Why the history of the Hitler putsch is still being mistold today

It was 99 years ago that the first German republic had to face crises that made our current problems seem insignificant. The French occupied the Ruhr area, and coal became scarce in the rest of Germany. Resistance to occupation fueled hyperinflation. In Munich, a certain Adolf Hitler staged a coup, in Saxony, Thuringia and Hamburg, communists rehearsed an uprising on Moscow's instructions.

But I don't want to write about that here; this introduction is only intended to explain why, in preparation for the anniversary year, I am reading Peter Reichel's book "Rettung der Republik? Germany in the crisis year 1923”. Professor Reichel, born in 1942, is considered an expert on the Nazi era on the one hand and the – to put it mildly – ​​difficult history of the Weimar Republic on the other. Because of his clear rejection of all radical tendencies, whether left or right - which is not a matter of course among academics of his generation - his new book is a pleasant if strenuous read.

An error that I consider significant is all the more annoying. In his description of the history of the Hitler putsch, Reichel goes into the origin of "Bavaria's civil war", which he sees in the murder of the Jewish Prime Minister Kurt Eisner on February 21, 1919. On the way to the state parliament, "Eisner, who probably had the declaration of resignation with him, was shot dead in the head by the Jewish right-wing extremist and infantry lieutenant Anton von Arco-Valley at close range."

Moment: Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley a "Jewish right-wing extremist"? A footnote explains: “The mother was a née Oppenheim; she came from a family of bankers in Cologne.” But you have to take a closer look here. Arco-Valley had a Jewish grandfather from the Oppenheim family. He married a Protestant woman and accepted her religion.

The daughter, Arco-Valley's mother, was therefore neither Jewish according to Halacha, nor would she have been according to the racial laws of the Nazis. Arco-Valley was raised Catholic according to his father's beliefs. He justified the assassination attempt on Eisner as follows: “I am a loyal monarchist, a good Catholic. Above all, I respect the honor of Bavaria. (Eisner) is a Bolshevik. he is jew He's not German, he doesn't feel German..."

Reichel blames the first explicitly anti-Semitic assassination attempt in the Weimar Republic, which was to be followed by others, on an alleged Jew. According to Reichel, the victim was "not just the most popular, he was also the most dangerous politician" in Bavaria.

Because as a martyr he “polarized the politicized masses”. The radicalization finally culminated in the Hitler Putsch of 1923. With all due respect, Herr Professor: This is perpetrator-victim reversal of the worst kind. Of course, Reichel is not an anti-Semite. At times, however, "it" speaks from unlikely mouths. And at Hanser-Verlag, which publishes the book, nobody noticed anything. It's all a long time ago.