CASE.EDU:    HOME | DIRECTORIES | SEARCH
case western reserve university

Page Expired

 

The page you are attempting to view may be out-of-date.

The page in question has not been verified by its author in quite some time.

If the information provided on the page is time sensitive, it is possible that it is no longer accurate. To ensure that you receive the most current information, we recommend you contact the page's author. He or she can verify whether the information is correct and/or direct you to a more up-to-date page.

Continue to the requested page.

isemitic events. They distanced themselves from the violence “whilst indirectly endorsing it as the understandable response of a people mistreated by the Jews” (p. 114).

              These findings are important and well-documented. They confirm what previous studies have shown about the Conservatives’ use of calculated ambivalence vis-à-vis antisemitism in general and share new light on the crucial topic of Conservative attitudes towards anti-Jewish violence. What do these findings mean for the history of German antisemitism? Weinberg suggests that there was a greater continuity than previously thought between the Kaiserreich and the turbulent period after the First World War with respect to the “readiness to accept and use collective anti-Jewish violence.” This is a difficult point to prove, and Weinberg’s analysis, focusing just on the two years of 1881 and 1882, provides no basis for such a sweeping thesis. Moreover, it seems to me that Weinberg is overstating her case. How can she be so sure that the condemnation of violence in the conservative papers, however superficially meant, did not have an effect at all? That the conservative papers in their anti-liberal and anti-modern zest, tried to legitimize antisemitism, is beyond doubt. But whether this includes a justification of riots and pogroms is more questionable, and Weinberg’s reading, which schematically classifies negative or ambivalent statements as plain justification of anti-Jewish violence, is not really convincing.

Christhard Hoffmann

University of Bergen, Norway