Kreuzzeitung: Difference between revisions

The '''''Kreuzzeitung''''' was a national daily newspaper published between 1848 and 1939 in the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] and then during the [[German Empire]], the [[Weimar Republic]] and into the first part of the [[Nazi Germany|Third Reich]]. The paper was a voice of the conservative upper class, although it was never associated with any political party and never had more than 10,000 subscribers. Its target readership was the nobility, military officers, high-ranking officials, industrialists and diplomats. Because its readers were among the elite, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' was often quoted and at times very influential. It had connections to officials in the highest levels of government and business and was especially known for its foreign reporting.  Most of its content consisted of carefully researched foreign and domestic news reported without commentary.

Its original name was officially the ''{{Lang|de|Neue Preußische Zeitung''}} (''New Prussian Newspaper''), although because of the [[Iron Cross]] as its emblem in the title, it was simply called the ‘''Kreuzzeitung''’ (''Cross Newspaper'') in both general and official usage. In 1911 it was renamed the ''{{Lang|de|Neue Preußische (Kreuz)-Zeitung''}} and then after 1929 the ''{{Lang|de|Neue Preußische Kreuz-Zeitung''}}. Between 1932 and 1939 the official title was simply the ''Kreuzzeitung''.<ref>Stefan Schilling: ''Das zerstörte Erbe: Berliner Zeitungen der Weimarer Republik im Portrait.'' [The Lost Legacy: A Portrait of Berlin Newspapers of the Weimar Republic] Dissertation. Norderstedt 2011, p. 405.</ref><ref>Österreichische{{Cite Akademieweb der|title=Neue WissenschaftenPreußische [<nowiki/>[[AustrianZeitung Academy of Sciences]]]: ''<nowiki>http|url=https://www.oeaw.ac.at/cgi-bin/cmc/bz/vlg/0870/</nowiki>'' |website=Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften}}</ref><ref>Stephan Zick: ''Mythos „Bismarcks"Bismarcks Sozialpolitik“Sozialpolitik": Akteure und Interessen der Sozialgesetzgebung im Deutschen Kaiserreich'' [Myth of "Bismarck's Social Policy": Actors and Interests of Social Legislation in the German Empire]''.'' Dissertation. Norderstedt 2016, p. 47.</ref> From its first issue to its last, the newspaper used the German motto from the [[German campaign of 1813|Wars of Liberation]] "Forward with God for King and Fatherland" as its subtitle.<ref>Michael Dreyer: ''Kreuzzeitung (1848–1939).'' In: ''Handbuch des Antisemitismus'' [Handbook of Antisemitism]. Walter de Gruyter, 2013, p. 418.</ref><ref name=":0">Dagmar Bussiek: ''Mit Gott für König und Vaterland! Die Neue Preußische Zeitung (Kreuzzeitung) 1848–1892''. [With God for King and Fatherland! The New Prussian Newspaper (Cross Newspaper) 1848-1892]. LIT Verlag, Münster 2002, p. 7 ff.</ref> It had editorial offices in various cities in Germany and abroad. Its headquarters was in [[Berlin]]'''.'''

* Carl von Voß-BookBuch

The launch of the newspaper and the founding of the publishing house were carried out with military precision. The intent was for the paper to be characterized by good networking with the highest state institutions.<ref>Stephan Zick: ''Mythos „Bismarcks Sozialpolitik“: Akteure und Interessen der Sozialgesetzgebung im Deutschen Kaiserreich'' [Myth of "Bismarck's Social Policy": Actors and Interests of Social Legislation in the German Empire]''.'' Dissertation. Norderstedt 2003, p. 47.</ref> Berlin was chosen both for the headquarters of the New Prussian Newspaper, Inc. and as the location for its printing. The calculated starting capital of 20,000 [[thaler]]s was raised by selling shares of 100 thalers each. A total of 80 people subscribed, including [[Otto von Bismarck]], who for many years personally wrote articles for the ''Kreuzzeitung''. The largest shareholder, with shares worth 2,000 thalers, was Carl von Voß-Buch, a lawyer and civil adjutant to William IV. The subscription price was set at 1.5 thalers per quarter; outside Berlin, subscriptions cost 2 thalers due to the postal surcharge. The paper was printed initially by the Brandis Company in Berlin, and three sample issues were sent out in mid-June 1848. Following this, a large number of subscriptions was immediately able to be sold to aristocrats, district councils and senior civil servants. [[Hermann Wagener]] became editor-in-chief, and issue Number 1 of the {{Lang|de|Neue Preußische Zeitung}} appeared on 30 June 30, 1848.<ref name=":0" />

In connection to the new paper, the Prussian Conservative Party was called the “Kreuzzeitung“''Kreuzzeitung'' Party” or simply the "Cross Party”. In the same way, the use of the colloquial terms "black" or having "black views" to refer to members and voters of Christian conservative parties can be traced back to the ''Kreuzzeitung'', because the paper was printed in jet black until its end.<ref>Hans Dieter Bernd: ''Die Instrumentalisierung des Antisemitismus und der Dolchstoßlegende in der Kreuz-Zeitung''. In: ''Die Beseitigung der Weimarer Republik auf „legalem“ Weg: die Funktion des Antisemitismus in der Agitation der Führungsschicht der DNVP'' [The Instrumentalization of Anti-Semitism and the Stab-in-the-back Myth in the Kreuz-Zeitung. In: The Elimination of the Weimar Republic by "Legal" Means: The Function of Anti-Semitism in the Agitation of the DNVP's Leaders], Chap. 6. Dissertation. Bochum 2004, p. 171 ff.</ref>

== Development up to the founding of the German Empire ==

[[File:F.J.Stahl.jpg|thumb|left|253x253px|Friedrich Julius Stahl (here around 1840) had direct access to the Kingking and wrote regularly for the ''Kreuzzeitung,'']]

The ''Kreuzzeitung'' was controversial from the beginning, even among the various groups of conservatives. Particularly at the beginning of the post-1848 reactionary era, part of the upper nobility "categorically rejected such democratic means in the struggle to form opinions”.<ref>Dagmar Bussiek: ''Mit Gott für König und Vaterland Die Neue Preußische Zeitung (Kreuzzeitung) 1848–1892'' [With God for King and Fatherland! The New Prussian Newspaper (Cross Newspaper) 1848-1892]. LIT Verlag, Münster 2002, p. 18.</ref> Very quickly, however, Wagener was able to win the trust of the founders. With the support of [[Friedrich Julius Stahl]], he quickly built up a dense network of authors and informants. The majority wrote their articles under a pseudonym as independent contributors. Only in [[Vienna]], [[Dresden]], [[Munich]] and other capitals of the individual German states were correspondents permanently employed. For many years Bismarck himself supplied reports from [[Paris]]. Reporters obtained news from all other countries fromthrough diplomats in Berlin.<ref name=":1">Bernhard Studt: ''Bismarck als Mitarbeiter der „Kreuzzeitung“ in den Jahren 1848 und 1849'' [Bismarck as Contributor to the Kreuzzeitung in the Years 1848 and 1849]''.'' Dissertation. Kröger Druckerei, Blankenese 1903, p. 6.</ref>

The editorial staff enjoyed a relatively high degree of independence, although the paper's loyalty to the monarchy was never questioned. Until the end of 1849 the paper was not self-supporting. Frederick William IV is said to have personally supported the ''Kreuzzeitung'' financially at this time.<ref name=":2">Dagmar Bussiek: ''Mit Gott für König und Vaterland! Die Neue Preußische Zeitung (Kreuzzeitung) 1848–1892'' [With God for King and Fatherland! The New Prussian Newspaper (Cross Newspaper) 1848-1892]. LIT Verlag, Münster 2002, p. 37.</ref> Nevertheless, the editors were soon in a position to buy back most of the shares from the paper's backers. The chairmanship of the joint stock company was henceforth assumed by the current editor-in-chief. The shareholders were represented only on a five-member committee which had the right to audit the accounts but could not influence the newspaper's content or personnel.<ref name=":2" />

That this independence had distinct limits was clearly felt by the first editor-in-chief. After the newspaper continuously and openly criticized both the dictatorship of [[Napoleon III]] and him as a person, Bismarck called on the paper to exercise restraint. The editors ignored the advice. As a consequence, in April 1852 the ''Kreuzzeitung'' was banned in France, and several editions were confiscated in Berlin. The next strains followed when the editorial board openly spoke out against the repeal of the Basic Rights of the German People as drafted by the [[Frankfurt Parliament]] and thus against the [[Lesser Germany]] solution. A wide variety of power interests and spheres of influence clashed here.<ref name=":1" />

The paper's position repeatedly met with opposition from [[Otto Theodor von Manteuffel]], then the Prussian[[Minister primePresident of Prussia|minister president of Prussia]]. Another bitter rival of the paper was the head of the Police Department in the Ministry of the Interior, Karl Ludwig Friedrich von Hinckeldey. Hinckeldey did not hesitate to take the editor-in-chief of the {{Lang|de|Neue Preußische Zeitung}} into custody for several days when he refused to give the names of all writers, including anonymous authors, to police authorities. Hinckeldey received a personal reprimand from the king for his high-handed action. Although Wagener had thus received royal backing, he was unnerved and resigned from his position at the ''Kreuzzeitung''. Tuiscon Beutner became the new editor-in-chief in 1854. Frederick William IV advised him "that the newspaper should continue to appear undeterred and should not change anything in its policy, only that it should be cautious toward France”.<ref>Dagmar Bussiek: ''Mit Gott für König und Vaterland! Die Neue Preußische Zeitung (Kreuzzeitung) 1848–1892'' [With God for King and Fatherland! The New Prussian Newspaper (Cross Newspaper) 1848-1892]. LIT Verlag, Münster 2002, p. 123.</ref>

Under Beutner's leadership too the paper was not immune to impoundments. Entire editions that had already been printed were repeatedly confiscated. The reason for this was the differing views within the Conservative Party, which ultimately led to several splits from 1857 onward. In addition, the relationship between the ''Kreuzzeitung'' and Bismarck worsened. OnEven the one hand, until 1871though he regularly had articles written for the ''Kreuzzeitung'' through his press assistant [[Julius Hermann Moritz Busch|Moritz Busch]]; onuntil the other hand1871, the ''[[Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung|Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung]]'' was steadily evolvedevolving into "Bismarck's house [[postil]]".<ref>Moritz Busch: ''Tagebücher. Zweiter Band: Graf Bismarck und seine Leute während des Kriegs mit Frankreich nach Tagebuchsblättern'' [Diaries. Second volume: Count Bismarck and His People During the War with France, per Pages from the Diary]''.'' Verlag Grunow, Leipzig 1899, p. 224.</ref>

Although the ''Kreuzzeitung'' predominantly represented the views of the arch-conservatives, i.e. the representatives of the king and later the emperor, it also always covered the interests of the liberal-conservative, Christian-conservative and social-conservative forces. In doing so, the paper presented facts or actions primarily as reports or news items, that is, without an assessment by the author. But the very fact that it published different positions without commenting on them regularly brought it regularly under criticism. The [[German question|German Question]] and the relations of the German states with the major European powers developed into perennial topics of dispute.<ref>[[Reinhart Koselleck]]: ''Preußen zwischen Reform und Revolution'' [Prussia Between Reform and Revolution]''.'' Klett-Cotta, 1987. p. 111 ff.</ref>

[[File:Theodor Fontane.png|thumb|235x235px|Theodor Fontane worked for the ''Kreuzzeitung'' for 19 years]]

[[File:BismarckArbeitszimmer1886.jpg|thumb|left|210x210px|Otto von Bismarck (here in 1886) went from friend to foe of the ''Kreuzzeitung''.]]

In June and July 1875 the journalist Franz Perrot, writing under a pseudonym, published a series of five articles in the ''Kreuzzeitung:'' called "The Era of [[Gerson von Bleichröder|Bleichröder]]-Delbrück-[[Otto von Camphausen|Camphausen]] and the New German Economic Policy”. In them he indirectly attacked Bismarck in the person of his banker Gerson von Bleichröder. The articles, which were heavily edited by Nathusius-Ludom, described Bismarck's economic policy as the cause of the [[Panic of 1873#Germany and Austria-Hungary|stock market crash of 1873]], accused the bankers of self-serving speculation and alleged all but openly that Bismarck was involved in corruption.<ref>Lothar Gall: ''Bismarck. Der weiße Revolutionär'' [Bismarck, the White Revolutionary]''.'' Ullstein, 2002, p. 545 f.</ref>

The articles triggered a scandal. Perrot revealed that bankers, mediatized princes, and members of parliament were able to gain advantages on the stock exchange not just through the help of diplomatic channels. It came to light as well that a number of state officials participated in wild speculations and made use of their official or political influence by personally participating in and founding joint-stock companies. Bismarck had to respond to the accusations in court and before the [[Reichstag (German Empire)|Reichstag]]. For him the conflict with the ''Kreuzzeitung'' was "now out in the open, and the bridges are burnt".<ref>Ursula E. Koch: ''Berliner Presse und europäisches Geschehen 1871'' [The Berlin Press and European events 1871]''.'' Colloquium Verlag, 1978, p. 80.</ref> Bismarck called publicly for a boycott of the ''Kreuzzeitung''. The paper countered by publishing more than 100 names of declarants, nobles, members of parliament, and pastors who in letters to the newspaper expressed their approval of the publication of the research.

Nothing could be proven against the chancellor, but in fact he had hoped that his economic policy would lead to a split among the liberals. Moreover, his policies did indeed contribute to fluctuations in the stock market that had serious consequences. For example, heHe bought up private railroads either himself or through intermediaries in order to establish a kind of state railroad system, thus putting considerable pressure on the railroad corporations and their steel suppliers.<ref>Falko Krause: ''Die Stadtbahn in Berlin: Planung, Bau, Auswirkungen'' [The light rail in Berlin: planning, construction, effects]''.'' Diplomica Verlag, 2014, p. 66.</ref> Perrot's accusations of corruption also later proved to be true. It emerged from documents that were uncovered that Bismarck had participated with his own funds in, among other things, the founding of the Boden-Credit-Bank and had personally signed its foundation charter and articles of association, thus giving it a privileged position among German mortgage banks.<ref>Otto Pflanze: ''Bismarck – Der Reichsgründer'' [Bismarck – the Founder of the Empire]''.'' C.H. Beck, 2008, p. 396.</ref> The Iron Chancellor never forgave the ''Kreuzzeitung'' for the Era articles. Even in his late work ''{{Lang|de|Gedanken und Erinnerungen''}} (''Thoughts and Reminiscences''), he spoke of "poison-mixing" and the "vulgar ''Kreuzzeitung''".

It was never possible to find out who Perrot's source was. There was speculation as to whether [[William I, German Emperor|Wilhelm I]] had wanted to give his Reich Chancellorchancellor a personal warning. The emperor did not comment openly on the accusations of corruption, but he disliked the anti-Jewish polemic that was present in the five articles.<ref>Paul Bang: ''Schriften zu Deutschlands Erneuerung'' Band 4. [Writings on Germany’s Renewal, vol.4]'',''  J.F. Lehmann, 1934, p. 404.</ref> Their goal was not primarily to defame the Jews but explicitly to "exasperate Bismarck".<ref>Dagmar Bussiek: ''Mit Gott für König und Vaterland! Die Neue Preußische Zeitung (Kreuzzeitung) 1848–1892'' [With God for King and Fatherland! The New Prussian Newspaper (Cross Newspaper) 1848-1892]. LIT Verlag, Münster 2002, p. 235.</ref> The proxy attacks on the Jewish bankers, however, went too far for Wilhelm I, who favored integration of the Jews.  He had signed a pan-German law in 1871 granting equal rights to the Jews, and in particular in 1872 had elevated Gerson Bleichröder to the hereditary nobility, the first Jew to be accorded the honor.<ref>Fritz Stern: ''Gold und Eisen: Bismarck und sein Bankier Bleichröder'' [Gold and Iron: Bismarck and his Banker Bleichröder]''.'' Ullstein, 1978, p. 580 f.</ref> The consequence was that Franz Perrot and Philipp von Nathusius-Ludom had to leave the ''Kreuzzeitung''.

Benno von Niebelschütz became the editor-in-chief in 1876. With him, according to the emperor, the newspaper "not only lost all journalistic bite, but in part even its readability".<ref>Dagmar Bussiek: ''Mit Gott für König und Vaterland! Die Neue Preußische Zeitung (Kreuzzeitung) 1848–1892'' [With God for King and Fatherland! The New Prussian Newspaper (Cross Newspaper) 1848-1892]''.'' LIT Verlag, Münster 2002, p. 242.</ref> He was succeeded in 1884 by [[Wilhelm Joachim von Hammerstein|Wilhelm Joachim Baron von Hammerstein]]. Under his leadership, the paper treated the so-called [[Jewish question]] as a standalone topic. From today's perspective the ''Kreuzzeitung'' at times came close to being anti-Semitic. The term ‘anti-Semitic’ did not however exist in Germany before 1879, and the controversy was fueled by various supporters and opponents from every conceivable point of view. Even among Jewish associations, conflicting directions emerged, some advocating a turn towards modern society and strong assimilation, and others seeking to preserve the traditions of the faith. At the latest withWith [[Theodor Herzl]], who publicly and effectively sought the establishment of a Jewish state, the debate took on foreign policy dimensions. In the last two decades of the 19th century, the issue was so prominent that no newspaper could avoid it.<ref>Timo Stein: ''Zwischen Antisemitismus und Israelkritik: Antizionismus in der deutschen Linken'' [Between Anti-Semitism and Criticism of Israel: Anti-Zionism in the German Left]''.'' Springer-Verlag, 2011, p. 17 f.</ref>

Hammerstein worked closely with the court chaplain [[Adolf Stoecker]], with whom he maintained a personal friendship. Stoecker demanded, including in articles in the ''Kreuzzeitung'', an unconditional assimilation of the Jews through baptism and a limitation of the 1871 constitutional act giving them equal status. He also accused several individuals of abusing [[Jewish emancipation]] to secure positions of economic and political power. Hammerstein and Stoecker completely ignored the warnings of the Crowncrown Princeprince, who a short time later became [[Frederick III, German Emperor|Emperor Frederick III]].  He repeatedly described hostility toward Jews as the "disgrace of the century". The imperial house was determined to put an end to Stoecker's activities. In the spring of 1889, the Crown Council officially informed him that he was to cease his agitations. Since Stoecker continued to make trouble, he was forced to resign a year later by [[Wilhelm II, German Emperor|Wilhelm II]], who became emperor after the untimely death of his father.<ref>Daniela Kasischke-Wurm: ''Antisemitismus im Spiegel der Hamburger Presse während des Kaiserreichs'']'', 1884–1914'' [Anti-Semitism in the Mirror of the Hamburg Press during the Empire, 1884-1914]''.'' LIT Verlag, 1997, p. 97–98.</ref>

[[File:Julius-Rodenberg.jpg|thumb|209x209px|One of the best-known Jewish journalists of the time was Julius Rodenberg (shown here around 1875), who wrote for the ''Kreuzzeitung'' from 1859 to 1896.]]

Jews were in fact an integral part of the German Empire.<ref>Shulamit Volkov: ''Jüdische Assimilation und jüdische Eigenart im Deutschen Kaiserreich'' [Jewish Assimilation and Jewish Distinctiveness in the German Empire]''.'' In: ''Geschichte und Gegenwart: Historische Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft,'' Band 9 [History and Present: Historical Journal for Social Science, vol. 9]. Göttingen 1983, p. 132.</ref> The ''Kreuzzeitung'' had had Jewish writers working for it since its founding. By 1880 it employed 46 permanent correspondents who were Jewish and had several Jewish freelancers.<ref>Michael Fleischer: ''Kommen Sie, Cohn. Fontane und die Judenfrage'' [Come, Cohn. Fontane and the Jewish Question]''.'' Taschenbuch-Verlag, 1998, p. 46.</ref> Jewish deputies with large Jewish constituencies were represented in the conservative parties.<ref>Hans-Joachim Schoeps: ''Jüdische Anhänger der Konservativen Partei Preußens'' [Jewish Supporters in the Conservative Party of Prussia]''.'' In: ''Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte'' [Journal for Religious and Intellectual History]''.'' Vol. 24, No. 4 (1972), p. 337–346.</ref> The warning from the emperor had its effect. In 1890, for example, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' did not take part in the media controversy over the Vering-Salomon duel, in which the Jewish Salomon was killed by his fellow student Vering from the [[Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg|Albert Ludwig University]], but treated the ensuing disputes objectively. The paper pursued an internally developed "taming concept,", which it outlined in the summer of 1892 with the words, "The ''Kreuzzeitung'' is here to keep anti-Semitism within limits”.<ref>Hans Manfred Bock: ''Konservative intellektuellen Milieu in Deutschland: seine Presse und seine Netzwerke, 1890–1960'' [The Conservative Intellectual Milieu in Germany: Its Press and Its Networks, 1890-1960]''.'' Lang-Verlag, 2003, p. 60 f.</ref>  

The greatest damage to the respectability and credibility of the ''Kreuzzeitung'' was done by its editor-in-chief Hammerstein. He liked to portray himself as a "clean man" and always loudly promoted law and order but had relationships with women outside his marriage and lived in a grand style.  On July 4, July 1895, he was dismissed for dishonesty by the ''Kreuzzeitung'' committee. In his capacity as editor-in-chief he had approached a paper supplier named Flinsch and proposed a deal, asking for 200,000 marks (equivalent to about 1.3 million euros today<ref>Compare ''Deutsche Währungsgeschichte Abschnitt Mark (1871–1923)'' [German Currency History Section Mark (1871-1923)].</ref>) and in return committing himself to buy all the paper for the ''Kreuzzeitung'' from Flinsch for the next ten years. The deal went through. Hammerstein had greatly inflated the invoices issued and pocketed the difference. In order to do this, he forged the signatures of the corporate board members [[Georg von Kanitz|Georg Graf von Kanitz]] and Hans Graf Finck von Finckenstein, as well as the seal and signature of a police superintendent. The affair was discovered. When it came to light that Hammerstein had exhausted a pension fund set up by the ''Kreuzzeitung'', he resigned his seats in the national and state parliaments in the summer of 1895 and fled with the 200,000 marks to Greece via [[Tyrol]] and [[Naples]].

The scandal created enormous waves and was debated repeatedly in the Reichstag. The ''Kreuzzeitung's'' competition -– and it was considerable -– ran the story on the front pages and reported almost daily on the state of the investigation. In the search for the criminal editor-in-chief, the Reich Officeoffice of Justicejustice finally sent a detective inspector named Wolff to southern Europe. He scoured several countries and found Baron von Hammerstein, alias "Dr. Heckert," in [[Athens]] on 27 December 27, 1895. Wolff arranged for his deportation through the German Embassyembassy and had him arrested upon his arrival in [[Brindisi]], Italy. In April 1896 Hammerstein was sentenced to three years imprisonment.<ref>''{{Cite web |date= |title=Hammerstein, Wilh., Freiherr von. In: Brockhaus Konversations-Lexikon 1894–1896, Supplementband 1897'', [Brockhausp. Dictionary528 of|url=https://www.retrobibliothek.de/retrobib/seite.html?werk=Brockhaus&id=137437&imageview=true Conversations|website=Die 1894Retro-1896,Bibliothek Supplemental Vol 1897]'','' p. 528.|page=}}</ref>

In the wake of these events, the {{Lang|de|Neue Preußische Zeitung}} lost about 2,000 readers. Circulation fell steadily. Even Wilhelm II, who did not want to abandon the paper, could do nothing, although he had it publicly announced that "The Emperor reads the ''Kreuzzeitung'' now as before; it is in fact the only political newspaper he reads".<ref name=":1"/>

The decline was not halted until Georg Foertsch took over as editor-in-chief in 1913.  He kept the circulation constant at 7,200 copies until 1932.<ref>Margot Lindemann, Kurt Koszyk: ''Geschichte der deutschen Presse'' Band 2 [History of the German Press, vol 2]''.'' Colloquium Verlag, 1966, p. 138.</ref><ref name="Kurt Koszyk 1970, p. 205">Kurt Koszyk, Karl Hugo Pruys: ''Wörterbuch zur Publizistik'' [Dictionary of Journalism]''.'' Walter de Gruyter, 1970, p. 205.</ref> The retired major had previously worked as a press attaché to the Imperialimperial Navynavy. He maintained neutrality and concentrated on the ''Kreuzzeitung's'' core competence, foreign reporting. Foertsch encouraged young journalists but hired only professionals. They had the best connections to diplomats, politicians, and industrialists both at home and abroad, with the result that the ''Kreuzzeitung'' was able to publish numerous reports exclusively and/or be the first to cover them. In domestic politics, Foertsch maintained personal contacts with the Imperialimperial Treasurytreasury, from which he regularly received comprehensive information about the current financial and economic state of affairs, as well as the plans of the German Reich.

The new editor-in-chief reorganized finances and subsumed the buildings and editorial offices that the newspaper had acquired in recent decades in Germany and abroad under a wholly owned subsidiary, ''Kreuzzeitung'' Real Estate Inc. He also raised the subscriber price to 9 marks (today about 55 euros)<ref>Compare Deutsche Währungsgeschichte Abschnitt Mark (1871–1923) [German Currency History Section Mark (1871-1923)].</ref>) per quarter. The readership apparently had no problem with this. Aristocratic landowners, politicians and high-ranking civil servants in particular subscribed to the paper for an additional 1.25 marks (today around 8 euros) per week, with twice-daily postal delivery. In the [[German colonial empire|German protectorates]] as well as in [[Austria-Hungary]] and [[Luxembourg]], the delivery charges by mail were also 1.25 marks per week. A single issue cost 10 pfennigs.<ref>Compare details on top left of each title page from June 1913 onwards.</ref>

[[File:Kreuz 1914 0708.gif|thumb|Speech by the Kaiser "To the German People!" on the front page of the morning edition of August 7, August 1914.]]

One of Foertsch's best foreign experts was Theodor Schiemann. Through his books and political articles in the ''Kreuzzeitung'' he attracted the attention of Wilhelm II. This developed into a friendly relationship through which Schiemann was able to exert political influence as an advisor, especially on eastern European issues.<ref>Klaus Meyer: ''Theodor Schiemann als politischer Publizist'' [Theodor Schiemann as Political Journalist]''.'' Verlag Rütten & Loening, 1956, p. 9 f.</ref><ref>John Hiden: ''Defender of minorities. Paul Schiemann 1876–1944.'' Verlag Hurst, 2004, p. 39.</ref> On the eve of World War I, Schiemann foresaw a two-front war and wrote in the ''Kreuzzeitung'' on May 27, May 1914: "The German Empire must consider the fact that it will find England on the side of its future adversaries, and should not carelessly bring about such a conflict." The article had no effect: on August 7, August 1914, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' published Kaiser Wilhelm's famous speech "To the German People!" in which he said that "now the sword must decide".<ref>Front page Kreuzzeitung of August 7, 1914, see illustration above.</ref>

During the First World War not only did all political parties enter into the so-called [[Burgfriedenspolitik|Burgfrieden]] – the tabling of domestic political and economic disputes – but in principle all German newspapers did as well. This went so far that several conservative parties effectively ceased their activities. During this period the ''Kreuzzeitung'' provided very well-researched commentaries which are still one of the most important sources for historians on military as well as day-to-day political events of World War I.<ref>Andreas Leipold: ''Die Bewertung Kaiser Wilhelms II'' [The Assessment of Emperor Wilhelm II]''.'' GRIN Verlag, 2008, p. 2.</ref><ref>Friedhelm Boll and others. (Publisher): ''Archiv für Sozialgeschichte.'' Band 45 [Archive for Social History Vol. 45]. Verlag für Literatur und Zeitgeschehen, 2005, p. 561.</ref>

Writers have interpreted the attitude of the editors and thus the basic political direction of the ''Kreuzzeitung'' differently, especially during the [[Weimar Republic]]. Depending on the author's ideological view, the spectrum ranges from "stock Protestant,", "feudal,", "German national,", "ultraconservative"," "agrarian"," "[[East Elbia]]n,”n” and "[[Junker]] conservative" to "anti-modern”. More recent research uses "monarchist-conservative" as the general term and regards other descriptions as one-sided at best and some of them even as false.<ref>Martin Kohlrausch: ''Der Monarch im Skandal: die Logik der Massenmedien und die Transformation der wilhelminischen Monarchie'' [The Monarch in Scandal: The Logic of the Mass Media and the Transformation of the Wilhelmine Monarchy]''.'' Akademie Verlag, 2005, p. 111 f.</ref> Thus,On as early as12 November 12, 1918, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' ran the headline: "Germany is facing an upheaval such as history has not yet seen" and, following [[Politics (Aristotle)|Aristotle's constitutional theory]], described democracy as a "degenerate" form of government, saying that "only a tyranny is worse". The goal of the paper thus remained the old one: defense of the monarchy. That meant that the ''Kreuzzeitung's'' stance was anti-Weimar Republic, but also anti-dictatorship.<ref name="Wolfgang Benz 2013, p. 419">Wolfgang Benz, Michael Dreyer: ''Handbuch des Antisemitismus'' [Handbook of Antisemitism]''.'' Walter de Gruyter, 2013, p. 419.</ref>

Politically, most of the ''Kreuzzeitung's'' staff did not feel at home anywhere after the [[German Revolution of 1918–1919|November Revolution]]. Few of its editors turned their backs on the paper; almost all were monarchists. They received some of the highest wages in the industry, and above all they were paid on time. The ''Kreuzzeitung'' had no party affiliation, so correspondents had a relatively wide latitude. As before, most of the newspaper consisted of scrupulously researched foreign news reported without commentary. Travel expenses were reimbursed, as were "cover invoices" for expenses such as undeclared payments or bribes. Through the ''Kreuzzeitung,'' employees gained access to the highest circles in Germany and abroad. Because of its connections to politics and business, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' continued to be regarded among journalists as a training ground. The weekly [[Die Weltbühne|''Weltbühne'']], for which the opposition ''Kreuzzeitung'' embodied the old German ruling class through and through, acknowledged the "old royalist ''Kreuzzeitung’s'' useful foreign policy information" and gladly employed journalists such as Lothar Persius who had learned their trade at the {{Lang|de|Neue Preußische Zeitung}}.<ref>Werner Bergengruen: ''Schriftstellerexistenz in der Diktatur'' [Writer’s Lives Under Dictatorship]''.''   Oldenbourg Verlag, 2005, p. 236.</ref> And even ''[[Vorwärts]]'', the party paper of the [[Social Democratic Party of Germany|Social Democrats]], apparently had no qualms about a hiring a person like Hans Leuss, who had to leave the ''Kreuzzeitung'' because of his anti-Jewish agitation.

Jewish editors continued to work at the ''Kreuzzeitung''. The paper consciously set itself apart from the "ruckus anti-Semitism" of the [[Alfred Hugenberg|Hugenberg]] press. While the paper cannot be described as in principle pro-Jewish, neither was it anti-Semitic.<ref name="Wolfgang Benz 2013, p. 419"/> The personalities of the editors shaped the paper's political leanings. Some authors almost as a matter of course used colloquial expressions of the time such as "traitor’s reward” ({{Lang|de|Judaslohn}}), "Judas kiss," or "Judas politics". But non-Jewish politicians were also defamed as "Judas", since he was considered to be symbolic for a traitor.<ref>Mirjam Kübler: ''Judas Iskariot – Das abendländische Judasbild und seine antisemitische Instrumentalisierung im Nationalsozialismus'' [Judas Iscariot - The Occidental Image of Judas and its Anti-Semitic Instrumentalization in National Socialism]''.'' Waltrop-Verlag, 2007, p. 104 f.</ref>

The repositioning of some conservative parties left the editors stunned. The [[Centre Party (Germany)|German CenterCentre Party]], for example, had transformed itself from a Catholic-conservative party into a Christian-democratic people's party and until the end of the Weimar Republic was in a position to form coalitions with all political groupings.<ref>''{{Cite web |title=Die Entwicklung christlich geprägter Parteien in der Weimarer Republik 1918-1933''1918–1933 [The Development of Christian Parties in the Weimar Republic 1918-1918– 1933] |url=https://www.kas.de/de/web/geschichte-der-cdu/1918-1933-die-entwicklung-christlich-gepraegter-parteien-in-der-weimarer-republik |website=Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.}}</ref><ref>''{{Cite web |title=Die Deutsche Zentrumspartei (Zentrum)'' [The German Center Party (Zentrum)] |url=https://www.dhm.de/lemo/kapitel/weimarer-republik/innenpolitik/zentrum.html |website=Deutsches Historisches Museum.: Lebendiges Museum Online}}</ref> From that point on, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' primarily disparaged not communists or socialists, but politicians of the CenterCentre Party. Their denomination played no fundamental role in this. The paper referred to the Catholic CenterCentre politician [[Matthias Erzberger]] as a "corrupter of the country" and a "fulfillment politician" – one who was in favor of fulfilling the treaty obligations of the Versailles Treaty in order to show that endedit Worldwas impossible to Wardo Iso – just as it did the Catholic CenterCentre deputies [[Heinrich Brauns]] and [[Joseph Wirth]], all of whom just a year earlier had explicitly identified with the wartime [[Burgfriedenspolitik|Burgfrieden policy]] of Reich Chancellor [[Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg]].<ref>Heinrich Küppers: ''Joseph Wirth. Parlamentarier, Minister und Kanzler der Weimarer Republik'' [Joseph Wirth. Parliamentarian, Minister and Chancellor of the Weimar Republic]''.'' Steiner-Verlag, 1997, p. 10 f.</ref>

On 17 November 17, 1919, Georg Foertsch "massively attacked republican Reich ministers"<ref>Bundesarchiv; Ausschnitt [Federal Archive: Excerpt] in: R 43 I/1226, Bl. 38.</ref> in a ''Kreuzzeitung'' article. In it he proclaimed that the forces opposing "this corrupted revolutionary government are gaining ground daily” and concluded with the battle cry, "We or the others. That is our motto!" The new Reich government then filed a criminal complaint. Foertsch received a fine of 300 marks for defamation. In mitigation, the court took into account "that the ''Kreuzzeitung'' represented a point of view fundamentally opposed to the Reich government and that the author had worked himself into an irritated mood against the Reich government through his thoughts and writing".<ref>Bundesarchiv; Ausfertigung des Urteils [Federal Archive: Draft of the Judgment] in: R 43 I/1226, Bl. 179–186.</ref>

The paper in particular bolstered the conservative [[Bavarian People's Party]] (BVP), which split from the German CenterCentre Party after what are now known as Erzberger's reforms, which gave the German federal government supreme authority to tax and spend and sought a significant redistribution of the tax burden in favor of low to moderate income households.  The BVP won more elections in [[Bavaria]] than any other party in all state elections until 1932. The BVP opposed republican centralism and initially called openly for secession from the German Reich. Journalistic support was provided by Erwein von Aretin, editor-in-chief of the [[Münchner Neueste Nachrichten|''Münchner Neuesten Nachrichten'']] (''Munich’s Latest News'') who also sat on the corporate board of the ''Kreuzzeitung''. He belonged to the senior leadership of the monarchists in Bavaria and openly advocated separation of the [[Free State of Bavaria]] from the Reich along with proclamation of a monarchy.<ref>Andreas Kraus: ''Geschichte Bayerns: von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart'' [History of Bavaria from the Beginnings to the Present]''.'' C.H. Beck, 2004, p. 270.</ref>

The ''Kreuzzeitung supported'' in the same way supported the monarchist wing of the [[German National People's Party]] (DNVP), which was led by [[Kuno von Westarp]]. For a time it was seen as the party best suited for implementing the ''Kreuzzeitung's'' own beliefs. Those included rejecting the republicRepublic as constituted, the [[Treaty of Versailles]], and the [[World War I reparations|reparation demands]] of the victorious powers.<ref name="Karsten Schilling 2011, p. 411">Karsten Schilling: ''Das zerstörte Erbe: Berliner Zeitungen der Weimarerer Republik im Portrait'' [The Destroyed Legacy: Berlin Newspapers of the Weimar Republic in Portrait]''.'' Dissertation. Norderstedt 2011, p. 411.</ref> A fundamentally Christian attitude admittedly always played a decisive role. Alfred Hugenberg's policy of rapprochement with the [[Nazi Party]] met with criticism from the editor-in-chief as well as the corporate board of the ''Kreuzzeitung''. Specifically, they rejected in principle the exaggerated portrayal of Germanness by the German Nationalists as well as by [[Nazism|National Socialism]] itself.<ref>Heinz Dietrich Fischer: ''Deutsche Zeitungen des 17. bis 20. Jahrhunderts'' [German Newspapers of the 17th through 20th centuries]''.'' Verlag Dokumentation, 1972, p. 224.</ref> The ''Kreuzzeitung'' openly rebuked the "Ur-Germanic fantasies" and the "neo-Communist terrorist actions of the National Socialist Party". It not only accused the Nazi Party of "betraying the idea of the nation"; it repeatedly described the way "millions of Germans are falling for the brown pied -pipery".<ref>''„Entartung des Wahlkampfes“'' [Degeneration of election campaigns]. In: ''Neue Kreuzzeitung,'' 8. Oktober 1932 (Ausgabe B).</ref><ref>Dirk Blasius: ''Weimars Ende. Bürgerkrieg und Politik 1930-1933'' [Weimar’s End: Civil War and Politics]. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005, p. 107.</ref> Finally, in a major article on December 5, December 1929, the editor-in-chief emphasized that the ''Kreuzzeitung'' was not the “megaphone of the DNVP" and "not in any way a German nationalist party organ".

[[File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06206, Graf Kuno von Westarp.jpg|thumb|left|267x267px|Count von Westarp (pictured here in the center in July 1928) was a member of the boarrdboard of the ''Kreuzzeitung'' from 1919 to 1932.]]

The ''Kreuzzeitung'' also supported the paramilitary [[Der Stahlhelm, Bund der Frontsoldaten|Stahlhelm]], but only conditionally in the person of [[Theodor Duesterberg]], whom the National Socialists had discredited because of his "not purely Aryan origin".<ref>Heinrich Brüning: ''Memoiren 1918–1934'' [Memoirs 1918-1934]''.'' Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1970, p. 467.</ref> During Duesterberg's candidacy in the [[1932 German presidential election]]''',''' a steel helmet ({{Lang|de|Stahlhelm}}) was depicted above the Iron Cross in the newspaper's header, but this was only a means to an electoral end.<ref name="Karsten Schilling 2011, p. 411"/> Editor-in-chief Foertsch repeatedly exposed the Nazi Party's campaign methods, contended that "[[Adolf Hitler|Hitler]] was not free of socialist thinking and was therefore a danger to Germany," and ran headlines such as "May the day come when the black-white-red flag flies again on government buildings"<ref>Titel Morgenausgabe Kreuzzeitung 1. Januar 1929 sowie Georg Foertsch: ''Letzter Appell''. In: ''Kreuzzeitung,'' 12. März 1932. [Headline, morning edition ''Kreuzzeitung'' January 1, 1929 and also Georg Foertsch, Last Appeal].</ref><ref>Heinz Dietrich Fischer: ''Deutsche Zeitungen des 17. bis 20..Jahrhunderts Jahrhunderts'' [German Newspapers of the 17th through 20th centuries]''.'' Verlag Dokumentation, 1972, p. 224.</ref> – referring to the flag of the German Empire used from 1871 to 1918.

The Stahlhelm had over 500,000 members and the DNVP almost one million. Both groups had their own party newspapers. Their members were never part of the target group of the ''Kreuzzeitung'', whose circulation remained constant at 7,200 until 1932. At no time did the paper come under the ownership of the Stahlhelm or the DNVP. [[Franz Seldte]], the national leader of the Stahlhelm, owned Frundsberg Publishers in Berlin, through which he distributed several publications for the Stahlhelm. [[Alfred Hugenberg]] owned more than 1,600 German newspapers, so that he too did not at any time need the ''Kreuzzeitung'' as a megaphone or party newspaper, although he would gladly have taken it over for reasons of prestige.<ref>Dankwart Guratzsch: ''Macht durch Organisation. Die Grundlegung des Hugenbergschen Presseimperiums'' [Power through Organization. The Foundation of Hugenberg's Press Empire]''.'' Bertelsmann, 1974, p. 27 ff.</ref> The ''Kreuzzeitung's'' target group always remained the conservative upper class. This included the members of the German Gentlemen's Club. All of the ''Kreuzzeitung's'' corporate board belonged to it, as did Georg Foertsch as editor-in-chief. Many of the Gentlemen's Club's approximately 5,000 members were readers of the ''Kreuzzeitung''. They also provided the paper with information and gave it financial aid during the [[Hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic|inflationperiod of yearshyperinflation]].<ref name="Kurt Koszyk 1970, p. 205"/>

Reich President [[Paul von Hindenburg]], who was seen as the guarantor of the monarchy and the sole figure with the stature to restore it, received unlimited support from the ''Kreuzzeitung''. Hindenburg also occasionally leaked internal information to the paper and wrote short articles for it himself, which he had published via Kuno von Westarp.<ref>Larry Eugene Jones, Wolfram Pyta: ''Ich bin der letzte Preusse: der politische Lebensweg des konservativen Politikers Kuno Graf von Westarp'' [I am the Last Prussian: the Political Life of the Conservative Politician Kuno Graf von Westarp]''.'' Böhlau Verlag, 2006, p. 182.</ref> He had a legendary interview with the liberal ''[[Berliner Tageblatt]]'' which came about at the request of theHindenburg's press department of the Reich President. Hindenburg reluctantly agreed to the interview, took up, according to his own statements, "for the first time in his life one of those deadly world papers" and said in a defiant tone to his press chief: "But I will continue to read only the ''Kreuzzeitung''."<ref>Emil Ludwig: ''Hindenburg. Legend und Wirklichkeit'' [Hindenburg: Legend and Reality]''.'' Rütten & Loening, 1962, p. 213.</ref> Accordingly, the interview with [[Theodor Wolff]] proceeded haltingly. Right at the beginning, when asked if he was familiar with the ''Berliner Tageblatt'', Hindenburg replied, "I have been used to reading the ''Kreuzzeitung'' with breakfast all my life". The rest of the conversation did not proceed any better, as Hindenburg did not risk talking to Wolff, the most influential representative of the [[Rudolf Mosse|Mosse]] press, about either hunting or the military.<ref>Hans Frentz: ''Der Unbekannte Ludendorff: Der Feldherr in seiner Umwelt und Epoche'' [The Unknown Ludendorff: The Commander in his Environment and Epoch]''.'' Limes Verlag, 1972, p. 270.</ref><ref>Carl von Ossietzky: ''Die Neue Weltbühne: Wochenschrift für Politik, Kunst, Wirtschaft'' [The ''New Weltbühne'': Weekly Journal for Politics, Art, Economics, vol. 30]''.'' Band 30. Ausgaben 27–52. Weltbühne, 1932, p. 1027.</ref>

For the ''Kreuzzeitung,'' Hindenburg remained to the last the bearer of hope. He showed little inclination to confer the chancellorship on Hitler until shortly before 30 January 30, 1933. As late as 12 August 12, 1932, he rejected to good public effect Hitler's demand that "the leadership of the Reich government and all state power be conferred in full on himme". The ''Kreuzzeitung'' praised Hindenburg's attitude toward Hitler as "understandable and well-founded". Granting Hitler's demands, the paper said, would have meant degrading the Reich president to a "puppet to be staged at ceremonial events dressed in a state robe". With this assessment, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' foreshadowed precisely the scenario that was to come about after Hitler seized power.<ref>Jesko von Hoegen: ''Der Held von Tannenberg: Genese und Funktion des Hindenburg-Mythos'' [The Hero of Tannenberg: Genesis and Function of the Hindenburg Myth]''.'' Böhlau Verlag, 2007, p. 363.</ref>

During the hyperinflation of 1922/23, the ''Kreuzzeitung'' fell into existential difficulties financially. Its reserves continuously fell and it lost all of its real estate. Foertsch managed to keep the business going by means of private donations from members of the Gentlemen's Club. In order to prevent a takeover by the Hugenberg Group, he agreed in September 1926 to form an association with Helmut Rauschenbusch, who was also a member of the Gentlemen's Club and publisher of the ''Deutsche Tageszeitung'' (''German Daily Newspaper''). They founded the Berlin Central Printers Ltd. which printed the ''Kreuzzeitung'' and the ''Deutsche Tageszeitung'' beginning in January 1927.<ref>Burkhard Treude: ''Konservative Presse und Nationalsozialismus: Inhaltsanalyse der Neuen Preußischen (Kreuz-) Zeitung am Ende der Weimarer Republik'' [Conservative Press and National Socialism: Content Analysis of the Neue Preußische (Kreuz-) Zeitung at the End of the Weimar Republic]''.'' Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1975, p. 17.</ref> Although some employees such as the journalist Joachim Nehring supplied articles for both papers, the editorial offices of the ''Kreuzzeitung'' and the ''Deutsche Tageszeitung'' remained independent.

On 18 September 18, 1932, the paper was officially renamed (only) ''Kreuzzeitung''. On the same day Hans Elze, Georg Foertsch's right-hand man, took over the vacant editor-in-chief's chair. On 16 January 16, 1933, {{Lang|de|Deutsche Tageszeitung}} Printers and Publishers, Inc. changed its name to German Central Printers, Inc. The corporation remained under the leadership of Helmut Rauschenbusch.

Freedom of the press had already been restricted by emergency decrees during the Weimar Republic. Then on 28 February 28, 1933, the [[Reichstag Fire Decree|Reich President's Decree for the Protection of the People and the State]] (commonly known as the 'Reichstag Fire Decree') came into force. It eliminated the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and freedom of the press and prohibited the dissemination of "incorrect news".<ref>Tobias Jaecker: ''Journalismus im Dritten Reich'' [Journalism in the Third Reich]''.'' Freie Universität Berlin, Friedrich-Meinecke-Institut für Geschichtswissenschaften, 2000, p. 3 f.</ref> What was correct and what was incorrect was henceforth determined by the [[Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda]]. On April 30, April 1933, the Reich Association of the German Press agreed to ''[[Gleichschaltung]]'' (‘co-ordination’). As a result of this, Elze left the ''Kreuzzeitung'' on August 2, August 1933.  He "did not want to have dictated to him what should be reported".<ref>Burkhard Treude: ''Konservative Presse und Nationalsozialismus'' [Conservative Press and National Socialism: Content Analysis of the Neue Preußische (Kreuz-) Zeitung at the End of the Weimar Republic]''.'' Studienverlag Dr. N. Brockmeyer, 1975, p. 30.</ref> In addition, a decree now stipulated that an owner could have a stake in only one daily newspaper and that publishing houses with more than one daily newspaper were to be expropriated. Rauschenbusch decided in favor of the ''Kreuzzeitung''. On April 30, April 1934, the last issue of the ''{{Lang|de|Deutsche Tageszeitung''}} appeared even though it had a much higher circulation than the ''Kreuzzeitung''. Rauschenbusch however was no longer able to influence the content of the ''Kreuzzeitung''. In order to enforce control over content, the Reich Press Chamber appointed editors-in-chief starting in 1935. They were no longer subordinate to the publishers but made editorial decisions on their own authority according to the guidelines set by the Ministryministry of Propagandapropaganda.<ref>Kurt Koszyk: ''Deutsche Presse 1914-1945. Geschichte der deutschen Presse,'' Teil III [German Press 1914-1945. History of the German Press, Part 3]. Colloquium Verlag, 1972, p. 72 f.</ref>

After numerous changes in the editorial staff and its leadership, the remaining subscribers of the newspaper knew at the latest by the summer of 1937 that the ''Kreuzzeitung's'' days were numbered. Until then the National Socialists had shown a certain consideration for the old-style conservative readers of the paper that was so rich in tradition. On 29 August 29, 1937, the grace period ended. The front page read: "As of today we have taken over the Kreuzzeitung”''Kreuzzeitung.''” [[Joseph Goebbels]] had appointed Erich Schwarzer, a staunch National Socialist, as the new editor-in-chief and integrated the ''Kreuzzeitung'', along with other bourgeois conservative media, into the German Publishers. Until that time the editors of the ''Kreuzzeitung'' had still provided some reports thoroughly worth reading such as those by Hans Georg von Studnitz, who during a six-month stay in India in 1937 interviewed [[Mahatma Gandhi|Gandhi]] and [[Jawaharlal Nehru|Nehru]], among others,. Some of the old members of the editorial staff reacted to the new tone set by Erich Schwarzer by resigning, others by a kind of ‘work to rule’.<ref>Norbert Frei, Johannes Schmitz: ''Journalismus im Dritten Reich'' [Journalism in the Third Reich]''.'' C.H. Beck, 2011, p. 47.</ref>

* The last editor-in-chief, Eugen Mündler, was named in May 1938. The ''Kreuzzeitung'' -– or what was left of it -– appeared under his direction with text from the ''{{Lang|de|Berliner Tageblatt''}}. Readers received the last issue of the ''Kreuzzeitung'' on 31 January 31, 1939.  After 91 years, a piece of German press history had ended.

* George[[Johann Georg Ludwig Hesekiel]]

* [[Countess Louise Auguste Henriette of Stolberg-Stolberg|Louise zu Stolberg]], under a pseudonym

[[Category:1848 establishments in Germanythe German Confederation]]

[[Category:PublicationsNewspapers established in 1848]]