The Institutional Context
Institutionally, one can divide the postwar years into periods of reconstruction (1945–1950) and expansion (1950–1960).18 Universities reopened very quickly, and while the Allies initially placed severe restrictions on the teaching of history in high schools, universities were not affected by such measures. Already in 1949, Hans Hallmann of the University of Bonn thus offered a seminar on “German historiography since 1945”—apparently he thought there was sufficient ground to cover.19 During the period of expansion, the number of full professors (Ordinarien) rose from ca. 50 (1950) to 80 (1960), before nearly tripling to 210 (1975).20 These numbers encompass all historical periods and geographical areas; for modern German history Wolfgang Weber lists 26 (1950), 33 (1960), and 71 (1970) full professors.21 The postwar years also saw the establishment of a number of research institutions, some affiliated with universities, others existing independently. The foundation of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, originally named Institut für die Geschichte der Nationalsozialistischen Politik, proved particularly controversial.22 While politicians tended to emphasize the pedagogic responsibilities of a future institute, educating German citizens about the crimes of National Socialism and thus strengthening German democracy, historians insisted on scholarly autonomy. Referring to the politicization of academia during the Nazi years, they opposed any political intervention in their work. Yet some of the politicians involved in the controversy were well aware of the previous antidemocratic attitudes of many historians. The Social Democratic Ministerpräsident (governor) of Hesse, for example, referred to the “poor political service” that German scholars had performed in the past.23 Even conservative Christian Democratic politicians clashed with historians, above all with Gerhard Ritter. The main point of contention in these debates was not whether or not the institute should contribute to the education of the German public, but what exactly this education was supposed to look like.
The landscape of scholarly journals underwent changes as well.24 New, untainted scholars took the positions of disgraced editors who had served during the Nazi regime. Ludwig Dehio, classified by the Nazis as “quarter Jewish” and thus unable to publish until after the end of the regime, replaced Karl Alexander von Müller as editor of Historische Zeitschrift and served in this position until 1956.25 In 1950, the new journal Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht emerged. Mediating between higher education and secondary education, it addressed in particular high school teachers, but also assumed a significant role in scholarly debates. And yet, for scholars working on modern Germany the number of journals remained fairly limited, and the publication decisions rested with a small number of influential scholars. Among them were Theodor Schieder, editor of Historische Zeitschrift between 1957 and 1984, and Karl Dietrich Erdmann, who held the same position for Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht between 1950 and 1989. A new enterprise of a very different kind was the review journal Das historisch-politische Buch. Established in 1953 by members of the Ranke Gesellschaft, Das historisch-politische Buch—like the Gesellschaft itself—essentially served as a venue for those few historians whose Nazi past hindered or even prevented their postwar careers in West Germany.26 Other historians objected to the use of Leopold von Ranke’s name, as the recourse to Rankean “objectivity” hardly succeeded in veiling the nationalist to National Socialist positions of the Gesellschaft’s members.27 Openly apologetic views, espoused above all by the former president of the University of Hamburg, Gustav Adolf Rein, characterized the Ranke Gesellschaft’s yearbook even more than the review journal.28 In contrast to this dubious organ, the new journal Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, edited by Hans Rothfels, became a highly respected publication devoted initially to the interwar period and the Nazi years. Indeed, Walter L. Dorn, a historian at Ohio State University, congratulated Rothfels after the first issue was published that “the articles are admirably chosen, the scholarship is impeccable, the documents with their searching introductions are important, and above all there is an inflexible honesty in confronting historical reality.”29
While some scholarly journals suffered under the dire material conditions of the immediate postwar years, the reconstitution of the historians’ professional association unfolded amid a storm of political problems.30 The Association of German Historians (Verband Deutscher Historiker) had been established in 1895, but lost its function during the 1930s, when Nazi historians had attempted to reorganize the profession according to the needs of the regime. Now, after the end of the war, the overwhelming majority of historians thought it necessary to again represent German historians through an official organization. After all, this promised to accelerate their formal reintegration into the International Committee of Historical Sciences (ICHS).31 Yet the organization’s establishment on a national level proved to be controversial, since a number of different factions competed for influence.
At a first, informal meeting of a number of influential historians in Göttingen in November 1946, the participants’ ideas regarding the profession’s institutional and intellectual future differed remarkably. While Peter Rassow of the University of Cologne advocated European rather than German perspectives, many of his colleagues insisted on the need to write a nation-centered history, which they saw as particularly important at a time when the future of the German state was unclear. Gerhard Ritter, who had just argued along those lines in his essay Geschichte als Bildungsmacht, suggested a careful revision of previously held historiographical assumptions without abandoning the focus on the German nation.32 Finally, some participants were concerned more with the past than with the profession’s future: Percy Ernst Schramm of the University of Göttingen encountered strong resistance when he defended the necessity of the Ardennes Offensive of December 1944.33
The controversies surrounding the establishment of a professional organization were also of a confessional nature. Catholic historians had always been a minority within the discipline; between 1900 and 1945 their numbers ranged around 30 percent.34 After World War II, calls for a “de-Prussification” of German history suggested not only a less nationalist, but also a less Protestant perspective. Accordingly, Catholic historians opposed Gerhard Ritter’s ambitious attempts to secure a leading position within the postwar German historical profession, since they correctly associated the Protestant nationalist Ritter with both orientations. Karl Buchheim of the Technical University of Munich voiced doubts shared by several colleagues when he claimed it to be impossible to achieve a historiographical reorientation if Ritter were to play a leading role in this undertaking.35
Ultimately, it took two more years until the German Historians’ Association (Verband der Historiker Deutschlands, VHD) came into existence. In October 1948, members of the two oldest German historical institutions, the Historical Commission of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences (founded in 1858) and the board of editors of Monumenta Germaniae Historica (an institution devoted to the study of medieval history, founded in 1819), met in Munich and decided to reestablish a national professional organization, scheduled to hold its first convention in September 1949. In addition, a foundational committee consisting of four historians emerged and suggested electing Gerhard Ritter chairman, despite the staunch resistance against his candidacy inside as well as outside the historical profession.36 Apart from the reservations of Catholic historians, the French occupation authorities (Ritter taught at Freiburg University, located in the French zone) suspected Ritter of “nationalist” and “authoritarian” tendencies.37 In June 1949, these authorities had even regarded the “centralist and authoritarian” foundation of the VHD as illegal. Since they saw Ritter as the “political representative of a nationalist reaction,” he temporarily contemplated withdrawing his candidacy.38 Yet the broad support of a dozen leading historians at an informal meeting during the convention in Munich convinced him otherwise, and he was elected chairman on September 14, 1949.
After these initial difficulties, the convention itself unfolded successfully. Despite the political division of Germany, a few historians from the Soviet zone attended, and ideological differences did not affect the meeting.39 Of course, several historians (among them Friedrich Meinecke and Wilhelm Schüssler)
