Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (12) (remove)
Language
- English (12) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12) (remove)
It is difficult to state conclusively whether the German revolution of 1848 was a success or a failure. I take a more sceptical view of the positive consequences of this revolution view than many recenbt historians of the period, at least in Germany. In order to explain and substantiate this position, I will begin by outlining a few theses taking a closer look at the character of the German revolution of 1848 and its social and political base. Then I shall discuss the question of the 'success or failure of the revolution' and the long-term effects of the events and developments of the year 1848. In the following I shall concentrate primarily on Prussia as the centre of the later German
Empire, and I shall focus particularly on the situation in the cities.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century the problem of European frontiers ceased to exist. This is because they are no longer determined by a sense of European identity, but rather by a consensus reached in Brussels. The European borderlands disappeared generations ago and were substituted by peripheries of the capitalist world-economy. It may be said that both concepts are of only academic interest. However, I am not convinced.
The Holocaust and Genocide
(2004)
How does the Holocaust relate to genocide as a concept and an event? This question has caused considerable controversy because scholarly discourse and identity politics cannot be separated neatly. While the term 'genocide' was coined during the Second World War and enshrined in International law in 1948, the Holocaust as a specifically Jewish tragedy did not become an object of consciousness until almost two decades later. Ever since, those highlighting a distinctive experience for European Jewry have sought to separate it from that of other victims of the Nazis as well as other cases of ethnic and racial extermination.
Thinking About Empire
(1997)
Common sense tells us that empires rise and fall. We know that the Roman, Habsburg, Ottoman, and Romanov realms were called empires, and we know — from history or, more precisely, from historians — that they had temporally identifiable beginnings and ends. Not surprisingly, we conclude that the history of entities called empires must hold the explanatory key to the rise and fall of empires.
Towards Another Concept of the State: Historiography of the 1970s in the USA and Western Europe
(2011)
After years of neglect, the 1970s have recently entered the array of academic interest. In the USA and in Western Europe a growing number of historians are finally pulling the decade out of the shadows of the 1960s and the 1980s. As can be expected in such an early phase of academic exploration, there is still littel that ties all publications about the Seventies together.
The internationalization of ideas is an old idyll, and an old anxiety. “The invasion of ideas has followed on from the invasion of the barbarians”, the aged François-René de Chateaubriand wrote in 1841, in his last reflections on the new “universal society” which was no more than a confusion of needs and images”: “when steam power will have been perfected, when, together with the telegraph and the railways, it will have made distances disappear, there will not only be commodities which travel, but also ideas which will have recovered the use of their wings”. This universe of fluttering and floating ideas is at first sight exhilarating for intellectual history. A world in which ideas soar across the frontiers of distance and nationality is also a world full of ideas, and a world of opportunity for intellectual history. But all is not, I fear, as encouraging as it appears. The international or transnational turn which is such a powerful preoccupation of present historical scholarship may even, in the end, be subversive of the old enterprise that Marx described disobligingly in 1847 as “sacred history – the history of ideas”.