A transitory phenomenon: German commanders and chiefs of staff, 1866–1918

This article examines the relationship between commanders and chiefs of staff during the period of the Wars of German Unification and the entirety of the Kaiserreich. The practice of pairing up a commander and a chief of staff was one that was specific to Germany. Traditional scholarship holds that in many cases, it was really the chief of staff who did all the thinking, while the commander was nothing more than a front man. The primary example of this was the relationship between Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff. The problem is that unthinking historians have projected relationship of this particular duo on the rest of the imperial German army. One of the reasons for this was the presence of members of German royal families in high command positions. This article suggests that first, commanders, including royal family members, were far more influential than their chiefs of staff. In addition, the power wielded by chiefs of staff also reflected the nagging problem of battlefield communications, especially given the limitations of telephone and early wireless radio. Once these difficulties were eliminated by the collapse of the imperial regime, and the development of radio, the power of chiefs of staff was severely curbed by 1939. Thus, the relationship between commanders and chiefs of staff was at best a transitory phenomenon.

Germany

This chapter examines the relationship between religion and the state in modern Germany, in particular the church–state regime from German unification onwards, and church involvement in politics at a variety of levels. It contrasts the ‘stubbornness’ of the ‘partnership model’ between church and state with a variety of policy changes, themselves the result of an increasingly fluid context of religious pluralization which puts pressure on the church–state relationship. The chapter aims to capture this tension, both from a historical perspective and in light of current challenges. The first section delineates the historical origins of the German model and its relevance for the relationship between the majority churches (Protestant and Catholic) and democratization. The second section addresses aspects of religion and state at particular levels of interaction: the polity (the constitution), and policies (the influence of churches in public education, and the governance of religious diversity—particularly Muslim rights).

Dental trauma characteristics in the primary dentition in Greifswald, Germany: a comparison before and after German unification

Background The data on the distribution and pattern of dental trauma in the primary dentition are very rare. Aim To investigate primary dental trauma patterns in relation to gender, age, time and cause for a recent paediatric cohort and to compare this with a historic one before German unification. Methods This retrospective study compared the patterns of dental trauma injuries at the trauma centre at Greifswald University/Germany for a recent paediatric cohort (2014–16, 103 children) with a historic one (1974–1989, n = 120). The data contained details on etiology, injury types and treatment delivered for 450 injured teeth (247 historic, 203 recent). Results In both cohorts, the occurrence was more common in males than females (63%/55%, resp.) with an age peak from 2 to 6 years. Maxillary incisors were most affected (89.6%/88.6%, resp.) and periodontal ligament injuries dominated (77.8%/90.3%, resp.). Almost half of the injuries occurred at home (46.6%), mostly due to falling (48.5%) or during playing (37.8%) in the recent paediatric cohort which provided better forensic data due to insurance issues and potential concern about child abuse. Advice and follow up was the most common approach in the recent paediatric cohort (76%). Conclusion Even after 30 years and a change in the health care system due to German unification, the patterns of dental traumatic injuries in the primary dentition were similar.