The aim of this thesis is to investigate how Bahamas, a magazine belonging to the antideutsche current in German left-wing politics, acted during a two year period between the summer 2001 and 2003. When explaining the anti-deutsche phenomena and the editors’ politics it is common to take the currents own history-writing as a fact, thus presenting the development of the current as a reaction to outside factors and impulses outside. In this thesis it is stressed that the editors are far from only passively reacting, rather the opposite is true. I claim that the editors have a fixed ideology that they strive to implant in to certain parts of the radical left. This thesis hypothesizes that the editors do this through something that I call ideological intervention. Ideological intervention differs from the common approach, which I call influence, in that it’s focused, timed and directed to achieve as much result as possible. To test the hypothesis, the thesis strives to answer the following questions: When do the editors choose to intervene? Who are they trying to appeal to with these interventions? Who is the target of the editors’ critic and how is it formulated? How is the interventions formulated, is there a pattern?, A jargon? What do they say and what do they not say? The analysis shows that the editors choose to intervene when they think the situation will be as favourable as possible for the intervention. In specific terms this means that they choose to intervene in the context of events that already in themselves bring about attention and discussion. In this way the editors assure that their controversial interventions have the best possibility to spark a controversy and a heated discussion. The interventions are directed to a small segment of the radical left. This segmentmainly identifies itself as anti-fascist and it is interested in theory. They also have some, or a lot of resentment towards the rest of the radical left. The critic the editors formulate mainly directed against the radical left. This implies that the editors are trying to create a rending in the ideological environment that the radical left constitutes. Other phenomena’s that editors direct major critic against is Germany, Nazis and Islam. This critic is, with some exceptions when it comes to Islam, always a critic that appears in relation to the critic of the radical left. In other words, the editors use these phenomena’s to criticize the radical left for its claimed similarities with, and relation to, these phenomena. Things that the editors claim that these phenomena have in common, and that are considered to be negative include collectivism, strive towards equality and anti-global thinking. The texts are written in a unique jargon consisting of a highly academic and philosophic language, often mixed with irrelevant non intellectual arguments based for example on the proposed antagonist mental abilities and personal hygiene. I claim that the jargon is meant to create feelings of exclusiveness among its readers, and thus make them more responsive to the ideology put forward by the editors. In conclusion the analysis supports my hypothesis.

1990 wurden linksradikale Akteure aus West- und Ostdeutschland Teil des gleichen Staates und somit gleichsam Teil eines selben Ganzen: der deutschen radikalen Linken. Die große Vielfalt der ideologischen Strömungen in einer höchst heterogenen Szene wie der radikalen Linken machte die Entstehung einer gemeinsamen kollektiven Identität ohnehin schwierig. Die vorliegende Arbeit versucht herauszufinden, wie Akteure aus Ost und West, die sich selbst als „linksradikal“ bezeichneten, im Laufe der 1990er Jahre versucht haben, sich in der neuen, de facto gemeinsamen politischen Szene selbst und gegenseitig zu verorten. Wie wurden die neuen Verhältnisse nach dem Zusammenbruch des Realsozialismus und somit dem Wegfall vieler Bezugsrahmen und Paradigmen des Kalten Krieges neu definiert? Wie sah die deutsche radikale Linke ihre Rolle in diesem neuen Kontext? Gab es spezifische ost- bzw. westdeutsche Antworten auf die neue Situation? Nicht zuletzt wird gefragt, ob ost- und westdeutsche Akteure gemeinsame Kampfinhalte entwickeln konnten. Die Nationsfrage wird in der vorliegenden Studie unter zwei Aspekten verhandelt: Erstens als Erfahrungsgeschichte einer sich neu zu bildenden „deutsch-deutschen Linken“ in Ost und West nach 1990. Zweitens ist es eine Geschichte der expliziten Auseinandersetzung mit den neuen Themen „deutsche Nation“ und „deutsche Geschichte“, wie sie vor allem von Seiten der antideutschen bzw. antinationalen Linken diskutiert wurden. Diese Auseinandersetzung hatte sowohl Auswirkungen auf das linksradikale Selbstverständnis der berücksichtigten Szene als auch auf den Verlauf der Neuvereinigung der ost- und westdeutschen Komponenten dieser Szene. / In 1990, East and West German actors who viewed themselves as members of the “radical left” suddenly became part of the same collective: the German radical left. Yet the contexts in which these actors had been politicized and socialized had been quite distinct prior to the fall of the Wall. The purpose of this study is to examine the modalities by which these actors – East and West – were unified in the course of the 1990’s. On what bases did they – in an environment which remained highly heterogeneous – define the shared reality which is a precondition of any rapprochement? What was the influence of the legacy of the East German leftist opposition’s political experience in the GDR? The position known as antideutsch or antinational particularly attracted our attention. It developed among the West German left in the wake of reunification. It also contributed considerably to redefining the structure of the scene in the East and the West in the second half of the 1990’s. The dissertation throws light on German political culture following reunification, on the one hand, and on the disorientation of the German left after the collapse of Real socialism, on the other. Furthermore, it introduces the East German dimension, which is often neglected by research, in the history of the Western European left.