RETHINKING MODERN GERMAN HISTORY: CRITICAL SOCIAL HISTORY AS A TRANSATLANTIC ENTERPRISE, 1945-1989 Philipp Stelzel A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of the Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History Chapel Hill 2010 Approved by: Adviser: Dr. Konrad H. Jarausch Reader: Dr. Dirk Bönker Reader: Dr. Christopher Browning Reader: Dr. Karen Hagemann Reader: Dr. Donald Reid © 2010 Philipp Stelzel ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT PHILIPP STELZEL: Rethinking Modern German History: Critical Social History as a Transatlantic Enterprise, 1945-1989 (under the direction of Konrad H. Jarausch) My dissertation “Rethinking Modern German History: Critical Social History as a Transatlantic Enterprise, 1945-1989” analyzes the intellectual exchange between German and American historians from the end of World War II to the 1980s. Several factors fostered the development of this scholarly community: growing American interest in Germany (a result of both National Socialism and the Cold War); a small but increasingly influential cohort of émigré historians researching and teaching in the United States; and the appeal of American academia to West German historians of different generations, but primarily to those born between 1930 and 1940. Within this transatlantic intellectual community, I am particularly concerned with a group of West German social historians known as the “Bielefeld School” who proposed to re-conceptualize history as Historical Social Science (Historische Sozialwissenschaft). Adherents of Historical Social Science in the 1960s and early 1970s also strove for a critical analysis of the roots of National Socialism. Their challenge of the West German historical profession was therefore both interpretive and methodological. My dissertation aims to revise the extant historiography in two main areas: First, in contrast to the prevailing interpretation—which views American historians of modern Germany as a monolithic group of left-liberal scholars—I emphasize their methodological, interpretive, and political breadth. Second, I question some of the predominant assumptions about the so-called “Bielefeld School,” in particular the supposedly high degree to which their interpretations of modern German history conformed with those of their American colleagues. Instead, I argue that the “American connection”, which the Bielefeld School’s protagonists emphasized repeatedly, served a strategic purpose: it pitted their new, “critical,” and “internationalized” historiographical project against a parochial and old-fashioned West German historical profession. Ultimately, my dissertation not only investigates an important iii chapter of post-World War II transatlantic intellectual history, but also explores the political dimensions of historiography and aims to provoke historians to greater self-consciousness about the nature of their work. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing this part of my dissertation has been a particular pleasure. It has reminded me of the many people who made the road to the PhD more bearable. I would first like to thank the institutions and foundations that generously supported my project: the German Fulbright Commission, the German Historical Institute, Washington, D.C., and the Institut für Europäische Geschichte, Mainz. Without them, I could not have written this dissertation. Of course, in this respect I am also indebted to the History Department at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which supported my years as a graduate student. The staff at UNC’s Davis Library has been simply wonderful. Combining competence and friendliness, they significantly contributed to a pleasant working environment. Several historians agreed to interviews and took the time to answer my questions and to comment on my ideas: Peggy Anderson, Volker R. Berghahn, Roger Chickering, Heinz Duchhardt, Gerald D. Feldman, Lloyd Gardner, Theodore Hamerow, Jeffrey Herf, Georg G. Iggers, Jürgen Kocka, Rudy Koshar, Walter Laqueur, Vernon Lidtke, Charles S. Maier, Christof Mauch, Tom McCormick, Jerry Z. Muller, Mary Nolan, Peter Novick, Gerhard A. Ritter, Winfried Schulze, Klaus Schwabe, Jonathan Sperber, Fritz Stern, Douglas Unfug, Hans-Ulrich Wehler, and Marilyn Young. I am very grateful for the opportunity to get to know so many important practitioners of our profession. While all of these conversations have been insightful and enjoyable, I remember with particular pleasure the long meeting with Lloyd Gardner over hamburgers at “Denny’s” in Bordentown, NJ. When I was awarded a Fulbright fellowship to study in the United States in 2002, I got incredibly lucky: I ended up in New York City and became a student of Volker R. Berghahn. My first steps in the United States – intellectually as well as practically – would have been far more difficult without his help. His continuing interest in my work has been very important over the last years. v Many faculty members of the History Department at the University of North Carolina have been tremendously supportive and encouraging over the years. Miles Fletcher, John Chasteen, Fitz Brundage, Lloyd Kramer, and many others have made me feel “at home” in Hamilton Hall, which is not easy considering its architectural hideousness. Violet Anderson, the graduate secretary, reminded me of many administrative things I should have thought of myself, helped me tackle challenging bureaucratic problems, and throughout it all remained patient and friendly – you are amazing! Discussing my arguments over wine, cheese, and occasionally chocolate at Michael H. Hunt’s house was not just helpful but also very enjoyable. My dissertation committee, consisting of Don Reid, Christopher Browning, Karen Hagemann, and Dirk Bönker, wrote countless letters of recommendation, listened patiently to my semi-developed ideas, and provided much-needed emotional support. For all that, I am extremely grateful. Konrad H. Jarausch has been the ideal Doktorvater in every respect. His characteristic liberality made the research and writing process as enjoyable as it could have been. I always had the intellectual freedom I had been hoping for, yet could rely on his advice whenever I needed it. Writing a dissertation on a scholarly community of which one’s adviser has been a part for the last forty years could have turned into an awkward and difficult undertaking. That it never did is testament to his skills as an adviser. At the University of North Carolina, I benefited enormously from the help and friendship of former and current graduate students Brian Puaca, Thomas Pegelow, Tomoko Yagyu, Michael Meng, Michael Mulvey, Sarah Bond, Brittany Lehman, Friederike Brühöfener, Marina Jones, Marko Dumancic, and Josh Davis. Derek Holmgren, Christina Carroll, and Kristen Dolan significantly improved my writing. Thomas W. Goldstein did the same and read countless chapter drafts. Maren Wood intervened at some important moments and helped preserve my sanity. In Chapel Hill and Durham, Rachel and Yaakov Ariel, Sean Reed Love, Chad Ludington, Joel Vatz, and Dirk Bönker made sure that my horizon did not become limited to issues of transatlantic historiography. Over the last years, their friendship has helped turn Chapel Hill into “home.” Friends and colleagues at universities on both sides of the Atlantic have offered important advice and helped in other ways. In the United States, Jennifer L. Foray and Astrid vi M. Eckert patiently listened to my complaints and assured me that everything would be fine. John L. Harvey generously shared his vast knowledge of twentieth century historiography with me, and his views have influenced mine. Finally, Georg G. Iggers followed my work with interest ever since we corresponded about the Fischer-Kontroverse in 2002. Needless to say, this has meant a lot to me. In Germany, Thomas Welskopp commented extensively on my project and shared his own texts on related issues. In Trier, Olaf Blaschke hosted me and asked probing questions in his Oberseminar. Gabriele Lingelbach temporarily moved out of her office so that I could examine the files of the Verband der Historiker Deutschlands. Dieter Wolf has embodied the model of the broadly interested, extremely knowledgeable, yet also modest scholar. Comments and criticism I received in research colloquia at the Universität Bielefeld, Universität Trier, the Institut für Europäische Geschichte Mainz, and UNC’s German Studies Seminar helped me develop my dissertation further. Having a support network of friends back home in Munich and elsewhere in Germany was crucial at more moments than I remember. A big “Thank You” goes to Steffi Gebhardt, Jórunn Kirchner, Jacob Eder, and Tom Dirlich. Martin Mittermeier and Stefan Strasser deserve special thanks for unwavering phone support. Without my wonderful family in Munich, the last years would have been much more difficult. I cannot thank enough the late Elfriede Justin, Eva Stelzel, and Michael Fischer. Most of all, my parents Ingrid and Peter Stelzel have provided the basis for so much that it is difficult to express my gratitude appropriately. All I can say is that I know how fortunate I am to have them. While transatlantic scholarly relations still interest me, they pale in comparison with my German-American relationship with Michael Carroll. He made me visit Chapel Hill in 2004, when I had my reservations about moving to a small Southern town, he helped me move to North Carolina and get settled later that year, and throughout the