Eisenseite; see his notes on the Ruhrlade meeting of Jan. 11, 1932, Springorum Papers, FIi 3. See also n. 12, above, for another example of operations on the basis of matching funds.

33. The journalist Konrad Heiden, in his pioneering biography of Hitler, erroneously attributed control over this Ruhrschatz, containing the political funds of the coal and iron industries, to the aged industrialist Emil Kirdorf: Adolf Hitler (2 vols., Zurich, 1936–1937), I, 260.Google Scholar This allegation has been accepted as fact by a number of subsequent writers: Karl, Dietrich Bracher, Die Auflösung der Weimarer Republik (2nd ed., Stuttgart and Düsseldorf, 1957), p. 292, n. 16;Google ScholarBullock, Alan, Hitler. A Study in Tyranny (London, 1952), p. 133;Google ScholarHallgarten, George W. F., Hitler, Reichswehr und Industrie (Frankfurt am Main, 1955), p. 98.Google Scholar On Kirdorf's actual role during the Republic, see Turner, H. A. Jr., “Emil Kirdorf and the Nazi Party,” Central European History, I (1968), 324–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Reusch Papers, 400101293/14, Reusch to the chairman of the local DVP in Oberhausen, Friedrich Blumberg, Sept. 26, 1923.

35. Westarp Papers, “Eingänge Wahlfonds 1928,” document dated June 8, 1928.

36. Reusch Papers, 40010124/11, Karl Haniel to Reusch, Mar. 6, 1928; 400101293/10, Clemens Lammers to Reusch, July 30, 1930.

37. Ibid., 400101290/37, Vögler to Reusch, Oct. 23, 1928; Springorum's agenda for the Ruhrlade meeting of Nov. 3, 1930, in Springorum Papers, FIi 3.

38. This is revealed by the correspondence of the members of the Ruhrlade, cited above; also by correspondence in the papers of Carl Friedrich von Siemens to Ernst von Siemens, 4/Lf 646: Siemens to Ernst von Borsig, Mar. 16, 1928; Brandi to Siemens, Mar. 17, 1928; Springorum to Siemens, Mar. 30, 1928; Hans von Raumer to Dr. von Witzleben, Apr. 2, 1928.

39. Westarp Papers, “Vertraulich. Einzahlungen auf den Wahlfonds 1928,” dated June 25, 1928.

40. Springorum had originally extracted from the DNVP leadership a commitment to place four nominees favored by the Ruhrlade (Jakob Hasslacher, Bernhard Leopold, Moritz Klönne, and Jakob Wilhelm Reichert) in positions on the DNVP Reichsliste higher than that of Hugenberg's protégé, Reinhold Quaatz. But despite the protests of Springorum, Quaatz and his allies were able to displace Hasslacher and Leopold in the final ranking (see Westarp Papers, Springorum to Westarp, Feb. 29, Mar. 21, 1928; Quaatz to Westarp, May 16, 1928; for the final list, see Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, vol. 372, part I, p. 104). Springorum's threats that financial aid would be terminated unless the wishes of the donors were respected also failed to prevent the DNVP from denying the top positions on the lists of election district candidates for Dresden and Westfalen–Süd to nominees favored by the Ruhrlade. Instead, those coveted positions went to two other associates of Hugenberg, Paul Bang and Reinhard Mumm (see Westarp Papers, Springorum to Westarp, Mar. 16 and Mar. 21, 1928; cf. Statistik, vol. 372, part I, pp. 66, 86).

41. Cf. Bracher, Auflösung, pp. 310ff.; Dörr, Manfred, “Die Deutschnationale Volkspartei 1925 bis 1928” (unpub. diss., Marburg, 1964), pp. 351ff.Google Scholar Although both Bracher and Dörr used the Westarp Papers, which contain abundant evidence to the contrary, they portray Hugenberg as a spokesman of heavy industry in 1928 and afterwards.

42. Dörr, “Deutschnationale,” pp. 297–303; Reusch Papers, 400101293/8a, Thyssen to Wilmowsky, Nov. 8, 1927.

43. This was the case with Paul Bang and Reinhold Quaatz, both often erroneously described as industrial spokesmen, as in Dörr, “Deutschnationale,” pp. 384–86; see Westarp Papers, Springorum to Westarp, Mar. 21, 1928. See also n. 40, above.

44. Reusch Papers, 400101293/9, Blank to Springorum, July 5, 1928; Westarp Papers, “Geldbedarf Juni–Dezember 1928,” dated June 8, 1928.

45. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, letter to Springorum, July 11, 1928; also Papers of Verein Deutscher Eisen–und Stahlindustrieller (hereafter VDESI Papers), R 13 I/1064–1065, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz: J. W. Reichert to Reusch, July 17 and Oct. 22, 1928. Reichert, Geschäftsführer of the national headquarters of VDESI in Berlin, was heavy industry's leading spokesman in the DNVP Reichstag Fraktion; he opposed Hugenberg's candidacy and in 1930 resigned from the party.

46. Reusch Papers, 4001012024/7, Blank to Reusch, July 21, 1930.

47. ibid., Blank to Springorum, July 29, 1930.

48. Bracher, Auflösung, p. 349.

49. Reusch Papers, 4001012024/7, Blank to Reusch, July 23, 1931; Blank memorandum, “Aufzeichnung über eine Besprechung mit Dr. Gereke am Montag, den 28. Juli, II Uhr vormittags”; Blank to Reusch, Aug. 9, 1930; Blank to Springorum, Aug. 13, 1930.

50. ibid., Blank to Reusch, Aug. 28, 1930.

51. No precise information on the disposition of these funds was found. But from later references to the campaign it seems clear that money was given to the parties backed in 1928, as well as to at least three others, the Konservative Volkspartei, formed by Westarp, Reichert, and other former DNVP parliamentarians, the Bayerische Volkspartei, and the Christlich–Nationale Bauern–und Landvolkpartei; on the KVP see Reusch Papers, 400101293/I, Gottfried von Dryander to Reusch, undated but received on Sept. 3, 1930; on the BVP, see ibid., 4001012024/9, Blank to Springorum, July 2, 1931; on the CNBL, see ibid., 4001012024/8, Blank to Reusch, Jan. 30, 1931.

52. During the latter part of 1930 and the early months of 1931 the group continued to discuss projects for uniting the nonsocialist parties, spurred on by two young, idealistic publicists, Friedrich Glum and Edgar Julius Jung. When nothing came of these efforts they were dropped. See Glum's, autobiography, Zwischen Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Politik (Bonn, 1964), pp. 395–409; also Reusch Papers, 400101293/II, Reusch to Jung, Jan. 2, 1931.Google Scholar

53. The Ruhrlade was instrumental in thwarting in early 1931 an attempt by anti Brüning forces in the coal industry to discredit the cabinet by resigning from the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie in protest over that organization's acquiescence in the government's adherence to the Young Plan. See the VDESI Papers, R 13 I/1064–1065, Reichert to Schlenker, Dec. 4, 1930; Duisberg Papers, Herle to Duisberg, Feb. 9, 1931.

54. Reusch Papers, 400101293/10, Finance Minister Hermann Dietrich to Reusch, Aug. 12, 1930; 4001012024/8, Reusch to Blank, Jan. 27, 1931; 400101293/II, Reusch to Staatssekretär Pünder, Feb. 22, 1931; 400101293/II, Reusch to Brüning, July 30, 1931; Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 152, Hermann Bücher to Krupp von Bohlen, Jan. 17, 1931.

55. Reusch Papers, 400101290/5, Reusch to Hermann Bücher, Aug. 9, 1931; 4001012007/6, Reusch to Fritz Büchner, Sept. 21, 1931; 4001012024/9, Blank to Reusch, Sept. 18, 1931.

56. Springorum Papers, BIa 51, Springorum to Fritz Winkhaus, Sept. 4, 1931; ibid., BIa 78, Reusch to Ludwig Kastl, Sept. 6, 1931; Springorum to Reusch, Sept. 21, 1931.

57. The sale was necessitated when the opposition, mainly the SPD, objected to the Reich's secret ownership of a newspaper. Of the remaining shares, 18% were acquired jointly by a group of Berlin banks, 12% by the Hamburg-America shipping line; see Starkulla, Heinz, “Organisation und Technik der Pressepolitik des Staatsmannes Gustav Stresemann 1923 bis 1929” (unpub. diss., Munich, 1951), pp. 56–73.Google Scholar Reusch, apparently because of his firm's heavy independent involvement with the press (see below), did not take part in the consortium; see Reusch Papers, 400101290/39, letter to Wilmowsky, Mar. 6, 1932.

58. Brandi, Ernst, Stahlverein director for coal mining and chairman of the Bergbau Verein, acted as spokesman for the industrial group in its dealings with Klein. His numerous letters to Klein in the latter's private papers provide information on the views of the Ruhrlade.Google Scholar

59. Klein Papers, diary for Sept. 2, 1931.

60. The opposite impression is conveyed by a recent East German study, based on the Klein Papers, which portrays the DAZ as a willing tool of the “monopoly capitalists”: Ruge, Wolfgang, “Die ‘Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung’ und die Brüning-Regierung,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, XVI (1968), 19–53.Google Scholar

61. The total subsidies from the consortium amounted to 1,095,000 marks in 1930, 1,136,010 in 1931; Klein to Wilhelm Cuno, chairman of board of overseers of the consortium, Feb. 4, 1932, Klein Papers. The Eisenseite political fund was used to cover the iron industry's share of the subsidies: Springorum Papers, BIa 78, Reusch to Springorum, May 5, 1931.

62. Klein Papers, diary entries for Nov. 16 and 17, 1931; Hans Humann to Brandi, Dec. 10, 1931.

63. ibid., diary entries for Dec. 2 and 21, 1931; Jan. 8, 1932; Reusch Papers, 40010124/14, Haniel to Reusch, Jan. 12, 1932; Reusch to Haniel, Jan. 18, 1932.

64. Klein Papers, Aktennotiz by Hans Humann, Jan. 2, 1932.

65. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Brandi to Springorum, May 5, 1932; Klein Papers, diary for July 6, 1932.

66. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Reusch to Springorum, Mar. 23, 1932 (2 letters); 400101290/39, Reusch to Wilmowsky, Mar. 23, 1932.

67. ibid., 400101290/36, Springorum to Wilmowsky, Mar. 22, 1932; 400101290/39, Wilmowsky to Reusch, Mar. 25, 1932.

68. For evidence of Brandi's attitude, see Klein Papers, diary for May 13, 1932; also, Springorum Papers, BIa 84, Brandi to Springorum, Mar. I, 1930.

69. Reusch Papers, 400101221/II, Reusch to Schlenker, Mar. 23, 1932; 400101290/39, Wilmowsky to Reusch, Apr. 7, 1932; 400101290/36, Springorum to Reusch, Apr. 12, 1932.

70. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Springorum to Wilmowsky, Mar. 22, 1932; Springorum to Reusch, Mar. 26, 1932; Duisberg Papers, Krupp von Bohlen to Duisberg, Feb. 29, 1932.

71. In the evidence available for this study, there is mention of the presence at the speech of only one other member of the Ruhrlade, Karl Haniel, who appears to have been an officer of the club. According to the official police reports, Haniel responded to Hitler's talk with “zurückhaltenden und unverbindlichen kurzen Dankensworten” that were in sharp contrast to Thyssen's effusive remarks; see the letter of the Oberpräsident der Rheinprovinz, Fuchs, to Prussian Minister of the Interior Severing, Feb. 3, 1932, in the collection “Regierung Düsseldorf,” 30653, Hauptstaatsarchiv, Düsseldorf. The police reports also specified that Krupp von Bohlen, Poensgen, Reusch, and Springorum were not present: Regierungspräsident, Düsseldorf, to Oberpräsident, Koblenz, Feb. 5, 1932, ibid.

72. Reusch Papers, 40010124/14, Thyssen to Reusch, Mar. 30, 1932. Thyssen sent copies of the pamphlet to Reusch, who at his request had them distributed to the other members: Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 797, Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen, Mar. 31, 1932. It is not clear which Nazi publication was involved. Thyssen also publicly announced his support of Hitler at this time: see his statement in Völkischer Beobachter, Mar. 14, 1932 (No. 73/74).

73. Reusch Papers, 400101293/II, Reusch to E. J. Jung, Dec. 27, 1930; also Poensgen's postwar memoir, “Hitler und die Ruhrindustriellen. Ein Rückblick,” copy in U. S. National Archives, Record Group 238 (Nuremberg Documents), Case X, Bülow Dokumentenbuch I.

74. See the reaction of Poensgen to a talk by Hitler at the home of Emil Kirdorf in the autumn of 1930, as reported by J. W. Reichert, Geschäftsführer of VDESI:VDESI Papers, R13 I/ 1064–65, Reichert to Schlenker, Dec. 4, 1930.

75. Reusch Papers, 4001012024/7, Blank to Springorum, July 29, 1930.

76. ibid., 4001012000/3, Haniel to Reusch, Oct. 15, 1930.

77. For the Ruhrlade's meeting of Jan. 11, 1932, Springorum compiled a list of the group's political subsidies, preparatory to a discussion of ways to reduce the amounts of such payments: Springorum Papers, FIi 3. His notes include the following: “Funk 6/8.31 M. 2500.– Eis.”

78. See Turner, H. A. Jr., “Big Business and the Rise of Hitler,” The American Historical Review, LXXV (1969), 65.Google Scholar

79. On Oct. 24, 1931, Springorum wrote to Funk, taking exception to some of the latter's remarks in a speech before the Berlin Herrenklub. This letter could not be located in the Springorum Papers, but its general content is clear from Funk's reply, dated Nov. 1, 1931: Springorum Papers, 3370. Springorum's marginal comments, while indicating approval for some of Funk's proposals about economic policy, also express doubt about the practicability of his plans.

80. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Springorum to Wilmowsky, Mar. 22, 1932.

81. Reusch normally asked for such an accounting: ibid., letter to Springorum, Oct. 15, 1932.

82. The plants were the Augsburg and Nuremberg branches of the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg–Nürnberg AG. On the newspapers, see ibid., Reusch's correspondence with Karl Haniel, esp. 4001012000/2–3.

83. On Reusch's hopes for a BVP–NSDAP coalition, see ibid., 400101293/2: Erich von Gilsa to Reusch, Apr. 19, 1932; Reusch to Gilsa, Apr. 21; 4001012007/6: Reusch to Haniel, May 21, 1932; 400101293/12: Reusch to Fritz Schäffer, July 7, 1932. On his meeting with Hitler, ibid., 400101290/39, letter to Wilmowsky, Mar. 20, 1932; 4001012007/15, letter to editor Rudolf Kötter of Fränkischer Kurier, Mar. 20, 1932. On Reusch's instructions to the two papers, ibid.; also 4001012007/6, letter to Paul Nikolaus Cossman, of the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten, June 16, 1932. Reusch encountered considerable resistance to his policies from the editors of the MNN; this resistance has been described, if often in exaggeratedly heroic fashion, in several publications which, however, erroneously attribute demands for pro–Nazi editorials to Reusch. See von Aretin, Erwein, Krone und Ketten (Munich,1955), pp. 65–71;Google ScholarBetz, Anton, “Die Tragödie der “Münchner Neuesten Nachrichten’ 1932/33,” in Journalismus. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Instituts für Publizistische Bildungsarbeit, II (1961), 30–32;Google ScholarSelig, Wolfram, Paul Nikolaus Cossmann und die Süddeutschen Monatshefte von 1914–1918 (Osnabrück, 1967), p. 72.Google Scholar

84. Reusch Papers, 400101293/2, letter to Franz von Gebsattel, June 26, 1932.

85. ibid., 400101290/33, Schacht to Reusch, Mar. 18, 1932; Reusch to Schacht, Mar. 20, 1932; Klein, Fritz, “Neue Dokumente zur Rolle Schachts bei der Vorbereitung der Hitlerdiktatur,” Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, V (1957), 818–22 (text of letter, Schacht to Hitler, Apr. 12, 1932, regarding this project).Google Scholar

86. Reusch Papers, 400101290/33, Reusch to Schacht, June I, 1932; Schacht to Reusch, June 6, 1932; Reusch to Schacht, June 9, 1932; Reusch to Schacht, June 25, 1932; 400101290/36, Reusch to Springorum, June 18, 1932; Each sponsor initially contributed 3000 marks. In all, 27,000 marks were collected for the Arbeitsstelle: ibid., 400101290/33, Schacht to Reusch, Aug. 14, 1934.

87. This emerges clearly from the memoirs of Emil Helfferich, , 1932–1946 Tatsachen. Ein Beitrag zur Wahrheitsfindung (Jever, 1969), pp. 12–15.Google Scholar

88. ibid., p. 16. Vögler did not remain a member after the Keppler–Kreis was transformed into the Himmler Freundeskreis in the Third Reich; see U. S. National Archives, Record Group 238, NI–9971 (Microcopy T–301, roll 82).

89. See Reusch's public attack in “‘Gelsenkirchen.’ Ein Urteil aus der Eisenindustrie,” Frankfurter Zeitung, July 6, 1932 (No. 498). See also his letter to Springorum, Aug. 11, 1932: Springorum Papers, BIa 78.

90. Klein Papers, Aktennotiz by Hans Humann, Aug. 4, 1932; Reusch Papers, 400101290 /27, Krupp to Vögler, Aug. 5, 1932; Krupp von Bohlen Papers, R 2161, Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen, Aug. 8, 1932; Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen, Dec. 17, 1932; ibid., IV E 797, Knupp von Bohlen to Reusch, Nov. 13, 1932; Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen, Nov. 15, 1932.

91. Papen was aided financially by several members of the Ruhrlade in his purchase of a controlling interest in the Berlin Catholic newspaper, Germania; see Springorum Papers, BIa 84. Springorum's notes for the Ruhrlade meeting of Nov. 3, 1930, also contain mention of a monthly subsidy of 1000 marks for Papen: ibid., FIi 3. It is unclear whether this subsidy was actually paid to Papen or for how long. Springorum's notes for the meeting of Jan. II, 1932, do, however, make clear that a monthly subsidy of 2000 marks a month was paid through 1931 to publicist Edgar Julius Jung, who was closely associated with Papen, especially during the latter's chancellorship: ibid., FIi 3. Reusch later complained that he had learned of Papen's appointment only twenty-four hours prior to the new chancellor's installation: Reusch Papers, 400101293/12, Reusch to Fritz Schäffer, July 1, 1932.

92. Silverberg Papers, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 417, Springorum to Silverberg, Aug. 18, 1932; Reusch Papers, 4001012000/3, Reusch to Karl Haniel, June 6, 1932; ibid., 4001012007/13, Reusch to Georg Dörge, Aug. 4, 1932; Springorum Papers, BIa 82, Springorum to Papen, Aug. 29, 1932.

93. Springorum Papers, BIa 78, Reusch to Springorum, June 20, 1932; Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Springorum to Reusch, July 7, 1932.

94. That the Kohlenseite again conducted a levy for political purposes is revealed by a letter addressed to the Gutehoffnungshütte on June 29 by Hans von Loewenstein zu Loewenstein, manager of the Bergbau–Verein, setting GHH's assessment at 14,000 marks: Historisches Archiv, GHH, “Allgemeine Verwaltung,” 400106/104.

95. Reusch Papers, 400101290/36: Springorum to Reusch, June 9, 1932; Reusch to Springorum, June 16, 1932; Springorum to Reusch, July 7, 1932; Schleicher Papers, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, Ho8–42/22: Springorum to Schleicher, July 23, 1932; Vögler to Schleicher, Nov. 14, 1932.

96. Schleicher Papers, Ho8–42/22: Alvensleben enclosed a copy of the memorandum in a letter to Schleicher of Sept. 2, 1932, specifying that he had sent a copy to Hitler that same day. See also Bracher, Auflösung, pp. 633–34.

97. On Alvensleben, see ibid., pp. 722–25.

98. The letter to Reusch is in the latter's papers, 400101290/35.

99. U. S. National Archives, Record Group 242 (Microcopy T–81, roll 1, frames 11338 and 11334), letters of Sept. 15 and 21, 1932.

100. See “Hitler und die Schwerindustrie,” Münchner Zeitung, 11 21, 1932 (No. 321).Google Scholar In a letter to this writer of Apr. 15, 1969, Meynen confirmed the newspaper's report that he and Reuter had met with Hitler, while disputing its account of what took place.

101. Meynen, Otto, “Dr. Paul Silverberg,” Der Volkswirt, v (1951), 9–11.Google Scholar In an interview with this writer on June 6, 1970, Meynen augmented this memoir, identifying Alvensleben as the intermediary between Silverberg and Strasser and also specifying that subsidies were paid to Strasser by the industrialist.

102. In a letter of Oct. 13 to Reusch, Springorum announced his intention of restoring the tie with the Bergbau–Verein: Reusch Papers, 400101290/36. However, a report by an official of the Deutsche Volkspartei reveals that Brandi dealt independently with that party in disbursing election contributions; see Dingeldey Papers, 97b, Bundesarchiv, Koblenz: “Bericht über Vorbereitung und Ergebnis der Reichstagswahlen vom 6. November 1932 im Wahlkreis 23 (Düsseldorf–West),” by Generalsekretär Krüger, dated Dec. 12, 1932.

103. Schleicher Papers, Ho8–42/22: Poensgen to Vögler, Oct. 8, 1932; Paul Beeck, Chefbüro Otto Wolff, to Schleicher, Nov. 3, 1932; Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Reusch to Springorum, Oct. 12, 1932.

104. Through the intermediacy of Otto Wolff, an iron merchant of Cologne, Schleicher informed the Ruhrlade that the money had gone to the DVP and the DNVP and insisted he had their receipts as proof: Schleicher Papers, Ho8–42/22, Otto Wolff to Vögler, Nov. 17, 1932. However, Schleicher's surviving records contain proof only of payment of 50,000 marks to the DVP, ibid.

105. See Turner, “Big Business and the Rise of Hitler,” p. 66.

106. Vögler to Schroeder, Nov. 21, 1932: U. S. National Archives, Record Group 238, NI–210 (Microcopy T–3001, roll 3).

107. Reusch Papers, 400101290/37, Reusch to Vögler, Nov. 20, 1932.

108. Vögler is nevertheless frequently designated as a signatory, along with Krupp von Bohlen, who also did not sign; see Hildebrand, Klaus, Vom Reich zum Weltreich (Munich, 1969), pp. 142–45;Google Scholar Institut für Gesellschaftswissenschaften beim ZK der SED, Imperialismus heute (5th ed., East Berlin, 1968), p. 56.Google Scholar

109. See von Bohlen's, Krupp speech to the Hauptausschuss of the Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie, Dec. 14, 1932, in R11/10, Bundesarchiv; also Reusch Papers, 400101220/14, Reusch to Eduard Hamm, Dec. 22 and 31, 1932.Google Scholar

110. Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 797, Reusch to Krupp von Bohlen, Jan. 3, 1933.

111. On the preparations for the meeting, see Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 880, Springorum to Krupp von Bohlen, Dec. 28, 1932; Reusch Papers, 400101290/36, Springorum to Reusch, Dec. 28, 1932; Springorum Papers, BIa 82, Springorum to Papen, Dec. 23 and 27, 1932; Papen to Springorum, Dec. 29, 1932.

112. For examples of earlier accounts, see Heiden, , Hitler, I, 326;Google Scholar Bracher, Auflösung, p. 695; Czichon, Eberhard, Wer verhalf Hitler zur Macht? (Cologne, 1967), p. 51.Google Scholar

113. Springorum Papers, BIa 82, Papen to Springorum, Jan. 20, 1933.

114. ibid., Springorum to Papen, Jan. 14 and 24, 1933; Reusch to Robert Lehr, Jan. 10, 1933.

115. von Papen, Franz, Vom Scheitern einer Demokratie, 1930–1933 (Mainz, 1968), pp. 339, 343f. Papen erroneously dates the meeting as Jan. 4.Google Scholar

116. See the account of Springorum's views in a newspaper generally well disposed to the Schleicher, cabinet: “Papens nachträglicher Kölner Bericht,” Tägliche Rundschau (Berlin), 01 10, 1933 (No. 8).Google Scholar

117. Springorum Papers, FIi 5, Sogemeier, Martin, managing director of the Zweckverband Nordwestdeutscher Wirtschaftsvertretungen e.V., to Springorum, Jan. 25, 1933.Google Scholar Sogemeier reported that Johannes Popitz, a member of Schleicher's cabinet, had called him the previous evening and indicated the chancellor's desire to see Springorum within the next few days. After learning of the latter's plans, Sogemeier informed Popitz the meeting would have to take place after his return on Feb. 7. I am indebted to Mr. Ulrich Nocken for bringing this document to my attention.

118. Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 203, correspondence for January 1933. On Jan. 26, Ludwig Kastl, managing director of the Reichsverband, wrote to Krupp von Bohlen that the talk in Berlin was of a Papen-Hitler-Schacht cabinet, with Papen as chancellor: U. S. National Archives, Record Group 238, Nuremberg Industrialist Trials, Case 10, Dokumentenbuch von Bülow I.

119. Springorum Papers, FIi 5, Sogemeier to Springorum, Jan. 25, 1933.

120. They hoped to achieve their goal by encouraging an anti-Hugenberg fronde in the DNVP, led by the mayor of Düsseldorf, Robert Lehr; see Springorum Papers, BIa 76, Springorum to Lehr, Jan. 13, 1933; Reusch Papers, 400101290/37, Reusch to Vögler, Jan. 10 and 18, 1933; Reusch to Lehr, Jan. 10, 1933.

121. Reusch Papers, 400101293/12, Reusch to Kurt von Lersner, an associate of Papen, Mar. 4, 1933. Also Springorum Papers, BIa 82, Papen to Springorum, Mar. 14, 1933; Springorum to Papen, Mar. 25, 1933. The exchange between Springorum and Papen reveals that the Ruhrlade placed a large part, perhaps all, of the Eisenseite contribution for the March 1933 election at the disposal of the vice-chancellor.

122. See the privately printed memoirs of his associate, Brecht, Gustav, Erinnerungen (Munich, n. d. [1964]), pp. 44ff.;Google Scholar also Mariaux's introduction to Silverberg's Reden und Schriften. Some of the other members remained in communication with Silverberg after his departure and visited him in Switzerland; see Krupp von Bohlen Papers, IV E 894, letter to Silverberg, Feb. 16, 1934; Silverberg Papers, 417, Springorum to Silverberg, May 2, 1933.

123. Reusch Papers, 400101290/5, Reusch to Hermann Bücher, Dec. 6, 1935.

124. Foremost among these was the Kleiner Kreis, consisting of seven leading figures of the steel industry, among whom only two from the Ruhrlade were included, Klöckner and Poensgen; see U. S. National Archives, Record Group 238, NI-291 (Microcopy T–301, roll 4). The Kleiner Kreis should not be confused with the so-called Kleine Ruhrlade, an association of the sons of prominent Rhenish-Westphalian industrialists which had no connection with the Ruhrlade proper; see ibid., NI–9613 (Microcopy T–301, roll 80); also Glum, Zwischen, p. 409.

125. Reusch Papers, 40010124/16. I am indebted to Professor Gerald D. Feldman for bringing this document to my attention.