Suchergebnisse

Germany and all things German have long been the primary concern ofCentral European History(CEH), yet the journal has also been intimately tied to the lands of the former Habsburg monarchy. As the editor stated in the first issue, published in March 1968,CEHemerged "in response to a widespread demand for an American journal devoted to the history of German-speaking Central Europe," following the demise of theJournal of Central European Affairsin 1964. The Conference Group for Central European History sponsoredCEH, as well as the recently mintedAustrian History Yearbook(AHY). Robert A. Kann, the editor ofAHY, sat on the editorial board ofCEH, whose second issue featured a trenchant review by István Deák of Arthur J. May'sThe Passing of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1914–1918. The third issue contained the articles "The Defeat of Austria-Hungary in 1918 and the Balance of Power" by Kann, and Gerhard Weinberg's "The Defeat of Germany in 1918 and the Balance of Power." That same year,East European Quarterlypublished its first issue.

This is the first systematic study of famine in all parts of Europe from the Middle Ages until the present. In case studies ranging from Scandinavia and Italy to Ireland and Russia, leading scholars compare the characteristics, consequences and causes of famine. The famines they describe differ greatly in size, duration and context; in many cases the damage wrought by poor harvests was confounded by war. The roles of human action, malfunctioning markets and poor relief are a recurring theme. The chapters also take full account of demographic, institutional, economic, social and cultural aspects, providing a wealth of new information which is organized and analyzed within a comparative framework. Famine in European History represents a significant new contribution to demographic history, and will be of interest to all those who want to discover more about famines - truly horrific events which, for centuries, have been a recurring curse for the Europeans

Since the opening of the Iron Curtain, migration has become a major cause for concern in many European countries. However, migrations to, from and within Europe are nothing new, as Klaus J. Bade reminds us in this timely book. Bade presents a history of European migration over a range of eras, countries and migration types, examining the driving forces and currents of migration as well as their effects on the cultures of both migrants and host countries. He focuses mainly on the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, paying particular attention to the period from the end of the Second World War to the present day, and includes public perceptions of migration as well as migration policies. This emphasis on recent history enables the author to illuminate the problems that Europe is presently experiencing. The book touches on one of the most controversial areas of current European politics, demonstrating that the reactions of today's host populations are often alarmist, and reminding us that many Europeans are themselves descendants of earlier migrants

De geschiedenis van Europa en de omgang met het verleden in Europa zijn het voorwerp van recente initiatieven en controverses en dit op een moment dat het Europese project in crisis lijkt te zijn. In welk narratief de Europese geschiedenis ook wordt gegoten, het lokt altijd politieke en emotionele reacties en veelvormige debatten uit. Het Huis van Europese Geschiedenis (HEH) dat in mei 2017 zijn deuren opende, wordt als een transnationale ruimte beschouwd, ook al is ons referentiekader, ondanks alle kritiek hierop, nog steeds sterk nationaal van aard. Hoe moeten we dit nieuwe museum beoordelen? In welke mate verwijst het naar nationale geschiedenis? En is er een dialoog mogelijk tussen twee uiteenlopende initiatieven, namelijk tussen het HEH en het BELvue museum waarin de Belgische geschiedenis centraal staat? Dit artikel maakt deel uit van het forum 'The House of European History'. The history of Europe and history in Europe are the focus of recent initiatives and controversies, at a time when the European project appears to be in a state of crisis.[1] Fashioning the history of Europe into a narrative in any format instigates political and emotional reactions. The resulting discussions convey the variegated public debate. The House of European History (HEH), which opened in May 2017, is first and foremost conceived as a transnational space,[2] even though our frame of reference, notwithstanding our efforts, continues to be defined by a national approach. How should we consider this new museum? To what extent does it refer to national history? Would dialogue be feasible between two initiatives as distinct as the HEH and the BELvue museum, which highlights Belgian history?[1] See especially the beautiful book Europa. Notre Histoire. L'héritage européen depuis Homère edited by Étienne François and Thomas Serrier with Pierre Monnet, Akiyoshi Nishiyama, Olaf B. Rader, Valérie Rosoux and Jakob Vogel (Paris 2017).[2] For a detailed presentation of the history of this project, see Anastasia Remes, 'Memory, Identity and Supranational History Museum: Building the House of European History', Memoria e Ricerca. Rivista di Storia contemporanea, 1, 2017, 99-116. See also the official, very comprehensive website of the museum: https://historia-europa.ep.eu/fr (accessed April 2018) and the book edited by Andrea Monk and Perikles Christodoulou, Creating the House of European History (Brussels 2018). This article is part of the forum 'The House of European History'.