Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:52:41.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Museums, Identity and Warring Historians – Observations on History in Germany1

Part of: Historiographical Reviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Beatrice Heuser
Beatrice Heuser
Affiliation:
St Antony's College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Historiographical Review
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 417 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Cf. also the view of the Scottish national revival of the early nineteenth century, analysed so convincingly in the Punch history of Scotland: Scottish ‘notable inventions of the time include the kilt (by Sir Walter Scott), Sir Walter Scott (by George IV), and bad Scottish ballads (or third degree Burns)’ Cf. Kington, Miles (ed.), Punch on Scotland (London, 1977), p. 39Google Scholar.

3 Werner, Karl Ferdinand: ‘Der Streit um die Anfänge: Historische Mythen des 19./20. Jahrhunderts und der Weg zu unserer Geschichte’ in Hildebrand, Klaus (ed.): Wem gehört dis deutsche Geschichte? Symposium (vol. 22 of Hanns Martin Schleyer Foundation, Cologne, 1987), pp. 19–35Google Scholar; Schulze, Hagen, Gibt es überhaupt eine deutsche Geschichte? (Berlin, 1989)Google Scholar – for an abridged version, see German historical institute, London, annual lecture 1987 (London, 1987).

4 Meinecke, Friedrich, Die deutsche Katastrophe (2nd edn, Wiesbaden, 1946)Google Scholar.

5 Heuss, Alfred, Der Verlust der Geschichte (Göttingen, 1959)Google Scholar; see also Bosl, Karl, ‘Der Verlust der Geschichte’, Zeitschrift für bayerische Landesgeschichte, XXXVII, 3 (1974), 685–98Google Scholar; see also Krieger, Wolfgang, ‘Worrying about West German democracy’, The Political Quarterly, L 2 (1979), 192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See below.

7 Werner, , ‘Der Streit um die Anfänge’, p. 23Google Scholar.

8 Cf. the ‘white line’ of continuity which Helga Grebing wants to set against the ‘black’ Sonderweg interpretation: in Grebing, Helga, von der Brelie-Lewien, Doris and Franzen, Hans-Joachim, Der ‘Deutsche Sonderweg’ in Europa 1806–1945 – eine Kritik (Stuttgart, 1986), p. 199Google Scholar; Evans, Richard, in many ways plus rqyaliste que le roi, states this position in his review article, ‘The new nationalism and the old history: perspectives on the West German Historikerstreit’, Journal of Modern History, LIX, 4 (1987), 794Google Scholar: ‘History can help us to gain identity, but that identity must necessarily transcend the past…It means deciding what we want to keep from the past and what we want to jettison, what we agree is good and what we regret as bad’.

9 Das Deutsche Kaiserreich (Göttingen, 1973)Google Scholar; see also Evans, Richard, ‘Rethinking the German past’, West European Politics, IV, 2, 134–48Google Scholar for a black and white view of German historiography.

10 Möller, Horst: ‘Geschichtsbilder oder Geschichte? Ein Vergleich zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der DDR’, in Hildebrand, (ed.), Wem gehört die deutsche Geschichte?, p. 51Google Scholar.

11 Fletcher, Roger: ‘History from below comes to Germany: the new history movement in the Federal Republic of Germany’, journal of Modern History, LX (09 1988), 557–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Eley, Geoff, ‘Nazism, politics and the image of the past’, Past and Present, CXXI (1988), 200–1Google Scholar.

12 Mommsen, Hans, ‘Zum Projekt eines “Deutschen Historischen Museums” in West-Berlin’, in Geschichtsdidaktik – Probleme, Projekle, Perspektiven, no. 3 (1986)Google Scholar, reprinted in Stölzl (ed.), Deutsches Historisches Musuem – Ideen, Kontroversen, Perspektiven (Frankfurt, 1988), p. 296.

13 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, pp. 61–6Google Scholar.

14 Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesrepublik Deulschland, No. 43 of 5 May 1983, p. 412; ‘4. Mai 1983 – Rede Helmut Kohls vor dem Bundestag’.

15 Cf. Mommsen, , ‘Zum Projekt eines “Deutschen Historischen Museums” in West Berlin’, p. 309Google Scholar.

16 Ibid. pp. 296f.; Martin Broszat, ‘Zur Errichtung eines “Hauses der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland” in Bonn’, in idem, Nach Hitler: Der schwierige Umgang mit unserer Geschichte (Graml & Henke, eds.; Munich, 1986).

17 Michael Stürmer, ‘Berlin und Bonn: Suche nach der deutschen Geschichte’, in idem, Dissonanzen des Fortschritts: Essays über Geschichte und Politik in Deutschland (Munich, 1986), pp. 300–4.

18 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, pp. 310ffGoogle Scholar.

19 'Konzeption für ein “Deutsches Historisches Museum” of 24 June 1987, p. 9.

20 Schulze, Gibt es überhaupt eine deutsche Geschichte?

21 See also:Bramwell, Anna, ‘German identity transformed’, in JASO, XVII (1985), 1–18Google Scholar. The theme of German ‘identity’ is echoed in the highest spheres of German politics, Cf. von Weizsäcker, Richard, Die Deutschen und ihre Identität (Kiel, 1986)Google Scholar.

22 Hans-Ulrich Wehler, ‘Das neue Interesse an der Geschichte’, in idem, Aus der Geschichte Lernen? (Munich, 1988), p. 27.

23 Quoted in Eley, , ‘Nazism, politics and the image of the past’, p. 196fGoogle Scholar.

24 Roger Morgan would argue that this is also true for Neil Kinnock's and Margaret Thatcher's differing definitions of patriotism, for example:‘Englischer Patriotismus: Kontinuität und Perspektivität der Inhalte’, in Weigelt, Klaus (ed.), Patriotismus in Europa (Bonn, 1988), pp. 94–100Google Scholar.

25 See the articles in Politik und Kultur, I, 2 (1974)Google Scholar, pointing out the complexity of this problem, especially the contributions of von Salin, J. R., ‘Nation – legitim oder illegitim’, pp. 7–15Google Scholar and Mommsen, Wolfgang J., ‘Nation und Nationalbewusstsein in der Gegenwart’, pp. 16–28Google Scholar.

26 Mommsen, Hans, ‘Zum Projekt eines “Deutsche n Historischen Museums” in West-Berlin’, p. 297Google Scholar; Broszat, Martin, ‘Zur Errichtung eines “Hauses der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland” in Bonn’ in Grünen, Die (eds.), Wider die Entsorgung der deutschen Geschichte (Bonn, 1986)Google Scholar.

27 It was the conservative government under Adenauer which in the first post-World War II years decided to opt for freedom (as in ‘Western democracy’) and an alliance with the west at the expense of unity, a view which the present conservative government also holds – freedom above unity. At the time it was the SPD under Schumacher which pleaded for unity and allied troop withdrawal. In the period of détente in the late '60s and early'70s, the position was to some extent reversed, but now we seem to have come full circle. But the fronts of opposition are not at all clear on this issue: traditionally, the extreme left in Germany (including the leading figures of the '68 students' revolts) has held that Adenauer's policies after 1945 amounted to a restoration of a pre-fascist, but repulsive late liberal-capitalist society in collusion with the western capitalists/ imperialists, symbolized by NATO. The peace movement in Germany is largely the heir of this interpretation, and left-wing support for national reunification can be seen as a reaction ‘against the grating legacy of the lost war…By overturning the ancien régime the rebels would triumph twice: against their parents, who had indentured themselves to the [western] victors: and against a system that denied their national self’ in the words of the admirable analysis of Joffe, Josef, in ‘The battle of the historians’ in Encounter (06 1987), p. 76Google Scholar. Joffe sees the conservative campaign for greater pride in the achievements of the Federal Republic and the museums as a reaction to the neo-nationalist campaign on the left. N.B. alsojoffe's and Geoff Eley's observation that both Habermas and Stürmer stress their loyalties to western democracy and to American models, which is surprising in the case of Habermas, , who used to take the line of the dissidents of 1968: ‘Nazism, politics and the image of the past’, p. 183Google Scholar.

28 'Konzeption fur ein “Deutsches Historisches Museum”, 24 June 1987, p. A 32.

29 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, p. 483Google Scholar.

30 ‘Konzeption für ein “Deutsches Historisches Museum”’ of 24 June 1987, p. A 32.

31 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, ‘Das neue Interesse an dcr Geschichte’, p. 31Google Scholar.

32 von Ranke, Leopold, ‘Der Fortschritt in der Geschichte’ in Oelmüller, W., Dölle, R., & Piepmeier, R. (eds.) Diskurs: Geschichte (Paderborn, 1980), p. 216Google Scholar.

33 For the development of German historiography, see Iggers, Georg, The German conception of history (revised edition. Middletown, Ct., 1983), pp. 231fGoogle Scholar; Evans, Richard, ‘Rethinking the German past’, West European Politics, IV, 2 (1981)Google Scholar; Fletcher, ‘History from below comes to Germany’; see also, Blackbourn, David & Eley, Geoff, The peculiarities of German history: bourgeois society and politics in 19th-century Germany (Oxford, 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholarand Eley, Geoff, From unification to Nazism: reinterpreting the German past (London, 1986)Google Scholar; Kocka, Jürgen, ‘Germany before Hitler; the debate about the German Sonderweg’, Journal of Contemporary History, XXIII, 1 (1988), 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 For a treatment of the Fischer debate, see e.g. Mommsen, Wolfgang J., ‘The debate over German war aims’ in Journal of Contemporary History, I (1966), 47–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Geiss, Imanuel, Studien über Geschichte und Geschichtswissenschaft (Frankfurt, 1972), pp. 108–98Google Scholar; Taylor, A. J. P., ‘Fritz Fischer and his school’, Journal of Modern History, XLVII (1975), 120–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moore, John A., The politics of illusion (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Iggers, Georg, Neue Geschichtswissenschaft (Munich, 1978), pp. 106–14Google Scholar.

35 See e.g. the exegesis of Gerhard Ritter's writings in Evans, , ‘Rethinking the German past’, pp. 139–40Google Scholar; per contram, Jäckel, Eberhard, ‘Gerhard Ritter – Historiker in seiner Zeit’, in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, XVIII, 12 (1967), 705–15Google Scholar. Ritter, Gerhard, Die Dämonie der Macht (Munich 1948)Google Scholar; Staatskunst und Kriegshandwerk, 3 vols. (Munich, 1954–64)Google Scholar; ‘The military and politics in Germany’, Journal of Central European Affairs, XVII (1957/1958), 259–71Google Scholar.

36 Geiss, Immanuel: Das deutsche Reich und der Erste Weltkrieg (Munich, 1978)Google Scholar; Das deutsche Reich und die Vorgeschichte des Ersten Weltkriegs (Munich, 1978)Google Scholar; ‘The outbreak of the First World War and German war aims’ in Journal of Contemporary History, I (1966), 75–91Google Scholar. For other pupils of Fischer, see Böhme, Helmut, Deutschlands Weg zur Grossmacht (Cologne, 1966)Google Scholar, and von Strandmann, Hartmut Pogge and Geiss, Imanuel (eds.), Die Erforderlichkeit des Unmöglichen – Deutschland am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges (Frankfurt a.M., 1965)Google Scholar.

37 See for example the work of Berghahn, Voker, Der Tirpitz Plan (Düsseldorf, 1971)Google Scholar; Germany and the approach of war in 1914 (London, 1973)Google Scholar; also Mommsen, Wolfgang, Der europäische Imperialismus (Göttingen, 1979)Google Scholar; ‘Domestic factors in German foreign policy before 1914’, Central European History, VI (1973), 3–43Google Scholar; and Stürmer, Michael (ed.) Das kaiserliche Deutschland (Düsseldorf, 1970)Google Scholar; Das Ruhelose Reich; Deutschland 1866–1918 (Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar.

38 Contrary to popular myths about this (see e.g. Mommsen, Wolfgang J., ‘Geschichtsschreibung und geschichtliches Bewusstsein in der Bundesrepublik’ (unpublished paper, 1986)Google Scholar; Mommsen, Hans, ‘Suche nach der “Verlorenen Geschichte”?’ and ‘Neues Geschichtsbewusstsein und Relativierung des Nationalsozialismus’, in Historikerstreit (Munich, 1987), pp. 156–88Google Scholar; and Evans, , ‘Rethinking the German past’, and ‘The new nationalism and the old history’, p. 762)Google Scholar, there has been a long tradition of German social and economic historiography, dating back to the late nineteenth century and scholars such as Werner Sombart, Max and Alfred Weber, and Karl Lamprecht, with the Vierteljahreshefte für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte as their main periodical on which the French Annales of Mark Bloch and Lucien Febvre was modelled; Cf. Erdmann, Karl Dietrich, Die Ökumene der Historiker: Geschichte der internationalen Historikerkongresse und das Comité international des sciences historiques (Göttingen, 1987), pp. 129–32Google Scholar. This tradition was continued after World War II by German historians who began to study the social and economic context of the political developments leading up to the First World War: for the 1950s, see particularly Brunner, Otto, Neue Wege zur Sozialgeschichte (Göttingen, 1956)Google Scholarand Conze, Werner, Die Strukturgeschichte des technisch-industriellen Zeitalters als Aufgabe für Forschung und Unterricht (Cologne, Opladen, 1957)Google Scholar.

39 Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Die Arbeiterbewegung im wilhelminischen Reich, 1890–1900 (2nd edn, Berlin-Dahlem, 1963)Google Scholar; Bismarck und der Imperialismus (Cologne, 1969)Google Scholar; ‘Workers' culture in imperial Germany’, Journal of Contemporary History, XII (1978), 165–89Google Scholar; Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 2 vols so far (Munich, 1987)Google Scholar several more in preparation.

40 Ritter, Gerhard A., Arbeiterbewegung, Parteien und Parlamentarismus, (Göttingen, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kocka, Jürgen, Angeslellte zwischen Faschismus und Demokratie, die USA 1890–1940 im intemationalen Vergleich (Göttingen, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winkler, Heinrich-August, Preussischer Liberalismus und deutscher Nationalstaat, 1861–1866 (Tübingen, 1964)Google Scholar; Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegungen in der Weimarer Republik (Berlin, 1984)Google Scholar.

41 Kocka, Jürgen (ed.), Bürgertum im 19. Jahrhunderl – Deutschland im europäischen Vergleich (3 vols., Munich, 1988)Google Scholar.

42 Cf. Iggers, , Neue Geschichtswissenschaft, p. 149ffGoogle Scholar.

43 E.g. Hildebrand's, introduction to Wem gehört die deutsche Geschichte?, p. 9Google Scholar.

44 Cf. Iggers, , Neue Geschichtswissenschaft, pp. 142–4Google Scholar.

45 Quoted in Craig, Gordon, ‘The war of the German historians’, New York Review of Books, 15 01 1987Google Scholar.

46 Hillgruber, Andreas, Kontinuität und Diskontinuität von Bismarck bis Hitler (Düsseldorf, 1970)Google Scholar; Bismarcks Aussenpolitik (Freiburg, 1972)Google Scholar; Die deutsche Frage in der Weltpolitik (Frankfurt, 1974)Google Scholar; Hildebrand, Klaus, ‘Geschichte oder “Gesellschaftsgeschichte”?’ Historische Zeitschrift, CCXXIII (1976), 328–67, e.g. note on p. 331Google Scholar; ‘Grossbritannien und die deutsche Reichsgründung’, Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft 6, Nr. 1980Google Scholar;Das europäische Sicherheitsdilemma. Betrachtungen über den Ausbruch des Ersten Wellkrieges (1985).

47 As Jarausch, Konrad claims: ‘Removing the Nazi stain? The quarrel of the German historians’, German Studies Review, XI, 2 (1988), 285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar. This is shown by a simple comparison of the dates of birth of the historians participating in the debate: Bracher – 1922; Broszat – 1926; Geiss – 1931; Hildebrand – 1941; Hillgruber – 1925; Jäckel – 1929; Kocka – 1941; Möller – 1943; the Mommsens – 1930; Nipperdey – 1927; Nolte – 1923; Schulze – 1943; Wehler – 1931; Winkler – 1938; non-historians: Augstein – 1923; Habermas – 1929.

48 See above, note 37.

49 See note 40.

50 See note 39.

51 Leicht, Robert in a review of Mitten in Europa, Die Süddeutsche Zeitung, 12/13 12 1985Google Scholar.

52 Kershaw, Ian, Popular opinion and political dissent in the Third Reich (Oxford, 1983)Google Scholar.

53 …even though he was temporarily convinced that the Hitler diaries were real. Jäckel, Eberhardt, Hitlers Weltanschauung – Entwurf einer Herrschaft (Stuttgart, 1981)Google Scholar; Hitlers Herrschaft Vollzug einer Weltanschauung (Stuttgart, 1986)Google Scholar.

54 Cf. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, ‘Das neue Interesse an der Geschichte’, p. 31Google Scholar; Habermas, in Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, pp. 336fGoogle Scholar.

55 See e.g. Habermas, Jürgen (ed.) Observations on the ‘spiritual situation of the age’ (Cambridge, Mass., 1984; German edition, Frankfurt, 1979)Google Scholar– essays on nationalism and historical interpretations by Hans Mommsen, Wolfgang J. Mommsen, Horst Ehmke, Hans Ulrich Wehler.

56 Stürmer, Michael, ‘Die Suche nach einem Daseinszweck: Über das schwierige Verhältnis von Politik und Kultur’, in Dissonanzen des Fortschritts, p. 285Google Scholar, article originally published 1984.

57 Historikerstreit, p. 36.

58 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, p. 249Google Scholar.

59 Ibid. pp. 310–32.

60 ‘Zum Projekt eines “Deutschen Historischen Museums” in West-Berlin’, and Broszat, ‘Zur Errichtung eines “Hauses der Geschichte de r Bundesrepublik Deutschland” in Bonn’.

61 E.g. Imanuel Geiss, Die Habermas Kontroverse; Fest, Joachim, ‘Die geschuldete Erinnerung’, in Historikerstreit, pp. 101f.Google Scholar; Stünner's, letter to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeilung on 16 09 1986Google Scholar, Historikerstreit pp. 98f.

62 A weekly paper approximately on the political lines of the Guardian; Habermas's article appeared in the issue of 11 July 1986.

63 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, p. 337Google Scholar.

64 Hoffmann, Hilmar (ed.) Gegen den Versuch, die Vergangenheit zu verbiegen (Frankfurt a.M., 1987), p. 112Google Scholar. Stürmer defended himself by claiming to have used the words of a German Jewish émigré.

65 Quoted in Eley, Geoff, ‘Nazism, politics and the image of the past’, p. 182Google Scholar, after Frankfurter Rundschau, 14 Jan. 1987.

66 Ideologieplanung, Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, p. 338Google Scholar.

67 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, p. 338Google Scholar.

68 Zweierlei Untergang.

69 In 1944 one of the Yugoslav partisan leaders, Miloven Djilas, complained to Stalin about the numerous instances of looting, rape, and murder (often in combination with rape) which the liberating Soviet soldiers committed. Stalin was furious and asked how he could complain if a soldier ‘who has crossed thousands of kilometers through blood and fire and death has fun with a woman or takes some trifle?’ Cf. Djilas, , Conversations with Stalin (London, 1962), p. 88Google Scholar; Clissold, Stephen (ed.) Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union – a documentary survey (London, 1975), p. 165Google Scholar.

70 Craig, , ‘The war of the German historians’, p. 16Google Scholar. Authors do not always write their own jacket blurbs and titles, yet a large part of the controversy was fought with quotes from these parts of books and articles, by those who should have known better than to blame the authors in every case.

71 Mommsen, W. J., ‘Zum Projekt eines “Deutschen Historischen Museums” in West-Berlin’, note p. 309Google Scholar.

72 According to Siedler, his publishing firm: ‘did not want to weigh Auschwitz against [the atrocities committed in] East Prussia, but to illustrate the entangling connections between the one and the other, or, as I [W.J.S.] have spelt out in my own essay [ Siedler, Wolf Jobst, ‘Trauer um den verlorenen Schmerz’, in Siedler, W. J. (ed.) Weder Maas noch Memel; Ansickten vom beschädigten Deutschland (Stuttgart, 1982), pp. 31–7Google Scholar.], to demonstrate that one cannot think of Königsberg, Danzig or Breslau, without the horrible fate of the ghettos rising from the dark, and that the names of the extermination camps stand as clearly in the memories of those who think back, as the desperate situation of the German army in the east, which Hillgruber has quite mistakenly been accused of seeing in isolation.’ For this reason he suggested to Hillgruber that the latter should add a short essay about the fate of the Jews to his article on the fate of the German army in the east at the end of the war (letter to D. B. G. H., 19 Apr. 1989).

73 Boockmann, Hartmut, Stauferzeit und spätes Mittelalter, Deutschland 1125–1515 (Berlin, 1987)Google Scholar.

74 Möller, Horst, Fürstenstaat oder Bürgernation, Deutschland 1763–1815 (Berlin, 1989)Google Scholar.

75 Lutz, Heinrich, Zwischen Habsburg und Preussen, Deutschland 1815–1866 (Berlin, 1985)Google Scholar.

76 Stürmer, Michael, Das Ruhelose Reich, Deutschland 1866–1918 (Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar.

77 Schulze, Hagen, Weimar, Deutschland 1917–1933 (Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar.

78 Thamer, Hans-Ulrich, Verführung und Gewalt, Deutschland 1933–1945 (Berlin, 1984)Google Scholar.

79 Birkeo, Adolf M., Nation ohne Haus, Deutschland seit 1945 (Berlin, 1989)Google Scholar.

80 Nipperdey, Thomas, Wie die Moderne das Bürgertun fand (Berlin, 1988)Google Scholar.

81 Bracher, Karl Dietrich, Geschichte und Gewalt: Politik im 20. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1981)Google Scholar. Imanue l Geiss has also published with Siedler, see below.

82 Fest, Joachim, Im Gegenlicht (Berlin, 1988)Google Scholar.

83 von Weizsäcker, Richard, Die deutsche Geschichte geht weiter (Berlin, originally 1982, 10th reprint 1988Google Scholar; also Munich, pb. 1985 and several reprints).

84 Schmidt, Helmut, Menschen und Mächte (Berlin, 1987)Google Scholar.

86 Boockmann, Schilling, Schulze & Stürmer, Mitten in Europa (Berlin, 1984)Google Scholar.

86 Renata Fritsch-Bournazel, Das Land in der Mitte [sic!]; Deutschland in europäischen Kräftefeld (Munich, 1986)Google Scholar; Engl.:Confronting the German question: Germans on the East–West divide (Oxford, 1988)Google Scholar.

87 Hildebrandt, Klaus ‘Das europäische Sicherheitsdilemma – Betrachtungen über den Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs’, Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, XXXVI (1985)Google Scholar.

88 Nation-building in central Europe (Oxford, 1987), pp. 183–95Google Scholar.

89 E.g. Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit? Ein polemischer Essay zurn ‘Historikerstreit’ (Munich, 1988), pp. 174–89Google Scholar.

90 Apart from Habermas, e.g. Kocka's, inference in ‘Hitler sollte nicht durch Stalin und Pot Pol verdrängt werden’, in Historikerstreit, particularly pp. 138–41Google Scholar; and, above all, Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, in Entsorgung, pp. 174–89Google Scholar.

91 For the English concept, see Cecil Rhodes, Milner, Halford Mackinder, etc.

92 Jacobsen, Hans Adolf (ed.) Karl Haushofer – Leben und Werk, vols. 1 & 2 (Boppard am Rhein, 1979)Google Scholar; Haushofer, Albrecht, Allgemeine politische Geographie und Geopolitik (Heidelberg, 1951)Google Scholar; see also Norton, M. D. Herter (transl.), Albrecht Haushofer's Moabit sonnets [with biographical essay]. (London, 1978)Google Scholar.

93 Braudel, Fernand: ‘Personal testimony’, Journal of Modern History, XLIV (1972)Google Scholar; La méditerranèe et le monde méditerranéen à I'époque de Philippe II (Paris, 1949)Google Scholar; see Bournazel, and Stürmer, in Weigelt, (ed.) Patriotismus in Europa, pp. 89–91 and 91–3Google Scholar.

94 Stölzl, , Deutsches Historisches Museum, p. 338Google Scholar.

95 Cf. Heuser, Beatrice, ‘The Historikerstreit: uniqueness and comparability of the holocaust’, German History, VI 1 (Spring 1988), 69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

96 Historikerstreit, p. 68.

97 E.g. Joffe, , ‘The battle of the historians’, pp. 72–5Google Scholar.

98 Nolte, in Historikerstreit, p. 32Google Scholar.

99 Joffe, , ‘The battle of the historians’, p. 73Google Scholar.

100 Nolte, in Historikerstreit, p. 34Google Scholar.

101 Nolte in Historikerstreit, p. 24Google Scholar; for David Irving's other theories, see Broszat, Martin, ‘Hitler und die Genesis der Endlösung’, in Nach Hitler, pp. 187–229Google Scholar.

102 Nolte, in Historikerstreit, pp. 39–47Google Scholar.

103 Habermas, in Historikerstreit, p. 71Google Scholar.

104 Jäckel, Eberhard, ‘Die elende Praxis der Untersteller’, in Historikerstreit, pp. 115–22Google Scholar.

105 Historikerstreit, pp. 132–8.

106 Augstein, Rudolf, ‘Die neue Auschwitz-Lüge’, Historikerstreit, pp. 196–203Google Scholar; Heinrich August Winkler, ‘Auf ewig in Hitler's Schatten?’, ibid. pp. 256–63; Hans-Ulrich Wehler, Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit?

107 Historikerstreit, pp. 174–88.

108 Historikerstreit, p. 101.

109 Nipperdey, Thomas, ‘Unter der Herrschaft des Verdachts’, Historikerstreit, pp. 215–19Google Scholar; Horst Möller, ‘Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf’, ibid. pp. 322–30.

110 Geiss, Imanuel, Die Habermas Kontroverse. Ein deutscher Streil (Berlin, 1988)Google Scholar, and Historikerstreit, pp. 220f.

111 Arendt, Hannah, The origins of totalitarianism (NewYork, 1951)Google Scholar; for a summary of the debate, see Schlangen, Walter, Die Totalitarismustheorie – Entwicklung und Probleme (Stuttgart, 1976)Google Scholar. For a criticism of this theory, see e.g. Evans, , ‘The new nationalism and the old history’, pp. 788 and 792Google Scholar.

112 Kocka, Jürgen, ‘German history before Hitler: The debate about the German Sonderweg’, Journal of Contemporary History, XXIII, 1 (1988), 11Google Scholar.

113 Historikerslreit, p. 135.

114 Historikerstreit, pp. 113f and 143–50. Re comparability, see also Harff, Barbara and Gurr, Ted Robert (eds.) ‘Toward empirical theory of genocides and politicides: identification and measurements of cases since 1945’, International Studies Quarterly, XXXII, 3 (1988), 359–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The authors think that ‘the totality of the Nazi effort to destroy Jews probably has no direct analogy in modern times. But if the ‘uniqueness’ argument is accepted, one is led to the dangerous conclusion that only a western civilization armed with a nazi-type ideology is capable of technically perfected forms of mass destruction’ (p. 361). Harff and Gurr estimate that ‘genocides and politicides since 1945 have probably cost as many humans lives as all organized combat’ (p. 370), and the vast majority of the victims were unarmed civilians.

115 Wallace, Stuart, War and the image of Germany: British academics, 1914–1918 (Edinburgh, 1988)Google Scholar; Grebing, v.d. Brelie-Lewien and Franzen, Der ‘deutsche Sonderweg’.

116 Kehr, Eckart, Das Primat der Innenpolitik, ed. Wehler, H. U. (Berlin, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Veit Valentin, Schlachtflottenbau und Parteipolitik, 1894–1901 (reprint, Liechtenstein, 1975).

117 Cline, Catherine A., ‘British historians and the treaty of Versailles’, Albion, XI, 1 (Spring 1988), 43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

118 Cf. von der Brelie-Lewien in Grebing, v.d. Brelie-Lewien, and Franzen, , Der ‘deutsche Sonderweg’ p. 193Google Scholar.

119 Kocka, ‘German history before Hitler’; e.g. Loock, Hans-Dietrich and Schulze, Hagen (eds.) Parlamentarismus und Demokratie im Europa des 19. Jahrhunderts (München, 1982)Google Scholar; Krieger, Wolfgang, ‘Die britische Krise in historischer Perspektive’, Historische Zeitschrift (1988), 585–602Google Scholar; Stürmer, Michael: ‘Jede Nationalgeschichte verläuft anders: Welche ist Sonderweg?’ Dissonanzen des Fortschritts, pp. 259–64Google Scholar.

120 Habermas, in Historikerstreit, p. 75Google Scholar, re Dolf Steinberger, Cf. Schwarz, Hans Peter, ‘Patriotismus in Europa aud der Sicht der Zeitgeschichte’ in Weigelt, (ed.), Patriotismus in Europa, p. 37Google Scholar.

121 Historikerstreit, pp. 36–8 and p. 272.

122 Schulze, Hagen, ‘Fragen, die wir stellen müssen’, Historikerstreit, pp. 143–51Google Scholar, and Wir sind was wir geworden sind (Munich, 1987), pp. 189–95Google Scholar.

123 Quoted in Eley, , ‘Nazism, politics and the image of the past’, p. 196Google Scholar.

124 Quoted in Joffe, , ‘The battle of the historians’, p. 26Google Scholar.

125 Arnulf Baring, historian-cum-social scientist, talks about a new German megalomania:Unser neuer Grössenwahn (Cologne, 1988)Google Scholar.