Historikerstreit
Sign in to saveThe Historikerstreit (, "historians' dispute") was a dispute in the late 1980s in West Germany between conservative and left-of-center academics and other intellectuals about how to incorporate Nazi Germany and the Holocaust into German historiography, and more generally into the German people's view of themselves. The dispute was initiated with the Bitburg controversy, which related to a commemorative service at a German military cemetery where members of the Waffen-SS were buried. The service was attended by President of the United States Ronald Reagan, who had been invited by the West Germa
~178 min read
Encyclopedic overview
63 sectionsContents
- Background
- Overview
- Participants
- Issues
- Immediate background
- "Between Myth and Revisionism"
- Bitburg controversy
- "History In A Land Without History"
- ''Zweierlei Untergang''
- ''Historikerstreit'' begins, June 1986
- "The Past That Will Not Pass"
- "A Kind of Damage Control"
- "The New Myth of State"
- "The Age of Tyrants"
- Nolte's letter to ''Die Zeit'', 1 August 1986
- Habermas's letter to the ''FAZ'', 11 August 1986
- Stürmer's letter to the ''FAZ'', 16 August 1986
- "Encumbered Remembrance"
- Bracher's letter to the ''FAZ'', 6 September 1986
- "The Impoverished Practice of Insinuation"
- "The Morality of History”
- ''Historikerstreit'', autumn 1986
- "Hitler Should Not Be Repressed By Stalin and Pol Pot"
- "Questions We Have To Face"
- "A Searching Image of the Past"
- "The Search for the 'Lost History'?"
- "The New Historical Consciousness"
- "Where the Roads Part"
- "The New Auschwitz Lie"
- Thirty-Sixth Conference of German Historians, Trier, October 8, 1986
- "Under the Domination of Suspicion"
- "Auschwitz, an Asiatic Deed"
- "Standing Things On Their Head"
- Interview with Andreas Hillgruber, 31 October 1986
- "On the Public Use of History"
- "Eternally in the Shadow of Hitler?"
- "Not A Concluding Remark"
- “Makeup Artists are Creating a New Identity”
- "He Who Wants To Escape The Abyss"
- "How Much History Weighs"
- Hillgruber's letter to the ''FAZ'', 29 November 1986
- Löwenthal's letter to the ''FAZ'', 29 November 1986
- ''Historikerstreit'' in the winter of 1986–87
- "Neither Denial Nor Forgetfulness Will Free Us"
- "What May Not, Cannot Be"
- "Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Heinz Janßen, and the Enlightenment in the Year 1986"
- "The Nazi Era-A Case of Normal Tyranny?"
- "Only by Facing the Past Can We Be Free"
- "Those Who Refused to Go Along"
- “On the ''Historikerstreit''”
- Habermas's Note of 23 February 1987
- Nolte's Note of 15 April 1987
- Fest Postscript, 21 April 1987
- The controversy over Nolte's thesis
- ''Entsorgung der deutschen Vergangenheit?'' (1988)
- ''Der europäische Bürgerkrieg'' (1987)
- Views from outside Germany
- Contemporaneous views
- Later views
- See also
- References
- Bibliography
- External links
The Historikerstreit (, "historians' dispute") was a dispute in the late 1980s in West Germany between conservative and left-of-center academics and other intellectuals about how to incorporate Nazi Germany and the Holocaust into German historiography, and more generally into the German people's view of themselves. The dispute was initiated with the Bitburg controversy, which related to a commemorative service at a German military cemetery where members of the Waffen-SS were buried. The service was attended by President of the United States Ronald Reagan, who had been invited by the West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The Bitburg ceremony was widely interpreted in Germany as the beginning of the "normalization" of the nation's Nazi past, and inspired a slew of criticisms and defenses that made up the initiating arguments of the Historikerstreit. The dispute quickly outgrew the initial context of the Bitburg controversy, however, and became a series of broader historiographic, political, and critical debates about how the episode of the Holocaust should be understood in Germany's history and identity.
The position taken by conservative intellectuals, most prominently Ernst Nolte, was that the Holocaust was not unique and therefore Germans should not bear any special burden of guilt for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". Nolte argued that there was no moral difference between the crimes of the Soviet Union and those of Nazi Germany, and that the Nazis acted as they did out of fear of what the Soviet Union might do to Germany. Others argued that the memory of the Nazi era could not be "normalized" and be a source of national pride, and that it echoed Nazi propaganda. Other central questions and topics debated within the dispute included the singularity of the Holocaust, the functionalist and intentionalist models of the Holocaust, methodological approaches to historiography, the political utility of history, the question of whether the Holocaust ought to be studied comparatively, and ethics of public commemorations of history.
Excerpted from Wikipedia’s “Historikerstreit” article, available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 licence.