Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.1177/16118944231202176
Daniele Pipitone
The article focuses on the memory of the Normandy landings in post-war Italy, as a case study for investigating the wider subject of the memory of World War II in the country. It is based on two main assumptions: that memories of World War II were by no means limited to the national level (i.e. to the aspects of the conflict that directly involved Italy) and necessarily included a representation of the global features of the war and that memories often have a transnational nature and undergo a continuous process of importation and exportation beyond national boundaries. In order to investigate the issue, a corpus of sources has been collected, made up of articles published on five Italian newspapers of different political allegiance, roughly in the first two decades after the war, from 1945 to 1968. The results of the analysis show how the memory of the landings was paid very different attention, depending on the cultural and political stance of the daily: while the right- and left-wing press seldom focused on it, the moderate and pro-governmental newspapers showed a greater interest. Two other key elements emerge from the analysis: the transnational character of the memories and their strongly celebratory nature. In fact, many articles on the D-Day drew upon foreign sources (of Anglo-American, but also of German origin) in different ways, and almost all of them depicted the landings as the turning point of the war, the moment when Europe was freed and the final triumph of the good against the evil. In conclusion, it is outlined how the memory of the landings played a key role in making the global war known, in importing to Italy the (western) idea of the ‘good war’ and in spreading in Italy the ‘western’ set of values, thus strengthening the bonds of the country with its Cold War allies.
{"title":"The Most Glorified Day: Memory and Narratives on the Normandy Landings in the Italian Daily Press","authors":"Daniele Pipitone","doi":"10.1177/16118944231202176","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231202176","url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on the memory of the Normandy landings in post-war Italy, as a case study for investigating the wider subject of the memory of World War II in the country. It is based on two main assumptions: that memories of World War II were by no means limited to the national level (i.e. to the aspects of the conflict that directly involved Italy) and necessarily included a representation of the global features of the war and that memories often have a transnational nature and undergo a continuous process of importation and exportation beyond national boundaries. In order to investigate the issue, a corpus of sources has been collected, made up of articles published on five Italian newspapers of different political allegiance, roughly in the first two decades after the war, from 1945 to 1968. The results of the analysis show how the memory of the landings was paid very different attention, depending on the cultural and political stance of the daily: while the right- and left-wing press seldom focused on it, the moderate and pro-governmental newspapers showed a greater interest. Two other key elements emerge from the analysis: the transnational character of the memories and their strongly celebratory nature. In fact, many articles on the D-Day drew upon foreign sources (of Anglo-American, but also of German origin) in different ways, and almost all of them depicted the landings as the turning point of the war, the moment when Europe was freed and the final triumph of the good against the evil. In conclusion, it is outlined how the memory of the landings played a key role in making the global war known, in importing to Italy the (western) idea of the ‘good war’ and in spreading in Italy the ‘western’ set of values, thus strengthening the bonds of the country with its Cold War allies.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135536782","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-27DOI: 10.1177/16118944231202156
Judit Pál, Vlad Popovici
The transition from the administrative system of the Habsburg monarchy to that of the successor nation-states after World War I has traditionally been analysed in terms of discontinuity, or even rupture. In our research, which focuses on the specific case of Transylvania, we demonstrate that both the development of a centralised administrative system and the relationship between the state authority and local autonomies were characterised by continuity rather than change. In both the Hungarian and the Romanian state, the key institution involved in the process of diminishing local self-government was the representative of the central power in the territory (the lord lieutenant until 1918 and later the prefect). The gradual expansion of his prerogatives over institutions and county officials began in Hungary in the early 1870s, and continued until the interwar period in Romania; this was a process that extended beyond the changes in the political and state regime in 1918. Thus, for interwar Transylvania, administrative centralisation in the French tradition did not represent a paradigm shift, but instead the continuation and acceleration of an already quite advanced process that the Hungarian state, which had been eager to modernise its administrative structures, had already introduced 50 years earlier.
{"title":"Representatives of the Central Authority and County Administration in Transylvania (1867–1925)","authors":"Judit Pál, Vlad Popovici","doi":"10.1177/16118944231202156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231202156","url":null,"abstract":"The transition from the administrative system of the Habsburg monarchy to that of the successor nation-states after World War I has traditionally been analysed in terms of discontinuity, or even rupture. In our research, which focuses on the specific case of Transylvania, we demonstrate that both the development of a centralised administrative system and the relationship between the state authority and local autonomies were characterised by continuity rather than change. In both the Hungarian and the Romanian state, the key institution involved in the process of diminishing local self-government was the representative of the central power in the territory (the lord lieutenant until 1918 and later the prefect). The gradual expansion of his prerogatives over institutions and county officials began in Hungary in the early 1870s, and continued until the interwar period in Romania; this was a process that extended beyond the changes in the political and state regime in 1918. Thus, for interwar Transylvania, administrative centralisation in the French tradition did not represent a paradigm shift, but instead the continuation and acceleration of an already quite advanced process that the Hungarian state, which had been eager to modernise its administrative structures, had already introduced 50 years earlier.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135537722","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-20DOI: 10.1177/16118944231202150
Sergey Sherstyukov
The abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 had profound global repercussions that were felt far beyond the territorial boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire. This event provoked intense and ambivalent responses among the community of Muslims in Weimar Germany. To date, this reaction has received little attention. Defeat in the war deprived Germany of its colonies, but Berlin became an important point on the map of emerging transnational anti-colonial networks and the centre of the intellectual and political life of Muslims in Europe. In the Islamic space of Berlin, there was an active search for new normative values and a vocabulary that would correspond to the realities of the post-Ottoman Muslim world. A more detailed and nuanced picture of Muslim reactions in Germany to the abolition of the Caliphate can shed more light on the history of Muslim émigré activism and the creation of a Muslim space in Europe during this period.
{"title":"The Responses of Muslims in Weimar Germany to the Abolition of the Caliphate","authors":"Sergey Sherstyukov","doi":"10.1177/16118944231202150","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231202150","url":null,"abstract":"The abolition of the Caliphate in 1924 had profound global repercussions that were felt far beyond the territorial boundaries of the former Ottoman Empire. This event provoked intense and ambivalent responses among the community of Muslims in Weimar Germany. To date, this reaction has received little attention. Defeat in the war deprived Germany of its colonies, but Berlin became an important point on the map of emerging transnational anti-colonial networks and the centre of the intellectual and political life of Muslims in Europe. In the Islamic space of Berlin, there was an active search for new normative values and a vocabulary that would correspond to the realities of the post-Ottoman Muslim world. A more detailed and nuanced picture of Muslim reactions in Germany to the abolition of the Caliphate can shed more light on the history of Muslim émigré activism and the creation of a Muslim space in Europe during this period.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136308996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-18DOI: 10.1177/16118944231202147
Christian K Melby
By the late nineteenth century, questions were raised about the efficacy of the British political system to manage and prosecute modern wars. At the centre of these questions was the issue of public opinion, seen as a potentially detrimental influence on planning and preparation for future wars. This article outlines the late-Victorian and Edwardian views on the role between Britain's constitution and war, and shows how public opinion was brought up in discussions on how Britain's armed forces could be better prepared for future conflicts. It argues that, by World War I, British officers as well as civilian experts proposed various solutions to the country's perceived political problems and argued that the public could potentially be mobilised to side-line a lethargic parliament and the political parties. The article thereby follows in the wake of an increased interest in the intellectual and political history of war and military planning, and offers a new perspective on political thought in Victorian and Edwardian Britain.
{"title":"War, Public Opinion and the British Constitution, c. 1867–1914","authors":"Christian K Melby","doi":"10.1177/16118944231202147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231202147","url":null,"abstract":"By the late nineteenth century, questions were raised about the efficacy of the British political system to manage and prosecute modern wars. At the centre of these questions was the issue of public opinion, seen as a potentially detrimental influence on planning and preparation for future wars. This article outlines the late-Victorian and Edwardian views on the role between Britain's constitution and war, and shows how public opinion was brought up in discussions on how Britain's armed forces could be better prepared for future conflicts. It argues that, by World War I, British officers as well as civilian experts proposed various solutions to the country's perceived political problems and argued that the public could potentially be mobilised to side-line a lethargic parliament and the political parties. The article thereby follows in the wake of an increased interest in the intellectual and political history of war and military planning, and offers a new perspective on political thought in Victorian and Edwardian Britain.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"191 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135206718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-16DOI: 10.1177/16118944231202182
Marta Stachurska-Kounta
The popular perception concerning Norway's particular commitment to peace and impartiality in international politics has from time to time been bracketed by the fact that the country has no colonial past. Such an understanding fails to address Norway's rise to a major position in the global shipping system and maritime trade during the colonial era and that this economic expansion had only been possible due to Britain's liberal trade policy and imperial rule. The article shows that reliance on Britain's global leadership moulded Norway's vision of the emerging international order in the aftermath of World War I and was one of the most crucial arguments for the country to become a member of the League of Nations. It argues that Norway's advocacy of free trade as a key to international peace in the interwar period has to be seen in the light of the country's commercial interests and assumptions about Britain's civilizing mission.
人们对挪威在国际政治中对和平和公正所作的特殊承诺的普遍看法，不时与该国没有殖民历史这一事实联系在一起。这种理解无法解释挪威在殖民时代在全球航运系统和海上贸易中崛起的重要地位，而这种经济扩张只有在英国的自由贸易政策和帝国统治下才有可能。这篇文章表明，对英国全球领导地位的依赖塑造了挪威对第一次世界大战后新兴国际秩序的看法，也是该国成为国际联盟(League of Nations)成员的最重要理由之一。它认为，挪威在两次世界大战之间倡导自由贸易是国际和平的关键，必须结合该国的商业利益和对英国文明使命的假设来看待。
{"title":"On the Coattails of Empire: Norway and Imperial Internationalism in the Time of the League of Nations","authors":"Marta Stachurska-Kounta","doi":"10.1177/16118944231202182","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231202182","url":null,"abstract":"The popular perception concerning Norway's particular commitment to peace and impartiality in international politics has from time to time been bracketed by the fact that the country has no colonial past. Such an understanding fails to address Norway's rise to a major position in the global shipping system and maritime trade during the colonial era and that this economic expansion had only been possible due to Britain's liberal trade policy and imperial rule. The article shows that reliance on Britain's global leadership moulded Norway's vision of the emerging international order in the aftermath of World War I and was one of the most crucial arguments for the country to become a member of the League of Nations. It argues that Norway's advocacy of free trade as a key to international peace in the interwar period has to be seen in the light of the country's commercial interests and assumptions about Britain's civilizing mission.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"354 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135307289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-12DOI: 10.1177/16118944231197075
Laetitia Lenel, Alexander Nützenadel, Frank Trentmann, Tiago Mata, Vanessa Ogle, Trevor Jackson, William H. Sewell,
{"title":"Economic Narratives. Edited by Laetitia Lenel and Alexander Nützenadel","authors":"Laetitia Lenel, Alexander Nützenadel, Frank Trentmann, Tiago Mata, Vanessa Ogle, Trevor Jackson, William H. Sewell,","doi":"10.1177/16118944231197075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231197075","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135885539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-20DOI: 10.1177/16118944231180427
D. Siemens
This article explores the Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik, or politics of the past, of the United Restitution Office/Organisation (URO) in the post-war years and asks how it impacted on the early historiography of the Holocaust. I demonstrate that the URO leadership took a conscious decision to publicly downplay the role of its organisation in German reparations to maximise its legal and political clout behind closed doors. While this strategy was beneficial for many of URO's clients, above all in the 1950s and 1960s, this self-marginalisation prevented the organisation from becoming a significant voice in the public debates about German moral guilt and its consequences in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason for this development was generational. The URO was an enterprise driven by a particular cohort of German-Jewish lawyers for whom it provided an opportunity to personally ‘come to terms’ with the interruptions of their pre-1933 careers and the persecution during the Third Reich. In the post-war period, their legal expertise as well as their intimate knowledge of the German language and customs allowed them to act as transnational citizen diplomats, successfully mediating between the different parties and interest groups, governments and non-governmental lobby groups. For most of these Jewish jurists, their practical experience with their German peers, politicians and the administrators of the German Wiedergutmachung led to an increasing scepticism and ultimately disappointment – despite the undisputedly impressive results that they obtained for their clients.
本文探讨了战后时期联合归还办公室/组织(URO)的Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik，或过去的政治，并探讨了它对大屠杀早期史学的影响。我证明，欧洲统一联盟领导层有意识地决定公开淡化其组织在德国赔款问题上的作用，以最大限度地发挥其关起门来的法律和政治影响力。虽然这种策略对URO的许多客户都是有益的，尤其是在20世纪50年代和60年代，但这种自我边缘化阻碍了该组织在20世纪70年代和80年代关于德国道德内疚及其后果的公共辩论中成为一个重要的声音。这种发展的一个原因是代际关系。URO是由一群特殊的德国犹太律师推动的企业，它为他们提供了一个亲自“接受”1933年之前职业中断和第三帝国迫害的机会。在战后时期，他们的法律专业知识以及他们对德语和习俗的深入了解使他们能够作为跨国公民外交官，成功地在不同党派和利益集团、政府和非政府游说团体之间进行调解。对这些犹太法学家中的大多数人来说，他们与德国同行、政治家和德国最高法院管理者的实际经历导致了越来越多的怀疑和最终的失望——尽管他们为客户取得了无可争议的令人印象深刻的结果。
{"title":"Lawyers Writing History: The Politics of the Past of the United Restitution Organisation (URO) from 1948 to the 1980s","authors":"D. Siemens","doi":"10.1177/16118944231180427","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231180427","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the Geschichts- and Vergangenheitspolitik, or politics of the past, of the United Restitution Office/Organisation (URO) in the post-war years and asks how it impacted on the early historiography of the Holocaust. I demonstrate that the URO leadership took a conscious decision to publicly downplay the role of its organisation in German reparations to maximise its legal and political clout behind closed doors. While this strategy was beneficial for many of URO's clients, above all in the 1950s and 1960s, this self-marginalisation prevented the organisation from becoming a significant voice in the public debates about German moral guilt and its consequences in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason for this development was generational. The URO was an enterprise driven by a particular cohort of German-Jewish lawyers for whom it provided an opportunity to personally ‘come to terms’ with the interruptions of their pre-1933 careers and the persecution during the Third Reich. In the post-war period, their legal expertise as well as their intimate knowledge of the German language and customs allowed them to act as transnational citizen diplomats, successfully mediating between the different parties and interest groups, governments and non-governmental lobby groups. For most of these Jewish jurists, their practical experience with their German peers, politicians and the administrators of the German Wiedergutmachung led to an increasing scepticism and ultimately disappointment – despite the undisputedly impressive results that they obtained for their clients.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"343 - 360"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47726564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-19DOI: 10.1177/16118944231181295
Regula Ludi, D. Siemens
Reparations and restitution have long been a marginal subject of historical research, even in the Federal Republic of Germany. Until the early 1990s, legal, diplomatic and institutional history dominated the field. Early studies provided important information on how the Federal Republic dealt with the legacies of Nazi crimes and the general awareness of the Holocaust in the post-war era. Not least because its authors had only limited access to the archives, they often reflected the official perspective of indemnification, most prominently documented in the multi-
{"title":"Introduction: Reparations and the Historiography of the Holocaust – An Entangled History","authors":"Regula Ludi, D. Siemens","doi":"10.1177/16118944231181295","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231181295","url":null,"abstract":"Reparations and restitution have long been a marginal subject of historical research, even in the Federal Republic of Germany. Until the early 1990s, legal, diplomatic and institutional history dominated the field. Early studies provided important information on how the Federal Republic dealt with the legacies of Nazi crimes and the general awareness of the Holocaust in the post-war era. Not least because its authors had only limited access to the archives, they often reflected the official perspective of indemnification, most prominently documented in the multi-","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"286 - 293"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46655371","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-15DOI: 10.1177/16118944231180429
G. Reuveni
The stacks of materials and amount of information collected as part of the individual reparation process since the late 1940s are immense. It is the largest untapped Holocaust-related archive. One might ask, what should we do with this enormous collection of documents? Will these documents provide new insights on the Holocaust? How will they change what we know about post-war societies? This is of course not the first time that such questions have been raised. By looking at the work of a group of historians using compensation claim files as a historical source at the end of 1950s in Berlin, my paper will seek to provide some insight into the compound interplay between individual compensation claims and historical research. The Forschungsgruppe Berliner Widerstand 1933–1945 commenced its work in October 1956. Funded by the Berlin city lottery, with overheads covered by the Berlin Ministry of Interior, this research unit was to conduct a broad-based study of persecution and resistance in Berlin during the Nazi period. Using extensive documentary evidence, the project was supposed to focus on the fate of the victims of Nazi policy and the efforts of individual groups to offer resistance. In terms of its approach and method, the project was ahead of its time. The initial idea of using individual victim experiences as a starting point for the depiction of Nazi crimes and the opposition against it made, even if only for a brief period of time, the compensation claim files into a valuable historical resource. The exploration of this Forschungsgruppe will help us to better understand the challenges of working with personal compensation claims as historical documents and will raise stimulating questions about the place of German reparation in Holocaust studies and commemoration of the Holocaust.
{"title":"Individual Reparations Claims and Holocaust Research: The Forschungsgruppe Berliner Widerstand 1933–1945","authors":"G. Reuveni","doi":"10.1177/16118944231180429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231180429","url":null,"abstract":"The stacks of materials and amount of information collected as part of the individual reparation process since the late 1940s are immense. It is the largest untapped Holocaust-related archive. One might ask, what should we do with this enormous collection of documents? Will these documents provide new insights on the Holocaust? How will they change what we know about post-war societies? This is of course not the first time that such questions have been raised. By looking at the work of a group of historians using compensation claim files as a historical source at the end of 1950s in Berlin, my paper will seek to provide some insight into the compound interplay between individual compensation claims and historical research. The Forschungsgruppe Berliner Widerstand 1933–1945 commenced its work in October 1956. Funded by the Berlin city lottery, with overheads covered by the Berlin Ministry of Interior, this research unit was to conduct a broad-based study of persecution and resistance in Berlin during the Nazi period. Using extensive documentary evidence, the project was supposed to focus on the fate of the victims of Nazi policy and the efforts of individual groups to offer resistance. In terms of its approach and method, the project was ahead of its time. The initial idea of using individual victim experiences as a starting point for the depiction of Nazi crimes and the opposition against it made, even if only for a brief period of time, the compensation claim files into a valuable historical resource. The exploration of this Forschungsgruppe will help us to better understand the challenges of working with personal compensation claims as historical documents and will raise stimulating questions about the place of German reparation in Holocaust studies and commemoration of the Holocaust.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"361 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49058272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-15DOI: 10.1177/16118944231180431
Anna Corsten
This article looks at the impact sources produced in the practice of restitution and reparation had on early Holocaust historiography. It analyses the examples of two Holocaust researchers from the first generation who today are perceived as important pioneers in their field of study: Henry Friedlander and Raul Hilberg. While both held strong personal opinions about the practice of restitution, they did not use sources produced in it for their research. This article explores three main reasons for this omission. The first one is connected to the questions of how they wanted to study the Holocaust. The second reason is to be found in their moral criticism of the practice itself. The third reason lays in the actual effects their research had on legal proceedings resulting from the Holocaust. In the end, this article argues that their decision of how to study the Holocaust was very closely intertwined with what these scholars perceived as their task as historians. An analysis of the first generation's take on restitution and reparation practices provides insights into the development of early Holocaust historiography. It shows what they perceived as their obligation as historians of the Holocaust as well as difficulties they faced by addressing the topic.
{"title":"Writing about the Holocaust as Scholars and Survivors: Early Holocaust Research and the Practices of Restitution and Reparations","authors":"Anna Corsten","doi":"10.1177/16118944231180431","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944231180431","url":null,"abstract":"This article looks at the impact sources produced in the practice of restitution and reparation had on early Holocaust historiography. It analyses the examples of two Holocaust researchers from the first generation who today are perceived as important pioneers in their field of study: Henry Friedlander and Raul Hilberg. While both held strong personal opinions about the practice of restitution, they did not use sources produced in it for their research. This article explores three main reasons for this omission. The first one is connected to the questions of how they wanted to study the Holocaust. The second reason is to be found in their moral criticism of the practice itself. The third reason lays in the actual effects their research had on legal proceedings resulting from the Holocaust. In the end, this article argues that their decision of how to study the Holocaust was very closely intertwined with what these scholars perceived as their task as historians. An analysis of the first generation's take on restitution and reparation practices provides insights into the development of early Holocaust historiography. It shows what they perceived as their obligation as historians of the Holocaust as well as difficulties they faced by addressing the topic.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"21 1","pages":"326 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48549039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：