|
The Historikerstreit ("historians' quarrel"〔. : "()he proper English translation () is not a 'historians' debate' but a 'historians' quarrel.〕) was an intellectual and political controversy in the late 1980s in West Germany about the crimes of Nazi Germany, including their comparability with the crimes of the Soviet Union. The German word ''Streit'' translates variously as "quarrel", "dispute", or "conflict". The most common translation of ''Historikerstreit'' in English language academic discourse is "the historians' dispute", though the German term is often used. The ''Historikerstreit'' spanned the years 1986-1989, and pitted right-wing against left-wing intellectuals. The positions taken by the right-wing intellectuals were largely based on the totalitarianism approach which takes a comparative approach to totalitarian states, while left-wing intellectuals argued that fascism was uniquely evil, referred to as the ''Sonderweg'' approach, and could not be equated with the crimes of Soviet communism. The former were accused by their critics of downplaying Nazi crimes, while the latter were accused by their critics of downplaying Soviet crimes.〔 The debate attracted much media attention in West Germany, with its participants' frequently giving television interviews and writing op-ed pieces in newspapers. It flared up again briefly in 2000 when one of its leading figures, Ernst Nolte, was awarded the Konrad Adenauer Prize for science.〔.〕 Debates similar to those of the ''Historikerstreit'' in West Germany have been conducted in other countries independently of the German debate, especially after the fall of communism. In most of Eastern and Central Europe, a comparative approach to Soviet and Nazi crimes is the mainstream scholarly and official position taken. In the western world, the debate revolving around issues similar to those of the ''Historikerstreit'' was renewed following the publication of ''The Black Book of Communism'' in 1997. The British historian Norman Davies argued in 2006 that revelations made after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe after 1989-91 about Soviet crimes had discredited the left-wing position in the ''Historikerstreit'' debate. ==Origins in post-World War II German historiography== Immediately after World War II, intense debates arose in intellectual circles about how to interpret Nazi Germany, a contested discussion that continues. Two of the more hotly debated questions were whether Nazism was in some way part of the “German national character”, and how much responsibility, if any, the German people bore for the crimes of Nazism. Various non-German historians in the immediate post-war era, such as A. J. P. Taylor and Sir Lewis Namier, argued that Nazism was the culmination of German history and that the vast majority of Germans were responsible for Nazi crimes. Different assessments of Nazism were common among Marxists, who insisted on the economic aspects of Nazism and conceived of it as the culmination of a capitalist crisis, and liberals, who emphasized Hitler's personal role and responsibility, and bypassed the larger problem of the relation of ordinary German people to the regime.〔Ian Kershaw, ''Hitler: A Profile in Power'', in particular the introduction (London, 1991, rev. 2001).〕 Within West Germany then, most historians were strongly defensive. In the assessment of Gerhard Ritter and others, Nazism was a totalitarian movement that represented only the work of a small criminal clique; Germans were victims of Nazism, and the Nazi era represented a total break in German history. Starting in the 1960s, that assessment was challenged by younger German historians. Fritz Fischer argued in favor of a ''Sonderweg'' conception of German history that saw Nazism as the result of the way German society had developed. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the functionalist school of historiography emerged; its proponents argued that medium- and lower-ranking German officials were not just obeying orders and policies, but actively engaged in the making of the policies that led to the Holocaust. The functionalists thereby cast blame for the Holocaust across a wider circle. Many right-wing German historians disliked the implications of the ''Sonderweg'' conception and the functionalist school; they were generally identified with the left and structuralism, and were seen by the right-wingers as being derogatory toward Germany. By the mid-1980s, right-wing German historians began to think it was time for the nation to start celebrating much of its history again. Michael Stürmer's 1986 article "Land without history", questioned Germany's lack of positive history in which to take pride.〔Stürmer, Michael "History In a Land Without History", pages 16-17, in ''Forever In The Shadow of Hitler?'' edited Ernst Piper, Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press, 1993〕 Stürmer's position as advisor and speechwriter to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl heightened the controversy.〔Wicke, Christian ''Helmut Kohl's Quest for Normality: His Presentation of the German Nation and Himself'' Berghahn: New York, 2015 pages 185-186〕 At the same time, many left-wing German historians disliked what they saw as the nationalistic tone of the Kohl government. A project that raised the ire of many on the left, and which became a central issue of the ''Historikerstreit'',〔Habermas, Jürgen “A Kind of Settlement of Damages On Apologetic Tendencies In German History Writing” pages 34–44 from ''Forever In the Shadow of Hitler?'' edited by Ernst Piper, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1993 page 41; Maier, Charles ''The Unmasterable Past'' Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988 pages 121-159; Mommsen, Hans "Search for the 'Lost History'?" pages 101–113 from ''Forever In The Shadow of Hitler?'' edited by Ernst Piper, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1993 page 110; Mommsen, Wolfgang J. "Neither Denial nor Forgetfulness Will Free Us" pages 202-215 from ''Forever In The Shadow of Hitler?'' edited by Ernst Piper, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1993 pages 204-205.〕 were two proposed museums celebrating modern German history, to be built in West Berlin and Bonn. Many of the left-wing participants in the ''Historikerstreit'' were to claim that this museum was meant to “exonerate” the German past, and asserted that there was a connection between the proposed museum, the government, and the views of such historians as Michael Stürmer, Ernst Nolte and Andreas Hillgruber. In October 1986, Hans Mommsen wrote that Stürmer's assertion that he who controls the past also controls the future, his work as a co-editor with the ''Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung'' newspaper which had been publishing articles by Ernst Nolte and Joachim Fest denying the “singularity” of the Holocaust, and his work as an advisor to Chancellor Kohl should cause "concern" among historians.〔Mommsen, Hans "The New Historical Consciousness" pages 114-124 from ''Forever In The Shadow of Hitler?'' edited by Ernst Piper, Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, 1993 page 115.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Historikerstreit」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|