DOCSLIB.ORG

Reviews / East Central Europe 37 (2010) 372–401

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reviews / East Central Europe 37 (2010) 372–401 374 Reviews / East Central Europe 37 (2010) 372–401 Geyer, Michael and Sheila Fitzpatrick, eds. Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ix + 536 pp. ISBN: 978-0-521- 72397-8 (ppb.); 978-0-521-89796-9 (hbk.). Since the end of the Cold War, there is a renewed interest in totalitarianism—the concept and its applicability to the fascist and communist regimes. Archives previously closed are now open, and there are no longer political taboos that hamper the research and interpretation of findings in this area of inquiry. Many scholars therefore took up the challenge to rethink the concept of totalitarianism. Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick’s recent work, Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared, fits well within this trend, of looking at this contested notion in a new light. Geyer and Fitzpatrick assert that it is possible to compare Nazism and Stalinism on more equal terms than ever before, and that it is finally possible to begin thinking historically about Stalinism and Nazism. Beyond Totalitarianism serves another aim as well. In the introduction, Geyer, with the assist- ance of Fitzpatrick, claims that the intention of this book is to add something new to the numer- ous existing volumes on totalitarianism. They wanted to write something that departs from and reinvents traditional comparisons of the Soviet and Nazi regimes, a book in which the histories of Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union no longer “pass each other like trains in the night” and that provides a new theoretical model for studying these regimes (1). To achieve this goal, the editors paired specialists in German and Soviet history to produce jointly written arti- cles in order to present new and better explanations regarding “the question of what made these regimes such quintessential forces in twentieth century [European and even global] history” (26). While this is an admirable aspiration, unfortunately this goal is not fully reached. The nine co-authored chapters are organized according to the following four themes: (I) Governance; (II) Violence; (III) Socialization; and (IV) Entanglements. Yoram Gorlizki and Hans Mommsen, and David L. Hoffmann and Annette F. Timm contribute to the first theme with articles analyzing the internal political dynamics of Stalin’s Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and on the management or politics of reproduction in both countries, respectively. Whereas classic theories of totalitarianism often focus on the similarities between the two regimes, these articles highlight their differences. For example, Gorlizki and Mommsen argue that Stalinism and Nazism were distinct political systems. According to them, Stalin and Hitler had different attitudes and behaviors towards governance, the political parties were structured differently, and there was also a difference in how both rulers and parties interacted. In the end, the authors argue the Soviet system managed to turn ruling structures upside down, created new elites, advanced political and economic integration and, in so doing, produced a stability that Nazi Germany lacked. Yet, what to do with this conclusion in light of existing theories of totalitarianism and the desire to provide new insight into the concept? Although Gorlizki and Mommsen’s analysis is interesting, thorough and well written, their comparison stays within the confines of the current stage of research on both systems. Their contribution misses an opportunity to offer a fresh perspective on the two systems. They state that since the end of the Cold War “there is no longer a benchmark for comparing the two systems” (84), and they seem to imply a possible benchmark could have been the argument that the Soviet Union was more successful than Nazi Germany in changing the political system and ruling structures and in creating a stable political identity apart from the dictator. However, they do not further explore the theoretical consequences of this point. GiveN the aim of the book, this omission is regrettable since such a benchmark could © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI 10.1163/187633010X535170 Reviews / East Central Europe 37 (2010) 372–401 375 indeed lead to new advances in the study and conceptualization of both regimes in the broader history of twentieth century Europe. In Part II, on “Violence”, Christian Gerlach and Nicolas Werth address the use of mass vio- lence. Like the contributors in Part I, they emphasize the differences between Stalinism and Nazism, their use of violence, and the goals it served. For Gerlach and Werth, the model of totalitarianism cannot provide an adequate framework for explaining mass violence because of the complexity of the phenomenon, the need to historicize and contextualize violence in both societies, and the necessity of what they call “multicausal thinking” in understanding and explaining mass violence (136-137). In addition, both authors seek to broaden the field of com- parative historical research on Nazi German and Stalinist violence, focusing on different, less well-researched victim group case studies, such as the “asocials,” victims of ethnic resettlement and prisoners of war (138). Yet, once again the problem with respect to the overarching goal of the book is that that the authors, apart from some key observations on the differences between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union regarding the scale and nature of violence, do not draw any overall conclusions that explicitly support the aim of the volume. Setting aside differences, there are contributions that stress the similarities between Nazism and Stalinism. For the present reviewer, these articles represent the more interesting and attrac- tive part of the volume. For instance, Jörg Baberowski and Anselm Doering-Manteuffel explore the question of why the National Socialists and the Communist Party under Stalin both came to understand difference as a threat to their attempts to structure and control space, and why these regimes subsequently sought to eliminate this difference through violence—one on the basis of race, the other on the basis of class. They link the two regimes together by placing violence within the framework of empire as an explanatory tool for the severity and persistence of Stalinist and Nazi terror. This focus on empire, a theme that is a hot topic in academic research, is an interesting and innovative way of comparing both regimes and has great analytical potential. Equally appealing are the articles on social engineering and processes of identity and com- munity building by Christopher R. Browning and Lewis Siegelbaum, the contribution by Sheila Fitzpatrick and Alf lüdtke that focuses on people’s bonds to the Stalinist and Nazi regimes, and Peter Fritzsche and Jochen Hellbeck’s chapter on the creation of the New MaN in both systems. All of these essays depart from the shared roots between Stalinism and Nazism and instead inves- tigate their differences. In doing so, they convincingly show how both regimes were not only exceptionally successful in ascribing identities (based either on class or nation) to their people, but also had a very powerful influence on how the people themselves came to define their owN identities. In his introduction, Geyer calls this “the grand wager of a new social history of the two regimes” (34), because it is no longer the action of the regimes that dominates research. Instead, social groups are studied as actors in their owN right. Though not completely new—Fitzpatrick and some of her colleagues have pursued this line of research in earlier publications—these three contributions to the respective thematic section show that the current comparison of Stalinism and Nazism opens up captivating avenues of new research. The fourth and final part the book is called “Entanglements,” and contains articles by Mark Edele and Michael Geyer, and by Katerina Clark and Karl Schlögel. Clark and Schlögel have written a compelling article that fits well within the scholarly aspirations of the book. Not only do they study the two regimes in relation to each other, but they also locate these regimes in the wider European context. They deal with mutual image-making and illuminate the complexity and diversity of the issue of representation. Clark and Schlögel show that the Nazi and Stalinist regimes perceived each other in various ways and that there existed several, sometimes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction After Totalitarianism – Stalinism and Nazism Compared
    Cambridge University Press 978-0-521-89796-9 - Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer and Sheila Fitzpatrick Excerpt More information 1 Introduction After Totalitarianism – Stalinism and Nazism Compared Michael Geyer with assistance from Sheila Fitzpatrick The idea of comparing Nazi Germany with the Soviet Union under Stalin is not a novel one. Notwithstanding some impressive efforts of late, however, the endeavor has achieved only limited success.1 Where comparisons have been made, the two histories seem to pass each other like trains in the night. That is, while there is some sense that they cross paths and, hence, share a time and place – if, indeed, it is not argued that they mimic each other in a deleterious war2 – little else seems to fit. And this is quite apart from those approaches which, on principle, deny any similarity because they consider Nazism and Stalinism to be at opposite ends of the political spectrum. Yet, despite the very real difficulties inherent in comparing the two regimes and an irreducible political resistance against such comparison, attempts to establish their commonalities have never ceased – not least as a result of the inclination to place both regimes in opposition to Western, “liberal” traditions. More often than not, comparison of Stalinism and Nazism worked by way of implicating a third party – the United States.3 Whatever the differences between them, they appeared small in comparison with the chasm that separated them from liberal-constitutional states and free societies. Since a three-way comparison 1 Alan Bullock, Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (London: HarperCollins, 1991); Ian Kershaw and Moshe Lewin, eds., Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Henry Rousso, ed., Stalinisme et nazisme: Histoire et memoire´ comparees´ (Paris: Editions´ Complexe, 1999); English translation by Lucy Golvan et al., Stalinism and Nazism (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004); Richard J.
    [Show full text]
  • DISCUSSION the Goldhagen Controversy
    DISCUSSION The Goldhagen Controversy: Agonizing Problems, Scholarly Failure and the Downloaded from Political Dimension’ Hans-Ulrich Wehler (BieZefeZd) http://gh.oxfordjournals.org/ When a contentious book with a provoca1.ive message has aroused lively, not to say passionate, controversy, it is desirable that any new contribution to the debate should strive to provide as sober and clear a cost-benefit analysis as possible. It is best, moreover, to attend first to the book’s merits and achieve- ments, before giving an equal airing to its faults and limitations. In the case of Daniel Goldhagen’s Hiller’s Willing Executioners such a procedure is parti- cularly advisable, since the response in the American and German media to at Serials Department on February 18, 2015 this six-hundred-page study of ‘ordinary Germans and the Holocaust’ has not only been rather speedier than that of the academic world-though scholarly authorities have also, uncharacteristically, been quick off the mark-but has impaired the debate by promptly giving respectability to a number of stereo- types and misconceptions. The enthusiastic welcome that the book has received from journalists and opinion-formers in America is a problem in its own right, and we shall return to it later. But here in Germany there is no cause for complacency either, since the reaction in the public media has been far from satisfactory. With dismaying rapidity, and with a spectacular self-confidence that has frequently masked an ignorance of the facts, a counter-consensus has emerged. The book, we are repeatedly told, contains no new empirical data, since everything of significance on the subject has long been known; nor does it raise any stimulating new questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy
    Conservative Parties and the Birth of Democracy How do democracies form and what makes them die? Daniel Ziblatt revisits this timely and classic question in a wide-ranging historical narrative that traces the evolution of modern political democracy in Europe from its modest beginnings in 1830s Britain to Adolf Hitler’s 1933 seizure of power in Weimar Germany. Based on rich historical and quantitative evidence, the book offers a major reinterpretation of European history and the question of how stable political democracy is achieved. The barriers to inclusive political rule, Ziblatt finds, were not inevitably overcome by unstoppable tides of socioeconomic change, a simple triumph of a growing middle class, or even by working class collective action. Instead, political democracy’s fate surprisingly hinged on how conservative political parties – the historical defenders of power, wealth, and privilege – recast themselves and coped with the rise of their own radical right. With striking modern parallels, the book has vital implications for today’s new and old democracies under siege. Daniel Ziblatt is Professor of Government at Harvard University where he is also a resident fellow of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also currently Fernand Braudel Senior Fellow at the European University Institute. His first book, Structuring the State: The Formation of Italy and Germany and the Puzzle of Federalism (2006) received several prizes from the American Political Science Association. He has written extensively on the emergence of democracy in European political history, publishing in journals such as American Political Science Review, Journal of Economic History, and World Politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Totalitarianism 1 Totalitarianism
    Totalitarianism 1 Totalitarianism Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever necessary.[1] The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in a positive sense in the 1920's by the Italian fascists. The concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era in order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other fascist regimes on the one hand, and Soviet communism on the other.[2][3][4][5][6] Aside from fascist and Stalinist movements, there have been other movements that are totalitarian. The leader of the historic Spanish reactionary conservative movement called the Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right declared his intention to "give Spain a true unity, a new spirit, a totalitarian polity..." and went on to say "Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state. Moloch of Totalitarianism – memorial of victims of repressions exercised by totalitarian regimes, When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate at Levashovo, Saint Petersburg. it."[7] Etymology The notion of "totalitarianism" a "total" political power by state was formulated in 1923 by Giovanni Amendola who described Italian Fascism as a system fundamentally different from conventional dictatorships.[8] The term was later assigned a positive meaning in the writings of Giovanni Gentile, Italy’s most prominent philosopher and leading theorist of fascism. He used the term “totalitario” to refer to the structure and goals of the new state.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Chancellor Democracy and the Transformation of the German Democratic Paradigm
    01-Mommsen 7/24/07 4:38 PM Page 7 The Origins of Chancellor Democracy and the Transformation of the German Democratic Paradigm Hans Mommsen History, Ruhr University Bochum The main focus of the articles presented in this special issue is the international dimension of post World War II German politics and the specific role filled by the first West German chancellor, Konrad Adenauer. Adenauer’s main goal was the integration of the emerg- ing West German state into the West European community, while the reunification of Germany was postponed. In his view, any restoration of the former German Reich depended upon the cre- ation of a stable democratic order in West Germany. Undoubtedly, Adenauer contributed in many respects to the unexpectedly rapid rise of West Germany towards a stable parliamentary democratic system—even if most of the credit must go to the Western Allies who had introduced democratic structures first on the state level, and later on paved the way to the establishment of the Federal Republic with the fusion of the Western zones and the installment of the Economic Council in 1948. Besides the “economic miracle,” a fundamental shift within the West German political culture occurred, which gradually overcame the mentalities and prejudices of the late Weimar years that had been reactivated during the immediate aftermath of the war. While the concept of a specific “German path” (Sonderweg) had been more or less eroded under the impact of the defeat of the Nazi regime, the inherited apprehensiveness toward Western political traditions, symptomatic of the constitutional concepts of the German bourgeois resistance against Hitler, began to be replaced by an increasingly German Politics and Society, Issue 82 Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Mommsen, Hans, Germans Against Hitler
    GERMANS AGAINST HITLER HANS MOMMSEN GERMANSGERMANSGERMANS AGAINSTAGAINST HITLERHITLER THE STAUFFENBERG PLOT AND RESISTANCE UNDER THE THIRD REICH Translated and annotated by Angus McGeoch Introduction by Jeremy Noakes New paperback edition published in 2009 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd 6 Salem Road, London W2 4BU 175 Fifth Avenue, New York NY 10010 www.ibtauris.com First published in hardback in 2003 by I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd as Alternatives to Hitler. Originally published in 2000 as Alternative zu Hitler – Studien zur Geschichte des deutschen Widerstandes. Copyright © Verlag C.H. Beck oHG, Munchen, 2000 Translation copyright © I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2003, 2009 The translation of this work has been supported by Inter Nationes, Bonn. The right of Hans Mommsen to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. ISBN 978 1 84511 852 5 A full CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Project management by Steve Tribe, Andover Printed and bound in India by Thomson Press India Ltd ContentsContentsContents Preface by Hans Mommsen vii Introduction by Jeremy Noakes 1 1. Carl von Ossietzky and the concept of a right to resist in Germany 9 2. German society and resistance to Hitler 23 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitler's Willing Executioners in Comparative Perspective
    Fairfield University DigitalCommons@Fairfield History Faculty Publications History Department 1999 The Controversy that Isn't: The Debate over Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners in Comparative Perspective Gavriel D. Rosenfeld [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/history-facultypubs Copyright 1999 Cambridge University Press. Peer Reviewed Repository Citation Rosenfeld, Gavriel D., "The Controversy that Isn't: The Debate over Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners in Comparative Perspective" (1999). History Faculty Publications. 57. https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/history-facultypubs/57 Published Citation Rosenfeld, G. (1999) "The Controversy that Isn't: The Debate over Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners in Comparative Perspective," Contemporary European History, Volume 8, Nr. 2, 1999, pp. 249-273. This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fairfield by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fairfield with permission from the rights- holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Controversy That Isn't: The Debate over Daniel J. Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners in Comparative Perspective GAVRIEL D. ROSENFELD events ... Karl Marx's celebrated observation that 'all the of great importance in occur .
    [Show full text]
  • Hitler As Party Leader and Dictator in the Third Reich
    Syracuse Scholar (1979-1991) Volume 8 Issue 1 Syracuse Scholar Spring 1987 Article 5 5-15-1987 Flight from Reality: Hitler as Party Leader and Dictator in the Third Reich Hans Mommsen Follow this and additional works at: https://surface.syr.edu/suscholar Recommended Citation Mommsen, Hans (1987) "Flight from Reality: Hitler as Party Leader and Dictator in the Third Reich," Syracuse Scholar (1979-1991): Vol. 8 : Iss. 1 , Article 5. Available at: https://surface.syr.edu/suscholar/vol8/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by SURFACE. It has been accepted for inclusion in Syracuse Scholar (1979-1991) by an authorized editor of SURFACE. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mommsen: Flight from Reality: Hitler as Party Leader and Dictator in the T Flight from Reality: Hitler as Party Leader and Dictator in the Third Reich HANS MOMMSEN NY HIS10RICAL DESCRIPTION of the past is on A~ the one hand a tremendous reduction of the overwhelming variety of singular events. On the other hand historiography relies on constant generalization of concrete historical evidence. In the case of the history of the Third Reich, the complex variety of political and social interaction generally is reduced to the predominant role of its indisputable leader, Adolf Hitler. Hence, historians and journalists fre­ quently refer to the Third Reich by introducing the term "Hitler's Ger­ many" or by using the term "Hitlerism" to signify the specific ideological pattern of the Nazi political system. From such a viewpoint, the his­ tory of Germany between 1933 and 1945 appears to be essentially the life story of its dictator and his deeds or, following the interpretation Hans Mommsen is Professor of history at the Ruhr University in Bochum in of Joachim C.
    [Show full text]
  • KRISTALLNACHT 1938 As Experienced Then and Understood Now
    KRISTALLNACHT 1938 As Experienced Then and Understood Now Gerhard L. Weinberg Kristallnacht 1938 As Experienced Then and Understood Now Gerhard L. Weinberg MONNA AND OTTO WEINMANN ANNUAL LECTURE 13 MAY 2009 The assertions, opinions, and conclusions in this occasional paper are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect those of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. First printing, July 2009 Copyright © 2009 by Gerhard L. Weinberg The Monna and Otto Weinmann Annual Lecture honors Holocaust survivors and their fates, experiences, and accomplishments. Monna Steinbach Weinmann (1906–1991), born in Poland and raised in Austria, fled to England in autumn 1938. Otto Weinmann (1903–1993), born in Vienna and raised in Czechoslovakia; served in the Czechoslovak, French, and British armies; was wounded at Normandy; and received the Croix de Guerre for his valiant contributions during the war. Monna Steinbach and Otto Weinmann married in London in 1941 and emigrated to the United States in 1948. In November 1938 I was two months short of my eleventh birthday, living in Hanover in north-central Germany. My parents, an older sister, an older brother, and I, together with another Jewish couple with their young son, lived on a floor of a building my parents owned in that city. My father had been fired from his government position after President Hindenburg’s death in 1934 and now earned his income advising people who were emigrating about the extremely complicated and frequently changing rules governing the assets they could and could not take with them. Mother was a homemaker. My brother had been so mistreated in school that my parents had sent him to live with a family in Berlin while he attended a Jewish school there.
    [Show full text]
  • Nicholas Schlosser on Hitler
    A. N. Wilson. Hitler. New York: Basic Books, 2012. 215 pp. $24.99, cloth, ISBN 978-0-465-03128-3. Reviewed by Nicholas J. Schlosser Published on H-Empire (September, 2012) Commissioned by Charles V. Reed (Elizabeth City State University) Is there room in the already crowded feld of much that has not been written about before. In literature on the history of Nazi Germany for yet this brief, highly interpretive account of Hitler’s another biography of Adolf Hitler? With excellent life, Wilson asks questions that have been asked biographies already written on this subject by Ian before and examines sources that have been ex‐ Kershaw (Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris [1998] and amined before, and ultimately presents conclu‐ Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis [2000]) and Alan Bul‐ sions that are highly conjectural, speculative, and lock (A Study in Tyranny [1962]), not to mention unsubstantiated by a careful reading of the avail‐ the vast corpus of works examining specific ele‐ able evidence and historical literature. ments of Hitler’s ideology, the Third Reich, and Much ink has already been spilled over this their place within the broader context of German work.[1] After its publication, British historian history, do we need yet another book on this par‐ Richard J. Evans wrote a critical review of it for ticular topic? New Statesman in which he pointed out numer‐ The answer, of course, is yes. There is always ous factual errors, criticized the work’s broad gen‐ room for new works on any historical topic, pro‐ eralities, and noted that the author made little ef‐ vided they bring something new to the table.
    [Show full text]
  • MS 413 (B) the Ian Kershaw Archive
    MS 413 (B) The Ian Kershaw Archive University of Sheffield Library. Special Collections and Archives Ref: MS 413 (A), MS 413 (B) Title: The Ian Kershaw Archive Scope: Research material of Professor Ian Kershaw relating to his research on the social history of 20th Century Germany, the Third Reich and Nazism, and medieval history. Dates: 1933-2008 Level: Fonds Extent: 36 boxes (MS 413 (A)); 118 boxes (MS 413 (B)) Name of creator: Ian Kershaw Administrative / biographical history: A collection of material from various archives compiled by Professor Sir Ian Kershaw, historian, author and university academic, covering the social history of twentieth- century Germany, and Nazism and the Third Reich. MS 413 (B) also contains research material in medieval history. Ian Kershaw was born in Oldham, Lancashire in 1943. He was educated at Counthill Grammar School and St Bede's College, Manchester, before studying for a BA in History at the University of Liverpool. He followed this with a DPhil at Merton College, Oxford, editing a manuscript of the accounts of Bolton Priory in the late 15th and early 16th century, and producing his thesis Bolton Priory, 1286-1325: an economic study in 1969. Following his time at Oxford, Professor Kershaw took a post as lecturer in medieval history at the University of Manchester. He began learning German to assist in his research of the German peasantry in the Middle Ages. As his language skills improved he became increasingly interested in what was happening in Germany and how it was coping with the legacy of the Second World War. On a visit to West Germany in 1972 he encountered an aging Nazi who remarked that 'if you English had come in with us, we'd have destroyed Bolshevism' and that 'the Jew is a louse'.
    [Show full text]
  • History Extension
    HISTORY EXTENSION Major Essay: Account for the changing attitudes of historians towards Colonel Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg over time in evaluating him as a “heroic historical figure”. Synopsis When we cast our minds back to the totalitarian nature of the Nazi regime that was present in Germany prior to and during the Second World War, the layman can be forgiven for believing that the German population all advocated the policies of the National Socialists. Upon a little more research, however, one can find that this was not in fact the case. Large factions of the German populace at this time in fact condemned the Nazi rule, in one form or another. Whether this be through political or passive resistance, religious or moral resistance, or stronger, military resistance as demonstrated by groups such as the Kreisau circle and those involved in the 1944 July Plot, resistance to Hitler was always there and at the forefront of German societal issues at this time. As we are aware, the Gestapo was swift to eliminate all forms of active resistance to Hitler through the use of shear force, and so the for the activity of military resistance of Stauffenberg and company to go unnoticed up until the bomb plot in July 1944 is something of a minor miracle. In this essay, ongoing diffidence between the attitudes of historians towards Colonel Stauffenberg and his actions on July 20 1944 shall be accounted for, in evaluating Stauffenberg as a “heroic historical figure”. Concepts such as residual Nazism and Prussian militarism, post war mentalities, and more modern, media, entertainment and financially driven perspectives shall be used to account for the shift in opinion not only over time, but also across international perspectives.
    [Show full text]