Westernization has at times meant phases of European influence on the United States, and at other times phases of American influence on Europe. Anselm Doering-Manteuffel has defined Westernization as the “development of common values in societies on both sides of the North Atlantic.”56 By contrast, Americanization usually refers to a process in which non-American countries and societies are at the receiving end, without in turn influencing the Unites States. This is true despite the fact that the process is often understood as taking place as selective appropriation.57 In the most general sense, the West German historical profession thus certainly underwent a Westernization process rather than an Americanization process. German émigrés had a considerable impact on the American field of German history, and German historians became increasingly receptive to developments within the American historical profession. Yet the Americanization concept can still be useful for this study, if one follows Rob Kroes, who defines the term as “a shorthand reference to what is essentially a black box in the simple diagram of cultural transmission and reception,” where a process of mediation serves to reorder and even remake whatever comes in from the United States.58 As we will see, West German historians’ ideas of the United States and the American historical profession often differed greatly from one another—at least in part as a result of the pluralized character of the American field. And as in the realm of popular culture, selective appropriation also took place within the scholarly community. Finally, one should mention that in the context of the Americanization debates the term has often connoted allegedly lamentable developments in Europe and elsewhere. In the literature on West German historiography, by contrast, historians have discussed Americanization or American influences in decidedly positive terms.
National differences are necessarily a part of this history of the historical profession. More than three decades ago, the Norwegian social scientist Johan Galtung reflected on specific national academic styles and contrasted the “Saxonic,” the “Teutonic,” the “Gallic,” and the “Nipponic” intellectual styles.59 Among other elements, Galtung distinguished between the rather conversational style of debate in Anglo-American academia and the more contentious style of debate within its German counterpart. Of course, such distinctions should be taken with at least a grain of salt. But it is important to ask not only what lay at the heart of a particular scholarly controversy but how these debates were carried out—especially in a study that transcends national borders.
Since this study focuses equally on the intellectual and social processes constituting historiography, it also combines quantitative and qualitative dimensions. On the one hand, any comprehensive analysis of a historiographical field requires a degree of statistical coverage. For example, one can judge the interest in a particular topic or period or the prominence of certain methodological trends by the number of articles that were published in scholarly journals, and by the number of monographs that appeared. Yet such an analysis also has to consider who edited journals and reviewed books for publication and thus their influence on, or even control over, what was published. Here, considerations of “quality” (itself a problematic category) were not always decisive. While a comprehensive evaluation of journals and publishers’ lists forms the basis of the study’s quantitative aspect, historians’ personal papers are indispensable for a “behind-the-scenes” look at the professional power structures. While nobody would deny the impact of these structures, influential scholars in particular are often unwilling to acknowledge them, as the admission would contradict the ideals of objectivity and meritocracy.60
My analysis of both the post-1945 German-American scholarly community and the controversial developments within the German historical profession in the late 1960s and 1970s considers their interpretive as well as methodological, institutional, and political dimensions, which of course overlap in various ways.
Regarding the institutional dimension, I have examined the papers of the American Historical Association (AHA) and of its German counterpart, the Verband der Historiker Deutschlands (VHD). Apart from covering matters pertaining to its organization, the AHA papers at the Library of Congress also contain some editorial files of the American Historical Review. For the latter’s German equivalent, Historische Zeitschrift, the personal papers of its long-term editor Theodor Schieder (who held that position between 1957 and 1984) have proven enormously valuable. Since Schieder also served as chairman of the Verband der Historiker Deutschlands, his papers shed light on the association’s development as well.
For both the methodological and the interpretive dimensions, I rely primarily on the body of work produced by historians in the German-American scholarly community. An analysis of the leading German and American journals illustrates prevailing trends at a given time. But again, historians’ personal papers supply important additional information. The tendency to discuss interpretive and methodological questions in letters overall might have declined after the 1950s, when the phone became the more immediate means of scholarly exchange. George Mosse, for example, preferred to call rather than to write to his colleagues, and his papers accordingly contain less of relevance to this project. And yet, one finds counterexamples even in the mid-1970s, and these have been very illuminating.
The bulk of the personal papers of German historians on which this analysis draws are located at the Bundesarchiv Koblenz. It would have been impossible to analyze the papers of all historians belonging to the German-American scholarly community. Some have not left any personal papers, and the existing collections are extremely scattered. Yet the historians whose papers I have evaluated belonged to different generations and held widely varying methodological and political views. Thus, this study draws on the personal papers of a fairly representative sample of historians, and is therefore able to provide plausible conclusions about a broad range of questions in German history, even if a synthetical history of the field remains elusive. The primary focus is on the West German historical profession’s transatlantic dimension. Yet by analyzing the project of Historische Sozialwissenschaft as well as its critics, this study extends and refines our understanding of the West German historical profession during the 1960s and 1970s.
It should not be surprising—and will become evident in the following chapters—that interpreting modern German history after National Socialism was a politically fraught enterprise and that many academics felt a responsibility to contribute to debates beyond academia. The political designations of these historians used in the following pages are mine, unless explicitly noted otherwise. By contrast, terms such as “modern” or “progressive” to denote certain methodologies and approaches are those used by the contemporaries and do not reflect my own views, as I do not believe it is possible, for example, to label social history more “modern” than political or cultural history.
Finally, a note on the erkenntnisleitende Interessen (the knowledge-guiding interests) of this study is in order: The writing of historiographical texts in order to legitimize a new approach is an inherently problematic undertaking, and as we will see, this was as true for the protagonists of the Bielefeld school as it has been for their contemporary and later critics.61 This book therefore does not provide an ex-post-facto contribution to the debate between protagonists of Historische Sozialwissenschaft and their opponents among the diplomatic and political historians. Neither does it constitute a belated contribution to the German Methodenstreit (method dispute) between social historians and cultural historians.62 Finally, even though historians generally distinguish between affirmative and critical historiography, my analysis attempts to provide both. On the one hand, I illustrate how much the postwar transatlantic community has contributed to the historiography on modern Germany. On the other hand, this sympathetic view of many members of this scholarly community is compatible with its critical historicization. After all, as Allan Megill has emphasized, “the true historian needs to be committed to both objectivity and commitment, because ‘discernment of multiple perspectives is a condition of understanding human affairs,’ and thus is ‘also a prerequisite of attaining reliable historical knowledge.’”63
* * *
The book begins with an outline of the West German historical profession’s
