German Studies Association

Removing the Nazi Stain? The Quarrel of the German Historians

Author(s): Konrad H. Jarausch
Source: German Studies Review, Vol. 11, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 285-301
Published by: German Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1429974 .
Accessed: 01/04/2013 12:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

German Studies Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to German
Studies Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Removingthe Nazi Stain?
The Quarrelof the GermanHistorians

KonradH. Jarausch
Universityof North Carolina,ChapelHill

During the summer of 1986 the New YorkTimesheadline, "German

Book Sets Off New Holocaust Debate," announced the end of a decade of
uncharacteristicquiet among West Germanhistorians.'The relative consensus
that had followed the emotional Fischer controversy of the 1960s and the
heated methodological debates of the 1970s was suddenly shatteredby a fierce
discussion of the meaning of the Third Reich that spread like wildfire on
campuses and in newspapers.2While rightist apologists urged "an end to the
collectivist confrontation with National Socialism," leftist critics deplored the
"systematicrelativization"of German crimes.3Such European"amnesiaabout
the Holocaust" alarmed American journalists, while scholars like Charles S.
Maier warned that "revisingthe Nazi past for the Kohl era"could only lead to
"immoral equivalence" of the NS genocide with other mass killings,
diminishing its singularity.4 Soon the wire services picked up the story,
spreading concern in the Jewish community and beyond about this apparent
German effort of exculpation from Hitler's atrocities.5
Coming upon the heels of the "Hitlerdiary"fraud and the "Bitburg"
fiasco, the emotional revisionism controversy testifies to a profound and
persistent unease about the Nazi legacy. To calm the waves, the dean of the
Central Europeanists in North America, Gordon Craig, tried to differentiate
between unpardonable apologetics and responsible attempts to rethink the
implications of the ThirdReich.6Along the same lines, the GermanInformation
Service reassured the U.S. public that "a basic consensus still exists" on the
moral abhorrence of Nazi killings.7 More than the bitter "Abraham
controversy"among American scholars or the continental wrangling over the
legitimacy of Alltagsgeschichte,this dispute transcended academic issues and
touched on basic questions of national identity.8 In contrast to the lack of

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
286 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
interestin theItalianreappraisalof Fascism,thepassionateconcernevokedby
the Germandebateon bothsidesof theAtlanticraisesseveralquestions:First,
exactly what did the neo-revisionisthistorianssay about the Holocaustto
arousesuch a storm?Second,whichwere the centralscholarlyandpolitical
issues in this vehementdiscussion?Finally,what are the implicationsof the
Historikerstreitfor Germanpoliticalcultureas well as historicalunderstanding
in general?

Althoughdisagreementhadbeenbuildingforyears,thedisputebegan
innocentlyenoughwiththepublicationof twolecturesbytheColognehistorian
AndreasHillgruberon "thedestructionof the GermanEmpireandthe end of
EuropeanJews."Intheconservativeclimateof ChancellorKohl'sgovernment,
this internationallyrenown World War II specialist tried to portraythe
experienceof normalGermansin the final phase of the ThirdReich, by
addressing"thedilemmaof the actors"at the Easternfrontin the winterof
1944-1945. Rejecting both Hitler's "social-darwinist"course and the
"liberation" claimsof the Allies,he concludedthatthe historian"mustidentify
withtheconcretefateof theGermanpopulationin theEast"as well as withthe
desperatedefensivestruggleof thesoldiersagainst"theorgiesof revengeof the
red armies."Capturingthe subjectiverecollectionsof millionsof refugees,
Hillgruber bewailedthedestruction of Prussia(dueto Westernhostility)andthe
loss of the Easternprovinces(wherehe was born)as "tragicprocesses."While
admittingthecrueltyof Hitler'smurders,theColognescholarempathizedmore
eloquentlywith the sufferingsof the Germansthan with the destructionof
EuropeanJewrywhichhe equatedas "twonationalcatastrophes," linkedand
yet separate.Hisnostalgiclamentaboutthedisappearance of Germany'sgreat
powerpositionandculturalinfluencein East CentralEuropelenthis plea for
"thereconstruction of the destroyedcenterof Europe"a somewhatsinisterair.
Since it treatedthe futureof Germannationalhistoryas an "openquestion,"
suchacademicrelativizingof ThirdReichdestructionspoketo a widespread
publicmood.Incontrastto theirabstractguiltfortheHolocaust,mostGermans
who had lived throughthe Second WorldWar preferredto dwell on their
concretesufferingwithoutexaminingits causestoo deeply.9
The incipientcontroversyeruptedintopublicview withan articleby
the maverickhistorianErnstNolte in the conservativeFrankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitungon June6, 1986. Forseveralyearsthiswell-knownFascismspecialist
hadcomplainedabout"thenegativepersistence" of theThirdReichandcalled
for demythologizingits image in a less isolated,politicized,and demonized
direction.Not onlydidhe portraytheHolocaustas "areaction,bornfromfear,
to the annihilationprocessesof the RussianRevolution," but he also claimed
that any otherinterpretations, though"potentiallyinspiredby noblemotives,
falsifyhistory".!10
Provokedby the cancellationof his invitationto a Frankfurt
forumon politicalculture,Noltenowrailedin printabout"bygonesthatdo not

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 287
want to go away."Intemperately, the Berlinscholarcriticizedthe use of the
ThirdReichas contemporary "horrorimage"by pacifists,feminists,Jews,and
foreigners,accusingthe continuedanti-Fascismof servinggrossself-interests.
Insteadof perpetuating"blackand white images,"he suggesteda broader
comparativeapproachto theHolocaust,includingtheArmenianmassacresby
the Turks,stressingthat"everythingwhichthe Nazis laterdid,with the sole
exceptionof the technicalprocess of gassing,had alreadybeen described
comprehensively in the earlyTwenties."Reassertingthatthe SovietGULAG
precededAuschwitz,he asked rhetorically:"Did the Nazis and Hitler not
perhapsonlycommitthis'asiatic'deedbecausetheysawthemselvesandothers
like themas potentialor realvictimsof an 'asiaticdeed',"suchas Communist
persecution?By pleadingfor "a liberationfrom the tyrannyof collectivist
thinking,"Nolte was the first professionalhistorianto call publiclyfor the
cessationof globalcondemnationsof the Nazi era.Suchexhortationsfell on
fertile ground, since the economic prosperity,political stability, and
internationalrespectability of theFederalRepublichadmademanyadultstire
of self-incrimination,whilethepost-wargenerationno longerconsidereditself
personallyresponsible.1'
Fearinga reversalof historicalconsciousness,moderateand leftist
scholarswereoutragedbythesetortuousattemptsto removetheNazistain.The
presidentof the Associationof GermanHistoriansChristianMeiercounselled
"learningto bear the truth"by combining"judgingand understanding."12
Morally disturbed, the philosopher Jiirgen Habermas scathingly
counterattacked the "apologetic tendencies in German writing on
contemporaryhistory"in the progressiveweekly Die Zeit. Opposedto the
"manufacturing and propagationof a historicalimage which supportsthe
nationalconsensus,"the Frankfurtcritic castigatedHillgruberfor evading
moralquestions,talkingaboutthe East"inthe languageof war comics"and
attributingthe Holocaustsolely to Hitlerandhis close collaborators,thereby
rehabilitatingthe German majority. Habermas rejected Nolte's overt
relativizingof the Holocaustmoreemphaticallyyet. The latter's"important-
eccentricintellect"was so dangerous,sinceit furthered"thenational-historical
restorationof a conventionalidentity"by "shakingoff a happilyamoralized
past."Againstthe caricatureof "historyas substitutefor religion"the leftist
philosopherpositedthe"enlightening effectof historicalwriting"forthepublic.
Insteadof "a German-nationalNato-philosophy," Habermaspropagateda
"post-conventional" criticalidentity.Brilliantlywritten,this polemicagainst
neo-conservative revisionism galvanized the progressive intellectual
community.RadicalLeftistswent even further,suggestingthat Himmler's
Easterndreamswerebecominga new "statemyth"for theFederalRepublic.'3
Feelingmisunderstood andpersecuted,the neo-revisionistsdefended
their integrity,supportedby other scholars with somewhat traditionalist
leanings.In a letterto the editorof Die Zeit,Nolte angrilyaccusedHabermas
of incorrectlyrenderingfacts and"exercisinga specialkindof censorship" by
cancelling his lecture invitation.Similarly,the Erlangenscholar Michael

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
288 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
Stiirmerlevelled"thechargeof fantasticinvention"in the FAZ[Frank:furter
AilgemeineZeitungj.'4More seriously,the Bonn diplomatichistorianKlaus
Hildebrandsoughtto refuteHabermasin a sophisticatedreflectionon "theage
of tyrants."
ClaimingthatHillgruber wasestablishinga differentiatedhistorical
understanding of theGermancatastrophe, heberatedtheFrankfurt philosopher
for "misquoting" and"flatpoliticizing"againstNolte'scomplex,if not always
compellingtheories.'5To the surpriseof manyscholars,theliberalco-editorof
the Frankfiurter
AllgemeineZeitungand Hitler-biographer JoachimFest also
deploredsuch "scholarlyand perhapspersonallibelling"and endorsedthe
comparability of theHolocaustto othergenocidesin principle,as longas it was
not intendedto diminishGermanresponsibility. LikeHildebrand, he rejected
Habermas'cassandracall as the "simplestconspiracytheory."16 Finally,the
Berlin specialist on the Weimar Republic Hagen Schulze argued that
Habermas"'"central concernwithpolitics,evenwithmorality" flattenedoutthe
complicated problems of historical comparison,legitimacy or national
identity."7
In spite of these justifications,a numberof internationallyknown
social historians maintained their warnings against the dangerous
consequencesof neo-conservative Ina letterto theFAZ,Habermas
revisionism.
himselfclaimedthat his chargesof nationallegitimation,relativizingof the
ThirdReich,andapologetictendencieshad notbeen refuted.18 To escapethe
confusinggame of innuendo,the StuttgartHitlerspecialistEberhardJackel
suggestedthatthesingularityof theHolocausthadbeenprovencountlesstimes
andthatthe "preventivemurder"thesis,causallylinkingBolshevikatrocities
andNazi crimes,was based"onan abstrusechainof associations."19 Shocked
by "theattemptsof Germanhistoriansto relativizetheincrediblenatureof the
Nazi crimes,"the leadingscholarof the middlegeneration,JiirgenKocka,also
stressedthe "qualitativedifference"of the Germangenocideandassertedthat
self-criticismwas crucial for maintaininga healthy collective identity.20
Concernedwith"thefundamentalchangeof historicalparadigms" as a result
of thegeneralturnto theRight(Wende), thepugnaciousBochumhistorianHans
Mommsen castigated the "indirectexculpation"strategy of "historical
relativizationof National Socialism"in order "to create a representative
national image of history."21Finally, the director of the Institute for
ContemporaryHistoryin Munich,MartinBroszat,ridiculedthe "objective
apologetics"of Nolte'srepetitionof themythof a Jewishdeclarationof waron
Germanyin 1939 and maintainedthe need for a "self-critical" approachto
Germanhistory.22 Thoseprogressivehistorianswhohadstruggledall theirlife
to preventtherepetitionof theThirdReichweredeeplyalarmed,sincetheneo-
conservativewritingsseemedto cloaknationalistresentmentswiththe mantle
of academicrespectability.
By fall of 1986 the historians'quarrelspreadto politiciansand
publicists.Whenthe CDU hardlinerAlfredDreggerwarnedin the Bundestag
that the "abuse"of criticalhistorywould make the Germans"incapableof
coping with the future,"the debate became so politicized that it pitted

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 289
governmentapologistsagainstforeign and domesticcritics.In a revealing
interviewwithAndreasHillgruber, ChancellorKohlclaimedthat"thegraceof
late birth,"andthereforenot being responsiblefor Hitler,includedshamefor
Auschwitz.Buthis referencesto peacefulGermanself-determination beyond
the presentPolish frontiersand to CentralEuropeas includingthe cities
Krakau, Weimar, and Dresden sounded suspiciously like refugee
revanchism.23 The leading East Germanhistorian,KurtPatzold,therefore
countered,suggestinga continuityof sinisteranti-Communist aimsfromthe
Nazis to "thenew revisionism,"a chargequicklyechoedby the hardLeft.24
Similarly,the editor of the expose-weeklyDer Spiegel,Rudolf Augstein,
hystericallypolemicizedagainst"thenew Auschwitz-lie," calledHillgrubera
"constitutional Nazi" and questioned even president Richard von
Weizsicker.5Whileeloquentlydeploringthe"narrowing of theconsciousness
of guilt,"HeinzGalinski,thespokesmanof theBerlinJewishcommunity,feared
that the deterioriatingexchanges recalled the Treitschke-inspiredanti-
Semitismdebatea centuryearlier:"Icanonlywarnagainstcontinuingit."26Not
since the Fischercontroversyof the early 1960s had a historicaldiscussion
touchedsucha rawnervein publicconsciousness.
During the following winter the debate graduallyreturnedto "a
scholarlyconfrontation withthetheses"of theneo-revisionists. At the German
Historians'Congressin Trier,ChristianMeierappealedfor moreliberalityin
tone and less political witch-hunting.27 The Munich moderate Thomas
Nipperdeysimilarlyurged an end of polarizationby "recognizingthe co-
existenceand the open competition"of conflictingtendenciesin historical
scholarship.28But the principalscontinuedto insist on theirpositions,only
clarifyingtheirintentions.Somewhatchastened,Nolte claimedhe hadmerely
tried "new ways of thinking"that rejectedthe "negativenationalism"of
intellectuals;more incensed, Hillgruberblusteredthat historicalresearch
should know "no taboos"and did not recant his sympathyfor "national-
historicalperspectives."29JurgenHabermasalso restatedhis fear that post-
Auschwitzconsensuson "acriticalapproachto history"was beingrejectedby
the Rightandwonderedhow Germanscouldreclaimtraditionwithoutguilt.30
In the neo-conservativecamp,KlausHildebranddefendedthe legitimacyof
revisionismwhile Michael Stiirmeremphasizedthe necessity of historical
Ontheliberalside,theFreiburghistorianH.-A.Winkler,the
identity-creation.3'
MunichpoliticalscientistK. Sontheimerandthe DusseldorfscholarWolfgang
J.Mommsenmaintainedthe needfor a criticalperspectiveon history.32 While
the publicationof two paperbackscontainingthe centraltexts indicatedthe
abatementof the acutepolemics,thefundamental problemsraisedwerebound
to provokechronicdiscussionfor yearsto come.33

II

The shrillnessof the new revisionismdebatehas servedto obscure

ratherthan clarify the centralissues involved.While alarmcries about "a
caesurain thepoliticalcultureandthe self-perception
of theFederalRepublic"

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
290 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
illustratethe depthof feelingsaroused,theyhardlyelucidatewhatall the fuss
was about.If anything,a dispassionateobserveris struckby the disproportion
betweenthe narrownessof some factualdifferenceson the warin the Eastor
the Holocaustand the immensesignificanceassignedto them.This glaring
discrepancysuggeststhat behindthe texts loom powerfulsubtexts,that the
interpretativequarrelconcernspersonalmotivesand politicalimplications,
complicating rational argument.34Though arousing external concern
especiallyin Israeland the U.S.,the quarrelwas quintessentiallyan internal
Germanaffair,preoccupiedwith the "national" problem.In contrastto their
usual involvement,Anglo-Americancolleagues shied away from direct
participation,preferringrather to comment and to referee.35While an
embarrassedNolte soughtto justify his Gedankenspiele to Jewish scholars,
outsiderswerelargelyignoredunlesstheybuttresseda particularcause.36 This
WestGermanself-absorption of thecontroversysuggeststhatthe statedissues,
while highlyimportantin themselves,also servedas surrogatesfor unstated
problems,providingmuchof the emotionalcharge.
Simplyput, the historians'quarrelrepresentedthe culminationof a
long series of argumentswithin the discipline.To be sure, ErnstNolte is
considered as somewhat eccentric, while the social philosopherJiirgen
Habermasis a Maxisantintellectualratherthana trainedhistorian.Buttherest
of the traditionalistcamp led by Andreas Hillgruber,including Klaus
Hildebrand,Hagen Schulze,and Michael Stiirmerconsists of a clusterof
middle-agedformerliberals,grown more conservativeduringthe student
rebellionof 1968. Thoughspeakingwithindividualaccents,the criticalgroup
of the Mommsens,JurgenKocka,H.-A.Winkler,andM.Broszat,is composed
of historiansfromthe samegenerationwho havemaintainedtheirprogressive
outlook.Inthecontinuitydispute,sparkedbyFischer'slinkbetweentheSecond
andthe ThirdReich,the neo-conservatives tendedto stresschangewhile the
liberalsemphasizedstructural stability.37
Inthemethodologydebateof themid-
1970s the formerassertedthe primacyof political/diplomatic historyandthe
latter advocated a more social approach,called Gesellschaftsgeschichte.38
Similarlyin thepreviousThirdReichdiscussion,thetraditionalists proposedan
"intentionalist"readingas productof Hitler'sideologyand powerwhile the
social historians preferreda "functionalist"interpretationas result of
underlyingstructuresof Nazi rule.39This fault-lineneitherprecludedcross-
overs,suchas E. Jackelor I. Geiss,40norcentristmediationby T. Nipperdeyor
C. Meier.But the relativesilence of youngerand non-academicevery-day
historianssuggeststhatthe debatewas a strugglefor generationaldominance
over the historical guild (Zunft).41
Thecentralissuewhichgavethecontroversy its namewastherevision
of thescholarlyandpoliticalconsensuson theNaziera."Doesthehistoryof the
ThirdReichtoday,thirty-fiveyearsaftertheendof thewar,needto be revised,
and whatcould this revisionconsistof?"It was this rhetoricalquestionof E.
Nolte whichprovokedJ. Habermas'horrorat "neo-conservative" revisionism
thatequatedperpetrators andvictims.42
Ironically,thevery"historicization"of

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 291
the ThirdReichwhich structuralist historianshad promotedso emphatically
during the 1970s in order to refute the personalist, Hitler-centered
interpretation, was now comingback to hauntthem- but fromthe opposite
ideologicaldirection.Claimingthe same right as his socio-politicalcritics,
Klaus Hildebrandasserteddefiantly:"Theceaseless revisionof transmitted
knowledgeis partof thescholarlycalling."43 Sinceallprotagonists acceptedthis
axiom as "self-evident,"the controversy's"neo-revisionist"label was
somewhatof a misnomer:The crux of the matterwas ratherthe potential
apologeticimplicationof relativizingtheThirdReich.Whileneo-conservatives
claimedthattherewas "nodisagreementat all on theunequivocal... political
as well as moral rejection of NS-dictatorshipand its terrible crimes,"
progressivecriticsfearedthat Nolte's "explanationstrategywill be seen as
justificationof Nazi atrocitiesby thosestillunderthe spellof the extremeanti-
Communistpropagandaof National Socialism."44 Though accepting the
legitimacyof revisinginterpretations, Germanhistoriansvigorouslydisagreed
on the limitsanddangersof the relativizingHitler'srule.
In this discussionthe Soviet Unionplayed a pivotalrole as reverse
mirrorimageof the ThirdReichandas ideologicaltouchstoneforthe present.
Nolte'sclaim thatHitlerwas essentiallymotivatedby anti-Communism and
that there was a causal nexus between Bolshevik and Nazi atrocities,45
promptedtheBerlinpoliticalscientistRichardL6wenthalto arguethat,though
similar,the annihilationof the"kulaks"duringcollectivizationbecameknown
abroadonly after the Holocaust.46 Falling back on originaltotalitarianism
theory,the FreiburgmilitaryhistorianJoachimHoffmannwent even further,
asserting"thatin thesummerof 1941 one aggressor,namelyHitler,hadthelast
chance to beat the other aggressor[i.e., Stalin]to the punch."OtherEast
European specialists angrily contradictedthis "preventivewar thesis,"
reminiscentof Goebbels'propaganda,and maintainedthat Hitlerwas the
attacker.47While many commentatorsadmittedthe utility of an action
perspectiveon thelaststagesof thewarin theEast,theycastigatedHillgruber's
lackof causalanalysis,narrownessof moralperspectiveandthoughtlessness of
equatingretributionwithoriginalatrocitiesNonetheless,the Colognescholar
defendedhis "criticalsympathy,"suggestingthat Habermas'"scandalous"
assaultwas motivatedby the desireto "clingto a one-dimensional, accusatory
picture of Nazism and the Germansin the Third Reich."48While neo-
conservativescholarsstressedBolshevikhorrorsin thepastin orderto promote
vigorousanti-Communism today,theirliberal(andsometimesbetterinformed)
criticspresenteda moredifferentiatedpictureof Sovietdevelopmentas basis
for futurecoexistence.
Dueto its moralandpoliticalsensitivity,themostemotionallycharged
issue of the debatewas the singularityof the Holocaust.Nolte'sprovocative
question,"wasnot the class-murderof the Bolsheviksthe logical andfactual
antecedentof the race-murderof the Nazis?"provokedsucha storm,sinceit
seemedto implythat"NScrimeslose theirsingularityby makingthemat least
understandable as answerto Bolshevikannihilationthreats(still continuing

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
292 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
today)."49Unpersuaded by the racial,mechanical,or atavisticcharacterof the
atrocities,J.Festalsoraised"doubtsaboutthemonumentalsimplicityandone-
sidednessof the widespreadimage of the unprecedented peculiarityof Nazi
crimes."ButE. Jackelcounteredpersuasivelythat

themurderof theJewswas singular,becauseneverbeforedid

a statedecidewith the authorityof its responsibleleaderto
announcethe totalannihilationof a certaingroupof people,
includingthe old, women,childrenandinfants,andactually
carryout this decisionwithall possiblebureaucratic force.50

Since both positionsoverstatedtheircase, they eventuallyproveduntenable.

Admittingthat"thereis nothingwrongwith historicalcomparisons," Jiirgen
Kocka neverthelesspointed to the "qualitativedifference"between the
bureaucratized andindustrializedracialmurderof Hitlerand the Civil War,
slavelabor,andfamine-basedclassliquidationof Stalin.HagenSchulzeagreed
that"singularityandcomparability of historicalphenomena... arenotmutually
exclusivealternatives,but complementaryconcepts."51 The methodological
agreementon the "relativesingularity"of the Holocaustindicatesthat the
debaterevolvedlessaroundthemurderof theJewsthanaroundtheimplications
of "thisfesteringanddistractingwound"for the politicalconsciousnessof the
FederalRepublic.52
The crux of the revisionismcontroversywas thereforenot only
historicalbut also political.Sincemuchpost-1945 democratization restedon
repressingan unsavorypast,it was only logical that materialsuccessshould
eventuallybreedhistoricalinsecurity.53 Convincedthatin "a countrywithout
history,he who suppliesrecollections,coins conceptsandinterpretsthe past,
wins the future,"the some-timeKohl advisorMichaelStiirmerpromotedthe
"creationof secularmeaning"in orderto solidifythe presentstructureof the
Federal Republic.54 Such calls for forging new positive bonds to the past
reinforceda broaderpublicsearchforthe GermanKulturnation, evidentin the
BerlinandBonnmuseumplansof thegovernment.55 Withinthiscontext,Nolte's
polemic against"negativenationalism"and Hillgruber'sphilippicsagainst
"one-dimensional, accusatory" historyappearedas sinisterattempts"tomake
a revisionist history serve the national-historicalreconstructionof a
conventionalidentity."56 While Hagen Schulzearguedagainstfocusingthe
Germanpast on Auschwitzalone,HansMommsenwarnedthat"theunholy
alliance" of "long repressed national resentments and revisionist
historiography" would"setfreeargumentshithertosuppressed, sincepolitically
questionable."57 MartinBroszatthereforerejectedthe "demandfor patriotic
history"outof hand,butThomasNipperdeycautionedthat"historyreinforces
and stabilizes our identity,and politics also lives from that."58Involving
essentially"historicalpolitics,"the new revisionismquarrelfocused"notas
muchon thepastas on thepresentandfuture."Whileneo-conservatives groped

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 293
for "a less problematicidentificationwith the nationallegacy,"progressives
praisedthe benefitsof a criticalhistoricalconsciousness:"Notlookingaway,
but facing [theThirdReich]set us free...."59
The issues in the neo-revisionistcontroversywere neverquitewhat
they seemedon the surface.It is no wonderthatmanyGermanandespecially
foreignobservershadconsiderabledifficultyin figuringoutwhatactuallywas
atstake.Insteadof suggestinganaversionto thepast,thestruggleforhegemony
overthe historicalprofessionillustratesan extraordinarypublicinterestin the
meaning of history. The methodologicaldispute over the legitimacy of
revisionismwas quicklysettledin the abstract,butthe extentanddirectionof
the rethinkingof the ThirdReichexperienceremainedin doubt.The scholarly
quarreldid not stem fromnew researchfindings,but ratherrevolvedaround
Communismas ideological litmus-testand focused on the Holocaustas a
symbol of wider attitudes towards the troubled German past. Though
continuallyinvokingthe authorityof Wissenschaft, theparticipants
weredoing
ideologicalbattlefor the historicalidentityof West Germancitizens.As the
recurringmetaphorsof "dams,""blockage,"and "breakingof ice" indicate,
establishedscholarly-politicaltaboos,fundamentalto the consensusof the
FederalRepublic,were suddenlybeing questionedmore openly than ever
before.50Inthisintellectualcontest,thefrontswerecuriouslyreversedwithneo-
conservativehistorians urging revision and liberal scholars tenaciously
defendinga criticalorthodoxy.Withoutformallyparticipating, theyoungleftist
membersof the historyworkshopsundercutthe consensusat its base as well.
The debate"degeneratedinto a limitlesspublicpalaver,"becauseit strucka
chord of fundamentaluncertaintyabout national identity,threateningto
unsettlesettledscoresandreviveold enmitiesat home andabroad.61

Inspiteof intensediscussionswithinandwithoutGermany,thelessons
areby no meansclear.Reflectionson theimplicationsof
of theHistorikerstreit
the professorialquarrelseem to be poppingup everywherelike mushrooms
aftera rain.Whilethehithertosilentheavy-weightH.-U.Wehlerhasjust about
enteredthefraywitha devastatingreviewof theentireaffair,theinternaldebate
has shifted downward into "show-trials"in the seminars and the
Volkshochschulen.62 At the sametimetheexternaldiscussionaboutthedangers
of a new Germannationalism,be it Rightor Left,appearsto be heatingup at
conferencesandin leadingjournals.63 It seemsas if a wholecottageindustryis
tryingto cash in on the controversyby throwingpaperbackson the market,
while everyonewho is someonein Germanhistoryfeels compelledto addhis
voice to the chorus.64While the bulk of monographicwriting remains
publicationsanddebatesaremultiplyingso
unaffected,topicalHistorikerstreit
quicklythatit is gettingeverharderto keep up.As unlikelyas participantsare
to agree on its cause, as improbableis it that observersshall concuron the
controversy'seffect.

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
294 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
Evenif a few scholarssupportthe revisionistimpulse,criticalvoices
predominate.65 WhiletheMarxistReinhardKiihnlproclaims"thedefeatof the
conservativehistorians," otherobserversare not so sanguinebecauseof the
traditionalists'controlof the associationof Germanhistorians,Historische
Zeitschniftandthelike.66TheBielefeldhistorianH.-J.Puhiewarnsthatthe"new
restlessness"mighttryto revive"anunclearromanticizedGermanSonderweg"
and the Anglo-GermanscholarVolker Berghahn,in a vitriolicreview of
Stiirmer'sideologicalmetamorphosisfrom left to right,counsels"lessgreat
politics and creationof meaningand more empiricalinsteadof essayistic
scholarship."67Somewhatmisconstruing thecentralissue,theNorthAmerican
criticHorstFreyhoferconcludesthat"revisionist debatesaboutthe Holocaust
constituteanoffenseagainstthevictimsandthememoryof theirsuffering,and
for thatreasontheyshouldnotbe pursuedforyearsto come."68 Froma longer
perspective,the recentquarrelratherlooks like the latestinstallmentof the
traditionalCentralEuropeanpreoccupationwith the "Germanproblem,"
tryingto makepoliticalsenseof its historicalpeculiarities.69
The heatedandmurkyexchangesstretchedthe scholarlyandpublic
consensusontheThirdReichtothebreakingpoint.Whilealarmistswarnedthat
"theofficial self-imageof the FederalRepublicis crumbling," traditionalists
counteredthat"thebasic[anti-Nazi]consensushasnotbeenundermined" and
the "presentpolemics"were"absurd."70 In the first"revisionism"
controversy,
provokedby the BritishgadflyA.J.P.Taylorandthe AmericanoutsiderDavid
Hoggan,the politico-diplomatic Germanhistorianspresenteda unitedfront,
stressingHitler'scrimes.Intheseconddebate,initiatedby thestructuralistsand
fostered by progressivedeparturesof the social-liberalcoalition, social
historianswereon theoffensive,promotinga morecriticalandcomprehensive
picture of the Third Reich.71In the most recent quarrel,aided by the
conservativeclimateof theKohl-GenscherWende,theliberalssuddenlyfound
themselveson the unaccustomeddefensive,bothagainstradicalleftists(anti-
fascists, everyday-historians)and resurgentneo-conservatives.The prior
swings of interpretationsuggest that their alarm cries about the loss of
consensusarenot entirelydisinterestedandto somedegreereflectfearsabout
imperilleddominance.Nonetheless,theneo-revisionist stancerunstherealrisk
of dignifyingwithacademicrespectabilitymarginalright-wingundercurrents
thatintendto refurbisha nationalistpast withoutany of the scruplesof their
mentors.Since,posturingaside,formalagreementon democraticvalueswas
hardlyin jeopardy,the controversyratherinvolvedthe politicalmeaningof
Hitler'slegacy,triggeredby the attemptto shiftthe consensusto the Right.72
Partof the Germandissatisfactionwiththe criticalview of the Third
Reichstemsfromtheincompleteness of themanicheanorthodoxy.Preoccupied
withNazi war and atrocities,the two-dimensionalfocus on perpetrators and
victims tends to slight the experienceof the overwhelmingmajorityof
contemporaries whichfell somewherebetweentheseextremes.Dramatizations
as differentas the "Holocaust" TV seriesand the movie sequelHeimatdrew
theirpopularityfromtherecollectionsof millionsof "ordinary" folkswhocould

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 295
see theirownlivesreflectedin themmoredirectlythanin academicanalyses.73
Whilestructuralhistoriansalreadytriedto integratethismiddleground,their
explorationof largeorganizationsandabstractforcesoftenmissedthe human
touch. Hence, a spate of unreconstructedmemoirs (Leni Riefenstahl)or
nostalgiarecollections(on "howmuchfun we had in the HJ")threatenedto
overwhelmself-criticalretrospection.74 Inorderto respondto thepopularneed
forincluding"regular" experiencesin thepast,every-dayhistorianshave,with
the supportof theInstituteof Contemporary History,begunto tracetheimpact
of NationalSocialismon theAlltagof workingmenandwomen."Revisionist
pressurefrombelowis likelyto abateonlywhenacademichistoriansadda third
dimensionto theirexplanationsthat speaksto the personalrecollectionsof
"normal"Germans.This wideningof scope need not be apologetic,since it
would indicatethat the frightfuldialecticbetweenNazi criminalsand their
politicalandracialvictimswas onlymadepossibleby the collaborationof the
"decent"majority.
The"normalization" of Germanhistoricalconsciousnesscontinuesto
be blocked by the irreducibletraumaof the Holocaust.Much ritualized
observancehas remainedsterile,becauseit has failedto come to termswith
someinherentambiguities. Whiletheunprecedented extentof sufferingendows
the genocidewith a "meta-historical" characterof timelesssignificance,the
unspeakableNazi crimeswere also actualeventswithina specifichistorical
time and place. This tension creates a growinggap between facile moral
condemnationand a reluctanceto confrontits incomprehensible coursewith
scholarly methods.76Though for millions of Jews, Poles, Communists,
homosexuals,etc.,theHolocaustwas thecentralexperience,formanyGerman
civilians,wittinglyor unwittinglyobliviousto the horroraroundthem,it was
only a minor concern.This differenceof perspectivesencourages,as Saul
Friedlanderhas recently remarked,an increasing discrepancybetween
insistenceon universalguiltandclaimsof non-involvement.77 Whenstressing
its generalethicalrelevance,some the the advocatesof criticalmemoryhave
alsopursuedmorelimitedpartisanaimssuchas anti-Fascism,therebyusingthe
remembrancefor their particularends. This inconsistencyfuels much
resentmentbytheirideologicalopponentswhoalsoaspireto occupyhighmoral
ground.78 Suchwidespreadmisunderstandings are not withouttheirdangers.
"GlobaldistancingfromtheNSpastis stilla formof repressionandtaboo,"and
perpetuatinga meta-historicalimage deflects restorationimpulsesto the
"undamagedareas"of Germanhistory.In orderto breakthis psychological
blockage, Martin Broszat considers "the historicizationof the NS era
inescapabledue to greaterdistance,"providedit eschews apologeticsand
maintains"moralsensitivity."79
In spite of the persistenceof shame,the psychologicaland political
pressurefor a usable past, allowing Germansonce again "to stand tall,"
continuesto grow. Overfour decadesafterfinis Germaniae,the provisional
"constitutionalpatriotism"of the Federal Republic seems to provide
insufficientemotional glue to assure the loyalty of the leftist young who

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
296 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
rediscovereda pacifistnationalsolidaritywiththeEast.Inorderto rollbackthe
post-1968 criticalascendancy,theErlangenhistorianMichaelStiirmercallsfor
renewed"self-confidence" basedonhistoricalidentity:"Germanhistoryhasled
to Hitlerbut also beyondhim."However,Clio can satisfy"collective,largely
unconsciousneedsfor the creationof secularmeaning"only "withscholarly
methods,"requiringa "constantbalancing act between Sinnstiftungand
demythologizing."Dazzlingly formulatingneo-conservativesentiment,he
urges"aninterpretation of Germanhistorythat neitherlives in traumanor
dreamland,butdrawsup a national-historical balancesheet,"baseduponthe
dividedcountry'spositionin the middleof Europe.80 Afraidof the explosive
consequences,liberalhistorianswarnagainst"naiveandexcessiveexpectations
regardingthemeaningandcivic-nationalidentitywhichhistorycanprovidein
a pluralist,post-nationaldemocraticsociety."Sophisticatedacademiccallsfor
restoringhistoricalconsciousnessvia civiceducationmightalltoo quicklyturn
into crudepopularneo-nationalism,especiallywhen manipulatedfor right-
wing ends.81Unless one is content with the culturalcommunityof the
Kulturnation, thedilemmaof maintaininga criticalviewof Naziexcesseswhile
reinforcinga feeling of national cohesion or promotingpride in Bonn's
achievementsis profound.Givenpopularlongingsfor a respectableidentity,
can a societypermanentlyexist with a self-criticalsenseof history?82
The irremovableNazi stainis a continuingsourceof irritationanda
challengefor Germanhistorians.Due to the incrediblemagnitudeof Hitler's
crimes,countlessinternationaland internalvictimsstandwatchagainstany
attemptsto diminishit. Evenneo-conservativescholarsadmitthatnormality,
affirmation,and respecthave become problematicfor a long time. Instead,
liberalcriticssuggestthatthepainfulmemory,if notabusedpropagandistically,
can serve as ethicaland politicalinspirationtowardsgreaterhumanity.But
sympathy(Betroffenheit) alonedoesnot sufficeand"every-dayhistorians" are
rightto insistonincorporating theexperienceof ordinarypeopleintoacademic
accounts.Sinceunderstanding thepastrequiresunceasingeffortsto reexamine
receivedtruth,neitherapologeticwhite-washingnorritualisticbreast-beating
will be of much help as one tends to provoke the other. Ultimately,the
pointsto the necessityof a criticalhistoricizationof the Third
Historikerstreit
Reichthattriesto balancetime-boundscholarlyanalysiswithtimelessmoral
reflection.Insteadof onlyberatingthe neo-revisionistimpulseas miguided,it
mightalsobe profitableto respondconstructively to the shortcomings of Third
Reichscholarshipdramatizedby it. Onlyby puttingthe Nazi periodbackinto
its own past will it continueto be relevantfor the present.Whilebuildingon
intentionalistandfunctionalistinsights,suchrevitalizedresearchwill have to
be more inclusive,concrete and experiential.The abidingchallengeis to
developan approachwhichis bothethicallysensitiveandtrulyhistorical.83
The quarrelof the Germanhistoriansmightnot be "super-fluous," if
it were to suggest some ways of living more constructivelywith Hitler's
indelibleshadow.84 SincebothRightandLefttryto escapefromtheburdenof
serveas a warning
thisterriblepast,thepoliticalovertonesof theHistorikerstreit

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 297
against the dangers of restored nationalismand the illusions of naive
neutralism.The scholarlysterilityof manyof the argumentssuggeststhe need
for a morecriticalandhistoricalanalysisof the frightfulmemoriesandmoral
ambiguitiesof the Nazi era. In what directionmight a more complex and
compellingapproachbe found?To becomemorecomplete,scholarlystudies
ought to view the NS period more historicallyand probe also non-Nazi
developmentscontinuingearliertrendsorparallelingevolutionselsewhere.To
becomemorecredible,academicanalysesof theThirdReichshouldincludenot
only perpetratorsandvictimsbutalso the majorityof the Germanpopulation
that made their bloody dialectic possible. To become more convincing,
historicalwritingsshouldseek to breakwiththe teleologicalfixationon 1933
(or 1945) andincorporatethedecadesbeyondHitler'sruleforindicationsof its
at once terribleandsalutoryconsequences.85 By havingdonethe unthinkable,
Hitlerhas permanentlywarpedthe categoriesof Germanhistory.Conquering
his ambivalentlegacy will requirean extra measureof reason as well as
compassionfor decadesto come.

'J.M.Markham, "GermanBookSetsOffNew HolocaustDebate,"New YorkTimes(September 6,

1986).Thisreflectionoriginatedin presentations at theUniversityof Toronto,a DukeUniversity
symposiumandthe GermanStudiesAssociationmeetingin October,1987.For collectingsome
of the material,I am indebtedto IngridRichards.
2H.-U.Wehler,"Historiography in GermanyToday,"in J. Habermas,ed., Observations on the
SpiritualSituationof theAge(Cambridge: MITpress,1984), pp.221-259; G. Iggers,TheSocial
in WestGermanHistonical
Historyof Politics:CriticalPerspectives Writing (Leamington,Spa:Berg,
1985).
3E.Nolte,"Vergangenheit die nichtvergehenwill.EineRede,die geschrieben, abernichtgehalten
werdenkonnte,"FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung,(June6, 1986);versusS. WillemsandG. Kappes,
eds.,"HolocaustundPolitik.Ein Lesebuch,"(MS,Bochum,November,1986).
4J.Miller,"Erasingthe Past:Europe'sAmnesiaabouttheHolocaust," New YorkTimesMagazine
(November16, 1986):30-36, 40, 109-110;andC.S.Maier,"Immoral Equivalence:Revisingthe
Nazi Pastfor the KohlEra,"NewRepublic(December1986):p. 36-41. Thelatteris preparinga
bookmanuscript on thetopicforHarvardUniversityPress.Cf.J6rgvonUthmann,"DerStreitum
den Holocaust,"Frankfurter Ailgemeine Zeitung(January3, 1987).
5"Continual Recallof Nazi PastAnnoyingWestGermans," NewHavenRegister (December14,
1986).
6G.A.Craig,"TheWarof the GermanHistorians," New YorkReviewof Books23 (1987): 16-
19.
'RudolfGrimm,"Historians in DisputeoverPreciseNatureof the ThirdReich,"GermanTribune
(February22, 1987),p. 5.
8Fora convenientsummary,see G.D.FeldmanandD. Abrahamin the specialissue of Central
EuropeanHistory17 (1984): 159-293. Cf. H.-U. Wehler,"K6nigswegzu neuen Ufern oder
IrrgartenderIllusionen.Die westdeutscheAlltagsgeschichte," in F. BriiggemeierandJ. Kocka,
eds.,Kontroversen umdieAlltagsgeschichte (FemuniversitatHagen:1985),pp. 17-47.
9A.Hillgruber,ZweierleiUntergang. Die Zerschlagung des DeutschenReichesund das Endedes
europdischen Judentums (Cologne:Siedler,1986),especiallypp.20-24, 36-37,43-44, and64-74.
Hillgruberattributesthe responsibilityfor the Holocaustto Hitlerpersonally,butis appalledby
the massparticipation for whichhe has no historicalanswer(pp.
of, especially,theprofessionals,
97-99). Cf. idem,"The Exterminationof the EuropeanJews in Its HistoricalContext- A
Recapitulation," YadVashemStudies17 (1986): 1-15 for the sametext.
'?E.Nolte,"ZwischenGeschichtslegende undRevisionismus? DasDritteReichim Blickwinkeldes
Jahres1980,"publishedin translationby W. Koch,ed.,Aspectsof the ThirdReich(London:St.
Martin'sPress, 1985), pp. 17-38, and praisedby K. Hildebrandin his review in Historische
Zeitschfift242 (1986):465-466.

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
298 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
"E.Nolte,"Vergangenheit, die nichtvergehenwill.EineRede,diegeschrieben, abernichtgehalten
werdenkonnte,"FrankfurterAUgemeine Zeitung(June6,1986). InDas VergehenderVergangenheit
Antwortan meineKritiker imsogenannten Historikerstreit
(Frankfurt am Main:Ulistein,1987),pp.
16-19. Nolte calls the articlea "challengeto scholarship."
"2C.Meier,"Verurteilen undVerstehen.An einemWendepunkt deutscherGeschichtserinnerung,"
FrankfurterAilgemeine Zeitung(June28, 1986).
'3J.Habermas,"EineArtSchadensabwicklung. Die apologetischenTendenzenin derdeutschen
Zeitgeschichtsschreibung," Die Zeit(July11, 1986);andMichaBrumlik,"NeuerStaatsmythos
Ostfront.Die neuesteEntwicklungder Geschichtswissenschaft der BRD,"taz (July12, 1986),
passim.
Nolte,"Leserbrief,"
1'4Ernst Die Zeit(August1, 1986);andM. Sturmer,"Leserbrief," Frankfurter
AllgemeineZeitung(August16,1987). Cf.Nolte,Das Vergehen, p. 19-23,blamesH.-A.Winkler's
misreadingof his Weizmanreferencefor the "moralcampaign."
"5K Hildebrand,"Das Zeitalterder Tyrannen.Geschichteund Politik."Die Verwalterder
Aufklarung,dasRisikoderWissenschaft unddieGeborgenheit derWeltanschauung," Frankfurter
AUgemeineZeitung (July 31, 1986).
16J.Fest, "Die geschuldeteErinnerung.Zur Kontroverseuiberdie Unvergleichbarkeit
der
nationalsozialistischenMassenverbrechen," FrankfurterAllgemeine Zeitung(August29, 1986).
"HagenSchulze,"Fragen,die wir stellenmuissen.Keine historischeHaftungohne nationale
Identitat,"Die Zeit(September26, 1986).
"J.Habermas,"Leserbrief'Frankfurter Ailgemeine Zeitung(August11, 1986).
"'E.Jackel, "Die elende Praxis der Untersteller.Das Einmaligeder nationalsozialistischen
VerbrechenliBt sich nichtleugnen,"Die Zeit(September12, 1986).
20J.Kocka,"HitlersolltenichtdurchStalinundPol Potverdrangt werden.UberVersuchedeutscher
Historiker,die Ungeheuerlichkeit von NS-Verbrechen zu relativieren,"
FrankfurterRundschau
(September23, 1986).
2"H.Mommsen,"Suchenach der 'verlorenen'Geschichte?Bemerkungenzum historische
Selbstverstandnisd derBundesrepublik," Merkur (September1986):864-874;andH. Mommsen,
"NeuesGeschichtsbewuf3tsein undRelativierung Blitterfur deutsche
des Nationalsozialismus,"
undinternationale Politik(October1986): 1200-1213.
22M.Broszat,"Wodie Geistersich scheiden.Die Beschw6rungder Geschichtetaughtnichtals
nationalerReligionsersatz," Die Zeit(October3, 1986).
23Dregger quotedin Broszat,"Wodie Geistersichscheiden"; Hillgruberinterviewof Kohlin Die
Welt(October1, 1986).
24KurtPatzold, "Von Verlorenem,Gewonnenemund Erstrebtemoder: Wohin der 'neue
Revisionismus'steuert,"Bliauerfiirdeutscheund intemationale Politik(1986): 1452-1463;and
KurtPatzold,"Wo der Weg nach Auschwitzbegann.Der deutscheAntisemitismus und der
Massenmordan den europaischen Juden,"ibid.(1987): 160-172.
'-RudolfAugstein,"Die neue Auschwitz-Luge," Der Spiegel(October6, 1987); and Nolte,
Vergangenheit, pp. 38-48.
26H.Galinski,"Beweiszwang fur die Opfer,Freispruchfur die Titer,"Bldiierfiirdeutscheund
internationalePolitik(1987):20-24. Cf. K.H.Jarausch,Students,Societyand Politicsin Imperial
Germany: TheRiseof AcademicIlliberalism (Princeton,New Jersey:PrincetonUniversityPress,
1983),p. 265-275.
27I.Geiss,"Auschwitz, asiatischeTat,"letterto theeditor,DerSpiegel(October20, 1986);andC.
Meier,"Eroffnungsrede zur 36. Versammlung deutscherHistorikerin Trier,8, Oktober1986,"
Rheinischer Merkur(October10, 1986).
28Th.Nipperdey,"UnterderHerrschaftderVerdachts.Wissenschaftliche Aussagendurfennicht
an ihrerpolitischenFunktiongemessenwerden,"Die Zei t (October17, 1986).
29E.Nolte, "Die Sache auf den Kopf gestellt. Gegen den negativenNationalismusin der
Geschichtsbetrachtung," DieZeit(October31, 1986);andA. Hillgruber, "Furdie Forschunggibt
es kein Frageverbot," RheinischerMerkur(October31, 1986).
30J.Habermas,"VomoffentlichenGebrauchder Historie:Das offizielleSelbstverstandnis der
Bundesrepublik brichtauf,"Die Zeit(November7, 1987).
3"K.Hildebrand, "Werdem Abgrundentrinnenwill, muBihn aufsgenauesteausloten,"Die Welt
(November22, 1986); and M. Sturmer,"Wasdie Geschichtewiegt,"Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung(November26, 1986).

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 299
32H.-A. Winkler,"Aufewig in HitlersSchatten?," Frankfurter Rundschau(November14, 1986);
K. Sontheimer,"Maskenbildner schminkeneine neueIdentitat," Rheinischer Merkur(November
21, 1986);andW.J.Mommsen,"WederLeugnennochVergessenbefreitvonderVergangenheit,"
Frankfurter Rundschau (December1, 1986).
33E.R.Piper,ed., 'Historikerstreit' Die Dokumentation derKontroverse um die Einzigartigkeit der
nationalsozialistischenJudenvemichtung (Munich:Piper,1987);andR. Kuhnl,ed., Vergangenheit,
die nicht vergeht.Die Historiker-Debatte. Darstellung,Dokumentation, Kritik(Cologne:Pahl
Rugenstein1987).Theformercontainscompletetexts,thelatterabbreviates, butincludesmore
Leftistexcerptsanda long partisananalysis.
34J.Habermas,"VomoffentlichenGebrauchderHistorie,"Die Zeit(November7, 1986).
35Seethe literaturein R. Evans,"TheNew Nationalismandthe OldHistory:Perspectiveson the
WestGermanHistorikerstreit," Joumalof ModernHistory59 (1987):761-797; andK. Jarausch,
"GermanSocialHistory- AmericanStyle,"Journalof SocialHistory19 (1985):349-359.
36W.Grab,"KritischeBemerkungen zurnationalenApologetikJoachimFests,ErnstNoltesund
AndreasHillgrubers," 1999. Zeitschnift fur Sozialgeschichte des 20. und21. Jahrhunderts (1987):
151-157;andNolte,Das Vergehen, p. 90-147. forhisletterstoO. Kulkaandhisexplantionforthe
dinnereclat withS. Friedlander.
3"MostrecentlyR. Fletcher,"Introduction," to Fritz Fischer'sFromKaiserreich to 7hirdReich
(London:AllenandUnwin,1986),p. 1-32. Cf. K. Jarausch,"FromSecondto ThirdReich:The
Problemsof Continuityin GermanForeignPolicy,"CentralEuropeanHistory12 (1979):68-82.
38lggers,"Introduction," to 7heSocialHistoryof Politics,p. 33 ff;andK.Jarausch, "Illiberalism
and
Beyond:GermanHistoryin Searchof a Paradigm,"JoumalofModem History55 (1983):268-283.
39Themostconvenientsummaryof thepositionsis in G. HirschfeldandL. Kettenacker, eds.,Der
'Fuhrerstaat'-MythosundRealitdt(Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta,1981). Amongthe majorfigures,only
H.-U.Wehlerdid not interveneimmediately,muchin contrastto his combativetemperament.
40Geiss'conversionwasallthemoresurprising, sincehe wasoneof themostunrestrained partisans
of Fischerin thatcontroversywhileJackel'sswitchhadbeenlongerin coming.
4'W.Weber,Priester derKilo(Frankfurt: PeterLang,1984).Cf.R.Fletcher,"Everyday-Historians
andthe Historikerstreit" (paperdeliveredat the 1987 GermanStudiesAssociationMeetingin St.
Louis).
42Nolte,"Zwischen Geschichtslegendeund Revisionismus?,"and Habermas,"Eine Art
Schadensabwicklung," in Historikerstreitpp. 18, 70.
43H.Mommsen,"Suchenachder 'verlorenenGeschichte'," Historikerstreit,
pp. 165-173;and K.
Hildebrand, "WerdemAbgrundentrinnenwill,muBihn aufsgenauesteausloten,"ibid, pp.28 1-
292.
"H. M6ller,"Es kann nicht sein, was nicht sein darf.Pladoyerfur eine Versachlichung der
Kontroverse uberdieZeitgeschichte," BeitragezurKonfliktforschung (1986):146-151;versusW.J.
Mommsen,"WederLeugnennochVergessenbefreitvon derVergangenheit," in Historikerstreit,
p. 311.
45DieWeltinterviewwithNolte(September21 and23, 1987);Nolte,Dereuropdische Bdrgerkrieg
1917-1945Nationalismus undBolschewismus (Frankfurt:Propylaen,1987)attemptstojustifythis
thesismonographically; andDas Vergehen, p. 49-59.
46J.G.Reil3mfiller,
"Verschwiegene Zeitgeschichte," Frankfurter Ailgemeine Zeitung(November
14, 1986);andR. L6wenthal,"Verzerrte Zeitgeschichte," ibid (November29, 1986).
47G.Gillessen,"DerKriegderDiktatoren.WollteStalinim Sommer1941 das DeutscheReich
angreifen?," Frankfurter Ailgemeine Zeitung(August20, 1986);and JoachimHoffman,"Stalin
wollteden Krieg,"ibid, (October16, 1986);versusGerdR. Uberschar, "Hitler,nichtStalinwar
der Aggressor,"ibid, (October31, 1986);andBiankaPietrow,"StalinsPolitikbis 1941,"ibid.,
(November13, 1986).
48A.Hillgruber,"JiirgenHabermas,Karl-HeinzJanBenund die AufklarungAnno 1986,"
Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 28 (1986): 725-738.
49Nolte,"Vergangenheit, die nichtvergehenwill,"Historikerstreit, pp.45-47; andHabermas, "Eine
ArtSchadensabwicklung," ibid, p. 71.
50Fest,"Die geschuldeteErinnerung," Historikerstreit100-112;Jackel,"Die elende Praxisder
Untersteller,"ibid, p. 145.
5J.Kocka,"HitlersolltenichtdurchStalinundPol Potverdrangtwerden,"Historikerstreit, pp. 132-
142;andH. Schulze,"Fragen,die wir stellenmiussen," ibid.,p. 145.

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
300 GERMANSTUDIESREVIEW
52H.Mommsen,"Neues GeschichtsbewuBtsein und Relativierungdes Nationalsozialismus,"
Historikerstreit pp. 179-188; and C. Meier,"Er6ffnungsrede zur 36. Versammlungdeutscher
Historiker," ibid.,pp. 205-219.
53H.Liibbe,"Es ist nichtsvergessen,aber einiges ausgeheilt,"Frankfurter AllgemeineZeitung
(January24, 1983).However,readingthe Historikerstreit solelyin politicaltermsoversimplifies
its complexityas well.
54M.Stiirmer,"Geschichtein geschichtslosemLand,"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung(April25,
1986);and"EineAnklage,die sich selbstihreBelegefabriziert," ibid.(August16, 1986).
55M.Geyer,"TheRediscoveryof Words.The Formationof a New GermanKulturnation, 1970-
1986;"andW. Michalka,"Werentsorgtdie deutscheGeschichte?ZurAuseinandersetzung iuber
Museumsprojekte der Bundesrepublik" (papers at the 1987 GermanStudies Association
Conferencein St. Louis).
56Habermas, "EineArtSchadensabwicklung," p. 73.
Historikerstreit,
57Schulze,"Fragen, diewirstellenmiissen," pp. 143-150;andH.Mommsen,"Neues
Historikerstreit:
GeschichtsbewuBtsein undRelativierung des Nationalsozialismus," ibid.,p. 176.
5'Broszat, "Wosich die Geisterscheiden,"Historikerstreit, p. 194;versusNipperdey,"Unterder
HerrschaftderVerdachts," ibid.,p. 217.
59H.Winkler,"Aufewigin Hitler'sSchatten?" p. 262;C. Meier,"KeinSchluBwort,"
Historikerstreit,
ibid.,p. 268; W. Mommsen,"WederLeugnennochVergessenbefreitvon der Vergangenheit,"
ibid.,p. 312; andRobertLeicht,"Nurdas Hinsehenmachtundfrei,"ibid.,pp. 361-366.
60For instance,H.Mommsen,"NeuesGeschichtsbewuBtsein," Historikerstreit,pp. 176-177;Meier,
"Er6ffnungsrede," ibid.,pp. 213-214.
6"Hillgruber,"Mein 'SchluBwort'zum sogenannten 'Historikerstreit',12. Mai 1987,"
Historikerstreit,pp. 393-395. Cf. A.G.Frei,"Geschichteals sozialeBewegung?Das politisch-
kulturelleProjektder Geschichtswerkstatten" (GermanStudiesAssociationpaper,St. Louis,
1987).
62Foiled in leadingthe criticalchargeat the 1986 Congressof GermanHistoriansin Trierby the
non-appearance of the neo-revisionists, H.-U. Wehlerhas insteadwrittena brilliantpolemic,
Entsorgung derdeutschenVergangenheit. Essayzum'Historikerstreit'
Einpolitischer (Munich:Beck,
1988). Cf. E. Nolte,"EinSchluBwort von dem Mann,derihn ausl6ste,"Welt
im Historikerstreit
am Sonntag(September20, 1987).
63SeeJ.Joffe,"TheBattleof theHistorians," Encounter(June 1987):72-77. Cf.R. Evans,"TheNew
Nationalism," 767-797;G. Eley'spolemicscheduledforPastandPresent,theAmericanInstitute
for Contemporary GermanStudiesforumin May 1987; the Septembersymposiumat Leeds
Castle, "Of IdealistsConflicts,Disagreements,of Historiansin Dispute,"GermanTribune
(October,18 1987);andthe Octobersessionat the GermanStudiesAssociationConference.
"4For instance,D. Diner,ed.,IstderNationalsozialismus Geschichte? (Frankfurt am Main:Fischer
Taschenbuch, 1987), the Erler/Miiller/Rose/Schnabel/Uberschar/Wettevolume on
Geschichtswende? Entsorgungsversuche zur deutschenVergangenheit (Freiburg:Dreisam,1987)
andotherscitedin Wehler.Entsorgung, p. 212.
61Fora list of positiveresponsescf. Nolte, Vergangenheit, pp. 51-57.
66R.Kiuhnl, "KampfumsGeschichtsbild undaktuellePolitik,"Vergangenheit dienichtvergeht,
pp.
282-286. Aninjunctionby NolteforcedPahl-Rugenstein to changethetitleof theKiihnlvolume.
67H.-J.Puhle,"Die neue Ruhelosigkeit: MichaelStiirmer'snationalpolitischer Revisionismus,"
Geschichteund Gesellschaft13(1987):382-399;andV.R.Berghahn, "Geschichtswissenschaft und
GroBePolitik,"AusPolitikundZeitgeschichte, BeilagezuDasParlament (March14, 1987),pp.25-
37.
"H. Freyhofer,"TheGermanRevisionistDebateaboutthe Holocaust"(paperdeliveredat the
GermanStudiesAssociationConferencein St. Louis,October1987).
9Forexamplessee G. Ritter,Das deutscheProblem(Munich:Oldenbourg,1962);D. Calleo,The
GermanProblemReconsidered(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1978); and the
controversysparkedby D. Blackbournand G. Eley, Peculiarities of GermanHistory(Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress,1984).
7'Habermas, "Vom 6ffentlichenGebrauchder Historie,"Histonkerstreit, pp. 243-255; versus
Meier,"KeinSchluBwort," ibid.,269-274; andM6ller,"Eskannnichtsein,"ibid.,p. 329.
"K.Hildebrand, Das DritteReich(Munich:Oldenbourg,1980),pp. 117-194;P. Aycoberry,The
Nazi Question(London:PantheonBooks1981);I. Kershaw,TheNaziDictatorship. Problemsand
Perspectives of Interpretation (London:EdwardArnold,1985).

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
KonradH. Jarausch 301
(butculturallyuneasy)than
aremorepoliticallypro-American
72Ifanything,theneo-conservatives
the culturallypro-Western(andpoliticallycritical)liberals.
73T.Elsaesser,"Heimat," MonthlyFilmBulletin52 (1985): 48-50; and Jarausch,"Introductory
Comments"to the showingof the film at the AmericanInstitutefor Contemporary German
Studies,Spring1987.
74LeniRiefenstahl,Memoiren (Munich:A. Knaus,1987);versusCarolaStern,In denNetzender
Erinnerung. LebensgeschichtenzweierMenschen(Reinbek:Rowohlt,1986).
75M.Broszatet al,eds,BayerninderNSZeit(Munich; Oldenbourg,1977-1983),6 vols.;D. Peukert,
Volksgenossen undGemeinschaftsfremde (Cologne:Bund-Verlag,1982);andC. Koonz,Mothers
in theFatherland.Women,theFamilyandNaziPolitics(New York:St. Martin'sPress,1986).
76Fora recentsummarysee MicharlR. Marrus, "TheHistoryof theHolocaust:A Surveyof Recent
Literature,"Journalof ModernHistory59 (1987): 114-160.
"SaulFriedlinderin Ledebat,January-March 1987,citedin Nolte, Vergangenheit,p. 65. See the
debate about S. Gordon,Hitler,Germansand the "JewishQuestion"(Princeton:Princeton
UniversityPress,1984).
78I.Geiss,"ZumHistoriker-Streit," pp. 373-380;versusKiihnl,Vergangenheit,
Historikerstreit, p.
264-282.
79M.Broszat,"Pladoyerfureine Historisierung in H. Graml,ed.,Nach
des Nationalsozialismus,"
Hitler.DerschwierigeUmgangmitunsererGeschichte (Munich:Oldenbourg,1987),pp. 166-173;
320-323;versusS. Friedlinder,"Uberlegungen desNationalsozialismus,"
zurHistorisierung in Ist
derNationalsozialismus,pp. 34-50.
80M.Stiirmer,Dissonanzendes Forschritts. Essaysuber Geschichteund Politikin Deutschland
(Munich:Piper, 1986), pp. 8-9, 12, 15-17., 205-209., 265-277. For Wehler'scritiqueof the
geopoliticalapproachsee his Entsorgung, pp. 174-189.
8Graml,Nach Hitler,pp. 310-316; Puhle,"Die neue Ruhelosigkeit," pp. 396-399; Berghahn,
"Geschichtswissenschaft undgroBePolitik,"pp. 35-37.
82U.Herrmann, "Wasist des DeutschenVaterland?Betrachtungen fiberdeutscheStaatenin der
deutschenGeschichte,"(radiolecture,SWF Baden-Baden, June 14, 1987);M. Broszat,"Vom
nationalenGr6Benwahn befreit.Die Neuentdeckung derGeschichteim demokratischen Staat,"
Suddeutsche Zeitung(August14-15, 1986);andT. Nipperdey,"JedeEpocheist dochgleichnah
zu Gott.Widerdie politischeUberforderung derGeschichtswissenschaft," Die Welt(February28,
1987).
83Seealso the recent exchangebetweenM. Broszatand S. Friedlander,"Historisierung des
Nationalsozialismus,"DieZeit,(April29,1988). T.S.Hamerow,"Guilt,RedemptionandWriting
GermanHistory,"AmericanHistoricalReview88 (1983): 53-72; and F. Stem, Dreamsand
Delusions.TheDramaof GermanHistory(New York:Knopf,1987),pointin thisdirection.
84J.Fest,"Nachwort, pp.388-390. Cf. alsoD. Peukert,"Alltagund
21 April1987,"Historikerstreit,
Barbarei.ZurNormalitatdes DrittenReichs,"in IstderNationalsozialismus, pp. 51-61.
85G.Eley,FromUnificationto Nazisnm theGermanPast(Boston:AllenandUnwin,
Reinterpreting
1986), pp. 1-20; and T. Nipperdey,Nachdenkenuberdie deutschenGeschichte (Munich:Beck,
1986), pp. 7-20.

This content downloaded from 134.68.189.135 on Mon, 1 Apr 2013 12:44:54 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions