Eric Voegelin: Review of The Lesson of Germany (1946)

Eric Voegelin’s short book review examines Gerhart Eisler, Albert Norden, and Albert Schreiner’s interpretation of German history as an instance of historical rewriting under the pressure of totalitarian party commitments. His central objection concerns the governing scheme of interpretation: the authors approach history as “hagiography,” assigning moral identities to political camps before examining events.

Human history has the form of a struggle between the protagonists of good and evil, that is, between progressives and reactionaries, while the big mass of mankind consists of dupes alternately to be poisoned by the reactionaries and enlightened by the progressives.

This formulation identifies two connected distortions. Political conflict becomes a cosmic opposition between good and evil, while most people lose independent agency, appearing only as objects of manipulation or enlightenment. Voegelin calls these opposing camps “Manichaean forces.” Within this scheme, German history supplies a cautionary narrative: reactionary predominance brought disaster, and Communist rule becomes the prescribed safeguard against its recurrence. The political conclusion thus governs the historical account.

The review moves from this moral framework to its scholarly consequences. Marx, Engels, Mehring, and Lenin furnish the principles of interpretation; historians dismissed as “bourgeois” are excluded despite their capacity to reveal other aspects of the past.

The authors make no attempt at writing responsible, pragmatic history, but offer a selection of facts, editorialized to suit the principles.

Voegelin’s distinction is between historical inquiry and factual selection subordinated to doctrine. He nevertheless grants that partisan hostility can sharpen attention to an opponent’s wrongdoing: readers may discover unfamiliar examples of Pan-German imperial ambitions. Yet missing exact references diminish even this limited contribution. The review closes by distinguishing the book’s edifying effect on committed believers from its failure before scholarly judgment. Its enduring concern is how ideological certainty converts history into political legitimation, compromising both interpretive openness and verifiable evidence.