No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Search for the “Other Germany”: Refugee Historians from Nazi Germany and the Contested Historical Legacy of the Resistance to Hitler
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2014
Extract
During his visit to the Federal Republic of Germany in the summer of 1954, Fritz Stern, a young history professor at Columbia University, witnessed in Berlin the memorial service for the victims of the July 20, 1944, revolt against Hitler. His feelings were stirred at the sight of the sorrowful faces of the widows and children of the conspirators who were executed in the aftermath of the failed assassination attempt, and by President Theodor Heuss's speech, recalling the anguish and courage of the Germans who made the decision to rebel in an act of atonement. Born in Germany in 1926 to Protestant parents of Jewish ancestry, Stern experienced racist antisemitism in the Third Reich firsthand before his family emigrated in 1938. He returned to Germany with conflicted emotions. During World War II, when the magnitude of the annihilation of European Jewry was uncovered, he felt intense hatred toward National Socialism. The distinction between German and Nazi became blurred. And yet, he could not bring himself to hold the German people collectively guilty for such crimes and to reject his native land. At the ceremony he struggled with his own feelings, saying to himself at first that “their purposes had not been ours.” Then a sense of shame for his indiscriminate hatred overwhelmed him. He left Germany in August “purged of hatred—though not disloyal to the feelings of the past, and full of forebodings about the future.”
- Type
- Other Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Central European History Society of the American Historical Association 2014
References
1 See the accounts of his experience at the memorial service on July 20, 1954, in Stern, Fritz, “The Fragmented People That Is Germany,” Commentary 19 (February 1955): 137–38Google Scholar; Stern, Fritz, Five Germanys I Have Known (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2006), 212–13Google Scholar.
2 Cornelissen, Christoph, “Hans Rothfels, Gerhard Ritter, und die Rezeption des 20. Juli 1944,” in Hans Rothfels und die deutsche Zeitgeschichte, ed. Hürter, Johannes and Woller, Hans (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2005), 115–16Google Scholar.
3 On the contributions of the two generations to German historiography, see Lehmann, Hartmut and Sheehan, James, eds., An Interrupted Past: German-Speaking Refugee Historians in the United States after 1933 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Faulenbach, Bernd, “Der ‘deutsche Weg’ aus der Sicht des Exils. Zum Urteil emigrierter Historiker,” Exilforschung 3 (1985): 11–30Google Scholar; Wolf, Heinz, Deutsch-jüdische Emigrationshistoriker in den USA und der Nationalsozialismus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1988)Google Scholar.
4 Catherine Epstein calls attention to their Americanizing experience in Epstein, Catherine, “The Second Generation: Historians of Modern Germany in Postwar America,” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 51 (Fall 2012): 55–56Google Scholar.
5 Rothfels, Hans, The German Opposition to Hitler: An Appraisal (Hinsdale, IL: Regnery, 1948)Google Scholar.
6 Eckel, Jan, Hans Rothfels. Eine Intellektuelle Biographie im 20. Jahrhundert (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2005), 203Google Scholar. Rothfels described his situation in 1933 as “paradoxical” since he viewed National Socialism favorably as an “idealistic uprising” and the promise of a reassertion of German power in the east, but he could not accept its racist doctrines.
7 Ibid., 100–101, 126–30, 166–70.
8 Ibid., 205–08.
9 Ibid., 219–221.
10 Rothfels, Hans, “Frontiers and Mass Migrations in Eastern Central Europe,” The Review of Politics 8 (1946): 54–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Walther, Peter, “Hans Rothfels im amerikanischen Exil,” in Hans Rothfels und die deutsche Zeitgeschichte, ed. Hürter and Woller, 90–91Google Scholar.
11 Berg, Nicolas, Der Holocaust und die westdeutschen Historiker (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2003), 163Google Scholar.
12 Rothfels, The German Opposition, 132. Rothfels expanded the concept of the “other Germany” to fit his purpose. After 1933, German exiles with liberal and social-democratic convictions popularized the idea of the “other Germany” to call attention to the struggle of German antifascists against the Nazi regime and to separate the “Germany of Weimar” from the macabre reality of Hitler's Reich. See Erika and Mann, Klaus, The Other Germany (New York: Modern Age Books, 1940)Google ScholarPubMed.
13 See the reference to Franklin Ford's article in Rothfels, The German Opposition, 22.
14 Ford, Franklin, “The Twentieth of July in the History of the German Resistance,” American Historical Review 51 (1946): 621–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15 Ibid., 616, 622–23.
16 Rothfels, The German Opposition, 11, 161–62.
17 Ibid., 25.
18 Ibid., 74–75.
19 Ibid., 26, 158.
20 Ibid., 89, 156.
21 Ibid., 102–06, 162–63.
22 Quoted in Berg, Der Holocaust und die westdeutschen Historiker, 166; Eckel, Hans Rothfels, 223–24.
23 Rothfels, The German Opposition, 34.
24 Cornelissen, “Hans Rothfels, Gerhard Ritter, und die Rezeption des 20. Juli 1944,” 108.
25 See Meinecke's letters to Rothfels, June 3, 1946, and to Ludwig Dehio, July 21, 1947, in Meinecke, Friedrich, Ausgewählter Briefwechsel (Stuttgart: Koehler, 1969), 251Google Scholar, 281.
26 Siegfried Kaehler's two letters to Meinecke, July 10, 1948, and August 4, 1948, in ibid., 528–529, 531.
27 Ritter, Gerhard's review of the book in Historische Zeitschrift 169 (1949): 402–05Google Scholar. On the defensive attitude of Ritter and other West German historians in respect to the interpretations of German history abroad, see Berghahn, Volker, “Deutschlandbilder 1945–1965. Angloamerikanische Historiker und moderne deutsche Geschichte,” in Deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, ed. Schulin, Ernst (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1989), 241–49Google Scholar.
28 Rothfels, Hans, “Das politische Vermächtnis des Deutschen Widerstands,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 2 (1954): 329–34Google Scholar.
29 Large, David Clay, “‘A Beacon in the German Darkness’: The Anti-Nazi Resistance Legacy in West German Politics,” in Contending with Hitler: Varieties of German Resistance in the Third Reich, ed. Large, David Clay (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 169Google Scholar.
30 Hamerow, Theodore, On the Road to the Wolf's Lair: German Resistance to Hitler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 394–96Google Scholar. A historian of modern Germany, Theodore Hamerow was born in Poland in 1920 and came to America in 1930. By the time that he published his strong critique of the ideas and aims of the Resistance, the critical direction in West German historiography on the subject had been underway for many years.
31 Tuchel, Johannes, “Vergessen, verdrängt, ignoriert—Überlegungen zur Rezeptionsgeschichte des Widerstandes gegen den Nationalsozialismus im Nachkriegsdeutschland,” in Der vergessene Widerstand. Zur Realgeschichte und Wahrnehmung des Kampfes gegen die NS-Diktatur, ed. Tuchel, Johannes (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2005), 10Google Scholar.
32 On his decision to emigrate, see Holborn's letters to Dietrich Gerhard, April 14, 1933, and September 11, 1933, in German Refugee Historians and Friedrich Meinecke: Letters and Documents, ed. Ritter, Gerhard A., trans. Skinner, Alex (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 253–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Holborn's relationship to Germany in the years immediately after World War II, see Lamberti, Marjorie's interpretation in the review of this book in Central European History 44 (2011): 536–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
33 See Pflanze, Otto, “The Americanization of Hajo Holborn,” in An Interrupted Past, ed. Lehmann and Sheehan, 70–79Google Scholar.
34 Holborn, Hajo, “Origins and Political Character of Nazi Ideology,” in Holborn, Hajo, Germany and Europe: Historical Essays (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1970), 232Google Scholar, 239–40. This essay was first published in the Political Science Quarterly in 1964. Holborn, Hajo, History of Germany: The Reformation (New York: Knopf, 1959), xiGoogle Scholar.
35 Holborn, Hajo, History of Modern Germany: 1840–1945 (New York: Knopf, 1969), 816Google Scholar.
36 Holborn, Hajo, “The German Opposition to Hitler,” in Holborn, Hajo, Germany and Europe, 239–40Google Scholar. This essay was an expanded version of a paper that he presented at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association in December 1960.
37 Ibid., 247.
38 Holborn, History of Modern Germany: 1840–1945, 814–15.
39 Gerhard Weinberg, a refugee historian of the second generation, followed this model in A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 753–54Google Scholar. He thought that the preparations of the coup in 1944 were “more sensible than some critics have maintained,” and that lack of support for the revolt among the generals reduced the chances for success. Weinberg stated in “July 20, 1944: The Plot to Kill Hitler,” in Weinberg, Gerhard, World in the Balance: Behind the Scenes of World War II (Hanover: Brandeis University Press, 1981), 146–47Google Scholar, that the “Resistance legacy” provided Germans after 1945 with moral signposts and that it was important “to know that inside Germany some men and women tried to end the tyranny themselves, at the risk of everything and at the price of their lives.”
40 Holborn, History of Modern Germany: 1840–1945, 815–18.
41 Gatzke, Hans, “Klaus Epstein, 1927–1967,” Central European History 1 (1968): 191–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinberg, Gerhard, “Fritz Epstein, 1898–1979,” Central European History 12 (1979): 399–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am grateful to Catherine Epstein for providing more precise information about her father's emigration from Germany.
42 See the review of Mosse, George's The Crisis of German Ideology: The Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1964)Google Scholar, in Epstein, Klaus, “Metaphysics of Nazism,” Modern Age (1965): 310–13Google Scholar.
43 Epstein, Klaus, Germany after Adenauer (New York: Foreign Policy Association, 1964)Google Scholar, 4, 22, 48–49.
44 Epstein, Klaus, The Genesis of German Conservatism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966)Google Scholar.
45 Epstein's father-in-law, William Henry Chamberlin, criticized Shirer's book and the “anti-German campaign” in Chamberlin, William Henry, “The Revival of Anti-Germanism,” Modern Age 6 (1962): 277–83Google Scholar. See also Rosenfeld, Gavriel, “The Reception of William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in the United States and West Germany, 1960–1962,” Journal of Contemporary History 29 (1994): 95–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
46 Shirer, William, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960), 90Google Scholar.
47 Epstein, Klaus, “Shirer's History of Nazi Germany,” Review of Politics 23 (1961): 231–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 242.
48 Epstein, Klaus, “Germans Against Hitler,” Modern Age (1962–63): 86Google Scholar. See another émigré historian's critique of Rothfels's book in Iggers, Georg, The German Conception of History (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1983), 257–58Google Scholar.
49 Epstein, “Germans Against Hitler,” 88.
50 Ibid., 94–95.
51 Ibid., 90–91.
52 Peter Gay, “Thinking About the Germans: II,” New York Times, August 4, 1976; Gay, Peter, My German Question: Growing Up in Nazi Berlin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 5–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 193–98.
53 Gay, Peter, “German Questions,” in Peter Gay, Freud, Jews and Other Germans (New York: Oxford University Press: 1978), 3–10Google Scholar. See also Gay, Peter, “Introduction,” in Bracher, Karl Dietrich, The German Dictatorship, trans. Steinberg, Jean (New York: Praeger, 1970), vii–ix.Google Scholar
54 von Klemperer, Klemens, Voyage through the Twentieth Century: A Historian's Recollections and Reflections (New York: Berghahn, 2009), 39Google Scholar, 65, 118.
55 Ibid., 43–44.
56 Ibid., 58, 67.
57 von Klemperer, Klemens, Mandate for Resistance: The Case of the German Opposition to Hitler (Northampton, MA: Smith College, 1969), 6–7Google Scholar. The German version of this work appeared as von Klemperer, Klemens, “Mandat zum Widerstand. Der Fall deutscher Opposition gegen Hitler,” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte 19, no. 29 (1969): 1–15.Google Scholar
58 Pachter, Henry, “On Being an Exile: An Old-Timer's Personal and Political Memoir,” Salmagundi, no. 10–11 (1969–70): 13–20Google Scholar.
59 Pachter, Henry, “The Legend of the 20th of July 1944,” Social Research 29 (1962): 115.Google Scholar
60 Pachter, Henry, “Forum: The German Resistance Movement,” Social Research 29 (1962): 485–87.Google Scholar
61 Von Klemperer, Mandate for Resistance, 9, 27–28.
62 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Adam von Trott zu Solz and Resistance Foreign Policy,” Central European History 14 (1981): 351–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Glaube, Religion, Kirche und der deutsche Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 28 (1980)Google Scholar: 309.
64 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Widerstand-Résistance: The Place of the German Resistance in the European Resistance Against National Socialism,” in The Challenge of the Third Reich: The Adam von Trott Memorial Lectures, ed. Bull, Hedley (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986)Google Scholar, 40. On the changes in Resistance historiography, see Ueberschär, Gerd, “Von der Einzeltat des 20. Juli 1944 zur ‘Volksopposition’? Stationen und Wege der westdeutschen Historiographie nach 1945,” in Der 20. Juli 1944. Bewertung und Rezeption des deutschen Widerstandes gegen das NS-Regime, ed. Ueberschär, Gerd (Cologne: Bund-Verlag, 1994), 103–06Google Scholar; Bodo Scheurig, “Helden oder Versager?,” Die Zeit, no. 29, July 21, 1967; “Zeitgeschichte 20. Juli. Gerechter Knüppel,” Der Spiegel, no. 30 (July 17, 1966): 32; “Der Widerstand wandelte sich,” Die Zeit, no. 4, January 27, 1967.
65 Müller, Klaus-Jürgen, The Army, Politics, and Society in Germany 1933–1945 (New York: St. Martin's, 1987), 55Google Scholar; Mommsen, Hans, “Der Widerstand gegen Hitler und die deutsche Gesellschaft,” Historische Zeitschrift 241 (1985): 82–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 103–04. See also Heinemann, Ulrich, “Arbeit am Mythos. Neuere Literatur zum bürgerlich-aristokratischen Widerstand gegen Hitler und zum 20. Juli 1944 (Teil 1),” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 21 (1995): 114–18Google Scholar, 138.
66 See Kettenacker's comments in Kettenacker, Lothar, “Der nationalkonservative Widerstand aus angelsächsischer Sicht,” in Der Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus, ed. Schmädeke, Jürgen and Steinbach, Peter (Munich: Piper, 1985), 712–13.Google Scholar
67 Mommsen, Hans, “Social Views and Constitutional Plans of the Resistance,” in The German Resistance to Hitler, ed. Graml, Hermann (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1970), 64–68Google Scholar, 77–78, 97–98, 114.
68 Müller, The Army, Politics, and Society in Germany, 65–66, 72–80, 104–05. Müller presented his analysis in greater detail in Müller, Klaus-Jürgen, Das Heer und Hitler. Armee und nationalsozialistisches Regime 1933–1940 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1969).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69 Müller, The Army, Politics, and Society in Germany, 109–11, 114–15.
70 See the assessment of the conference's impact in Heinemann, “Arbeit am Mythos,” 112–13; Klausa, Ekkehard, “Auf ungeebneten Wegen in den Widerstand,” Die Zeit, no. 33, August 10, 1984Google Scholar; Hacke, Christian, “Widerstand gegen Hitler und das Volk,” Die Zeit, no. 14, March 3, 1986Google Scholar.
71 Mommsen, “Der Widerstand gegen Hitler und die deutsche Gesellschaft,” 83–85; Müller, Klaus-Jürgen, “Nationalkonservative Eliten zwischen Kooperation und Widerstand,” in Der Widerstand, ed. Schmädeke and Steinbach, 24–49Google Scholar.
72 Kettenacker, “Der nationalkonservative Widerstand aus angelsächsischer Sicht,” 714–20, 723–24; Martin, Bernd, “Das aussenpolitische Versagen des Widerstands 1943/44,” in Der Widerstand, ed. Schmädeke and Steinbach, 1051–54Google Scholar.
73 See the report on the discussions in Schmädeke and Steinbach, ed., Der Widerstand, 1139, 1152.
74 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Sie gingen ihren Weg. Ein Beitrag zur Frage des Entschlusses und der Motivation zum Widerstand,” in Der Widerstand, ed. Schmädeke and Steinbach, 1098Google Scholar. See also his critical remarks in von Klemperer, Klemens, “Der deutsche Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus im Lichte der konservativen Tradition,” in Demokratie und Diktatur, ed. Funke, Manfred et al. (Düsseldorf: Droste, 1987), 266Google Scholar.
75 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Nationale oder internationale Aussenpolitik des Widerstands,” in Der Widerstand, ed. Schmädeke and Steinbach, 645Google Scholar, 648.
76 Ibid., 642.
77 Von Klemperer, Voyage through the Twentieth Century, 129.
78 See his rebuttal to the interpretations of Mommsen and Müller in von Klemperer, “Der deutsche Widerstand gegen den Nationalsozialismus im Lichte der konservativen Tradition,” 269–78.
79 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Reflections and Reconsiderations on the German Resistance,” Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte 1 (1988): 17Google Scholar, 19.
80 Ibid., 20–21; Dipper, Christof, “Der Deutsche Widerstand und die Juden,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9 (1983): 349–80.Google Scholar
81 Von Klemperer, “Reflections and Reconsiderations,” 27. See also his comments on the interpretations of Müller, Klaus-Jürgen, Martin, Bernd, and Kettenacker, Lothar in von Klemperer, Klemens, German Resistance against Hitler: The Search for Allies Abroad, 1938–1945 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 6–7.Google Scholar
82 von Klemperer, Klemens, “The Solitary Witness: No Mere Footnote to Resistance Studies,” in Contending with Hitler, ed. Large, 138Google Scholar.
83 von Klemperer, Klemens, “‘What is the Law that Lies behind these Words?’ Antigone's Question and the German Resistance against Hitler,” in Resistance against the Third Reich, ed. Geyer, Michael and Boyer, John (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 142–44.Google Scholar
84 Von Klemperer, “The Solitary Witness,” 130–31, 136, 139; Von Klemperer, “‘What is the Law that Lies behind these Words?,’” 146–48.
85 Von Klemperer, “The Solitary Witness,” 137; Von Klemperer, German Resistance against Hitler, 40–42, 286.
86 Von Klemperer, German Resistance against Hitler, 432 and 6–7.
87 Ibid., 94–95, 99, 103–07, 178, 217–20, 226–28.
88 von Klemperer, Klemens, Deutscher Widerstand gegen Hitler—Gedanken eines Historikers und Zeitzeugen (Berlin: Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand, 2001), 1–2.Google Scholar
89 Von Klemperer, German Resistance against Hitler, 433–39.
90 Institut für Demoskopie, Der Widerstand im Dritten Reich. Wissen und Urteil der Bevölkerung vor und nach dem 40. Jahrestag des 20. Juli 1944 (Allensbach: Institut für Demoskopie, 1985)Google Scholar, tables 1 and 2; Heinemann, Ulrich and Krüger-Charlé, Michael, “Arbeit am Mythos. Der 20. Juli 1944 in Publizistik und wissenschaftlicher Literatur des Jubiläumsjahres 1994 (Teil 2),” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 23 (1997): 478–79Google Scholar; Dönhoff, Marion, “Der 20. Juli 1944. Ein vergessener Tag,” Die Zeit, no. 30, July 20, 1998Google Scholar.
91 Gerd Ueberschär, “Der nicht endende Kampf um die Erinnerung,” Frankfurter Rundschau, July 12, 1994; Hans Mommsen, “Generalangriff zur Instrumentalisierung,” Frankfurter Rundschau, July 14, 1994; Dipper, Christof, “Der 20. Juli und die ‘Judenfrage,’” Die Zeit, no. 27, July 1, 1994Google Scholar; Peter Hoffmann, “Sie erhoben sich, weil sie die Morde nicht dulden wollten,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 15, 1994.
92 See the essays by Christian Gerlach, Manfred Messerschmidt, Christian Streit, Gerd Ueberschär, and Wette, Wolfram in NS-Verbrechen und der militärische Widerstand gegen Hitler, ed. Ueberschär, Gerd (Darmstadt: Primus Verlag, 2000)Google Scholar. On the growing acceptance of this scholarship, see von Bilavsky, Jörg, “Helden in Grau,” Rheinischer Merkur, no. 29, July 17, 2008Google Scholar; Christian Jostmann, “Waren sie wirklich Helden?,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, February 27, 2008.
93 An expanded version of Gerlach's article, “Männer des Widerstands und der Massenmord,” in Freitag on July 22, 1994, was published in Gerlach, Christian, “Men of 20 July and the War in the Soviet Union,” in War of Extermination: The German Military in World War II, 1941–1944, ed. Heer, Hannes and Naumann, Klaus (New York: Berghahn, 2000), 127–45.Google Scholar
94 Mommsen, Hans, “The Position of the Military Opposition to Hitler in the German Resistance Movement,” in Mommsen, Hans, Alternatives to Hitler: German Resistance under the Third Reich (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), 241–50.Google Scholar
95 Christian Gerlach, “Verschwörer im Widerspruch,” Die Welt, March 3, 2004.
96 Marianne Meyer-Krahmer, “Die Empörung stand am Anfang allen Handeln,” Tagesspiegel, July 19, 1994; see also Jens Jessen, “Der 20. Juli und seine Feinde,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 20, 1994.
97 Dönhoff, Marion, “Der 20. Juli,” Die Zeit, no. 30, July 22, 1966Google Scholar. See also Conze, Eckart, “Aufstand des preussischen Adels. Marion Gräfin Dönhoff und das Bild des Widerstands gegen den Nationalsozialismus in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 51 (2003): 483–508.Google Scholar
98 Dönhoff, Marion and von Weizsaecker, Richard, “Wider die Selbstgerechtigkeit der Nachgeborenen,” Die Zeit, no. 11, March 8, 1996Google Scholar.
99 Dönhoff, Marion, “Neue Dokumente,” Die Zeit, no. 30, July 21, 1995Google Scholar; see also Heinemann, Ulrich, “‘In den Herzen der Deutschen nie wirklich Wurzeln geschlagen?’ Betrachtungen zur Rezeptionsgeschichte des 20. Juli 1944,” Deutschland Archiv 4 (2005): 675–82.Google Scholar
100 von Aretin, Karl Otmar, “Henning von Tresckow und der militärische Widerstand während der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus,” Magdeburger Wissenschaftsjournal 2 (2000): 42–43Google Scholar; Rüdiger von Voss, “Die enteignete Tradition,” Die Welt, July 19, 2004. See also the criticism of Gerlach in Günther Gillessen, “Verdunkelnde Aufklärung. Wie Wissenschaftler den Widerstand gegen Hitler herabsetzen,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11, 1998; Peter Hoffmann, “Tresckow und Stauffenberg,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, July 20, 1998.
101 Stern, Fritz, “Address,” in Contending with Hitler, ed. Large, 23Google Scholar.
102 Stern, Five Germanys I Have Known, 495.
103 Von Klemperer, German Resistance against Hitler, viii.
104 Marlies Emmerich, “Die Fragezeichen sind geblieben,” Berliner Zeitung, July 23, 1994; Von Klemperer, Deutscher Widerstand gegen Hitler—Gedanken eines Historikers und Zeitzeugen, 8–9; Neuss, Raimund, “Wem gehört der Deutsche Widerstand? Der Streit zum 50. Jahrestag des 20. Juli 1944,” German Life and Letters 49 (1996): 101–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
105 The Forschungsgemeinschaft 20. Juli 1944 was founded in 1973 by relatives and friends of men and women in the anti-Nazi opposition to promote the study of the Resistance in the schools of the Federal Republic of Germany. Since 1988 it has held a conference annually in the town of Königswinter near Bonn in which scholars discuss specific themes.
106 Stern, Fritz, Die Menschen des 20. Juli sind ein Teil deutscher und europäischer Geschichte (Berlin: Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand, 2010)Google Scholar, 2. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Die Welt, and Süddeutsche Zeitung published reports on Stern's address.
107 Stern, “The Fragmented People That Is Germany,” 138. See also Stern, Fritz, “Introduction,” in Stern, Fritz, Dreams and Delusions: The Drama of German History (New York: Knopf, 1987)Google Scholar, 4.
108 Stern, Five Germanys I Have Known, 437–41.
109 Stern, Die Menschen des 20. Juli, 2. See his most recent study of the Resistance in Sifton, Elisabeth and Stern, Fritz, No Ordinary Men: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Hans von Dohnanyi, Resisters Against Hitler in Church and State (New York: New York Review Books, 2013).Google Scholar
110 Stern, Five Germanys I Have Known, 428.
111 Fritz Stern, “National Socialism as Temptation,” in Stern, Dreams and Delusions, 149–50.
112 Ibid., 191.
113 Von Klemperer, Deutscher Widerstand gegen Hitler—Gedanken eines Historikers und Zeitzeugen, 3; von Klemperer, Voyage through the Twentieth Century, 106, 130.
114 Von Klemperer, Deutscher Widerstand gegen Hitler—Gedanken eines Historikers und Zeitzeugen, 7; von Klemperer, Klemens, Die “Verbindung zur Grossen Welt.” Die Aussenbeziehungen des deutschen Widerstandes 1938–1945 (Berlin: Gedenkstätte Deutscher Widerstand, 1989).Google Scholar
115 von Klemperer, Klemens, “Widerstand im Zeitalter der Extreme,” in Der militärische Widerstand gegen Hitler im Lichte neuer Kontroversen, ed. Becker, Manuel et al. (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2010), 13–17.Google Scholar
116 See Mosse's history course lecture of December 7, 1979, in the website archive of the George Mosse Program in History at the University of Wisconsin.
117 Mosse, George, Confronting History: A Memoir (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2000)Google Scholar, 73, 78.
118 Ibid., 219. See his exploration of a distinctive German-Jewish identity in Mosse, George L., German Jews beyond Judaism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985)Google Scholar. For an appraisal of Mosse's historical scholarship, see Herf, Jeffrey, “The Historian as Provocateur: George Mosse's Accomplishment and Legacy,” Yad Vashem Studies 29 (2001): 7–27.Google Scholar