Dueling Students

Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote if you are so inclined - https://www.amazon.com/review/R3EYA8J6TAX8NX/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm

Dueling Students: Conflict, Masculinity, and Politics in German Universities, 1890-1914 (Social History, Popular Culture, and Politics in Germany) by Lisa Zwicker

This is essentially a doctoral thesis with limited appeal for the non-specialist reader.

I found it fascinating.

I found it fascinating for two reasons. First, for twenty years of my life I was a competitive fence, and I had always wondered about the academic dueling of Germany. Second, I have read other sources that indicate that the fencing corps provide an insight into the treatment of Catholics in German society.

Lisa Zwicker's book doesn't provide much information about the mechanics of academic dueling. There are some videos online, which show that it is nothing like the sport I engaged in. Basically, German academic dueling involved standing an arm's length from an opponent and practicing head cuts and parries with sabers sharpened to surgical precision.

The pay-off involves my second interest, but it takes a while to lay the groundwork to get there.

Zwicker's book does provide a nice overview of the social dynamics of academic dueling. The wearing of colors, the honor code that prohibited the rejection of challenges, and the elitism that attracted German students to the corps are all important details of German university life between 1870 and 1920. The Corps promoted the tradition of student libertinism, with drinking and skirt-chasing being a rite of passage for young men of privilege.

Zwicker points out that the Corps were in competition with other organizations for prestige and student allegiance. Among these student organizations were the Burschenschafts, which were student organizations with a history of German nationalism, and the Free Students, which attempted to claim to represent all students. The fraternities, or Corps, were Protestant and Conservative. The Burschenschaft and Free Students were less dogmatically sectarian and liberal, but they committed to German nationalism and unification as part of their essential DNA, which made them inherently anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic. The Free Student evolution uncannily presages the university life in 21st century America. Free Students sought to represent all students on the basis of tolerance, which traditionally meant that “all views should be heard,” but came to mean that anti-Semites and radical conservatives were excluded. (DS p. 92-93.) Zwicker notes that the “Academic Kulturkampf” before World War I brought to the surface the ideological contradictions of their movement when their principles of tolerance and equality collided with the prejudice against Catholics. (DS, p. 191.) In response, in 1908, Catholics began to form Catholic Free Student chapters. (DS, p. 191.)


Anti-Semitism during this period among academics was social and conventional. Jews were excluded from some aspects of fraternity life on religious rather than ethnic criteria. (DS p. 114-115.) Student memoirs provide evidence that antisemitism did not play a central role in many students' university years, although one should be careful about memoirs where the author chooses to forget slights of the past. Nonetheless, these memoirs do tend to show that Jews viewed their university years as an “extremely happy period.” (DS, p. 113.) Zwicker observes:

“Although the declarations of Jewish fraternities that they had overcome antisemitism should be read with caution, evidence suggests that the academic climate for Jewish students at universities improved in the final two decades before World War I. Reflecting on his studies in 1912, Fritz Goldschmidt claimed that Jewish students only seldom experienced prejudice. As will be discussed in the next chapter, even the anti-Semitic Union of German Students began to suppress some of its anti-Semitic propaganda. The sense that antisemitism was fading in importance also was felt in other parts of German society. Intermarriage statistics show an increase of Jewish and Christian men and women united in matrimony. After his trip to the United States in 1905, the sociologist Werner Sombart claimed that social antisemitism (gesellschaftliche Antisemitismus) “was much stronger in the United states than could be observed in Germany.” (DS, p. 115 – 116.)

Antisemitism had become gauche:

“By the turn of the century, antisemitism and anti-Jewish rhetoric at universities were often seen as inappropriate, probably tainted by the tawdriness of the anti-Semitic political parties. Antisemitic politicians were often forced to appear in court or face charges of fraud, embezzlement, slander, perjury, or incitement to class hatred and violence. The historian of antisemitism, Richard Levy, counts 5,347 antisemites accused in court between 1893 and 1915, who were sentenced collectively to 135 years in prison and fines of 56,200 Marks plus court costs. No important anti-Semitic politician escaped conviction.” (DS, p. 126.)

At the same time, America was instituting anti-Jewish quotas and limiting membership in college fraternities to Christians. (DS p. 138.)

Anti-Catholicism, however, was virulent and deeply personal; academics viewed Catholics as not belonging in universities because of their superstition and their church's anti-liberal policies:

“Like liberals in national politics, many Burschenschaft men were spurred to involve themselves in elector politics because of their hostility to Catholicism. Burschenschaft writers argued that the Burschenschaft were “for freedom to learn and freedom to teach and were ready to fight all that challenged freedom at universities, especially the Catholic fraternities.” They claimed that the devout Catholic could not research freely but instead had two choices: he could “act in a way that is not scholarly or violated the requirements of the church.” Burschenschaft writers claimed that “ultramontanism is the most dangerous enemy of Germandom and every German-thinking individual – be he Protestant, Catholic, or those who belong to no confession – must fiercely battle this enemy.” (DS, p. 71-72.)

This orientation ameliorated anti-Semitism since Jews could be counted on as liberal allies against Catholicism. Zwicker points to a 1908 speech on the “liberal voices of the Burschenschaft” by a Professor Goetz:

“Goetz emphasized liberals' embrace of tolerance as a principle – all citizens should have equal rights under the law. These were principles, according to Goetz that all members of the Center opposed and all liberal agreed upon – be they Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. Goetz here includes Jews as part of his liberal champions who battle the Center party. This explicit discussion of the unity of all liberals – including Jews – provides another sharp contrast with the Burschenschaft antisemitism of the 1890s and links the Burschenschaft of this period to liberal Burschenschaft men of the mid-nineteenth century.” (p. 72.)

While previously anti-Semitic groups like the Union of German Students moved away from antisemitism, they maintained their anti-Catholic orientation:

“At the same time, other evidence suggests that by the eve of World War I, even the Union was moving away from antisemitism and its associated hostility to liberal politics. A 1907 article pointed to “international Ultramontanism and international Social Democracy” as the main threats facing Germany, with no mention of Jews or the Jewish community.” (DS, p. 134.)

In addition, Jewish male students dueled (DS p. 111-112), while Catholics were prohibited by their Church from dueling. (DS, p. 185.) This permitted Jews to claim honor, albeit Protestant Corps often refused to duel with Jewish Corps. (DS p. 110 – 111.) Catholics redefined “manliness” to mean “fortitude.” (DS, p. 186.)

Zwicker calls the period before World War I the “Academic Kulturkampf.” (DS, p. 165.) Catholics had been subjected to substantial discrimination in the period between 1870 and 1890, but even after 1900, Catholics were not in parity with Protestants. Thus, although 34 percent of the Prussian population was Catholic, Catholics made up only 20% of students. (DS p. 145.) Likewise:

“Comparing the Catholic population to the number of high-level civil servants, Bachem and Hankamer estimate that between 1888 and 1914, Catholics were underrepresented as high-level civil servants by 10.6 percent, Protestants overrepresented by 9 percent and Jews overrepresented by 1 percent. In Prussia, Catholic underrepresentation among civil servants was even more dramatic with 17 percent, Protestant overrepresentation at 14 percent, and Jewish overrepresentation at 2 percent. Catholics were also excluded from the highest levels of power; of ninety chancellors, sate secretaries, and ministers of Prussia and Germany, only six were Catholics.” (DS, p. 146.)

German records revealed comments about individual Catholics being “not Ultramontane” or “reliable in church political matters.” (DS p. 146.)

In 1906, Chancellor von Bulow dissolved the Reichstag. The Hottentot election presaged the anti-Catholicism that would emerge in the universities three years later. (DS, p. 165.) In universities, student leaders argued that Catholic fraternities threatened the ideal of open inquiry, in light of the Catholic acceptance of the Syllabus of Errors and the Index of Forbidden Books, and that Catholic fraternities were affiliated with the Catholic Center political party. In the period before World War I, anti-Catholic leaders of the “Academic Kulturkampf” created new anti-Catholic institutions for student representation. (DS, p. 165.) Liberalism and nationalism informed the new Kulturkampf:

“In their concern about the Center Party, students were following the lead of many Protestant liberals. In their Taschenbuch (Handbook) even as late as 1911, National Liberals went even further in their attacks on the Center Party. They described it as a “foreign body in German national and political life” and “a party with un-German and international tendencies, ready at any time to jin with the deadly enemies of the Empire and of Germandom.” (DS, p. 168.)

Zwicky makes a point about the Center Party that is obvious but which I have never seen made elsewhere:

“After the 1903 elections returned the Social Democrats in large numbers, the Center proved an essential part of any majority coalition. The Center decided if the Reichstag majority would be formed the right or the left, and it also cast the decisive votes on legislation. Moreover, because the Center paryt was a Catholic prty and could never reach more voters than one-third of the population that was Catholic, it could never claim to represent the whole of the German nation. In Margaret Anderson's words, “Thus it was not just a party among parties, but the very embodiment of party.” The power of the Center Party was symbolic of the divisive nature of politics in general.” (DS, p. 169.)

The overlap of nationalism and Catholicism was clear. “Student newspapers followed the “Los von Rom” movement, in which German Austrians converted to Protestantism to demonstrate their “German” identity. In conversion, they dramatically declared their disapproval of Hapsburg concessions to Czech and other Slavic minorities. In Graz, 40 percent of those who converted in the Los von Rom movement were students.” (DS p. 169.) In Mein Kampf, Hitler cited these issues as foundational to National Socialism.

Catholic students were mocked as prudes (DS, p. 172). “All these criticisms increased already existing prejudices against Catholics.” (DS, p. 172.) Catholic sacraments were parodied by Protestant fraternity members in Jena on Ash Wednesday. (DS, p. 173.) Catholic fraternities were described as “foreign bodies.” (DS, p. 173.) “During this period of international tensions and increasing conflict between Catholics and Protestants, students set out to make their contribution to the nation and defend academic freedom at universities.” (DS, p. 173.)

During this period that Catholics were described as a “foreign body” within student life by dueling Corps, Jews made progress to assimilation. Catholic organizations were excluded, while Jewish organizations received official seats.

“Thus, one historian of Jewish fraternities argued that “for Jewish students this anti-Catholic movement resulted in progress toward social equality.' Like their Protestant contemporaries, these Jewish students embraced the Academic Kulturkampf because they believed that Catholics “submit to the authority of the Pope in Rome and follow their own separate ultamontane and anti-German politics. At Berlin, Jewish organizations also took part in the Academic Kulturkampf coalition.” (DS, p. 187.)

The Battle at Universities proved especially attractive for Jewish students because it redefined the relationship between religion and national identity.” (DS, p. 187.)

Ultimately, this is a fascinating book that threatens to dramatically redefine our understanding of the Catholic response to the National Socialist movement. When I began reading on the subject, I wondered why texts examining the Catholic response never mentioned the Kulturkampf, except to suggest that Catholicism could have offered a stronger resistance to the Nazis. The implication was that the Kulturkampf was irrelevant to the memory of Catholics in the 1930s, notwithstanding the fact that Catholics in their 50s would have experienced the Kulturkampf as children. This book suggests that many Catholic and Nazi leaders would have experienced the new Academic Kulturkampf as students before World War I, or at least their older brothers would have.

Also, the link between liberalism, nationalism and anti-Catholicism is interesting. We see some of the linkage – using the same themes – between liberalism and anti-Catholicism among liberal institutions today. Likewise, a lot of the Academic Kulturkampf themes that Catholics were a “foreign body” in Germany were picked up by the Nazis.

Finally, the relative directions of anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism is fascinating. It is hardly surprising or unprecedented to find that a “minor minority” becomes favored at the expense of a “larger minority,” but given the events of the Nazi period, this event seems surprising. Reading Zwicker's book alone, without more knowledge, one would have expected the heavy hand of persecution to fall on Catholics, not Jews, in the future. Of course, both Catholics and Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, but as others have noted, the recrudescence of Nazi antisemitism ran against the progressive assimilation of Jews into German society. While antisemitism was declasse, anti-Catholicism, on the other hand, was a trope that was acceptable in all the best circles.