Stahl was "the boldest in" a "Jewish front", who paralyzed Prussia and was responsible for the downfall of the Hohenzollerns. On the other hand, writers in exile spoke positively or differently about Stahl's teachings; the young Peter F. Drucker published a praising essay on Stahl in Tübingen in April 1933, shortly before he had to leave Germany. Since 1945 After 1945, Stahl's doctrines, along with criticism, continued to appeal to Christian conservative politicians, historians such as Hans-Joachim Schoeps and Lutheran church representatives such as Otto Dibelius into the 1960s. In 1949 Fritz Fischer particularly emphasized the danger of the pseudo-liberal concessions in Stahl's state theory; with the help of his constitutional compromise, the necessary parliamentary reform of the German system of government was prevented by the end of the First World War . His authoritarian views had decisively determined the thinking of the leading conservative Protestant leadership elites in Prussia-Germany in the state, in the church, in society and at the universities up to the First World War and beyond, thereby contributing to the downfall of the Weimar Republic with its consequences. "The story of the 'counter-revolution of science' was not with FJ Stahl, it was not finished in 1918." In 1963, Dieter Grosser recognized Stahl's theory of the state as a significant contribution to overcoming the state-theoretical and constitutional-political problems of his time and also recognized its legal-philosophical foundations as having lasting academic value. In particular, he worked out the religious-ethical, legal and political structure of the "moral realm of personal character", the central concept of Stahl's legal and political philosophy, and attributed the tensions in Stahl's system to the rooting of his thinking in the various "reactive" political ones, "Currents of the Restoration," Schelling's philosophy and Luther's theology. In contrast, in 1967 Robert Adolf Kann firmly stated that Stahl merely systematized the conservative ideas of his time and adapted them to their needs. His ideas, which had already been outdated during his lifetime, essentially did not go beyond the medieval doctrine of the two swords. Martin Greiffenhagen characterized Stahl in 1977 as a representative of an authoritarian, authoritarian-institutional understanding of the state and church. His views - like the doctrines of his predecessors, party comrades and successors - are "refuted by their own history". In summary, H.-J. Wiegand stated in 1980: "Stahl is not dead; he left a legacy that haunts his heirs to this day." Christian Wiegand