Karl Ditt's useful survey sets out to determine whether the nature conservation movement that emerged in the late nineteenth century in two of Europe's most industrialized countries, England and Germany, provided the basis for modern environmentalism. In addressing this question, the author provides an informative, though general, overview of the dominant developments in private and state-sponsored conservation through the 1960s.
Ditt concurs with recent environmental histories of Germany, such as Raymond Dominick's The Environmental Movement in Germany: Prophets and Pioneers, 1871-1971 and Jost Hermand's Grüne Utopien in Deutschland, which reveal that conservation had important successes: the preservation of plants, animals, and relatively untouched nature; the improvement of areas in the countryside that had been damaged by human activity; the establishment of parks for public recreation; and eventually, the elevation of conservation to a professional endeavor that was an integral part of regional planning. By the 1970s conservation could take credit for protecting in some way between 20 and 25 percent of the land in England and West Germany. While acknowledging these achievements, Ditt concludes that the conservation movement was too narrow in scope and too conservative in its tactics to provide the basis for the "far more dynamic and successful" (28) environmental movement.
To substantiate this thesis, Ditt examines the ideology, organization, and tactics of traditional conservation in England and Germany in three distinct phases: 1870 to 1900; 1900 to the 1930s; and the 1930s to the 1970s. Ditt challenges many scholars who have maintained that conservation was predominantly "anti-modern" because of its persistent criticism of industrialization, urbanization and materialism. Ditt asserts that the ideology of traditional conservation in all three phases was "characterised by a mixture of pro- and anti-modern motives" (23). For example, early conservation was modern in insisting that preservation of nature expressed national pride. In the second phase, conservation organizations pursued a modern, democratic idea in promoting public access to nature. A modern vantage point compelled conservationists in the third phase to improve upon areas that had been altered rather significantly by civilization, and to protect species diversity "as a sphere of life sui generis" (25).
Ditt provides a more nuanced interpretation of conservation by presenting evidence of its "dual character" (24) in all three phases. But one could argue that environmentalism also expressed modern and anti-modern objectives. Thus, this analysis does not explain clearly how environmentalism was distinct.
One of the strengths of this article is its comparative approach that reveals similarities and important distinctions in conservation in England and Germany. In both countries Romanticism provided the ideological underpinnings of early conservation. When the movement (loosely defined) emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century, it revived Romantics' idealization of nature as something pure and sublime in contrast to the modern world. Not surprisingly, the middle classes in England (ramblers' associations, or walking clubs) and Germany (Heimatschutz organizations) led the way in taking concrete steps to protect nature and scenic rural areas.
At the end of the nineteenth century conservationists in both countries argued that the protection of nature was an important part of preserving the unique heritage of the nation. In Germany, however, nationalism infused conservation with a "geo-determinist" (13) notion that nature shaped the character of the German people. When conservationists advocated the preservation of nature (and thus preservation of the Volk), they expressed a popular alternative to the nationalism of patriotic business classes who boasted of Germany's industrial might.
Ditt's comparative approach underscores that in Germany the state participated in conservation much earlier than was the case in England. Not until the 1930s did the English government address conservation. Already in the 1890s in Germany, however, the Prussian government was one of several states to protect small patches of land and natural monuments (old trees, waterfalls, and unique geological formations). In 1906, Prussia established the "official department for the conservation of natural monuments," a poorly funded institution that relied on an impressive network of volunteers to achieve its goals.
During the Third Reich, the state assumed a more influential role in conservation. The Nazi regime passed the progressive Reich Conservation Law of 1935 which provided uniformity in state-sponsored conservation and established a centralized bureaucracy under the Reich Forest Master, Hermann Göring. The state also supported a more active approach to conservation that sought to harmonize development projects with sound conservation. This was supposedly the case with the construction of the Autobahn. Relying on the influential study by Gert Gröning and Joachim Wolschke-Bulmahn ("Die Liebe zur Landschaft, III: Der Drang nach Osten"), Ditt also explains that landscape architects employed by the regime planned to "Germanize" land in the East and then settle German farmers there. Germany was indeed unique in relying on an "organic-völkisch approach" to regional planning (19). Ultimately, the Four Year Plan, projects of the Labor Front, and war crippled the effectiveness of conservation.
After World War II, conservation in England and West Germany came to be associated with leisure time activities and town and country planning. In 1949 the English government pursued a unique approach to conservation by establishing two kinds of protected areas, national parks for public recreation, and nature reserves for preservation and research. In the late 1950s in West Germany the Verein Naturschutz Park won state and federal government support to erect nature parks near urban areas for public recuperation and recreation. Although such parks were popular in England and West Germany, conservationists lamented that they were poorly administered, placed few restrictions on use (farming and forestry were permitted) and inadequately protected nature. During the 1960s and 1970s, West Germany and England passed laws requiring these parks to rely on land-use plans. These are only some of the developments Ditt mentions to illustrate the successes and weaknesses of conservation.
Ditt provides familiar explanations to account for the supposed rupture between conservation and environmentalism. Conservation was limited in scope and inadequately addressed growing pollution problems. Conservation organizations relied on "negotiations with or between administrative bodies" (27) and did not contest the status quo. By contrast, a younger generation "of a more individualistic educated class" (27) drew inspiration from the student protest movement and American environmentalism, and challenged the status quo in pursuit of a better society--one with a "nature-friendly" (27) way of life, a decentralized economy, etc. "What the environmental movement did," Ditt argues, "was to extend an idea prominent since the 1920s/30s, especially in the USA and Germany, namely that when nature was encroached upon the effect on the whole environment should be considered. An ecological philosophy gradually developed from this, which emphasized interdependences, not only in nature, but also between nature and man" (25). In general, Ditt maintains that this ecological consciousness developed apart from conservation. But there is evidence to suggest that it emerged partly as a result of the evolving debates within the conservation movement. Without denying the difference between conservation and environmentalism, one wonders if historians might not want to reconsider the relationship between the two, looking for threads of continuity more so than has been the case.
Ditt's article is of interest to individuals wanting an introduction to dominant trends in conservation in England and Germany in the twentieth century. The author relies primarily on scholarly secondary and published primary sources. His comparative approach is one that other environmental historians will want to emulate.
Copyright © 1997 by H-Net, all rights reserved. This work may be copied in whole or in part, with proper attribution, as long as the copying is not-for-profit "fair use" for research, commentary, study, or teaching. For other permission, please contact H-Net@h-net.msu.edu.