纳粹的宪法设计:国务秘书会议与吞并中东欧

IF 0.4 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY European History Quarterly Pub Date : 2024-04-09 DOI:10.1177/02656914241237731
Darren O’Byrne
{"title":"纳粹的宪法设计:国务秘书会议与吞并中东欧","authors":"Darren O’Byrne","doi":"10.1177/02656914241237731","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the state secretaries’ meetings as an instrument of government in Nazi Germany. They are mostly known as the forum at which the infamous Wannsee Conference took place, but here the 20 January 1942 meeting will be situated in a context previously ignored by historians by showing that such gatherings were an increasingly regular occurrence during the ‘Third Reich’, and that a range of policy issues were discussed there – not just mass murder. As such, it will shed new light on how the ‘Hitler state’ functioned at this level by showing that Wannsee was not entirely extraordinary, the format having become established practice long before 1942. Similarly, the article will also show that the jurisdictional conflicts that played out at Wannsee were equally common, with participants generally jockeying for influence and advancing claims to departmental authority. Indeed, although they effectively replaced cabinet meetings, which were formally banned by Hitler in 1938, the state secretaries’ meetings did little to salvage collegial government. To illustrate this, a series of meetings called to coordinate the government's response to a particular issue will be examined – the annexation of ‘Greater German’ territories in Austria, the Sudetenland and Poland. As will be shown throughout, very little was achieved by way of coordination, with the state secretaries only advancing those constitutional designs that served their ministries’ claims to power.","PeriodicalId":44713,"journal":{"name":"European History Quarterly","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nazi Constitutional Designs: The State Secretaries’ Meetings and the Annexation of East Central Europe\",\"authors\":\"Darren O’Byrne\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02656914241237731\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article examines the state secretaries’ meetings as an instrument of government in Nazi Germany. They are mostly known as the forum at which the infamous Wannsee Conference took place, but here the 20 January 1942 meeting will be situated in a context previously ignored by historians by showing that such gatherings were an increasingly regular occurrence during the ‘Third Reich’, and that a range of policy issues were discussed there – not just mass murder. As such, it will shed new light on how the ‘Hitler state’ functioned at this level by showing that Wannsee was not entirely extraordinary, the format having become established practice long before 1942. Similarly, the article will also show that the jurisdictional conflicts that played out at Wannsee were equally common, with participants generally jockeying for influence and advancing claims to departmental authority. Indeed, although they effectively replaced cabinet meetings, which were formally banned by Hitler in 1938, the state secretaries’ meetings did little to salvage collegial government. To illustrate this, a series of meetings called to coordinate the government's response to a particular issue will be examined – the annexation of ‘Greater German’ territories in Austria, the Sudetenland and Poland. As will be shown throughout, very little was achieved by way of coordination, with the state secretaries only advancing those constitutional designs that served their ministries’ claims to power.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44713,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European History Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European History Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02656914241237731\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European History Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02656914241237731","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文探讨了作为纳粹德国政府工具的国务秘书会议。人们大多知道臭名昭著的万湖会议就是在这里召开的,但在这里,1942 年 1 月 20 日的会议将被置于一个以前被历史学家忽视的背景下,说明在 "第三帝国 "时期,此类会议越来越经常地召开,会议讨论了一系列政策问题,而不仅仅是大屠杀。因此,这篇文章将对 "希特勒国家 "如何在这一层面运作产生新的启示,说明万湖会议并非完全非同寻常,这种形式早在 1942 年之前就已成为惯例。同样,文章还将说明,在万湖会议上发生的管辖权冲突也同样常见,与会者一般都在争夺影响力和部门权力。事实上,虽然内阁会议于 1938 年被希特勒正式禁止,但国务秘书会议却有效地取代了内阁会议,几乎没有挽救合议制政府。为了说明这一点,我们将对一系列旨在协调政府对特定问题--吞并奥地利、苏台德地区和波兰的 "大德意志 "领土--的反应的会议进行研究。正如整个会议所显示的那样,协调工作收效甚微,国务秘书们只推进了那些有利于其部委权力要求的宪法设计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Nazi Constitutional Designs: The State Secretaries’ Meetings and the Annexation of East Central Europe
This article examines the state secretaries’ meetings as an instrument of government in Nazi Germany. They are mostly known as the forum at which the infamous Wannsee Conference took place, but here the 20 January 1942 meeting will be situated in a context previously ignored by historians by showing that such gatherings were an increasingly regular occurrence during the ‘Third Reich’, and that a range of policy issues were discussed there – not just mass murder. As such, it will shed new light on how the ‘Hitler state’ functioned at this level by showing that Wannsee was not entirely extraordinary, the format having become established practice long before 1942. Similarly, the article will also show that the jurisdictional conflicts that played out at Wannsee were equally common, with participants generally jockeying for influence and advancing claims to departmental authority. Indeed, although they effectively replaced cabinet meetings, which were formally banned by Hitler in 1938, the state secretaries’ meetings did little to salvage collegial government. To illustrate this, a series of meetings called to coordinate the government's response to a particular issue will be examined – the annexation of ‘Greater German’ territories in Austria, the Sudetenland and Poland. As will be shown throughout, very little was achieved by way of coordination, with the state secretaries only advancing those constitutional designs that served their ministries’ claims to power.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: European History Quarterly has earned an international reputation as an essential resource on European history, publishing articles by eminent historians on a range of subjects from the later Middle Ages to post-1945. European History Quarterly also features review articles by leading authorities, offering a comprehensive survey of recent literature in a particular field, as well as an extensive book review section, enabling you to keep up to date with what"s being published in your field. The journal also features historiographical essays.
期刊最新文献
Book Review: Behind the Wall: My Brother, My Family and Hatred in East Germany by Ines Geipel Book Review: The Maker of Pedigrees: Jakob Wilhelm Imhoff and the Meanings of Modern Genealogy in Early Modern Europe by Markus Friedrich Book Review: Publishing in Tsarist Russia: A History of Print Media from Enlightenment to Revolution by Yukiko Tatsumi and Taro Tsurumi, eds Book Review: Ensnared between Hitler and Stalin: Refugee Scientists in the USSR by David Zimmerman Book Review: A Badge of Injury: The Pink Triangle as Global Symbol of Memory by Sébastien Tremblay
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1