Der vorliegende Aufsatz beschäftigt sich mit der Briefmarkenforschung Warburgs und setzt sich zum Ziel, seine politische Ikonographie darzustellen. 1927 hat Warburg mit dem derzeitigen Reichskunstwart Edwin Redslob eine Tagung über „die Briefmarke“ veranstaltet, um ihre Bedeutung als politisches Medium zu untersuchen. Es ist verständlich, dass die Briefmarke auf Grund ihrer örtlichen Beweglichkeit für Warburg ein interessanter Gegenstand war. Mit den Begriffen „Bilderfahrzeug“ sowie „Schlagbilder“ hat er seinen Blick auf die seit langem in der Kunstgeschichte unterschätzten Werke wie Tapisserien bzw. politische Plakate im Zeitalter der Reformation gerichtet. In der Briefmarkenforschung wurden der seefahrende Neptun und Benito Mussolini zu den Hauptmotiven. Dabei wird die komplexe Beziehung zwischen der Tradition der Repräsentation der politischen Theologie und die der heidnischen Antike entsprungene Bildtheorie analysiert. Die mimischen Körper von Herrschern, die nach dem historischen Muster in verschiedener Weise stilisiert und inszeniert werden, sind zur Grundlage der abendländischen Politik geworden. Die von Warburg entworfene politische Ikonographie erkennt die Bewegung und die Wirkung der Bilder im politischen Bereich und fordert uns stets zur historischen Reflexion auf.

抄録全体を表示

The article seeks to demonstrate the wide range influence of the principles of cultural nation-building in Weimar Germany. Cultural nation-building is understood as a set of administrative measures designed to build a ‘nation’ in Germany, held to be ‘split and torn’ by class struggles and pressures from abroad, by means of the cultural traditions as manifested in classical literature and art. These principles were laid down in the Weimar Constitution of 1919 (dealt with in section 2); and they were supported by the professional organizations of lower middle class artisans (section 3), the Social Democrat based popular education movement (section 4), and various intellectuals (section 5).
Hence, while it has always been known that nation-building was an issue argued for by the right, it becomes clear that the issue received wide support also in the center and the moderate left. Therefore, the conclusion seems safe that the isolationist tendencies in Weimar Germany (as forming the basis for Nation Socialism) resulted from a general current in political life.

抄録全体を表示

This article addresses debates about “Reform” of the League of Nations from the viewpoint of Britain and China. “Reform” of the League was one of the contentious issues among the statesman, diplomats and intellectuals in the 1930s. They focused on the pros and cons of collective security and Article 16 of the Covenant of the League of Nations because the “failure” of the League to stop Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Italian invasion of Abyssinia threatened the collapse of the League. There were two major opinions in the debate, “the Coercive League” and “the Consultative League”. “The Coercive League” was the course to reinforce collective security to prevent further aggression. Conversely, “the Consultative League” argument was to weaken collective security and induce Germany, Italy, and Japan to cooperate with the League. Deliberations took place in both the Council, which was led by Great Powers, and the Assembly, in which Small Powers could have greater influence. Therefore, this article deals with Britain as an example of a Great Power and China as one of a Small power.

The League was centered on the rapprochement rather than the enforcement in the late 1920s. Article 11 of the Covenant was more important than Article 16 in mediating disputes and reconciling belligerents. Britain administered the League Council through “the Concert of Europe,” which consisted of British, French and German Foreign Minister. The League Council was where the Powers consulted with each other. In contrast, China discovered the value of the Assembly as an arena of world opinion.

Japanese invasion of Manchuria from 1931 to 1933 destroyed the credibility of collective security and cooperation between the Powers. Furthermore, the Small Powers were irritated by the indecisiveness of Great Powers, especially Britain. Some officials of British Foreign Office began to consider “reform” of the League for the purpose of weakening collective security and reestablishing the superiority of Great Powers over Small Powers after the Manchurian Incident.

The Abyssinian Crisis from 1935 to 1936 accelerated this trend. The League of Nations voted for economic sanctions against Italy, but members including Britain didn’t carry out them fully. However, some Latin American members protested against the sanctions because they disrupted trade with Italy. The League Assembly set up a committee to study “the Application of the principle of the covenant of the League of Nations.” Even though Britain was pro-Consultative, she hesitated to revise the covenant. China was pro-Coercive and concerned about regionalizing collective security. The clash between two opinions left “reform” of the League deadlocked in the end.

抄録全体を表示