Talk:Historikerstreit

message: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Historikerstreit, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.germannotes.com/archive/historikerstreit-p-947.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
:*If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Historikerstreit and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
:*If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Historikerstreit with a link to where we can find that note. 
:*If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Historikerstreit. 
It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Historikerstreit/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Historikerstreit saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. 
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Edbyford (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The identified source is a mirror of Wikipedia. Please note that at the bottom it says, "Article courtesy of Wikipedia.org under Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License ". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem: Historikerstreit

message: I think the article might need to be revised regarding its classification and categorization.  "Right" and "left" only have political meaning within a given context and are often ambiguous.  "Right" can refer to anything from Nazism and fascism to libertarianism, neo-liberalism, religious conservatism, etc.  Likewise, "left" can refer to anything ranging from Stalinism to anarchism, liberalism, democratic socialism, social liberalism, secular humanism, moral relativism, etc.
What seems to be described in this article is a debate between functionalism versus intentionalism.  The functionalist side seems to be generally labeled as "left" while the intentionalist side is labeled "right."  I think it would make more sense to the readers if they were labeled "functionalist" and "intentionalist" rather than "left" or "right," while a section could discuss how each side's views relate to the larger German political landscape.
It's also confusing, because the group which is described as "right" seems to include advocates of two very different positions.  One seems to be the clasic intentionist position - "Hitler and the other Nazi-elite masterminded it," while the other seems to be a variant of the functionalist position - "the German populace as a whole is indeed responsible, but they did it in response to a threat or percieved threat from despotic communism."    So it looks to me like there are at least three distinct positions on this issue.
I've also noticed that the overall tone of the article seems to side more with the group described as "leftist."  (Perhaps this is why the views of the other two groups have been akwardly conflated?...)
All and all, I think the article needs attention and cleanup.
ENpeeOHvee 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hi all cool article good work.Hypnosadist 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with Enpee's comments. Although the debate may have opposed mostly left-wing historians on one hand, with right-wing historians on the other hand, to use these terms too much (as does the article, which could limit itself to a sentence concerning political affiliations) leads one to think that arguments are tied to the left/right dichotomy (i.e. one who would support the uniqueness of Holocaust compared to others genocides would be left-wing, while one who would compare it to others genocides would be
right-wing; this is obviously false, left-wing historians, as well as Hannah Arendt who is more or less of a liberal, left-wing tendency, have underlined roots of the Holocaust in colonial genocides (such as the Herero genocide). Tazmaniacs 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of historiography, isn't  "liberal" normally the opposite of "left-wing"?  I would not describe  Hannah Arendt by any means as a "left-wing" historian (or political scientist, which is what she was - she was not a historian). I would add that I don't think the issue of the Historikerstreit was really about whether the Holocaust was unique.  It was largely about the ways that people like Nolte, Hillgruber, and Stürmer were contextualizing it, and particular with efforts to relegitimize the actions of the Wehrmacht during the war in terms of anti-communism. john k 16:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Germany there are left-liberals and right-wing liberals. It sometimes hinges on the fiscal policies they prefer. But calling Habermas & Co. "Left-to-Centre" is quite an understatement. Habermas was/is essentially a Neo-Marxist. In other words, he's even left of the Old-School Marxist (Communist). The rest wasn't really to different from this. Of course they were upset that their object of worship and fetish (the Holocaust) was to become a subject of discourse on not the paradigm that it still at present is. During the same period, there was also a push for "Holocaust Denial Laws", which is essentially anti-blasphemy legislation. So there were people that were afraid of loosing this important component of their cultural capital. 105.8.3.189 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left and right, POV, and other issues 

message: In the External Links shortly after the article was created nearly two years ago, a "Buffyg" added an exhortation that "strongly recommended" or "strongly "advised" readers to read more about "his [Nolte's] publishers". This is blatantly inappropriate advocacy. Not only that, but it was inaccurate to write "his publishers" in place of "its publisher", "it" being the article. It was ONE article, an interview with Nolte, and ONE publisher. When I say, "with the cumulation of edits increasingly misleading", I mean that as other articles and books by Nolte have been added to the entry, this exhortation would naturally be interpreted to refer to ALL the publishers who published the various Nolte citations. 
In general, the citations for this entry have been shabbily done, in contrast to the body of the entry. Hurmata 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Careless editing

message: On rereading, I have realized the first paragraph was incoherent. The phrase "the dominant interpretation of Nazism" was uninterpretable: first, what *was* this interpretation according to the contibutor; and, dominant among *which* historians: European historians generally, or just the foreign ones alluded to in the preceding sentence? Furthermore, the contributor does not make clear how the Marxist and liberal assessments correspond to the two major questions identified at the start of the paragraph. In fact, the phrase "dominant interpretation . . . was splitted [sic] . . . " is grammatically ambiguous. From the context, it probably means, "there were two rival interpretations competing to be accepted as the dominant [i.e., overwhelmingly accepted] one" -- and this would then be poor grammar; but grammatically, it could also mean "there was already a dominant interpretation, which was represented by Marxist and liberal variants". Since I have no genuine familiarity with this area of history, all I have done was try to render the paragraph self consistent, without quite knowing what the previous contributors meant to claim. Hurmata 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins heading

message: In the more recent parts of the existence of this article, somebody has added mention of the genocides perpetrated against Herero and Nama tribes of Germany's colony of Southwest Africa. The article notes that one of the issues in the Historikerstreit was the validity of equating other genocides to the genocide of the European Jews. Earlier versions of this article mentioned the Armenian and Kampuchean genocides. I have just deleted the mention of the genocides in Southwest Africa. The only reason to do so is skepticism as to whether they *were* invoked by any participants in the Historikerstrei. If not, then it would be misleading to invoke them in this article -- without an explicit annotation that it is the article which is invoking the Southwest African genocides. 
All we need is a reference from a Historikerstreit document confirming which genocides were specifically cited. By the way, it would be nice to confirm that the Armenian and Kampuchean genocide were specifically invoked. But it is likely they were, because the Kampuchean was fresh in people's minds, having occurred just ten years earlier, and the Armenian was well known. But the Herero and Nama genocides are hardly known outside of Germany and Namibia. The articles on it in both English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia fail to mention that any agitation about it took place between about 1910 and 1997. Therefore, please just find where a Historikerstreitler invoked it. Thank you. Hurmata (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read a great deal about the Historikerstreit, and I have never read anything about the Hereo and Nama genocides being mentioned. It is true that the Armenian and Cambodian genocides were talked about quite a bit. --A.S. Brown (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Herero and Nama genocides, the Armenian genocide

message: "Various non-German historians in the immediate post-war era, such as A. J. P. Taylor  and Sir Lewis Namier, argued that Nazism was the culmination of German history and that the vast majority of Germans were responsible for Nazi crimes. Such assessments of Nazism were common among Marxists, who insisted on the economic aspects of Nazism and conceived of it as the culmination of a capitalist crisis, and liberals, who emphasized Hitler's personal role and responsibility, and bypassed the larger problem of the relation of ordinary German people to the regime." - the conclusion does not follow from the premise. In fact, it suggests the opposite.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your quite right, Marek as usual.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  self-contradictory sentence 

message: This article should be about the Historikerstreit only meaning the 1986 debate. Hence, the first article (Origins in post-World War II German historiography) and the introduction should go to something like Vergangenheitsbewältigung, Sonderweg or to an article on (West-)German remembrance policies. This would also do away with many of the points discussed here.Streifenleopard (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove first two articles 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Historikerstreit's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "ReferenceC":
From Karl Dietrich Bracher: Bracher, Karl Dietrich "The Role of Hitler" pages 211-225 from Fascism: A Reader's Guide Harmondsworth, 1976 page 214.
From White Terror (Russia): Litvin, p. 176
From French Revolution: Censer and Hunt, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution, 92.
From Andreas Hillgruber: Hillgruber, Andreas "Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Heinz Janßen, and the Enlightenment in the Year 1986" pp. 222-236 from Forever In The Shadow Of Hitler? edited by Ernst Piper, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1993 p. 223.
From Cultural Revolution: MacFarquhar and Schoenhals, Chapter 22
From Gerhard Ritter: Schwabe, Klaus "Gerhard Ritter" pages 83-103 from Paths of Continuity Washington, D.C. : German Historical Institute, 1994 page 101.
From Martin Broszat: Broszat, Martin "A Plea for the Historicization of National Socialism" pages 77–87 from Reworking the Past edited by Peter Baldiwn, Boston, 1990 pages 85–86
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Historikerstreit]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: Hi!
Without getting into the questions of bias that this talk page seems to enjoy discussing, would it be possible for someone who understands the breadth of the topic to write a lengthier introduction better summarising the rest of the page?
In its current form, beyond understanding that the Historikerstreit existed and that there were two sides, the introduction says very little, while the rest of the page is so long and wordy so as to deter everyone apart from those who are already experts on the topic from reading it.Hentheden (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better introduction/summary 

message: Many of the claims of Notle and Hillgruber seem to have been copied from Nazi propaganda. Why no mention of this in the article? buidhe 06:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi propaganda 

message: The Piper sources probably refer to the book: Ernst Reinhard Piper: Historikerstreit. Die Dokumentation der Kontroverse um die Einzigartigkeit der nationalsozialistischen Judenvernichtung. Piper, München/Zürich 1987
Piper (1993) seems to not map onto anything at all really.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.75.180.34 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piper sources seems meaningless 

message: Why is "Der europäische Bürgerkrieg" so often cited with writings from Evans?
And why is there no mention of Nolte's words about the "transcendental" crime and the issue of singularity there? 88.77.80.245 (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add content about the transcendental crime! Zanahary (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why cite Evans for Nolte?