Suchergebnisse

Abstract
In this article, I review the key research contributions written on the German financial crisis of 1931. After four decades, consent about the origins and course of the crisis has still not been reached, since a set of disentangled factors - reparations, short-term foreign bank debt, the design of the gold standard, and the behaviour of individual banks - all contributed to the crisis. It seems that the 1931 crisis was caused by the pressure of reparations in combination with substantial private foreign debt. Capital flight set in when the government announced it was unable to pay its reparations. The Reichsbank lost its reserves and was unable to act as lender of last resort when a bank failed shortly after the reparations crisis. As well as describing the literature, I also present some new insights from the archives. It seems that the Reichsbank thought the crisis to be over at the end of June 1931, that it was worried about the state of public finance, and that it was badly informed about the banks' short-term foreign debt.

Contemporary History is always part of a historical culture, part of a society's mindset. This article reflects the rise, establishment and changes of this discipline in Austria in a "post-catastrophic" situation after 1945. It is shown what phases of politicisation and attempts of instrumentalisation there have been, how research topics have changed and what methodological turns can be identified. This article is structured as follows: 1. Contemporary History as "post-catastrophic" historical mindset; 2. The origins of Austrian contemporary history as "coalition historiography"; 3. Contemporary history as "political enlightment" program, 4. Contemporary history as historical social science; and 5. Postmodern parallelism: engagement and "historization", empathy and "visual turn".

'Die terminologischen Zugriffe auf Ereignisse, die wir heute als 'Naturkatastrophen' bezeichnen würden, sind für die Antike noch nicht systematisch untersucht worden. Der vorliegende Beitrag beschränkt sich aufgrund der Materialfülle auf die griechische Historiographie. Im Griechischen existiert zwar das Wort katastrophé, doch entspricht dieser nicht unserem Begriff 'Katastrophe'. Griechische Autoren tendieren stattdessen dazu, Ereignisse konkret zu benennen (Erdbeben, Flutkatastrophe, Seuche usw.), doch gibt es auch abstraktere, kategorisierende Begriffe. Der Befund zeigt, dass Ereignisse, die wir heute als 'Katastrophe' bezeichnen würden, zunächst einmal neutral betrachtet wurden und dann - abhängig vom jeweiligen Kontext - semantisch aufgeladen wurden, was durchaus auch positive Einschätzungen beinhalten konnte.' (Autorenreferat)

In this article the author compares the state of historiography in the former East German territories after the elimination of the communist regime with the situation of German historiography after the defeat of Nazism on the one hand, and the development of historiography in both German states between 1945 and 1990 on the other hand. Considering the actual difficulties occuring during the exchange of personal and the reorganization of institutions in the former East German historiography the following problem is discussed: to what extent had the historians been able to maintain their scholarly integrity and responsibility, or had they been transformed into mere apologists of the regime? The author is convinced that the rupture of 1989 was deeper than that of 1945. For the emergence of a democratic and pluralistic historiography prohibited by the communist regime has gone further in the GDR today than it was after 1945 in Germany as a whole. This is due to the fact that the process of democratization also took place very late in former West Germany. Here, a radical denazification was not carried out and a critical reflection of history's methodological and theoretical traditions did not take place until the 60ies. The author expresses the opinion that a removal of the ideological supporters · of the old regime from leading positions is indispensable, but a reorganization of German historiography should result in an integration, not a segregation of the historians of Germany's "five new lands." ; In this article the author compares the state of historiography in the former East German territories after the elimination of the communist regime with the situation of German historiography after the defeat of Nazism on the one hand, and the development of historiography in both German states between 1945 and 1990 on the other hand. Considering the actual difficulties occuring during the exchange of personal and the reorganization of institutions in the former East German historiography the following problem is discussed: to what extent had the historians been able to maintain their scholarly integrity and responsibility, or had they been transformed into mere apologists of the regime? The author is convinced that the rupture of 1989 was deeper than that of 1945. For the emergence of a democratic and pluralistic historiography prohibited by the communist regime has gone further in the GDR today than it was after 1945 in Germany as a whole. This is due to the fact that the process of democratization also took place very late in former West Germany. Here, a radical denazification was not carried out and a critical reflection of history's methodological and theoretical traditions did not take place until the 60ies. The author expresses the opinion that a removal of the ideological supporters · of the old regime from leading positions is indispensable, but a reorganization of German historiography should result in an integration, not a segregation of the historians of Germany's "five new lands."

Summary in English p. 682-3.

In this article the development of East German historiography is outlined and its author, a leading social historian of the former GDR, poses the question what is worth continuing from this historiographic tradition. In the GDR, social history had reached high standards already in the 60ies, but came to a halt with Karl Marx; thus it could no longer keep up with the accelerated process of innovation of social history in the Western countries since the late 60ies. Etatism and personalization in the GDR historiography had been the consequence. Only a small group of younger social historians displayed a critical and democratic attitude but did not discuss in public. The author maintains that three currents of social history might survive the end of the GDR: a "structural history" being mainly historical demography and computer aided economic and social history; the "history of everyday life" inspired by the history of mentalite and historical anthropology; and a "history of societies" as a histoire totale of small entities. Only in such a plurality, the author argues, social history could flourish in the territories of the former GDR. ; In this article the development of East German historiography is outlined and its author, a leading social historian of the former GDR, poses the question what is worth continuing from this historiographic tradition. In the GDR, social history had reached high standards already in the 60ies, but came to a halt with Karl Marx; thus it could no longer keep up with the accelerated process of innovation of social history in the Western countries since the late 60ies. Etatism and personalization in the GDR historiography had been the consequence. Only a small group of younger social historians displayed a critical and democratic attitude but did not discuss in public. The author maintains that three currents of social history might survive the end of the GDR: a "structural history" being mainly historical demography and computer aided economic and social history; the "history of everyday life" inspired by the history of mentalite and historical anthropology; and a "history of societies" as a histoire totale of small entities. Only in such a plurality, the author argues, social history could flourish in the territories of the former GDR.

This article starts from the thesis that every "historiosophic system" is based on a certain set of features of a mentalite, on an ensemble of preconscious collective ideas about history and society. Thus, the philosophy of history of Marx and Engels has tobe conceived as a specific amalgam of the "traditional humanism" inherited from European Enlightenment and of a "revolutionary complex" resulting from a radicalization of the socio-economic contradictions during the 19th century in Western Europe, parallel to the economic and social developments in the 20th century, ,,traditional humanism" was succeeded by a "modern type humanism" - the former being characterized by a belief in the rationality of human nature, in progress and in the possibility of a planned realization of an ideal social order, the latter being based on a more individualistic and complex but also more pessimistic perception of the individual and the society. This has led to an increased distance of Western European intellectuals from Marxist philosophy ofhistory. In contrast to this, in post-revolutionary USSR the mentalite underlying Marxism was preserved and made to serve as an instrument for legitimizing the existing political system. This is the background of Koposov's analysis of the main methodological and thematic trends in Soviet historiography and its relation to the regime up to the present. ; This article starts from the thesis that every "historiosophic system" is based on a certain set of features of a mentalite, on an ensemble of preconscious collective ideas about history and society. Thus, the philosophy of history of Marx and Engels has tobe conceived as a specific amalgam of the "traditional humanism" inherited from European Enlightenment and of a "revolutionary complex" resulting from a radicalization of the socio-economic contradictions during the 19th century in Western Europe, parallel to the economic and social developments in the 20th century, ,,traditional humanism" was succeeded by a "modern type humanism" - the former being characterized by a belief in the rationality of human nature, in progress and in the possibility of a planned realization of an ideal social order, the latter being based on a more individualistic and complex but also more pessimistic perception of the individual and the society. This has led to an increased distance of Western European intellectuals from Marxist philosophy ofhistory. In contrast to this, in post-revolutionary USSR the mentalite underlying Marxism was preserved and made to serve as an instrument for legitimizing the existing political system. This is the background of Koposov's analysis of the main methodological and thematic trends in Soviet historiography and its relation to the regime up to the present.