Controversy between Thomas and Heinrich Mann as a Reflection of German Public Discourse during World War I

Against the backdrop of increasing crises of mutual stigmatization and distancing of political forces, cultures, and generations, the analysis of their multi-layered reflection in the writings of cultural figures acquires additional relevance. This study aims to analyze the specificities of key controversies in the dispute between Thomas and Heinrich Mann during World War I, considering the historical and cultural context as well as their family history. To achieve this goal, the following objectives were set: 1) to identify the continuity of the ideological basis of the dispute in relation to earlier versions of literary and philosophical concepts concerning the polarization of European cultures and the special role of Germany; 2) to clarify the terminology and compositional principles of their dispute, to identify similarities and differences in the Manns’ interpretation of the stigmas of hate speech; 3) to determine the place of the brothers’ polemic within both German and the wider European public discourse using the example of the international journalistic reaction to the siege of the Belgian city of Leuven. The research materials include articles by Thomas and Heinrich Mann, letters, and journalistic sources. The methodology of the research is based on the imagological approach, which allows for the identification of the images of Self and Other in the clash of different cultures. The key methods employed are structural analysis, intertextual analysis and thesaurus analysis. As a result, it has been established that the ideological confrontation of the brothers, which occurred at the intersection of the personal and the public, represents a miniature of European public discourse filled with images and concepts common both to major literary journals and to propaganda posters. Conclusions: 1) The polemic was based on Dostoevsky’s political theory, adapted by Thomas Mann thoroughly, yet partially and in a provocative manner. 2) The verification of transformations in the studied concepts showed their integration into the hate speech of 1914–1918. The structure of the Mann brothers’ public-private polemic is built on mutual reflexive argumentation, where theses and concepts are systematically inverted and reconfigured to serve ideological justification. 3) The brothers’ reactions to the siege of Leuven showed significant similarities in the choice and combination of images and stigmas. This allows us to identify common patterns in the poetics of Heinrich Mann, the “German Westerner,” and Thomas Mann, the “apolitical” writer, as well as the pacifist Rolland and the militarist Hauptmann. Defining its boundaries and systemic failures, as well as tracing its dynamics and constants, remains a task for further research.

1. Baranov, N. N. (2005) ‘The “Hun Speech” of Kaiser William II in the Intellectual Context of the Epoch’, Imagines mundi, 5(3), pp. 262–268. (In Russian).

2. Antonevich, K. S. (2024) ‘Evolution of the Concept of Barbarism within the Context of the Franco-German Confrontation in the 1870s–1910s’, Concept: philosophy, religion, culture, 8(1), pp. 25–43. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.24833/2541-8831-2024-1-29-25-43

3. Balta, S. (2025) ‘A comparative view of the literary worlds of the Heinrich Mann and Thomas Mann brothers’, ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi (ODÜSOBİAD), 15(3), pp. 1719–1739. https://doi.org/10.48146/ odusobiad.1647570

4. Belousov, L. S. and Manykin, A. S. (eds) (2014) Pervaya mirovaya voyna i sud’by yevropeyskoy tsivilizatsii [The First World War and the Fate of European Civilization]. Moscow: Izdatelʹstvo Moskovskogo universiteta Publ. (In Russian).

5. Berkovich, E. (2018) ‘Brothers Mann in the Twentieth Century. Fragments of Their Biography the Writers

6. Preferred to Forget’, Voprosy literatury, (2), pp. 218–246. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31425/0042-8795-2018-2218-246

7. Betz, F. (1992) ‘Mencken and the “Patrioteers”: On the History of a Word’, Menckeniana, (122), pp. 12–15.

8. Epstein, M. (1989) ‘Chto takoye metabola? [What is metabola?]’, Stilistika i poetika. [Stylistics and poetics. Issue 2.]. Moscow: Institut russkogo yazyka AN SSSR Publ., pp. 75–80. (In Russian).

9. Flügge, M. (2006) Heinrich Mann: eine Biographie. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.

10. Galkina, O. I. (2019) ‘Propagandistskoye rusofobstvo i pragmatichnoye rusofil’stvo: britanskaya pressa o russkoy armii (vtoraya polovina XIX nachalo XX vv.) [Propaganda Russophobia and Pragmatic Russophilia: The British Press on the Russian Army (Second Half of the 19th – Early 20th Centuries)]’, «Svoy» / «Chuzhoy» v kross-kul’turnykh kommunikatsiyakh stran Zapada i Rossii [Ours/Alien in cross-cultural communications between Western countries and Russia]. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia Publ., pp. 368–389. (In Russian).

11. Hayman, R. (1995) Thomas Mann: a biography. New York: Scribner.

12. Koopmann, H. (2005) Thomas Mann – Heinrich Mann: die ungleichen Brüder. München: Beck.

13. Lehmann, J. (2015) Russische Literatur in Deutschland. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3476-05373-2 (Russ. ed.: (2018) Russkaya literatura v Germanii: usvoyeniye russkoy literatury v khudozhestvennom tvorchestve i literaturnoy kritike nemetskoyazychnykh pisateley XVIII v. do nastoyashchego vremeni. Moscow: ASK Publ.).

14. Martí Monterde, A. (2016) ‘Literatura comparada i imagologia en la Primera Guerra Mundial: Fernand

15. Baldensperger i Jean-Marie Carré’, Estudis Romànics, (38), pp. 239–265. https://doi.org/10.2436/20.2500.01.198

16. O’Sullivan, E. (2011) ‘Imagology Meets Children’s Literature’, International Research in Children’s Literature, 4(1), pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3366/ircl.2011.0003

17. Rostunov, I. I. (ed.) (1975) Istoriya pervoy mirovoy voyny 1914–1918 gg. [History of the First World War 1914–1918: in 2 vol. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Nauka Publ. (In Russian).

18. Scheiffele, E. (2001) ‘Nietzsche über Deutschland und die Deutschen: ein eklatantes Beispiel für seine kritische Hermeneutik’, Deutschlandforschung, 10, pp. 262–285. URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10371/85388

19. Trykov, V. P. (2008) ‘Marsel’ Prust: otnosheniye k Rossii [Marcel Proust’s attitude toward Russia]’, Knowledge.

20. Understanding. Skill, (5), p. 41. (In Russian). URL: https://zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2008/5/Trykov_Proust/

21. Vlasta, S. (2022) ‘Imagology and the Analysis of Identity Discourses in Late Eighteenthand NineteenthCentury European Travel Writing by Charles Dickens and Karl Philipp Moritz’, New Perspectives on Imagology.

22. Leiden: BRILL, pp. 112–127. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004513150_006

23. Wagner, W. (2022) ‘The Myth of the Orient in Flaubert’s Voyage en Égypte and Bachmann’s Das Buch Franza’, New Perspectives on Imagology. Leiden: BRILL, pp. 257–273. https://doi.org/0.1163/9789004513150_014

24. Weichmann, M. (2015) ‘»In hochachtungsvoller Ergebenheit an... den Bolschewismus«: Thomas Manns Kampf für Meinungsfreiheit und Humanität im Schulterschluss mit der Roten Hilfe’, Thomas Mann Jahrbuch, 28, pp. 231–252.

25. Woźniak, M. A. (1995) Kalisz – 1914: pogrom miasta. Kalisz: Kaliskie Towarz. Przyjaciół Nauk.