The Prussian Wochenblatt Party and its Allies, 1851-1871

The Prussian Wochenblatt Party, whose name refers to the weekly initiated by its leaders, was solidified in early 1851, following the adoption of the constitution of 1850, dissolvement of the Erfurt Union and restoration of the Holy Alliance, as a constructive opposition to Otto von Manteuffel’s cabinet.

This was not a mass party in the modern sense; but an “executive circle”: a network of top officials, members of parliament, officers and professors – predominated by nobles with proximity to the ruling Hohenzollern dynasty – who advocated distinct policies in coordination. This type of politics corresponded to the semi-absolutist nature of the Prussian constitutional monarchy as well as to the “Era of Reaction”, which suppressed political speech and political organization.

Despite posing the most direct and operative threat to the rule of the Junkers and their financiers during the „Era of Unification“, the Wochenblatt Party and its allies have yet to be examined as such in historical scholar­ship. By addressing this gap, my research will contribute to a deeper understanding of this era.

The main question of my study concerns the extent to which the Prussian Wochenblatt Party and its allies were aligned with specific social forces and interests, if at all. A satisfactory answer to this question can reignite the theoretical debate about the amount of autonomy of decision-makers, and more broadly, the state, vis-à-vis society. This conundrum has occupied great minds in the 20th century, and has faded away without a satisfactory conclusion following the fall of the communist regimes.

This study is part of a growing trend in Germany to bring back political history within political institutions and restore an international outlook, without losing sight of the constraints that structures, Zeitgeist, and culture place before decision-makers. This approach is by no means new or innovative, but simply remains loyal to that of Lenin, who once said:

“Our revolutionary predecessors, the Narodniks, thought that the heroic man, or the great mind, makes history. The Mensheviks think that history is the product of material forces acting through the processes of evolution. I think, with Marx, that man makes history, but within the conditions, and with the materials, given by the corresponding period of civilization. And man can be a tremendous social force!”

The methodology of this study is objectivist and inductive, as described succinctly by the late historian Keith Windschuttle: “Historical explanations are based on the movement of events over time, and their conclusions come from the evidence the historian finds during research into the subject.”