DOCSLIB.ORG

INTRODUCTION M01 WILL3192 04 SE C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 2 M01 WILL3192 04 SE C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INTRODUCTION M01 WILL3192 04 SE C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 2 M01 WILL3192 04 SE C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 3 M01_WILL3192_04_SE_C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 1 Part One INTRODUCTION M01_WILL3192_04_SE_C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 2 M01_WILL3192_04_SE_C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 3 1 The historical debate he Third Reich has had a truly global impact. Not only did its destru- fascism Between 1919 ction act as a catalyst for the Cold War, and the subsequent partition and 1945 there were many varieties of fascism, Tof Germany for 45 years, but it also accelerated de-colonisation and the essence of which was: the creation of the Israeli state. Attempts to define the nature of National a nationalist ideology and Socialism (hereafter Nazism) began as soon as it became a major political an authoritarian state with a charismatic leader- force in the 1930s and have continued unabated ever since, which has ship ready to use force resulted in an academic literature ‘beyond the scope even of specialists’ to achieve national aims. (Hildebrand, 1991: 101). Marxist Referring to In assessing the nature of Nazism, contemporaries raised questions which Marxism Philosophical are still relevant today: was it a version of fascism or totalitarianism (see system constructed by Karl Marx (1818–83). below), which had more in common with Stalin’s Russia than Mussolini’s Its essence was that Italy, or was it a unique revolutionary phenomenon? On the Left, Nazism the economic system of was defined in broadly Marxist terms. Orthodox Marxist thinkers perceived a country determined its political and social it to be a mass movement manipulated by big business and finance in a structures. Marx was last-ditch attempt to defend capitalism from socialism. Georgi Dimitrov, the convinced that capitalism would be overthrown by General Secretary of the Comintern, defined fascism, in which he included the workers. Nazism, in 1935 as ‘the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist and most imperialist elements of finance capital’ (in Kershaw, Comintern The Commun- ist international move- 1993: 10). In this context Hitler was nothing more than a puppet of big ment set up in 1919 business and finance. Other more independent Marxist thinkers took their to organise worldwide revolution. arguments from Marx’s seminal essay on Napoleon’s coup of 2 December 1851, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, and compared fascism to Bonapartism Political system employed by Bonapartism in the France of Napoleon III. On the one hand this had made Napoleon III of France life safe for capitalism as it destroyed working-class political power, but it (1851–70). He created a also had its own dynamism and ended up by controlling the capitalist class, dictatorship which was supported by the wealthy too, even though it created an environment basically favourable to capitalism elites and the lower [Doc. 1, p. 146]. middle classes. He A different approach was taken by the broadly nationalist school of his- attempted to strengthen it through a vigorous torians within Germany in 1933, who interpreted Hitler’s rise to power as assertion of French a national revolution, which was both anti-liberal and anti-Marxist. Johannes national interests. M01_WILL3192_04_SE_C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 4 4 THE THIRD REICH Haller, for instance, argued that it was one of the most powerful ideas of the time that ‘national and social were not opposites’ (in Michalka, 1984: 361). This assessment met with some understanding in Britain, where, as late as 1935, Churchill still believed that Hitler might one day be regarded by history as one of those ‘great figures whose lives have enriched the story of mankind’ (Hildebrand, 1974: 602), while Lloyd George saw him as a libera- tor of the German people. [Doc. 14, p. 156] By far the most penetrating of the early non-Marxist studies of Nazism was written by Hermann Rauschning, the former Nazi President of the Danzig Senate, who in his classic study Germany’s Revolution of Destruction argued that Nazism was a ‘revolutionary power whose creed was action for action’s sake and whose tactics were the destruction and undermining of all that is in the existing order’ (Rauschning, 1939: 13) [Doc. 2, p. 146]. In the war years and early post-war period, both Western and Soviet historians and propagandists, like Rohan Butler (1941), Sir Robert Vansittart (1941) and Edmond Vermeil (1945), in their search for the origins of Nazism, attempted to identify lines of continuity in German history, which allegedly stretched ‘from Luther to Hitler’. In response to this blanket condemnation of their nation’s past, German historians such as Friedrich Meinecke and Gerhard Ritter argued that Nazism could only be understood within the context of the general European crisis triggered by the First World War. The outbreak of the Cold War in Europe had a considerable impact on the historical debate on Nazism. Both East and West Germany sought to interpret their common Nazi past differently. For East German historians, Georgi Dimitrov’s definition of fascism remained valid and an essential rallying cry against the capitalist West. For West Germans, and increasingly the West as a whole, Nazism was seen as a variant of totalitarianism. According to Carl Friedrich, the German émigré political scientist in the USA, it had in common with Russian Communism ‘a total ideology, a single mass party, a terroristic secret police, a monopoly of mass communications, a monopoly of weapons, and a centrally directed planned economy’ (Friedrich and Brzezinski, 1956: 294). This ‘totalitarian’ definition of Nazism was the dominant theme in western research on Nazism until the 1960s, when an increasing number of specialised studies began to show that the concept of totalitarianism did not do justice to an understanding of the structure of the Third Reich and the role of Hitler. A dramatic change in historical thinking was signalled by the Fischer controversy of the early 1960s. In his Griff nach der Weltmacht, Fischer returned to the thesis of continuity in German history by arguing that the expansionist territorial aims of the German elites in the First World War were broadly similar to Hitler’s. His book had a profound influence on German historians and helped to direct historical research back to the vital M01_WILL3192_04_SE_C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 5 The historical debate 5 question of continuities in the role of elites and social structure between Wilhelmine Germany and the Nazi period. In that sense Fischer could be called the father of the new structuralist school of historians which domi- nated modern German history for the next 30 years. This methodology was further developed by Hans-Ulrich Wehler in his study of the German Empire (1871–1918), where he deliberately avoided close studies of personalities and analysed the empire ‘as a totality’ with its interconnections between politics, the economy and society. Primarily, Wehler was motivated by the desire ‘to investigate why Hitler’s National Socialist regime came to power some dozen years after the end of the monar- chy’ (Wehler, 1985: 7). He established a ‘new orthodoxy’, which argued that new orthodoxy The Germany’s failure to develop into a parliamentary democracy during the evolution of what was originally a revisionist Kaiserreich set Germany on the special path, or Sonderweg, that ultimately historical interpretation led to the Third Reich. Applying similar analytical methods to the Third into an almost univers- Reich, structuralists, like Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen, have chal- ally held interpretation. lenged the orthodox view of a virtually all-powerful Hitler and stressed that structuralists The name the study of political leaders and ‘great men’ needs to be complemented by given to the school of a structural analysis of contemporary society (Broszat, 1981; Mommsen, historians, the most emi- nent members of which 1979). They argue that historians should concentrate more on explaining are Hans Mommsen, how Nazi society worked and on showing that Hitler himself was often a Broszat and Wehler, which applies a structural prisoner of forces and structures which he might have unleashed or created analysis to modern but could not always control. Inevitably this emphasis on structural deter- German history, particu- minants, which played down political and diplomatic history as well as the larly the Third Reich. They play down the role role of the individual in history, met with fierce opposition from the more of Hitler and instead traditional historians, or intentionalists, such as Andreas Hillgruber and place more emphasis Klaus Hildebrand, who see Hitler and his aims as central to the study of on the German elites and the polycratic nature of the Third Reich. This debate between the intentionalists and structuralists, the regime. as will be seen in the chapters that follow, still pervades every aspect of modern research on the Third Reich and Nazism. intentionalists Historians who stress the import- ance of the individual and personal intention in history. Thus inten- tionalists, such as CAN THE THIRD REICH BE ‘HISTORICISED’? Andreas Hillgruber, Klaus Hildebrand and Lucy One of the dilemmas confronting historians of the Third Reich is that the Davidowicz, stress the aims and intentions of appalling atrocities carried out by the Nazis make historical objectivity, or Hitler and emphasise his historicisation, difficult to achieve. When the orders for dealing with the key role in the formula- Russians were issued to the German army in 1941 (see pages 103–4), tion of policies, particu- larly foreign policy and Major-General von Tresckow observed with horror to his fellow officer, the campaign against Rudolf von Gersdorff, that guilt would fall on the Germans for a hundred the Jews ending in the Holocaust. years ‘and not just on Hitler alone, but on you and me, your wife and mine, your children and my children, the woman crossing the road now, and the M01_WILL3192_04_SE_C01.QXD 12/10/10 11:00 Page 6 6 THE THIRD REICH boy playing with a ball over there’ (Burleigh, 2000: 707).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brigitte Bailer-Galanda “Revisionism”1 in Germany and Austria: the Evolution of a Doctrine
    www.doew.at Brigitte Bailer-Galanda “Revisionism”1 in Germany and Austria: The Evolution of a Doctrine Published in: Hermann Kurthen/Rainer Erb/Werner Bergmann (ed.), Anti-Sem- itism and Xenophobia in Germany after Unification, New York–Oxford 1997 Development of “revisionism” since 1945 Most people understand so called „revisionism“ as just another word for the movement of holocaust denial (Benz 1994; Lipstadt 1993; Shapiro 1990). Therefore it was suggested lately to use the word „negationism“ instead. How- ever in the author‘s point of view „revisionism“ covers some more topics than just the denying of the National Socialist mass murders. Especially in Germany and Austria there are some more points of National Socialist politics some people have tried to minimize or apologize since 1945, e. g. the responsibility for World War II, the attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 (quite a modern topic), (the discussion) about the number of the victims of the holocaust a. s. o.. In the seventies the late historian Martin Broszat already called that movement „run- ning amok against reality“ (Broszat 1976). These pseudo-historical writers, many of them just right wing extremist publishers or people who quite rapidly turned to right wing extremists, really try to prove that history has not taken place, just as if they were able to make events undone by denying them. A conception of “negationism” (Auerbach 1993a; Fromm and Kernbach 1994, p. 9; Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz 1994) or “holocaust denial” (Lipstadt 1993, p. 20) would neglect the additional components of “revision- ism”, which are logically connected with the denying of the holocaust, this being the extreme variant.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • University of Queensland Press St
    UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND PRESS ST. LUCIA The War Aims of Imperial Germany: Professor Fritz Fischer and his Critics by JOHN A. MOSES Price: $1.40 University of Queensland Papers Departments of Government and History Volume I Number 4 UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND PRESS St. Lucia 24 September 1968 WHOLLY SET UP AND PRINTED IN AUSTRALIA BY WATSON FERGUSON AND COMPANY, BRISBANE, QUEENSLAND 1968 REGISTERED IN AUSTRALIA FOR TRANSMISSION BY POST AS A BOOK FOREWORD The author's aim in presenting this monograph on the war aims of Imperial Germany is twofold : in the firstplace it is vitally necessary for Australian students to be informed of new developments in all branches of scholarly research performed overseas otherwise our standards will lag behind those of Europe and North America. As a student in German universities from 1961 to 1965 the author was able to witness the current war-guilt debate at first hand and was impressed by the fact that even in such a heavily worked over topic as the First World War, dramatic new evidence was still being unearthed. The second reason for this monograph on the debate is to point up its significance for the historical discipline in general. It shows that "facts" can be interpreted in many different lights and that as Oscar Wilde once pointed out the truth is rarely pure and never simple. In other words the debate shows that it is unwise to be dogmatic about anything in history if only because there is rarely a situation where all the relevant facts are available. And finally, the debate, since it is being carried on largely by German historians, represents a case study as to how false and incomplete images of the past can dominate people's beliefs, attitudes and behaviour, especially in political matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Consensus, Political Conflict: the Problem of Unity Among German Intellectuals During World War I
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2006 Cultural Consensus, Political Conflict: The Problem of Unity among German Intellectuals during World War I Benjamin Taylor Shannon University of Tennessee, Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Shannon, Benjamin Taylor, "Cultural Consensus, Political Conflict: The Problem of Unity among German Intellectuals during World War I. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2006. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/4498 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Benjamin Taylor Shannon entitled "Cultural Consensus, Political Conflict: The Problem of Unity among German Intellectuals during World War I." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in History. Vejas Liulevicius, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: A. Denise Phillips, John Bohstedt Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Benjamin Taylor Shannon entitled "Cultural Consensus, Political Conflict: The Problem of Unity among German Intellectuals during World War I." I have examined the finalpaper copy of this thesis for formand content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in History.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitler, Britain and the Hoßbach Memorandum
    Jonathan Wright and Paul Stafford* Hitler, Britain and the Hoßbach Memorandum The Hoßbach Memorandum is the most famous and most controversial document in the history of the Third Reich. Yet there is no critical edition of it — a telling example of the degree to which historians of the twentieth century are swamped by their sources. Every line of the document deserves close study. It contains one of the classic statements of Hitler's racial philosophy and of the policy of the conquest of living space to solve Germany's economic problems. On this level it is comparable to passages in Mein Kampf and the Memorandum on the tasks of the Four Year Plan. But the Hoßbach Memorandum also offers an insight into another dimension of Hitler's thought: the first recorded detailed argument about when and how the conquest of liv- ing space was to begin. The essence of this argument is that Germany had limited time at its disposal because its relative strength compared to its opponents would decline after 1943—45 and that was therefore the final date for action. Hitler appeared confi- dent about the international situation. The weakness of the British Empire, which he elaborated in some detail, and the domestic divisions of the French Republic, Russian fear of Japan and Polish fear of Russia, the favourable attitude of Italy so long as the Duce was alive, all he declared offered Germany an opportunity to destroy Czechoslo- vakia and simultaneously to absorb Austria with little risk of intervention by other powers. Hitler also discussed two possible developments which would enable Germany to act before 1943—45: a domestic crisis in France which made it unable to go to war, or France becoming involved in war with another power which he saw as an immediate possibility for 1938 arising out of the Spanish civil war.
    [Show full text]
  • Elites, Single Parties and Political Decision-Making in Fascist-Era Dictatorships
    Elites, Single Parties and Political Decision-making in Fascist-era Dictatorships ANTOÂ NIO COSTA PINTO Italian Fascism and German National-Socialism were both attempts to create a charismatic leadership and `totalitarian tension' that was, in one form or another, also present in other dictatorships of the period.1 After taking power, both National-Socialism and Fascism became powerful instruments of a `new order', agents of a `parallel administration', and promoters of innumerable tensions within these dictatorial political systems. Transformed into single parties, they ¯ourished as breeding-grounds for a new political elite and as agents for a new mediation between the state and civil society, creating tensions between the single party and the state apparatus in the process.2 These tensions were responsible for the emergence of new centres of political decision-making that on the one hand led to the concentration of power in the hands of Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, but also removed it from the government and the ministerial elite, who were often increasingly subordinated to the single party and its `parallel administration'. This article seeks to ascertain the locus of political decision-making authority, the composition and the recruitment channels of the dictatorships' ministerial elites during the fascist era. It will do so by examining three fundamental areas. The ®rst of these is charisma and political decision-making, that is, an examination of the characteristics of the relationships that existed between the dictators and their ministerial elites by studying the composition and structure of these elites, as well as the methods used in their recruitment and the role of the single parties in the political system and in the governmental selection process.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert O. Paxton-The Anatomy of Fascism -Knopf
    Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page b also by robert o. paxton French Peasant Fascism Europe in the Twentieth Century Vichy France: Old Guard and New Order, 1940–1944 Parades and Politics at Vichy Vichy France and the Jews (with Michael R. Marrus) Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page i THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page ii Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page iii THE ANATOMY OF FASCISM ROBERT O. PAXTON Alfred A. Knopf New York 2004 Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page iv this is a borzoi book published by alfred a. knopf Copyright © 2004 by Robert O. Paxton All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. Published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc., New York, and simultaneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. Distributed by Random House, Inc., New York. www.aaknopf.com Knopf, Borzoi Books, and the colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc. isbn: 1-4000-4094-9 lc: 2004100489 Manufactured in the United States of America First Edition Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page v To Sarah Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page vi Paxt_1400040949_8p_all_r1.qxd 1/30/04 4:38 PM Page vii contents Preface xi chapter 1 Introduction 3 The Invention of Fascism 3 Images of Fascism 9 Strategies 15 Where Do We Go from Here? 20 chapter 2 Creating Fascist Movements 24 The Immediate Background 28 Intellectual, Cultural, and Emotional
    [Show full text]
  • Was World War II the Result of Hitler's Master Plan?
    ISSUE 18 Was World War II the Result of Hitler's Master Plan? Yl!S: Andreas Hillgruber, from Germany and the Two World Wars, trans. WUliam C. Kirby (Harvard University Press, 1981) NO: Ian Kershaw, from The Nazi DictatoTShip: Problems and Per­ spectives ofInterpretation, 3Id ed. (Edward Arnold, 1993) ISSUE SUMMARY YES: German scholar and history professor Andreas Hlllgruber states that Hitler systematically pursued his foreign policy goals once he came to power In Germany and that World War II was the Inevitable result. NO: Ian Kershaw, a professor ofhistory at the University of Sheffield, argues that Hitler was responsible for the execution of German for­ eign policy that Jed to World War JI but was not free from forces both within and outside Germany that Influenced his decisions. Adolf Hitler and World War II have become inseparable In the minds of most people; any discussion of one ultimately leads to the other- Due to the diabo1-. ical nature of Hitler's actions and the resulting horrors, historical analyses of the war were slow to surface after the war; World War II was simply viewed as Hitler's war, and all responsibility for It began and ended with him. Th.is all changed In 1961 with the publication of A.]. P. Tuylor's The Ori­ gins of the Second World War (Atheneum, 1985). Taylor extended the scope of World War II beyond Hitler and found British and French actions culpable. Fur­ thermore, he stated that Hitler was more of an opportunist than an idealogue and that war was the result of misconceptions and blunders on both sides.
    [Show full text]
  • A Postcolonial Sonderweg ?
    Shelley Baranowski. Nazi Empire: German Colonialism and Imperialism from Bismarck to Hitler. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 368 pp. $25.99, paper, ISBN 978-0-521-67408-9. Reviewed by Daniel Becker Published on H-German (July, 2013) Commissioned by Chad Ross "Ambitious" may be one of the best one-word ionable "transnational" and seemingly more "tra‐ epithets to characterize Nazi Empire. "Hybrid" is ditional" national perspectives.[1] If nothing less, probably another. Shelley Baranowski seeks to then, this synthesis of recent research should provide a synthesis of recent research on German prove quite helpful--and not only to newcomers to nationalism, colonialism, and imperialism; pro‐ the subject matter--even though it only offers little pose her own original, interpretive grand narra‐ explicit historiographical discussion or relegates it tive of continuities and discontinuities in modern largely to the footnotes when it does. (Unfortu‐ German history; and present this mix in the for‐ nately, the book also does not include a bibliogra‐ mat of an undergraduate textbook. phy.) On the frst count, the breadth of Baranows‐ Baranowski offers a rockier ride as she delves ki's reading is impressive. She draws on a broad into the treacherous waters of the continuities array of research, in both English and German, question. Following a current inspired by Hannah published over the last two decades. She adeptly Arendt's observations (in The Origins of Totalitar‐ weaves threads from "new imperial histories" of ianism, 1951) on the emergence of modern "race" Germany's overseas adventures and recent stud‐ discourses during the heyday of "high imperial‐ ies on nationalism, antisemitism, and political cul‐ ism" and recently heralded in particular by Jür‐ ture into a colorful tapestry of German mentalités gen Zimmerer,[2] Baranowski suggests that the before which she lets "the drama of German im‐ unusual trajectory of German imperialism--which perialist aspirations" unfold (p.
    [Show full text]
  • August Hermann Francke, Friedrich Wilhelm I, and the Consolidation of Prussian Absolutism
    GOD'S SPECIAL WAY: AUGUST HERMANN FRANCKE, FRIEDRICH WILHELM I, AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF PRUSSIAN ABSOLUTISM. DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Terry Dale Thompson, B.S., M.A., M.T.S. * ★ * * * The Ohio State University 1996 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor James M. Kittelson, Adviser Professor John F. Guilmartin ^ / i f Professor John C. Rule , J Adviser Department of History UMI Number: 9639358 Copyright 1996 by Thompson, Terry Dale All rights reserved. UMI Microform 9639358 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 COPYRIGHT BY TERRY DALE THOMPSON 1996 ABSTRACT God's Special Way examines the relationship between Halle Pietism and the Hohenzollern monarchy in order to discern the nature and effect on Brandenburg-Prussia of that alliance. Halle Pietism was a reform movement within the Lutheran church in 17th and 18th century Germany that believed the establishment church had become too concerned with correct theology, thus they aimed at a revival of intense Biblicism, personal spirituality, and social reform. The Pietists, led by August Hermann Francke (1662-1727) , and King Friedrich Wilhelm I (rl7l3-l740) were partners in an attempt to create a Godly realm in economically strapped and politically divided Brandenburg-Prussia. In large measure the partnership produced Pietist control of Brandenburg- Prussia'a pulpits and schoolrooms, despite the opposition of another informal alliance, this between the landed nobility and the establishment Lutheran church, who hoped to maintain their own authority in the religious and political spheres.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distinction of Peace: a Social Analysis of Peacebuilding Catherine Goetze the Distinction of Peace
    0/-*/&4637&: *ODPMMBCPSBUJPOXJUI6OHMVFJU XFIBWFTFUVQBTVSWFZ POMZUFORVFTUJPOT UP MFBSONPSFBCPVUIPXPQFOBDDFTTFCPPLTBSFEJTDPWFSFEBOEVTFE 8FSFBMMZWBMVFZPVSQBSUJDJQBUJPOQMFBTFUBLFQBSU $-*$,)&3& "OFMFDUSPOJDWFSTJPOPGUIJTCPPLJTGSFFMZBWBJMBCMF UIBOLTUP UIFTVQQPSUPGMJCSBSJFTXPSLJOHXJUI,OPXMFEHF6OMBUDIFE ,6JTBDPMMBCPSBUJWFJOJUJBUJWFEFTJHOFEUPNBLFIJHIRVBMJUZ CPPLT0QFO"DDFTTGPSUIFQVCMJDHPPE The Distinction of Peace “Peacebuilding” serves as a catch- all term to describe efforts by an array of international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and even agencies of foreign states to restore or construct a peaceful society in the wake—or even in the midst— of conflict. Despite this variety, practitioners consider themselves members of a global profession. In this study, Cath- erine Goetze investigates the genesis of peacebuilding as a pro- fessional field of expertise since the 1960s, its increasing influ- ence, and the ways in which it reflects global power structures. Step- by- step, Goetze describes how the peacebuilding field came into being, how it defines who belongs to it and who does not, and what kind of group culture it has generated. Using an innovative and original methodology, she investigates the motivations of individuals who become peacebuilders, their professional trajectories and networks, and the “good peace- builder” as an ideal. For many, working in peacebuilding in various ways— as an aid worker on the ground, as a lawyer at the United Nations, or as an academic in a think tank—has become not merely a livelihood but also a form of participa- tion in world politics. As a field, peacebuilding has developed its techniques for incorporating and training new members, yet its internal politics also create the conditions of exclusion that often result in practical failures of the peacebuilding enterprise. By providing a critical account of the social mechanisms that make up the peacebuilding field, Goetze offers deep insights into the workings of Western domination and global inequalities.
    [Show full text]
  • Review Reviewed Work(S): the Third Reich by Klaus Hildebrand and P. S. Falla Review By: Mark W. Roche Source: the German Quarterly, Vol
    Review Reviewed Work(s): The Third Reich by Klaus Hildebrand and P. S. Falla Review by: Mark W. Roche Source: The German Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 3 (Summer, 1986), pp. 509-511 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Association of Teachers of German Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/406337 Accessed: 30-08-2018 00:16 UTC 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 [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms American Association of Teachers of German, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The German Quarterly This content downloaded from 129.74.250.206 on Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:16:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms BOOK REVIEWS 509 refers to the letter to dAlembert from Nov. 28, 1762, in which "the infamous" is superstition. I in turn refer the reader to Ben Ray Redman's introduction to The Portable Voltaire, in which the infamous is beyond a doubt Christianity--N's great campaign against romanticism and Rousseau's influence was more than a campaign against "superstition." These are minutia, doubtless others will find no fault with any of this. (Copyright page typo!) Unfortunately for Faber, N.
    [Show full text]