Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T02:42:57.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Popular Gymnastics and the Military Spirit in Germany, 1848–1871

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Berit Elisabeth Dencker
Berit Elisabeth Dencker
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the course of the nineteenth century, a popular nationalist movement developed in the German states that had gained considerable strength by 1871, the year of unification. The German gymnastics association movement was one of the main forms in which popular nationalism was organized. It was started by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn early in the nineteenth century as a means to train young Germans to fight the French occupation. Gradually, it developed into a movement that sought to unify Germany, a project that was not, at first, supported by the German states. The movement was also guided by liberal and, especially before the revolution of 1848, democratic principles, and in this sense, too, was at odds with the reigning political system in Central Europe.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 503 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2001

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. The Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, for example, was not banned.

2. See Klenke, Dietmar, “Nationalkriegerisches Gemeinschaftsideal als politische Religion: Zum Vereinsnationalismus der Sänger, Schützen und Turner am Vorabend der Einigungskriege,” Historische Zeitschrift 260 (1995): 395–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See, for example, Ueberhorst, Horst, “Der Barrenstreit und sein politisch-historischer Hintergrund,” Leibesübungen 18 (1967): 3–6, 4Google Scholar; and Frevert, Ute, “Das jakobinische Modell: Allgemeine Wehrpflicht und Nationsbildung in Preussen-Deutschland,” in Militär und Gesellschaft im 19. und 20. JahrhundertGoogle Scholar, ed. idem, (Stuttgart, 1997), 17–47, and idem, “Das Militär als ‘Schule der Männlichkeit,’” in ibid., 145–73.

4. Goltermann, Svenja, Körper der Nation: Habitusformierung und die Politik des Turnens 1860–1890 (Göttingen, 1998), 90, 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. Klenke, , “Nationalkriegerisches Gemeinschaftsideal”Google Scholar; Krüger, Michael, Körperkultur und Nationsbildung: Die Geschichte des Turnens in der Reichsgründungsära — eine Detailstudie über die Deutschen (Schorndorf, 1996)Google Scholar and Goltermann, , Körper der NationGoogle Scholar. Klenke's is the clearest formulation of the relationship between militarism and the gymnastics movement, although he does not examine practices as closely as does Krüger. Goltermann does not systematically examine militarism, but it plays a role in her analysis nonetheless.

6. See, for example, Cook, Chris, A Dictionary of Historical Terms (London, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Stargardt, Nicholas, The German Idea of Militarism: Radical and Socialist Critics, 1866–1914 (Cambridge, 1994), 22, 23.Google Scholar

8. Only Klenke, “Nationalkriegerisches Gemeinschaftsideal,” argues forcefully that this negative militarism predominated as early as the decade preceding unification.

9. See Greenfeld, Liah, Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge. Mass., 1992). 10–11.Google Scholar

10. From the early 1860s there were calls in the Württemberg chamber of deputies (Kammer der Abgeordneten) for a comprehensive arming of the people. Sauer, Paul, Revolution und Volksbewaffnung: Die Württembergische Bürgerwehren im 19. Jahrhundert, vor allem während der Revolution von 1848/49 (Ulm, 1976). 232, 233Google Scholar. The government eventually announced that it planned a gradual transition to a Volkswehr system. Petter, Wolfgang, “Deutscher Bund und deutsche Mittelstaaten,” in Handbuch zur deutschen Militärgeschichte, 1648–1939, vol. 4, Part 2, Militärgeschichte im: 19. Jahrlundert, 1814–1890. ed. Papke, G., (Munich, 1976) 226–301, 285–86.Google Scholar

11. Despite great popular resistance, the Prussian military model was adopted in 1868. Frevert, , “Das jakobinische Modell,” 43.Google Scholar

12. This is suggested by Goltermann's analysis, according to which it was changed ideas of freedom, in particular, that led to changes in both military ideals and gymnastics practices.

13. Voigt, Ferdinand, ed. Beiträige zur Feier des 25 jährigen Stiftungs-Festes der Turngemeinde in Berlin am 3. und 4. Mai 1873 (Berlin, 1873).Google Scholar

14. Many associations in all three cities practiced fencing in the period between the revolution and unification. In most associations, however, fencing was only offered on a voluntary basis, sometimes for an additional fee. In many associations it was periodically suspended or eventually discontinued for lack of interest. The value of fencing in combat (except, perhaps, for the cavalry) was surely increasingly limited as firearms became widespread. Over the course of the 1860s, firearms were also shown to be decisive in warfare.

15. Siegemund, Fritz, “Die Mark Brandenburg,” in Statistisches Jahrbuch der Turnvereine Deutschlands, ed. Hirth, Georg, (Leipzig, 1863), 25.Google Scholar

16. Fencing with bayonets might arguably have been useful training in battlefield hand-to-hand combat but very few gymnastics associations offered bayonet fencing. In the 1863 statistical year book, Siegemund reported that of the Berlin associations that did fencing, most offered the “German school,” that is, mostly sword or saber fencing (Hiebfechten) and a few offered fencing with foil or rapier (Stossfechten) (pp. 41, 42). There was almost no fencing with bayonets.

17. Deutsche Turn-Zeitung (hereafter DTZ) 9 (1863): 46–47.

18. Turnwesen in Berlin, GStAPK, I.HA Rep. 77, Tit. 925, 1721, Nr.2, Bd. 3, 30.3.1860–1919, Bl. 12.

19. Die auf Bewaffnung pp. der Turn-Vereine gerichteten Bestrebungen. Auch Schützenvereine. 9 July 1863–12 February 1864, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz (hereafter GStAPK), I.HA Rep. 77, CB, Tit.865, Nr.3, Bd.2, Bl. 235.

20. Siegemund, “Die Mark Brandenburg,” 25.Google Scholar

21. See note 18.

22. They were not allowed to admit secondary students or to hold armed meetings.

23. Brendicke, Hans, ed., Die Vereine des Berliner Turnraths, 1857–1882: Festschrift zur Feier des 25 jährigen Bestehens des Berliner Turnraths (Berlin, 1882).Google Scholar

24. Festschrift der Turngemeinde in Berlin zur Feier des 40. Stiftungsfestes am 16. und 17. Juni 1888 (Berlin, 1888), 4.Google Scholar

25. Festschrift zur Feier des 50jährigen Bestehens des Berliner Turn-Rallies (Berlin, 1907).Google Scholar

26. DTZ 6 (1864): 47.

27. See note 18, Bl. 172, 173.

28. Festschrift zur Feier des 50jährigen Bestehens des Berliner Turn-Rathes.

29. Turnwesen, GStAPK, I.HA Rep. 77, Tit. 925, 1720, Nr.1, Bd. 3, 1849–1861, Bl. 84.

30. Ibid., Turnwesen in Berlin, 1721, Nr.2, Bd.3, 30.3.1860–1919, Bl. 77.

31. Ueberhorst, , “Der Barrenstreit und sein politisch-historischer Hintergrund,” 3.Google Scholar

32. “Gymnastics and Military Capability, a General Solution,” DTZ 20 (1860): 111.Google Scholar

33. DTZ 15 (1860): 78.

34. “The Art of Turnen and the Military Constitution of the Fatherland.” Angerstein, Eduard, Massmann, Hans Ferdinand and Voigt, Ferdinand, Die Turnkunst und die Wehrverfassung im Vaterlande: Eine Denkschrift des Berliner Turnrathes, 3rd ed. (Berlin, 1860).Google Scholar

35. This circular was published in DTZ 2 (1861): 11.

36. Die deutsche Turnkunst und die Ling-Rothsteinische Gymnastik: Zweite Denkschrift des Berliner Turnrathes (Berlin, 1861)Google Scholar in GStAPK, I.HA Rep. 77, Tit. 925, Nr.2a., Bl. 3.

37. Hirth, Georg, Das gesamte Turnwesen: Ein Lesebuch für deutsche Turner, ed. and expanded by Gasch, Rudolf, (Hof, [1865] 1893), 123.Google Scholar

38. DTZ 25 (1865): 198–99.

39. DTZ 50 (1865): 398–99.

40. Sauer, , Revolution und Volksbewaffnung, 97.Google Scholar

41. Rauschnabel, Gustav, Geschichte des Männerturnvereins Stuttgart: Festschrift zur Feier seines 50jährigen Bestehens (Stuttgart, 1893), 29.Google Scholar

42. Abschrift. Eingabe der schwäbischen Männerturngemeinde betreffend eine Organisation des Turn- und Wehr-Wesens, Hauptstaatsarchiv (hereafter HSTA) Stuttgart, E 202, Bü. 488.

43. Sauer, , Revolution und Volksbewaffnung, 222.Google Scholar

44. The government's support of the gymnasts' military activities fell short of officially sanctioning them, however. In 1863, the Swabian gymnasts' union, through Georgii, petitioned the government officially to approve the military exercises that many of the associations had already made a regular part of their practice and to lift the ban on the existence of armed associations. DTZ 51 (1863): 357. The interior ministry ignored the petition. Sauer, , Revolution und Volksbewaffnung, 232Google Scholar; see also HSTA Stuttgart, E 146, Bü. 4197.

45. Petter, , “Deutscher Bund,” 226–301, 285–86.Google Scholar

46. Sauer, , Revolution und Volksbewaffnung, 231.Google Scholar

47. DTZ 13 (1859): 58–59.

48. DTZ 1 (1861): 1–5.

49. Archiv des Männerturnvereins (hereafter AdMTV) Stuttgart, Protokollbuch 1860.

50. This was a voluntary association composed of men who were too young to serve in the military but wanted to prepare themselves for military service. According to one report, the members of the Jugendwehr were from the upper classes. Der vierte deutsche Turnlehrertag. Beschrieben von G. H. Weber, HSTA Stuttgart, E 202, Bü. 487, (Published by J. Knorr, n.d.). According to a report in the Deutsche Turn-Zeitung, however, the Jugendwehr was made up of three companies, one composed of students from a polytechnic school (Polytechniker) and secondary school (Gymnasium) students, and the other two made up of merchants and craftsmen. DTZ 33 (1864): 261.

51. Schneider, Carl, Die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816: Festschrift zum 75jährigen Stifungsfeste, 2. September 1891 (Hamburg, 1891), 95.Google Scholar

52. Dölker, F., Geschichte des Turnerbunds Stuttgart: Festschrift zur Feier seines 25jährigen Bestehens (Stuttgart, 1892), 49.Google Scholar

53. Der Bcobachter 291 (13 December 1863): 1163.

54. Rauschnabel, , Geschichte des Männerturnvereins Stuttgart, 50.Google Scholar

55. DTZ 10 (1864): 78.

56. Rauschnabel, , Geschichte des Männerturnvereins Stuttgart, 50.Google Scholar

57. AdMTV Stuttgart, Protokollbuch 1864.

58. Ibid., 1865.

59. Dölker, , Geschichte des Turnerbunds Stuttgart, 3.Google Scholar

60. AdMTV Stuttgart, Protokollbuch 1865.

61. Ibid., 1866.

62. Der Beobachter 273 (22 November 1866).

63. Der Beobachter 24 (29 January 1867).

64. Der Beobachter 20 (24 January 1867); Dölker, , Geschichte des Turnerbunds Stuttgart, 7Google Scholar. This endeavor was clearly supported by the state, which granted the association permission to use the state gymnastics hall.

65. Der Beobachter 24 (29 January 1867).

66. Dölker, , Geschichte des Turnerbunds Stuttgart, 9.Google Scholar

67. Sauer, , Revolution und Volksbewaffnung, 233.Google Scholar

68. AdMTV Stuttgart, Protokollbuch 1868, 1871.

69. Dölker, , Geschichte des Turnerbunds Stuttgart, 13.Google Scholar

70. AdMTV Stuttgart, Protokollbuch 1870.

71. Der Beobachter 260 (8 November 1871).

72. DTZ 16 (1861): 79.

73. DTZ 19 (1861): 93–94.

74. Der Beobachter 135 (1860): 537–38. It is interesting to note that in the late 1860s, gymnastics with apparatus in the Württemberg army was reserved for the higher classes of military men. Goetz, F., and Böhme, A. F., eds., Drittes statistisches Jahrbuch der Deutschen Turnerschaft (Leipzig, 1871). 51.Google Scholar

75. “Der vierte deutsche Turnlehrertag.”

76. Kloss, Moritz, ed., Die vierte Versammlung deutscher Turnlehrer zu Stuttgart am 1.–3. August 1867 (Dresden, 1867), 1.Google Scholar

77. “Der vierte deutsche Turnlehrertag,” 756.

78. Euler, Carl, Geschichte des Turnunterrichts, ed. Kehr, C., (Gotha, 1891), 464–65.Google Scholar

79. Euler, Carl, ed., Encyklopädisches Handbuch des gesamten Turnwesens und der verwandten Gebiete, 3 vol. (Leipzig, 1894–1896), 157, 266.Google Scholar

80. Der Beobachter 20 (24 January 1867). One occupation was not listed.

81. Der Beobachter 13 (16 January 1867).

82. AdMTV Stuttgart, Protokollbuch 1864.

83. Der Beobachter 22 (26 January 1867).

84. DTZ 39 (1863): 258–59.

85. It was dissolved on 15 February 1851. Varia Impressa betr. die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, Staatsarchiv (hereafter STA) Hamburg, 111–1, Cl VII, Lit. Qd, No. 43, Vol. 9 (1886–1888).

86. Schneider, , Die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, 91.Google Scholar

87. DTZ 15 (1859): 71–72.

88. DTZ 21 (1860): 123.

89. DTZ 30 (1861): 151.

90. Loose, Hans-Dieter, Hamburg: Geschichte der Stadt und ihre Bewohner, vol. 1, Jochmann, W. and Loose, H.-D., eds., Von den Anfängen bis zur Reichsgründung (Hamburg, 1982), 502Google Scholar; Kutz-Bauer, Helga, Arbeiterschaft, Arbeiterbewegung und bürgerlicher Staat in der Zeit der grossen Depression: Einc regional und sozialgeschichtliche Studie zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung im Grossraum Hamburg. 1873–1890 (Bonn, 1988), 423.Google Scholar

91. Kutz-Bauer, , Arbeiterschaft, Arbeiterbewegung und bürgerlicher Staat, 424.Google Scholar

92. Jochmann, and Loose, , Hamburg: Geschichte der Stadt, 502.Google Scholar

93. Hamburger Turnerbund von 1862. 25jähriges …, p. 4.

94. Strauss, Wilhelm, Festschrift zum 50jährigen Stiftungsfeste der Turnerschaft des Bildungs- Vereins für Arbeiter in Hamburg am 28. März 1896 (Hamburg, 1896), 12.Google Scholar

95. Festschrift, 25 jähriges Stiftungsfest des Hamburg-St. Pauli Turnvereins …, p. 7.

96. Ibid., 96.

97. Schneider, , Die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, 96.Google Scholar

98. Ibid., 97, 98; Seidler, Thomas, “Die Bedeutung der Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816 für die Einheitsbewegung und die Entwicklung traditionellen Vereinsturnens in Deutschland (1816–1866),” (Diplomarbeit, Hamburg, 1991), 91.Google Scholar

99. Schneider, , Die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, 97Google Scholar. See also DTZ 1 (1864): 7–8.

100. Zimmermann, Hans Joachim, “Die Entwicklung der Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816 als Spiegelbild der Zeitgeschichte und der Geschichte der Leibesübungen,” (Diplomarbeit, Sporthochschule Köln, 1959–1960), 29.Google Scholar

101. Schneider, , Die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, 98.Google Scholar

102. STA Hamburg, Cl VII, Lit. Qd, Nr.43, Vol. 5, Bl. 5.

103. Schneider, , Die Hamburger Turnerschaft von 1816, 98.Google Scholar

104. DTZ 15 (1859): 71–72.

105. Körperliche Erziehung, Allgememes 1868–1931, STA Hamburg, 361–2V, 625a Bd. la.

106. The form of military training in the armies of Hamburg, Württemberg, and Prussia emphasized military drill. Gymnastics designed for use in the army in Prussia was very much like drill, and Hamburg and Württemberg's armies were eventually absorbed into a larger army dominated by Prussia and adopted its forms of military organization and training.

107. Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York, 1979), 141–69.Google Scholar

108. Smart, Barry, Michel Foucault (New York, 1985), 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

109. Foucault, , Discipline and Punish, 137, 138.Google Scholar

110. Ibid., 218–22.

111. For a detailed discussion of this argument see Dencker, Berit Elisabeth, “Embodying the Nation: The Apolitical Politics of the German Gymnastics Movement, 1850–1871,” (Ph.D. Dis., University of California, San Diego, 2000).Google Scholar