Democracy in Crisis: Weimar Germany, 1929-1932

German Language and Pronunciation

Many German terms are traditionally retained in the original. However, German can be difficult. If you know a few rules and if you can spell it, you might be able to pronounce it, though, since German spelling is phonetic. German is more guttural and consonantal than English: d and t and b are pronounced hard; all syllables are pronounced fully (no silent vowels). The best way to figure it out is to go to an online guide with audio examples. Unfortunately, German also creates complex nouns, adding multiple words together, making pronunciation even more challenging. Words such as Bildungsbürgertum or Katastrophenpolitik challenge the non-native speaker beyond any phonetic problems.

1

Introduction

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE GAME

Democracy in Crisis takes place in the Reichstag (parliament) of Germany’s highly democratic republic after World War I (WWI). You are (mostly) delegates to the Reichstag representing over a dozen different factions, mostly organized in political parties. Your task is to shape Germany into your character’s vision by passing or preventing legislation, or, if that fails, perhaps by resorting to other means—violence, bribery, demagoguery, obstructionism.

Reichstag (Imperial Diet, or Diet of the Realm) may refer to the building or the constitutional assembly. The term has ancient roots in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation in the Middle Ages.

Each character is closely identified with a specific ideology, or, perhaps better stated, with a holistic Weltanschaung—an overarching perception of reality and the framework of ideas and beliefs through which your character interprets the world and interacts with it.

Democracy in Crisis explores how a liberal democracy responds to extreme pressures including ideological extremism, populist demagoguery, partisan gridlock, economic dislocation, revanchism and irredentism, constitutional crisis, political violence, entrenched special interests, and corruption. These pressures all converged in Germany after WWI. The results were not positive.

Revanchism and irredentism both refer to the desire and attempts to reverse the outcome of war (in this case, WWI) and recover lost territory or historically claimed territory.

The Big Issues: The Limits of Democracy

What happens in democratic societies where democracy fails to produce working majorities or promote the interests of citizens?

By the twentieth century, Western societies had developed holistic ideologies promoted by well-organized political parties that drew broad layers of the citizenry into the political rituals of mass society. These ideologies did not remain mere abstractions; instead, millions fought for them by rallying to their platforms, symbols, and personalities as forms of mass participatory political culture emerged. All of the major ideologies of the twentieth century clashed openly in post–WWI Germany during the so-called Weimar Republic (1919–33).

Under the burdens of a global capitalist crisis, national humiliation, and the unraveling of prewar consensus, traditional German parties struggled to provide viable answers.

Each party promoted a specific ideology and pulled Germans in different directions, often refusing to compromise with or even recognize other parties. As the conservative Austrian scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote in 1943:

Catholic Centrists wanted to create conditions in Germany which would make it easier for the individuals to save their souls; Socialists denied the existence of souls and divided people into classes; the German Nationalists were interested in language and culture; while the National Socialists put the main stress on race.

Whereas some looked at pocketbooks, others at the pigmentation of the skin or the index of the skull, fruitful discussions became impossible. When the speaker of one party indulged in his oratory, the others walked out. It was not worthwhile to listen to somebody’s opinion when you knew that his premises were all wrong. The grim determination to silence the unconvincible enemy by execution or imprisonment already existed prior to 1933 in many parties.¹

In short, Germans often regarded those who disagreed with them as either ignorant fools or charlatans who misunderstood or distorted the most basic nature of society and therefore could only reach absurd conclusions totally at odds with reality. Opponents became enemies and traitors. This logic dictated that one’s opponents should have no role in political life. Statements of principle mattered more than the pragmatic concessions essential to democracy. The numerous political parties reflected and reinforced this fractured reality inside the Reichstag.

Compromises, which were essential because no party possessed a stable parliamentary majority, alienated the parties’ purist ideologues, opening the door to radical alternatives that did not fit into a liberal democratic concept. As Germans viewed every social, cultural, diplomatic, legal, economic, and constitutional issue through these different ideological lenses, every issue became a matter of principle and identity—compromise became defeat.

Perhaps, had the only issue been one of ideology, the Republic might have survived, but the Republic’s birth had been painful, and the ensuing years offered little respite. Germans were stunned by their loss in WWI, angered by the Versailles Treaty, and confused by the new domestic realities. Fueled by conspiracy theories, revanchism and reaction simmered at a near boil.

Special interests created additional instability by finding ways to subvert democracy through extraparliamentary means, including political violence. Severe economic hardship exacerbated already pronounced economic dislocations in both industry and agriculture. And Germans argued over definitions of citizenship and, in particular, who deserved civil rights: Jews? Those of African descent? The handicapped? Political dissenters?

As a result, one of the distinct aspects of the Republic was its lack of any political discursive commonality. Almost every member of the Reichstag was part of the Bildungsbürgertum (a term roughly meaning the educated professional middle class), who shared a common cultural fluency grounded in the Western Christian and German cultural traditions, but little else held them together aside from citizenship. In fact, they bitterly disagreed over the meaning of even the most basic political and cultural terms. German society had become siloed—a single nation in which separate subcultures sought to avoid influences from the others.

What to Call the Weimar Republic

Germany is the universal translation of Deutschland (literally, Land of the Germans). Before 1871, it referred only to a cultural region. In 1871, it became synonymous with the Kaiserreich but excluded German-speaking areas (Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, and many borderlands). Germans referred to the Republic as das Deutsche Reich, usually translated as the German Empire. Reich, however, has broad connotations, so the name is usually left as the German Reich. The word realm captures the same meaning but is rarely used. The common form in English remained Germany. Only Nazis called it the Weimar Republic, and then derisively. For game purposes, we use Germany or the Republic to avoid confusion.

BASIC FEATURES OF REACTING TO THE PAST

This is a historical role-playing game. After a few preparatory lectures, the game begins and the students are in charge. Set in moments of heightened historical tension, it places you in the role of a person from the period. By reading the game book and your individual role sheet, you will find out more about your objectives, worldview, allies, and opponents. You must then attempt to achieve victory through formal speeches, informal debate, negotiations, and conspiracy. Outcomes sometimes differ from actual history; a debriefing session sets the record straight. What follows is an outline of what you will encounter in Reacting and what you will be expected to do.

Game Setup

Your instructor will spend some time before the beginning of the game helping you to understand the historical context for the game. During the setup period, you will use several different kinds of material:

• The game book (what you are reading now), which includes historical information, rules and elements of the game, and essential historical documents.

• A role sheet, which provides a short biography of the historical person you will model in the game as well as that person’s ideology, objectives, responsibilities, and resources. Some roles are based on historical figures. Others are composites, which draw elements from a number of individuals. You will receive your role sheet from your instructor.

Familiarize yourself with the documents before the game begins and return to them once you are in role. They contain information and arguments that will be useful as the game unfolds. A second reading while in role will deepen your understanding and alter your perspective. Once the game is in motion, your perspectives may change. Some ideas may begin to look quite different. Those who have carefully read the materials and who know the rules of the game will invariably do better than those who rely on general impressions and uncertain memories.

Game Play

Once the game begins, class sessions are presided over by students. In most cases, a single student serves as some sort of presiding officer. The instructor then becomes the GM (the game master or game manager) and takes a seat in the back of the room. Though they do not lead the class sessions, GMs may do any of the following:

• Pass notes

• Announce important events

• Redirect proceedings that have gone off track

Instructors are, of course, available for consultations before and after game sessions. Although they will not let you in on any of the secrets of the game, they can be invaluable in terms of sharpening your arguments or finding key historical resources.

The presiding officer is expected to observe basic standards of fairness, but as a fail-safe device, most games employ the podium rule, which allows a student who has not been recognized to approach the podium and wait for a chance to speak. Once at the podium, the student has the floor and must be heard.

Role sheets contain private, secret information that you must guard. Exercise caution when discussing your role with others. Your role sheet probably identifies likely allies, but even they may not always be trustworthy. However, keeping your own counsel and saying nothing to anyone is not an option. In order to achieve your objectives, you must speak with others. You will never muster the voting strength to prevail without allies. Collaboration and coalition building are at the heart of every game.

Some games feature strong alliances called factions. As a counterbalance, these games include roles called indeterminates. They operate outside of the established factions, and while some are entirely neutral, most possess their own idiosyncratic objectives. If you are in a faction, cultivating indeterminates is in your interest, since they can be persuaded to support your position. If you are lucky enough to have drawn the role of an indeterminate, you should be pleased; you will likely play a pivotal role in the outcome of the game.

Game Requirements

Students playing Reacting games practice persuasive writing, public speaking, critical thinking, teamwork, negotiation, problem solving, collaboration, adapting to changing circumstances, and working under pressure to meet deadlines. Your instructor will explain the specific requirements for your class. In general, though, a Reacting game asks you to perform three distinct activities:

Reading and writing. What you read can often be put to immediate use, and what you write is meant to persuade others to act the way you want them to. The reading load may have slight variations from role to role; the writing requirement depends on your particular course. Papers are often policy statements, but they can also be autobiographies, battle plans, newspaper articles, poems, or after-game reflections. Papers often provide the foundation for the speeches delivered in class. They also help to familiarize you with the issues, which should allow you to ask good questions.

Public speaking and debate. In the course of a game, almost everyone is expected to deliver at least one formal speech from the podium (the length of the game and the size of the class will determine the number of speeches). Debate follows. It can be impromptu, raucous, and fast paced. At some point, discussions must lead to action, which often means proposing, debating, and passing a variety of resolutions. GMs may stipulate that students must deliver their papers from memory when at the podium, or they may insist that students begin to wean themselves from dependency on written notes as the game progresses.

Wherever the game imaginatively puts you, it will surely not put you in the present. Accordingly, the colloquialisms and familiarities of today’s college life are out of place. Never open your speech with a salutation like Hi guys when something like Fellow citizens! would be more appropriate.

Always seek allies to back your points when you are speaking at the podium. Do your best to have at least one supporter second your proposal, come to your defense, or admonish inattentive members of the body. Note-passing and side conversations, while common occurrences, will likely spoil the effect of your speech; so you and your supporters should insist upon order before such behavior becomes too disruptive. Ask the presiding officer to assist you. Appeal to the GM as a last resort.

Strategizing. Communication among students is an essential feature of Reacting games. You will likely find yourself writing emails, texting, attending out-of-class meetings, or gathering for meals. The purpose of frequent communication is to lay out a strategy for achieving your objectives, thwarting your opponents, and hatching plots. When communicating with fellow students in or out of class, always assume that they are speaking to you in role. If you want to talk about the real world, make that clear.

Controversy

Most Reacting games take place at moments of conflict in the past and therefore are likely to address difficult, even painful, issues that we continue to grapple with today. Consequently, this game may contain controversial subject matter. You may need to represent ideas with which you personally disagree or that you even find repugnant. When speaking about these ideas, make it clear that you are speaking in role. Furthermore, if other people say things that offend you, recognize that they too are playing roles. If you decide to respond to them, do so using the voice of your role and make this clear. If these efforts are insufficient, or the ideas associated with your particular role seem potentially overwhelming, talk to your GM.

When playing your role, rely on your role sheet and the other game materials rather than drawing upon caricature or stereotype. Do not use racial and ethnic slurs even if they are historically appropriate. If you are concerned about the potential for cultural appropriation or the use of demeaning language in your game, talk to your GM.

Amid the plotting, debating, and voting, always remember that this is an immersive role-playing game. Other players may resist your efforts, attack your ideas, and even betray a confidence. They take these actions because they are playing their roles. If you become concerned about the potential for game-based conflict to bleed out into the real world, take a step back and reflect on the situation. If your concerns persist, talk to your GM.

Skill Development

A recent Associated Press article on education and employment made the following observations:

The world’s top employers are pickier than ever. And they want to see more than high marks and the right degree. They want graduates with so-called soft skills—those who can work well in teams, write and speak with clarity, adapt quickly to changes in technology and business conditions, and interact with colleagues from different countries and cultures. … And companies are going to ever-greater lengths to identify the students who have the right mix of skills, by observing them in role-playing exercises to see how they handle pressure and get along with others … and [by] organizing contests that reveal how students solve problems and handle deadline pressure.

Reacting games, probably better than most elements of the curriculum, provide the opportunity for developing these soft skills. This is because you will be practicing persuasive writing, public speaking, critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. You will also need to adapt to changing circumstances and work under pressure.

COUNTERFACTUALS

While every character is a historical personage, they all represent composite interests. Additionally, a few of the characters were not in the Reichstag in 1929, although they were party officers and elected later; others did not remain in the Reichstag until the end of 1932 (Hermann Müller, for example, died in 1931 after a gallbladder operation). Some offices are distributed ahistorically to ensure that the proper party is represented.

Some of the documents included here were published shortly after 1929, which is when the game begins, but they represent general ideas well known in 1929, and no document is from later than 1932. All come from the immediate context. Similarly, the chronology of the agenda items may not correspond precisely to the historical sequence.

The game reduces the Weimar Constitution’s complexity, especially by eliminating the Republic’s bicameralism and the role of the individual states historically represented in the Reichsrat (the Imperial Council). This institution represented the German traditions of particularism and federalism. Similarly, the Reichstag had a complicated internal structure that has been simplified. The president of the Reichstag has been renamed Speaker to avoid confusion with the Reich president. The cabinet portfolios have been reduced, and while the historical cabinet of 1929 included all of the parties in the game’s initial cabinet, the personalities and portfolios are not necessarily the same.

Particularism refers to the long tradition of regional loyalty above national loyalty. The Republic institutionalized these loyalties via federalism, a system of government that unites states within an overarching political structure that allows a degree of local sovereignty. Both the Bavarian People’s Party (BVP) and the German Hanoverian Party (DHP) were particularist parties.

Similarly, several small parties are integrated into larger Indeterminates; these small parties failed to have representation at some point in 1929 to 1933, and included the following:

Conservative People’s Party (added to CNBP)

German Country People (added to CNBP)

People’s Justice Party (added to CSVD)

Reich Party for Civil Rights and Deflation (added to CSVD)

Saxon Peasants Party (added to CNBP)

Thuringian Agricultural League (added to RLB)

CHALLENGES TO ROLE PLAYING DEMOCRACY IN CRISIS

Antisemitism and Nazi Discourse

Antisemitism is the race-based hostility or prejudice against Jews. The increasingly preferred scholarly spelling is antisemitism, without a hyphen or capitalization.²

Ban on Nazi Symbols and Slurs

This game specifically prohibits the following:

1. Racist and ethnic slurs, specifically Nazi terminology that renders Jews and others as subhumans, such as vermin

2. Nazi symbols or variations thereof, including

The swastika

The greeting Heil Hitler or Sieg Heil

The fascist or Hitler salute

Uniforms or Nazi-like dress meant to simulate Nazi uniforms

In reacting games, you compete with other students, in character, to advance your character’s intellectual goals. In trying to win, your character often advocates offensive ideas. But you must compete intellectually while being respectful to your classmates, even while criticizing the beliefs and goals of opposing characters. Any use of racist language in the game threatens that respectful behavior. The power of certain words and symbols is entirely emotional, not intellectual. All characters in this game have strong, serious intellectual arguments to make. You should make them, but you may not personalize criticism of an idea by making a personalized attack on a fellow student; instead, you must try to discredit your opponent’s ideas using your character’s reasoning (based on your primary documents).

If you feel that a classmate has personalized issues of the game into hostility toward you or anyone else, please speak to your instructor immediately in private.

Antisemitic Ideas in the Game

Every faction has a document on your character’s stance on antisemitism. However, the game master will decide if and how to integrate the topic. During game preparation, the GM will announce one of three options regarding antisemitism as a topic.

OPTION 1: Basic game. Antisemitism is integrated as a mandatory topic and treated as any other, as written in the game book. Appropriate warnings, especially for how Nazi characters should play this issue, are in the character sheets.

OPTION 2: Hybrid approach. Antisemitism is integrated as a mandatory topic but treated differently. Rather than Nazi and related characters presenting their views directly, everyone is directed to historical documents that are to be read in class as part of the debate during game play. Once debate has opened, it will proceed as follows:

• The GM instructs the class to read the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) handout. NSDAP characters do not speak from the podium or floor on the topic. The handout counts as their participation.

• All other characters present their views normally by engaging with the NSDAP text.

• Those in support of the NSDAP will do the same as the NSDAP, except that they will have a party-specific document on the issue for the class to read. The GM provides these handouts as the characters are recognized by the Speaker of the Reichstag.

OPTION 3: Elimination. Antisemitism is entirely eliminated. It is replaced as a mandatory agenda item by eugenic sterilization following the same schedule as antisemitism.

Playing a Nazi Role

In Democracy in Crisis you will confront fascist ideas that nearly all Americans find abhorrent, deeply offensive, or at the least controversial. You may be expected to play a character who advocates these ideas. Most challengingly, students playing Nazis must come to terms with a deliberately inflammatory discourse, especially in regard to antisemitism.

If, after reading your assigned role and thinking it over, you believe that you cannot play it, contact your instructor in private, explain your position, and request a different role sheet.

Most importantly, let your instructor know if, at any point, you are facing emotional obstacles. The goal of the game is to learn, which can only happen in an emotionally (and of course physically) safe environment. We can expect discomfort when confronting atrocity, but drawing the line between discomfort and true suffering that prevents learning, while not always easy, is what we, as a class, will undertake together.

Confusing Terms for Contemporary Americans

The political vocabulary in the United States has developed separately from much of the rest of the world. As a result, many terms that have one meaning in the United States can actually have an opposite meaning in the game’s European context. The game remains as true as possible to the labels of Germany in 1929. You will be confused if you do not carefully read this manual and take careful note of these terms. Importantly, you must read the primary texts to grasp how these concepts were understood and applied. A few of the most important and misused terms include:

Liberal: In the United States, liberalism has developed since around 1920 to be associated with social spending, a large proactive regulatory government, and, more narrowly, with the Democratic Party. However, in Europe, liberalism is associated with a combination of support for parliamentary democracy and an unregulated market. Liberal parties are, therefore, generally hostile to regulatory government and social spending. Think about liberal in the context of the classical liberal thought of Locke, Smith, and Mill.

Republican: In the United States, this term refers almost exclusively to the Republican Party and its agenda (which in Germany would be termed liberal—see above). Yet, in Germany, republican referred to any party that identified with parliamentary democracy (i.e., the Constitution of 1919 and the Republic). Thus, socialists, liberals, Christian democrats, and conservatives are all republican.

Conservative: In the United States, we associate this term with the Republican Party. However, in Germany, conservatism was an eclectic concept that could include anything from restorationist monarchists to nationalist liberals. About the only thing they agreed on was a strong sense of nationalism and, for many, a nostalgia for the social and cultural norms of the deposed Kaiserreich, rural Germany, and past greatness, combined with opposition to socialism in any form.

Democratic: In the United States, this term is narrowly associated with the Democratic Party. In Germany, though, the Democrats were the German Democratic Party (DDP), a left-leaning liberal party (again, in the German sense of liberal) that supported the Republic and civil liberties but opposed economic regulation. They were thus republican in the German sense.

Socialist: Today, socialist can refer to anything including capitalist China, totalitarian North Korea, democratic Sweden, the U.S. Democratic Party, or, most confusingly, Hitler. In Germany, too, its meaning depended entirely on context. It was usually used exclusively for the Social Democratic Party (SPD), to contrast them with the Communists. However, it could apply to both the SPD and the German Communist Party (KDP) as Marxist parties. Furthermore, many conservatives, especially monarchists, lumped the SPD, KPD, and NSDAP together as socialist.

Communist: In the United States, communism is intimately associated with the Cold War and the Stalinism of the Soviet Union and its ideologically associated states. It is viewed overwhelmingly negatively, as a form of totalitarian dictatorship hostile to the United States. In Germany after 1918, it was used much more precisely to distinguish the KPD from the SPD (socialist or social democratic). It was explicitly linked to the USSR and a Leninist-type revolution and was synonymous with Bolshevik.

Marxist: This term included both the socialists and the communists, who both claimed ideological descent from Karl Marx. However, socialists and communists rejected each other completely, each accusing the other of being hostile to the true meaning of Marxism. But non-Marxists frequently lumped socialism, communism, and Marxism together (along with Bolshevism).

Nationalist: In the United States, the term nationalist fell out of favor after the world wars as it became associated with chauvinism, xenophobia, demagogic populism, jingoism, war, and genocide. In Germany in 1929, however, it was still widely accepted as a term of loyalty to the German state and people—the equivalent of patriot. With the notable exception of the KPD, every party considered itself nationalist, though they disagreed on what it meant, with definitions ranging from simple pride in the German cultural legacy to virulent racism.

National Socialist: In the United States, we prefer the more generic label fascist or Nazi, which we apply to just about any party, person, or policy with which we disagree, to the point that it has lost all analytic meaning and become clichéd. In Germany, though, Nazi refers exclusively to the party of Hitler (NSDAP) and its policies, which were dramatically distinct from and implacably hostile to most other political parties, especially the Marxists. Nazi began as a slang acronym for NAtionalsoZIalistische (National Socialist) as a counterpart to Sozi for the Social Democrats.

To make matters worse, Germans did not agree on labels either. One of your goals will be to control the terms of debate in the Reichstag, to convince others that the way your character thinks and defines others is correct.

For example, the Right and many moderates referred to both the SPD and KPD as Marxist, often making no distinction between them. Yet the SPD and KPD bitterly opposed each other. The KPD referred to both the NSDAP and SPD as fascist, though they refined this concept by stating that the SPD was social fascist. The SPD, for its part, joined every other party in denouncing the KPD as Bolshevik, but conservatives and liberals often characterized certain NSDAP and SPD polices as Bolshevism, such as land reform being agro-Bolshevism.

To confuse the matter more, the Left and moderate parties simply referred to those on the right collectively as the Right or antidemocratic or conservative. But the Right was split between völkisch and national conservatives. The right-wing DNVP had several tendencies—some were völkisch, others national conservative. Many national conservatives, even some with völkisch ideas, existed in the moderate Centre Party, which supported the Republic; others in the anti-Republic DNVP and elsewhere looked for completely different solutions such as a restoration of monarchy or a military dictatorship.

Völkisch referred to an eclectic set of ideas that positioned the Volk (an ethnic/racial national group) as the center of history and identity, idealized the mystical connection of people to the land, and strove for a national rebirth on this basis.

In short, use caution with even the most basic labels. Place emphasis on how you describe your own party and others. Controlling how the issues are defined in the public sphere is not mere semantics; it goes to the heart of power.

MAPS

Treaty of Versailles Territorial Revisions (1919)

Part II of the treaty dealt with the Boundaries of Germany (fig. 1). It contained only four articles (27–30) out of a total of four hundred and forty. The brevity, however, was utterly disproportionate to the consequences—both tangible and psychological—to Germans. No German political party accepted the territorial changes as legitimate or permanent, and recovery of ceded territories considered historically and culturally German became a central goal across the political spectrum.

FIGURE 1 Treaty of Versailles territorial revisions (1919).

James Francis Horrabin, Figure 1075: Map of Germany after the Peace Treaty of 1919, in The Outline of History: Being A Plain History of Life and Mankind, by H. G. Wells (London: Cassell, 1920), 384.

German nationalists were irredentists and demanded the return of all ceded territories including Schleswig (ceded to Denmark); Alsace-Lorraine (ceded to France); Eupen-Malmedy (ceded to Belgium); West Prussia and Posen (ceded to Poland); Upper Silesia (ceded to Poland and Czechoslovakia); Danzig (administered by League of Nations); and Memel (annexed by Lithuania in 1923).

The Polish Corridor (land ceded to Poland: West Prussia, Posen, and Danzig) was especially contentious. No German politician accepted its annexation. The appropriation of German farmland by Poland and de-Germanization of the region, as allowed by Versailles, kept the issue at a constant boil.

French troops occupied the Rhineland and Saarland, with a promise to withdraw in 1930 if the Young Plan were ratified, though these areas would remain demilitarized.

Pan-German nationalists demanded the creation of a Greater Germany that included Austria (Versailles forbade Austria from joining Germany) and the Sudetenland (German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia)—see fig. 2.

FIGURE 2 German racial and cultural territory (1925).

Albrecht Penck, Deutscher Volks- und Kulturboden, in Volk unter Völkern: Bücher des Deutschtums, vol. 1, ed. Karl Christian von Loesch and Arnold Hillen Ziegfeld (Breslau: F. Hirt, 1925), 62–73.

German Racial and Cultural Territory (1925)

Albrecht Penck’s map (fig. 2) graphically conceptualized the notion of Lebensraum, especially in the German East, with its ideological, even mystical link between the German peasant and the soil. His map subordinated states, as merely transitional administrative units, to völkisch territory—defined by where a Volk settled (Volksboden) and where their cultural influence held sway (Kulturboden). Earlier geographers and politicians had emphasized the notion of German-speaking peoples, but Penck supported claims for certain prized territories, especially where Polish was spoken. This made it possible to claim not only lost territories but even areas outside prewar Germany by pointing to their German cultural character, however spurious. Penck’s maps were extremely popular, and variations were especially common in schoolbooks.

Dark areas (Volksboden) were presumably racially German based on primary language.

Gray areas (Kulturboden)