Talk:Harden-Eulenburg Affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] questions

I ran across this interesting article. When I noticed many minor errors of spelling and word order, I started to do some minor copyediting. I realized the text raised questions in my mind that ought to be answered for the text to make sense to the average reader. I started to try to guess the answers and put them into the text (see first 2 paragraphs) and beginning of third, but got bogged down in the third. Perhaps the author would be kind enough to provide the following answers within the text:

  1. What was the undescribed "public relations gaffe"? Either explain it or don't mention it.
  2. Were Harden and Eulenberg present at the "initial incident"? If not, in what sense is it the "start" of the scandal?
  3. Are my changes to the last sentence of the second paragraph and first sentence of the third paragraph accurate? I replaced vaguenesses that I thought meant this, but should be changed to something else if I misunderstood.
  4. In the third para, there needs to be some clarification of who was imperialist (seeking foreign conquest), and Imperialist (supporting the emperor). Does expansionist mean imperialist but not Imperialist? What does calling Eulenberg an anti-Imperialist mean? Is it a capitalization error? Did he oppose Chancellor Bismarck or did he oppose Emperor Wilhelm? I assume he was a supporter of Wilhelm, if so, you characterized Wilhelm's new policies as "confrontational expansionist Weltpolitik," which sounds imperialistic in the ordinary sense of the word to me. Please clarify.
  5. Dates are desperately needed, since the first paragraph says 1907-9, but down a few, 1902 is suddenly mentioned as if some of the events happened sooner. Please put at least a year in the paragraph of the initial incident, the year of dismissal of Bismarck, the date of the Algeciras treaty
  6. The years of 1903-6 contained 6 suicides and 20 courts martials, but you don't tell us why. Were they over charges of homosexuality? They sound like a bigger scandal than a single ambassador, but maybe I'm not following your story.
  7. Did you really mean to say that Harden thought the return of Eulenberg was worse than 6 suicides and 20 courtsmartials? If so, reader needs the reason why.
  8. What was paragraph 175?
  9. Rather than just say "outed", what did he do? Publish a letter in a newspaper, complain in a public forum, go to the police...? "Outed" is a little colloquial perhaps, without at least describing the deed.
  10. Parodied (or paraded)? Parodied where and by whom? Needs precedent for context.
  11. Did Wilhelm ask the 3 prominent aristocrats to resign from the aristocracy or from military or government positions?
  12. What's the difference between civil and criminal libel? Civil libel was "suggested" (by whom)?
  13. What's an "ex-wife of nines"?
  14. The paragraph about the trial is confusing. I thought Moltke was defending himself against Harden's charge of homosexuality. Lili von Elbe was testifying against Harden by saying her marriage to Harden was sexless after the first nights?
  15. Who is Lynar?
  16. "...where he saw saw both Hohenau and Moltke." Do what? Drink champagne?
  17. I thought Hirschfeld championed gays? This paragraph implies he was testifying as an expert that Moltke was gay, to Moltke's detriment, in support of homophobic Harden? Or am I confused by the text?
  18. What does Der Eigene mean?
  19. Whose "hysteria" discredited von Elbe? Why did Hirschfeld retract?
  20. This affair caused ww1? Wow! You need to explain that a little. When did the second reich fall-- at the end of ww1? How could Eulenberg have prevented either event?

Anyway, the story is good enough to deserve a clearer article for those of us for which this is unfamiliar territory. If you can answer the questions, I'll be happy to copyedit and buff. alteripse 00:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some answers

  1. No idea what the gaffe was, but it was the reason for the vacation.
  2. The initial incident provoked the Kaiser to act as he did in regards to the subsequent incidents, for example requiring resignations as described in: Harden-Eulenburg Affair#Outing.
  3. You're edits were good.
  4. It would appear that, to put it simply, imperialist=expansionist=Weltpolitik (Wilhelm II, Harden) and that anti-imperialist=anti-expansionsist=Realpolitik (Wilhelm I?, Otto von Bismarck, Eulenburg). Thus Harden supported Wilhelm II's policies and opposed Eulenberg. Both aristocrats, Eulenberg also served as Wilhelm II's mentor and best friend (Röhl 2004). Thus Harden used Eulenberg sexuality to force Wilhelm II to support his own and Harden's policies against Eulenberg's. Note: Actually, it was more complicated, Eulenberg supported and encouraged Wilhelm II's "personal rule" (without the legislature) but discouraged his imperialist prounouncements.
  5. I do not know the year of the initial incident, Bismarck was dismissed in 1890 (in article), and the Algeciras Conference was in 1906 (in article).
  6. Blackmailed and courtmartialed for being gay (clarified in article).
  7. "Worse than these sexual scandals, in Harden's eyes, was Eulenburg's decision..." (in article)
  8. According to Paragraph 175: "Paragraph 175 (known formally as §175 StGB; also known as Section 175 in English) was a provision of the German Criminal Code from 15 May 1871 to 10 March 1994. It made homosexual acts between males a crime, and in early revisions the provision also criminalized bestiality."
  9. Presumably Harden would have printed most things he wished to be public in his periodical Die Zukunft. (clarified in article) See outing.
  10. Harden previously parodied Eulenberg. (clarified in article)
  11. I presume Wilhelm II asked the three aristocrats to resign from his cabinet, but I don't know. I don't think you can resign from the aristocracy.
  12. I'm not a lawyer. The judge in the criminal trial suggested a civil one.
  13. Ex-wife of nine years. (in article)
  14. I clarified that von Elbe was testifying against Harden, and then stated that the others where testifying as its apparent which side their testimony supports. I think it is common defense when one accuses another of homosexuality for the second person to point the finger back at the accuser.
  15. I don't know.
  16. This testimony establishes their presence in gay circles, which may have been more incriminating evidence back then than it is today.
  17. I presume that Hirschfield was either testifying as an "objective" expert on sexual minorities or was motivated by the exposure of an at least previously positive and high-profile figure as gay (if even aristocrats are gay, they can't be that bad).
  18. Der Eigene meant "the Self-Owners".
  19. von Elbe's own hysteria discredited her (her testimony was rejected as being made by a mentally ill "hysterical" woman), presumably diagnosed by a doctor of some sort. I do not know why Hirschfield retracted.
  20. See: "inevitable without Eulenburg's moderating influence." Additionally, Wilhelm II reacted to the entire set of affairs by distancing himself from faggy aristocrats and surrounding himself with the obviously big tough manly supporters of a more aggresive and conquest orientated approach.

Thanks, the article is clearly in a great many details now. I may go to the library and attempt to find the answers I do not have, but it may take a while. Hyacinth 23:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my questions in spirit intended. Again, interesting article. I'll await the details. alteripse 03:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another question

Add this to the list of questions: Brand, founder of the first homosexual periodical, Der Eigene, had printed a pamphlet which described how Bülow had been blackmailed for his sexuality and had kissed and embraced Scheefer at male gatherings hosted by Eulenburg, and thus was morally obligated to publically oppose Paragraph 175. Brand was found guilty of libel and charged with 18 months in prison.

Who is Scheefer? And what is Brand's full name? --64.231.225.245 04:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adolph Brand. Don't know about Scheefer. Hyacinth 05:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, what year did the Initial incident occur? Hyacinth 08:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More answers

8. § 175 German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) made some homosexual acts a crime . Not all of them -- I didn't look it up, but I think those resembling coitus. This distinction became important in the trials since Eulenburg probably could with a technically good conscience swear never to have violated §175.
9. Harden had published veiled accusations earlier in Die Zukunft in his typically baroque style, ie. talking in code to his victims, who understood just too well. The "outing" was simply solving the riddle, ie. telling the public by name who was described by earlier articles.
12. This is unclear to me too, in the retrial Harden was "convicted", which is simply impossible in a civil libel suit. Maybe there is a mix-up with a special kind of criminal case, so-called Privatklageverfahren. In this the victim prosecutes the case himself. Those are common in insult cases, since the state prosecutor couldn't care less about you and your feelings in Germany. Any reliable information on this (civil or criminal case?) is highly appreciated.
20. That's how Harden saw it in his later years; he speculated the wise Eulenburg would have prevented Wilhelm from dumb mistakes (there was not only the question of imperialism and militarism, but some real blunders like the Daily Telegraph Affair. The Second Reich fell 1918 at the end of WW1, when the Kaiser abdicated. --Miez 04:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have had some familiarity with this case as part of the history of Wilhelminian Germany. But this page is impossible. I am a stickler when it comes to grammar, and this page is a perfect reason why. A good ten percent of the sentences are unclear because of poor grammar. I don't know who wrote the initial article, but could you please mention the sources?? That way anyone who is interested can access facts that seem unclear here. I could add to the excellent list of initial questions on this Talk Page (which illustrates why proper grammar is an essential aid to clear communication), at least twenty more things I could not understand, because the writing is unclear. And at least half of the time, the answer or revised text has not solved the initial question at all. "District attorney, "Imperialism," etc. etc. Sentences that are misleading. Sentences that cannot be understood at all as written. (And don't criticize me for sentence fragments :) ) Please. Sources at the bottom. A decent bibliography (one or two books or essays). Thank you. 66.108.4.183 08:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't exaggerate

"Harden later told Hirschfeld that the Affair was the greatest political mistake of his life, like many later observers, attributing the Affair as the root cause of World War I and the fall of the Second Reich, inevitable without Eulenburg's moderating influence."

Do you really think that, if William II would have been more pampered by Eulenburg, WWI would have been avoidable?? Perhaps I should take more attention for my sexlife...(rs)