The Historiography of Paul Schiemann
―extraordinarily commendable venture‖, Hiden describes Paul Schiemann‘s
life and effect ―with much sympathy, admittedly without adopting a Baltic
German perspective which above all is typified by the preservation of the
German nation‖.
71
If the reviewer means that in comparing the Baltic German
―triumvirate‖ of Ammende, Hasselblatt and Schiemann, that the latter ―quite
obviously is the only positive figure in the field of Baltic German minorities
policy‖, then this criticism might be exaggerated and unfair to the efforts of
many other Baltic minorities‘ politicians.
Summary
The transformation in Schiemann‘s treatment has been mirrored in lexicons
and reference books. The Deutschbaltische Biographische Lexikon was
published in 1970 under the aegis of the Baltic Historical Commission and is
regarded as authoritative even today, yet it barely mentions the posts
Schiemann held during his life and limits it conclusions to the following:
―liberal democrat, opponent of Bolshevism and National Socialism‖.
72
It was
longer still until more recent reference works―albeit with the necessary
brevity―could recognise his personality more fully and provide extensive
literature references. Occasions for this included commemorative days or
fresh editions of general lexicons,
73
such as the extensive Neue Deutsche
Biographie, which recognised his achievements unequivocally.
74
Most
recently of all, Schiemann was included in a literary lexicon with an
extensive bibliography of works about him.
75
At first Schiemann‘s treatment
was clearly restrained and honoured him only in part, but this changed inside
the Baltic Historical Commission as the chairmanship passed from Reinhard
Wittram to Georg von Rauch, before being consolidated under Gert von
Pistohlkors, who held the post for several years. With few exceptions, almost
all German researchers into Schiemann‘s career belong to this academic
organisation.
Six decades of steadily growing research have provided the basis for
the long overdue paying of attention to Schiemann‘s life‘s work, as well as
for its appropriate description. At first, since his personality was controversial
among his contemporaries, he was dealt with only hesitantly. As a result, an
impetus to begin the necessary work was only provided in the 1950s by his
former colleague Hans von Rimscha. Research became more intensive in the
1970s due to Dietrich A. Loeber and entered a new phase thanks to the
engagement of a new generation of researchers such as Helmut Kause, Gert
von Pistohlkors, Michael Garleff and Detlef Henning―all supported by the
last living member of Schiemann‘s colleagues, Hans Donath. Finally,
research about Schiemann received further stimuli from the broadening of
interest beyond the Baltic German research circle, a development which
displayed two characteristics. On the one hand, in his former homeland of
Latvia, speeches given there and smaller publications by Loeber, Garleff and
Henning awakened the interest of Latvian historians such as Inesis Feldmanis