Views in Interwar Europe by Taking Germany and Turkey As Case Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Cultural Acceptance of Digitalization and Growth of an Economy: a Comparison of East and West Germany Everett Benner Skidmore College
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Skidmore College: Creative Matter Skidmore College Creative Matter Economics Student Theses and Capstone Projects Economics 2017 Cultural Acceptance of Digitalization and Growth of an Economy: A Comparison of East and West Germany Everett Benner Skidmore College Follow this and additional works at: https://creativematter.skidmore.edu/econ_studt_schol Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Benner, Everett, "Cultural Acceptance of Digitalization and Growth of an Economy: A Comparison of East and West Germany" (2017). Economics Student Theses and Capstone Projects. 53. https://creativematter.skidmore.edu/econ_studt_schol/53 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Economics at Creative Matter. It has been accepted for inclusion in Economics Student Theses and Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Creative Matter. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Brooks Benner Cultural Acceptance of Digitalization and Growth of an Economy: A Comparison of East and West Germany By Brooks Benner This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course Senior Seminar (EC 375), during the Spring semester of 2017 Name: _______________________ Signature: ____________________ 1 Brooks Benner Abstract In the following paper aims to analyze the significance and relevance that change in cultural acceptance of digitalization has on the output gap (in terms of GDP) between East and West Germany based on the borders that existed between WWII and reunification in 1989. Culture will be measured by taking Google Trend data for the search term “Facebook,” broken down by State (16) between the years 2004 and 2014. -
Wehrmacht Uniforms
Wehrmacht uniforms This article discusses the uniforms of the World uniforms, not included here, began to break away in 1935 War II Wehrmacht (Army, Air Force, and with minor design differences. Navy). For the Schutzstaffel, see Uniforms and Terms such as M40 and M43 were never designated by the insignia of the Schutzstaffel. Wehrmacht, but are names given to the different versions of the Modell 1936 field tunic by modern collectors, to discern between variations, as the M36 was steadily sim- plified and tweaked due to production time problems and combat experience. The corresponding German term for tunic is Feldbluse and literally translates “field blouse”. 1 Heer 1.1 Insignia Main article: Ranks and insignia of the Heer (1935– 1945) For medals see List of military decorations of the Third Reich Uniforms of the Heer as the ground forces of the Wehrmacht were distinguished from other branches by two devices: the army form of the Wehrmachtsadler or German general Alfred Jodl wearing black leather trenchcoat Hoheitszeichen (national emblem) worn above the right breast pocket, and – with certain exceptions – collar tabs bearing a pair of Litzen (Doppellitze “double braid”), a device inherited from the old Prussian Guard which re- sembled a Roman numeral II on its side. Both eagle and Litzen were machine-embroidered or woven in white or grey (hand-embroidered in silk, silver or aluminium for officers). Rank was worn on shoulder-straps except for junior enlisted (Mannschaften), who wore plain shoulder- straps and their rank insignia, if any, on the left upper sleeve. NCO’s wore a 9mm silver or grey braid around the collar edge. -
Introduction
Introduction Cornelius Torp and Sven Oliver Müller I What sort of structure was the German state of 1871? What sort of powers and phenomena dominated it? What sort of potential for development did it possess? What inheritance did it leave behind? How did it shape the future course of German history? These questions have been at the heart of numerous historical controversies, in the course of which our understanding of Imperial Germany has fundamentally changed. Modern historical research on the German Empire was shaped by two important developments.1 The first was the Fischer controversy at the beginning of the 1960s, which put the question of the continuity of an aggressive German foreign policy from the First to the Second World War onto the agenda, thus providing one of the key impulses for research into the period before 1918.2 The second was a complex upheaval at almost exactly the same time in the historiography of modern Germany in which a particular interpretation of German history before World War I played a central role. The advocates of this interpretation immediately referred to it as a “paradigm change,” a concept then in fashion.3 Indeed, surprisingly quickly, a group of young historians were able to establish across a broad front a new interpretation of modern German history, which broke in many respects with old traditions. In their methodology, the representatives of the so-called “historical social science” (Historische Sozialwissenschaft) turned with verve against the interpretation which had dominated mainstream historiography up till then, which saw the dominant, most important historical actions and actors in politics and the state. -