In 1986, a debate - der Historikerstreit (the historians’ dispute) - erupted in the German public sphere. It involved a number of historians who attempted to ‘revise’ approaches to the study of the Holocaust. Their endeavours met with fierce opposition, most notably from Jürgen Habermas, who accused them of trying to endow Germany with a presentable political image by relativizing the Holocaust. This article examines the conduct of the debate, in particular the manner in which each side alleged of (...) the other that it was driven by political motives rather than wissenschaftliche interests. I consider the way in which Ernst Nolte tries to ‘understand’ the Holocaust, and discuss the difficulties of investigating the Holocaust in a wissenschaftlichen manner.1. (shrink)

In the 1980s, identity was a key concept in historical political debates in the Federal Republic of Germany. But this identity discourse comprised not only the publicly fought Historikerstreit and the discussion of plans by the federal government to establish two major history museums, but also the conflict with the,,new history movement“, which developed as a counterpoint to the field of history at the universities.

So wie er im Historikerstreit gegen die Normalisierung der nationalsozialistischen Vergangenheit argumentiert hat, so richten sich die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge gegen einen neuen Normalisierungsversuch, der seinen Ausgangspunkt in den Ereignissen des Jahres 1989/90 hat. Jürgen Habermas zeigt auf, daß gegen Ende unseres Jahrhunderts die Betonung des Nationalstaates nicht nur anachronistisch, sondern politisch-kulturell schädlich ist, eigneten doch aufgrund der gegenwärtigen Globalisierungstendenzen nationalstaatlichen Regelungsversuchen auf ökonomischer, politischer und kultureller Ebene sowohl in der Innen- als auch in der Außenpolitik nur (...) negative Konsequenzen. (shrink)

In this article I argue that it is the task of philosophy of history to elucidate the practice of history. Therefore philosophy of history must stick to the analysis of the debates of historians and neither literary theory nor aesthetics can function as "models: for philosophy of history. This is so because historians present reconstructions of a past reality on the basis of factual research and discuss these reconstructions primarily in terms of factual adequacy. The fact that these discussions seldom (...) lead to a consensus constitutes a basic feature of "doing history" to be analyzed by its philosophy.An analysis of the "Historikerstreit" leads, first, to the observation that traditional objectivism and relativism can not account for the fact that historians do debate at all. Second, it leads to the observation that according to most historians judgements of value are supposed to fall outside the scope of rational debate. This conviction is traced back to deeprooted but outdated conceptions of rationality. To get beyond objectivism and relativism "internal realism" is proposed and connected to the notion of practical identity. The fact-value distinction is re-analyzed in this framework of "internal realism" and put to work in the "Historikerstreit." Third, it is argued that the theory of "speechacts" and the notion of "horizon of expectation" can be connected to "internal realism" in order to give a more adequate elucidation of the normative aspects of historiography. Fourth, and along the way, I maintain that historians can profit from "internal realism" because the scope of their discussion would be widened so as to include the traditionally implicit normative issues involved. (shrink)

What is startling about the debate that emerged between Ernst Nolte and Jiirgen Habermas with the Historikerstreit of West Germany in the summer of 1986 is not just the two scholars' sometimes fervent opposition to each other, but the similarity of their arguments. While Nolte argues for a new sobriety and matter-of-factness in dealing with history and Habermas for an engaged, critical history leading to a "postconventional," postnational identity, both are in agreement in their implicit assumption about the necessary (...) role of history/historiography in politics as an ideological provider of meaning, a Sinnstifter, and both sides see the political present as intimately connected with the interpretation of the past. What is surprising also is the apparent wish on both sides to ignore the historical precedents for the debate: the concept of Sonderweg, or German historical uniqueness, and the idea of history as the privileged location for the Kulturnation of Germany. The debate about German history in a Federal Republic newly conscious of its own strength is only just beginning. (shrink)

Na de Tweede Wereldoorlog heerstte in Duitsland nog lange tijd zwijgen over de misdaden van het Nazi-bewind. Pas in de Historikerstreit van 1985-1986 kwam het onverwerkte verleden in de openbaarheid.. Enerzijds werden de Duitse oorlogsmisdaden vergeleken met die van Stalin en Pol Pot, anderzijds werd de holocaust afgeschilderd als een soort natuurramp, die zich buiten de historische realiteit had afgespeeld. Over dit dilemma is het laatste woord nog niet gezegd.

The reception of Zygmunt Bauman in Germany can be understood against the background of the two great public debates that have dominated post-war West German cultural, political and intellectual life, that over the Sonderweg thesis, and the Historikerstreit. This reception is analysed. It was in terms of the questions those debates had raised and the positions taken by the participants in them that Bauman's writings on modernity and postmodernity, and the Holocaust in particular, were received. A universal theme was (...) involved. The legitimate use of historical understanding was at stake, with identity and comparison being central issues for a set of positions, a field of forces in which Bauman is the `odd one out'. Bauman is an outsider to the debates. He is someone with stimulating ideas which sometimes appear paradoxical, and which drove wedges between established ideological alignments. To the Germans, he seems, understandably, an interesting and puzzling figure. (shrink)

This article focuses on the politics of memory and forgetting after Auschwitz and apartheid. In the first two sections Habermas' critical contribution to the German Historikerstreit is discussed. Important in this regard is the moral dimension of our relation to the past. In the next two sections the emphasis shifts to South Africa and more specifically the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The article ends with a general discussion of the dilemma of historical 'truth' and representation (...) in contemporary societies. Key Words: apartheid • Habermas • Historikerstreit • history • South Africa. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:The Sources of MemoryJeffrey Andrew Barash“What does it mean to remember?” This question might seem commonplace when it is confined to the domain of events recalled in past individual experience; but even in this restricted sense, when memory recalls, for example, a first personal encounter with birth or with death, the singularity of the remembered image places the deeper possibilities of human understanding in relief. Such experiences punctuating everyday (...) life highlight the central place of memory as a source of human identity.With a few notable exceptions, such as Henri Bergson or Maurice Halb-wachs, this central role of memory was rarely a topic of interest in the theoretical orientations of our century. It played only a peripheral role in the different philosophical orientations and in the human sciences of this century until, very recently, new attempts have been made to comprehend the significance of memory, above all in the fields of intellectual history and philosophy. Without dealing exhaustively with the bibliography of works on memory, I will mention what seem to me to be the signs of a recent renewal of questioning in this area of interest to historians and philosophers alike. This will lead me to the specific problem I will address in the pages that follow.One of the chief sources of the historian’s recent interest in memory has been the historians’ conflict (Historikerstreit) of the 1980s concerning the interpretation of the German and European past since the rise to power of Nazism and in the aftermath of World War II. As the generations who lived through and—from a given perspective—remembered these events increasingly disappear, the question concerning their precise historical meaning has reemerged with a new urgency. In this vein, for example, as the relatively new periodical History and Memory: Studies in the Representation of the Past and the collection of essays Probing the Limits of Representation: Nazism and the “Final Solution,” edited by Saul Friedlander, amply attest, the relation of memory to historical narrative is as important as it is problematic: to the extent that eyewitness memory claims a status of objectivity beyond the fictional sphere of [End Page 707] the imagination, its role in informing historical narrative involves the very issue of objectivity itself. 1Independently of this query concerning the relation of memory and history in recent scholarship focusing on the twentieth century, a number of studies have attempted to place the idea of memory in historical perspective during premodern periods. In this regard, we may cite Janet Coleman’s recently published work, Ancient and Medieval Memories: Studies in the Reconstruction of the Past and Mary Carruthers’s treatment of the subject of memory in the medieval period in The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture. 2 A number of other recent works in the field of intellectual history have attempted to grapple with the intriguing problem of the historicity of the phenomenon of memory in the West. This idea of the historicity of memory has been inspired at least in part by Pierre Nora’s essay, “Between Memory and History,” which introduced the multi-volume series he directed, Les Lieux de mémoire. In this vein, Patrick H. Hutton’s History as an Art of Memory, Matt K. Matsuda’s The Memory of the Modern, and Richard Terdiman’s Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis all center on the historical transforma-tions to which, according to the different perspectives of their works, “memory” has been subject. 3 Like Nora, they link this historicity of the social and cultural role of memory to the radical transformations that Western civilization has undergone in the modern period.In a philosophical perspective David Farrell Krell’s work, Of Memory, Reminiscence, and Writing: On the Verge, presents a very different idea of the phenomenon of memory. 4 Where the intellectual historians of modernity stress the mutations in the role of memory, Krell, following in the footsteps of Jacques Derrida, emphasizes one essential line of continuity that, to his mind, has tied [End Page 708] together the tradition of philosophical reflection on memory from Plato and Aristotle up until Freud: the metaphoric reference to memory as the faculty... (shrink)

This article provides background material to help readers appreciate three speeches printed in this issue, given by Stefan Morawski, Dennis Smith and Hans Joas on the occasion of the presentation to Zygmunt Bauman of a Festschrift in March 1996 in Leeds. The article describes: relevant details of Polish history concerning cultural patriotism, anti-state attitudes, the role of Jews in the communist state apparatus and anti-Semitism, focusing on post-1945; the peculiarities of the indigenous British sociology tradition and the part played by (...) exiles in shaping it; a profile of the `successful outsider'; and the implications of Bauman's recent work on the Holocaust for the Sonderweg thesis about German history and the Historikerstreit, which are also sketched. It concludes that far from being a `homeless intellectual', Bauman has two homes, perhaps reflecting the wider integrating process of Eastern and Western Europe, until recently separated by a gulf. (shrink)

The question of whether there was a “causal nexus” between Bolshevism in the Soviet Union and National Socialism in Germany is far older than the Historikerstreit. Ernst Nolte's controversial thesis implied that the formation of the Nazis as a party (NSDAP) and a movement, and their subsequent rise to power were hardly conceivable without the German bourgeoisie's basic fear of Bolshevism; the Nazis' exterminatory anti-Semitism was only a sort of response to, and the interpretive reversal of, the looming expectation (...) of a Sovietized Germany. Thus, Bolshevik “class genocide” provided the historical model for Nazi “race genocide,” the annihilation of…. (shrink)

During the last several years, we have witnessed a reopening of questions concerning National Socialism whose full scope and implications have yet to be determined. The Historikerstreit has provoked new discussions of the problem of the specificity or uniqueness of Auschwitz. While raising general methodological issues about the nature of historical explanation and understanding, the Historikerstreit has also revolved around specific questions concerning the role of moral concepts and memory in assessing National Socialism.1 Disclosures about Paul de Man’s (...) wartime writings and further examination of Martin Heidegger’s involvement with National Socialism have led to broader consideration of the relations among philosophy, theory, and politics, and have forced us to rethink the problem of intellectual responsibility with renewed urgency.2 These and related topics were at the center of a major international conference, “Nazism and the Final Solution,” organized by Saul Friedländer last April, which took as its organizing theme the limits of ethical, aesthetic, and historical representation of the Final Solution.3In light of these continuing discussions, we are publishing two remarkable essays written during the early years of National Socialism. To the often-posed challenge, how could one be expected to respond lucidly to Nazism in the early 1930s?, these essays by Robert Musil and Emmanuel Levinas constitute, by the sheer power of their insights, decisive answers. Although significantly different in approach, these essays show not only that one could recognize the reality of National Socialism as it was coming to power, but indicate further that analyses of permanent value could be formulated virtually from the beginning. Musil and Levinas serve to remind us concretely of the capabilities of the human mind and of its responsibilities—capabilities and responsibilities that even the most severe political circumstances need not overwhelm. 1. For documents from and discussion of the Historikstreit, see the special issue of New German Critique 44 .2. On Paul de Man, see Critical Inquiry 14 : 590-652, and Critical Inquiry 15 : 704-44, 764-873. On Martin Heidegger, see Critical Inquiry 15 : 407-88.3. The proceedings of this conference are forthcoming. Arnold I. Davidson, executive editor of Critical Inquiry and associate professor of philosophy at the University of Chicago, is currently Marta Sutton Weeks Fellow at the Stanford Humanities Center. (shrink)

Kierkegaard’s views of knowledge and moral psychology provide insights into certain issues that Habermas treats at length: multiculturalism and the Historikerstreit. Kierkegaard’s concept of subjective truth sustains the universality necessary to oppose racism,sexism, nationalism, fundamentalism, and the economic imperialism characteristic of some postnational states. Habermas expands Kierkegaard’s ethical concept of “choosing oneself” to politics and historiography in the debate over the Holocaust. To be a self, onemust accept responsibility for one’s “good and evil.” Likewise a nation creates its national (...) identity through the choice and enforcement of public policies, especially educational content, which subtly and pervasively create a sense of the nation. Thus a nation must acknowledge its wrongs and crimes. This robust choice enables persons to loyally witness against their nation’s history, free themselves from an inherited guilt-consciousness, and develop a freer and more cohesive politics. (shrink)