Historiography

Rewriting American History highlights the changes that have taken place in America from the 19th century to the 20th century. It analyses information contained in various textbooks about American history and highlights how peoples’ views have changed over the years. It highlights the various changes that have taken place and how these changes have affected the American citizens. It outlines the various changes that have taken place in America over the years. It outlines the various historical events and their impacts. It dates back to the “ immigrants” from Southern and Eastern Europe in 1900 and their impact to the social integration.

These migrants were portrayed as a problem since the original American inhabitants viewed them as invaders. This brought about social disharmony among the people, and it compromised the process of social cohesion and integration among the people. By 1930s, many texts emphasized on the gap between “the immigrants” and Americans. This gap widened because the Americans did not learn how to live with these people. By the 1940s, the issue of immigrants had become a contentious issue. All the texts written during that period focused on immigrants and the social collapse they had caused.

There was a clear distinction between the original Americans and the immigrants. The foreigners were discriminated against by the Americans. By I960s, texts ceased to talk of the immigrants as being distinct from the Americans. This was facilitated by the civil right activists who condemned the discrimination in the country. In the mid 60s history reconstruction was written. The rewriting of history was meant to bridge the gap between people of different races. In the 20th century, the issue has been resolved through condemnation of racial discrimination.

Social conflicts have been minimized, and people of different races can live harmoniously. ‘The historian and his facts’ ‘The historian and his facts’ outline what defines history and the role of facts used in defining history. It emphasizes that facts should lay out directly how history should be written. The article extrapolates on the need of imaginative understanding when writing history. History should be viewed as a continuous dialogue between the past and present. History should be an outline of the historians facts. In addition, the historian should be ready to respond to critics.

This will ensure that the historian uses credible facts in his/her quest to rewrite history. Similarities ‘Rewriting American history’ and ‘the historian and his facts’ are similar in the sense that both articles focus on the rewriting of history. In both articles, history is a continuous process which bridges the past and present. History shows how past events have influenced the present. In both articles, the historian provides credible facts to substantiate the contents of his work. Both articles focus on how history has been used as a tool of transformation.

History highlights the past events and shows how the outcomes of the events can be used to educate and transform the lives of people. Differences ‘Rewriting American history’ focuses wholly on the American history. ‘Historian and his facts’, on the other hand, gives a general view of how a historian should use facts in defining history. ‘Rewriting American history’ outlines a series of events that took place in America between the 19th and the 20th century. On the contrary, ‘historian and his facts’ does not track any past events. It gives the overview of how the historian should go about with the rewriting of history.

How To Write A History Essay

Most history essays begin with a inquiry. The first standards in ‘how to compose a history essay’ is to get down with the inquiry being asked and interrogate it for intending. What is inferred by the inquiry? What attack is required? An essay that starts by analyzing the inquiry – reasoning with it – or its significance – explicating the manner you are traveling to near the inquiry and what methods you are traveling to use in replying it, instantly gets you into the topic and is a good start point. History is about construing the available ‘facts’ , so demoing how you interpret the inquiry ‘lays out your stall’ and gives the reader an penetration into what will follow.

The following undertaking is for you to plunge yourself in the topic of the essay. Type cardinal words on the subject into your library hunt engine and choose any texts that seem to cover the subject by and large, or in item. It is difficult to state precisely how many books are required to be read before you have an apprehension of the topic, but it is good to seek to do certain you have read a mix of books: the most recent scholarship on the topic every bit good as a few older books: this ensures you have an apprehension of old attacks to the topic and a broad scope of statements. Often ‘introductions’ and ‘conclusions’ give a good indicant of what the book contains, and their bibliographies can indicate you in the way of farther utile reading stuff. Journal articles are besides an highly valuable resource, and once more can be searched for, and frequently sourced, electronically. Journal articles and books by historiographers are ‘secondary’ beginnings. The other indispensable beginning of information for a history essay are ‘primary’ beginnings: these are most frequently original paperss from the period, but they can besides be grounds that is exposed by the landscape, pictures, unwritten tradition, architecture, archeology, and artifacts. Equally, as history necessarily embraces all other subjects, sometimes a sidelong attack to researching the topic can be honoring and you might include mentions from philosophers, archeologists, anthropologists or from literature.

Once you have immersed yourself in the topic, the following undertaking, before really composing the essay, is to make up one’s mind what attack and statement you feel is right for the inquiry, and can be supported by ‘evidence’. Deciding on your statement – what position you hold of the topic – is critical before working out the construction of the essay. After reading around the topic you will hopefully hold a feel for the grounds you find most dramatic and persuasive ; if you are lucky, you may hold a whole new angle on the topic you want to set frontward. It is of import that you make certain you have collected together, from what you have read, quotes from a mixture of beginnings that either back up your statement – or so that contradict it ( but that can be convincingly argued against ) . It is of import to demo your thorough apprehension of the historiography of the topic and the mentalities and stances taken by other historiographers. An essay should demo alternate statements to your ain and include an account of why you find them unconvincing. Every spot of ‘evidence’ must be footnoted in your concluding essay with the writer and rubric, so it is of import to do accurate notes as you read. New grounds from primary beginnings is particularly helpful in doing your essay original.

Once you feel confident that you have read plenty and hold a good thought of what statement, or statements, you want to set frontward in reply to the inquiry: so reexamine your notes and jot down a construction for the essay. In simple footings this involves an debut, the chief organic structure of the essay with the statement, and a decision. As mentioned, the debut can include an account of the attack you are taking and your apprehension of what the inquiry demands, and should ‘signpost’ the way the essay will take. The cardinal organic structure of the essay will incorporate the grounds you have collected together. The nexus that threads the statement will be your reading of the grounds, and you marshal your ‘narrative’ around that grounds. The decision will bind up the statement ( s ) made, and significantly, include the reply to the inquiry. With your construction in topographic point you are ready to compose up your essay.

There are general ‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ in building a history essay. Traditionally history is written in the 3rd individual. Unless you are a recognized expert in the field, it is best to avoid the ‘I’ word: sentiment should be based on back uping grounds and historiographers are urged to endeavor to be nonsubjective. History should be written in the past tense. Accuracy is critical, and that goes for spelling and punctuation every bit good as transcribing quotation marks and supplying faithful footers, every bit good as a bibliography of everything that you have cited or read and that may hold informed your sentiment in the essay. Citations should be identified by citation Markss ; and unless within a quotation mark, abbreviations should be written in full. Wherever possible, sentences should non be overlong ; even complex ideas can be expressed with lucidity and simpleness. ( Reading it aloud can be helpful in exposing bugs and awkward sentences ). A History essay should, in other words:

1. flow ;
2. be easy to read,
3. and the statement should be telling and easy understood.

Naturally there are many different historical ‘schools’ of idea, political, societal or economic, be they: ‘top down’ , ‘bottom up’ – Marxist – revisionist – longue duree ( the Gallic Annales School ) , or micro and macro histories et Al. These assorted historical stances provide analytical attacks to any given period or capable, and have been, and go on to be used by historiographers to assist them show the grounds and support statements. You may happen acknowledging, beliing, or following one or more of these attacks helpful in building an essay. However, one of the chief jobs for the historiographer is the job of hindsight. The trouble with history is we know how it ended, we know the result, and it is difficult to divide that cognition from any analysis of past events or their causes. Nowadays a teleological attack is seen as unacceptable: this is frequently called the ‘Whig’ position of history, and sees events in the yesteryear as a portion of the inevitable March of ‘progress’ . Events, and statements environing them, should, therefore, be placed merely within the context of their ain clip, and every attempt should be made to animate the thought procedures of the clip and contextualise the bureaus that coloured the events under reappraisal.

So in reply to the job ‘how to compose a history essay’ , foremost understand the inquiry ; so read up all you can on the topic. Following, analyze what you feel is a convincing statement which answers the inquiry ; roll up your ‘facts’ and construction your essay with strict back uping grounds. And, eventually, to rephrase E. H. Carr, retrieve ‘facts’ do non talk for themselves they merely ‘speak’ when the historian calls on them, interprets them, and gives them intending.

The historical interpretation of Otto von Bismarck and Bismarckian Germany has undergone extensive transformation, as historians have had access to a wider variety of sources and evidence, and have held differing social and political presuppositions influencing their portrayal of the German unifier. The changing historical interpretations can be seen over time, as differing contexts and sources influence the portrayal, as early interpretations of Bismarck from the 1870s to the 1920s portrayed Bismarck as a man in charge and as a necessity for Germany to move forward.

The interpretation of Bismarck continued to change throughout the 1930s and 40s as a result of Nazism and the collapse of the Third Reich, the interpretations shifted, and throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s the interpretation of Bismarck has become more balanced, not significantly influenced by political desires, whilst still influenced by social context. Through the study of historical debate focussing between the 1880s and 1980s, the changing interpretations of Bismarck can be illuminated and assessed.

Historiographical debate of Bismarck’s impact upon Germany began almost immediately following his rise to prominence, as the primary initial historiography within Germany demanded a “strong man”, “who would cut the Gordian knot of nationalistic aspirations”. Thus, German historians and the public throughout the 1850s and 1860s desired Bismarck to be portrayed as a benefactor to the German society; however Bismarck was also criticised as being detrimental to the development of Germany. The differing interpretations of Bismarck throughout the 1980s were “between the kleindeutsche and gro? eutshe historians”. As the kleindeutsche historians argued that the unification was a “natural birth”, the gro? deutshe viewed it as a “caesarean section”. The kleindeutshe school of though was largely composed of nationalist historians Heinrich von Sybel and Treitschke. Treitschke argued that the subjection of Germany was an inevitable price of unification, countering Mommsen’s critique arguing that “the injury done by the Bismarckian era is infinitely greater than its benefits…the subjugation of the German spirit was a misfortune which cannot be undone”. The nationalist-liberal interpretation of Bismarck was reflected significantly in the publications of the late 19th Century historians as for these historians, “Bismarck became the man with the masterplan”, and thus following the unification in 1871 “there was a feeling of fulfilment amongst historians…the status quo had to be supported”. The impact of the historian’s context is clearly shown as “early biographies by German historians also show us the extent to which the political Zeitgeist made them distort the picture of Bismarck”. The sources available to the historians of the 1880s and 1890s also influenced their interpretation of Bismarck as “the documents were chosen by Bismarck himself”, which has been clearly shown to have impacted upon the writings of the German nationalist historian, Sybel, as Sybel’s writings were checked by Bismarck prior to publication. Thus, as a result of the impact of sources and context, Sybel portrayed Bismarck as a good servant who did his duty to his nation. The writings of the late 19th Century, 1871 to the early 20th Century 1910 were significantly influenced by the nationalist-liberal interpretation of the time and context. The German defeat in the First World War, in 1918 was expected to have created a revision in German historiography however, this was not the case, as the failures of WWI were averted and blamed on others through the “Stab in the back” ideology, the Bismarck myth did not become tainted.

The roots of the myth of Bismarck were planted throughout the 1920s as “German historians of the twenties and thirties were driven by the idea of giving their countrymen an unchallengeable hero in Bismarck”. The struggles of the German nation following the defeat in WWI and the social and political revolution resulted in Germany needing Bismarck “to provide courage and orientation”, and thus the manufactured interpretation of Bismarck was one of guidance and success. Publications throughout this time were limited; however the ability to understand Bismarck’s impact was extensively amplified as “new documents were released from the foreign office archives”. Thus as a result of the flourish of foreign policy research, the 1920 interpretation of Bismarck’s foreign policy portrayed it as “an example of modesty and wisdom”. The writings of Emil Ludwig, Geschichte eines Kampfers in 1928 substantiates this romantic and savour view of Bismarck, as “Bismarck’s life is portrayed as an ancient Greek drama with a Faustian hero”.

The historiography surrounding Bismarck was significantly altered following the collapse of the Weimar Republic and the subsequent rise of the Nazis, as the Nazi regime constantly utilised Bismarck to justify themselves. They “found willing executioners in historians like Marcks to interpret their value-system in Bismarckian terms”. The Nazis manipulated Bismarck and Bismarck’s historical legacy to benefit them as “on the ‘Day of Potsdam’, where he (Hitler) glowingly praised his predecessor’s work which had, in his view, started the ‘ascent’ of the German people”. Hitler aimed at creating links with Bismarck to justify his expansionary foreign policy, such as the Anschluss in 1938, and to gain credit and popularity through association with Bismarck. The influence of the rise of Nazism upon historiography is highlighted by Wilhelm Mommsen, originally a Republican, as he wrote Politische Geschichte von Bismarck bis zur Gegenwart 1850 – 1933, (1935), linking Bismarck to Hitler. Mommsen argued that “the first generation fulfilled the yearnings of the Germans and built the empire under Bismarck’s guidance,…. he second ossified…and the third grew up in the war and built a country that, though connected with Bismarck’s creation, also outgrew it in many ways”. Mommsen argued for the Third Reich to have completed the structural complexities of society and industry that Bismarck had created. The writings of Bismarck became linked to Hitler as a result of the context in which historians wrote, firstly in one of persecution and censorship, however, German historians were not opponents of Hitler, and thus manipulated the history of Bismarck to benefit the Nazi Regime, of which they favoured. Following the collapse of the Third Reich after the Second World War in 1945, “Bismarck, the creator of the nation, was bound to be seen differently”. Friedrich Meinecke argued that historians should adopt entirely new perspectives regarding Germany’s past, “the staggering course of the First, and still more the Second World War no longer permits the question to be ignored whether the seeds of later evil were not already present in the Bismarckian Reich”. Whilst there was a negative assessment of Bismarck’s role in the path of atrocities, German historians also “preferred to hark back to Bismarck’s greatness to show up the depth of failure among his successors”. Due to the actions of Hitler and the Nazi state, the role of Bismarck was investigated as to how far he enabled the dictatorial powers and influenced the structures of war, which were experienced throughout Europe and as substantiated by Hans Hallmann, “the question for German historians after the Second World War was, therefore: how should one write about Bismarck after Hitler? The criticism was largely influenced by the context of which the historians were writing in, as the collapse of the Reich signalled a supposed failure in Bismarck, and questioned his success intentions, as “criticism of Bismarck centred rather unrealistically on the problem of deciding whether a German nation-state or a German-dominated Central Europe should have been created”. A. J. P. Taylor’s, Bismarck: the man and the statesman written in 1955, typified post war historical thought, questioning the role of Bismarck in the collapse of democracy.

Taylor contrasted the critical nature of Bismarck arguing for the general success of Bismarck. Taylor’s British context allowed him to keep “a healthy distance from the Bismarck myth”, which resulted in the influencing of many German historians, and thus enabled perspective. He argued for the understanding of Bismarck as a manipulator, due to his ability to avert problematic confrontations, as “on such occasions one can see not only Bismarck’s great intellectual gifts, but a manipulative emotional intelligence”. Taylor utilised psychoanalysis of Bismarck to explain the factors impacting upon his policies, and as argued by Urbach was “especially effective in describing Bismarck’s youth”. Through utilising a differing methodology of historical examination, Taylor received and portrayed a differing perspective of Bismarck and Bismarck’s role in Germany, portraying Bismarck as “a man who wanted peace for his country and helped to give Europe such peace for forty years”, whilst the majority of his countrymen would associate Bismarck with ‘iron, three wars and as the predecessor of Hitler’”. The “revival of respect and even veneration for Bismarck” was countered significantly in the “passionately partisan criticism of Bismarck’s work”, Bismarck and German Empire (1963) of Erich Eyck. Eyck was typically a liberal historian, and thus opposed Bismarck, from “the standpoint of iustitia fundamentum regnorum”, arguing that justice should be the major foundation of governance, as Eyck wrote “in the tradition of the great liberal opponents of Bismarck.

Eyck argues that Bismarck was the “hero of violent genius”, through his 3 volume biography of which is greatly influenced by his liberal standpoint and historical context of persecution by Hitler, and his background as a lawyer as he “despised Bismarck’s lack of respect for the rule of law”. Eyck continually criticised Bismarck’s detrimental impact upon liberalism within Germany and “passionately condemned Bismarck’s cynicism towards liberal, democratic and humanitarian ideals”, which he states to have “incapacitated the people”. Bismarck and German Empire influenced the historiography of the Bismarckian topic among German and international historians, presenting “an interpretation neoconservative in nature”. This criticism of Bismarck has influenced the German historian, Hans Rothfels, whom followed Eyck, arguing that “Eyck’s belief in a ‘liberal option’ for a united Germany was not justified, that no one but Bismarck could have united Germany”. Fritz Fischer’s Germany’s Aims in the First World War (1968) signalled the “first significant German historian to blame Germany for starting the war”.

Fritz Fischer’s publication significantly demonized Bismarck and Bismarck’s Germany, arguing for the path that Bismarck had essentially led the path to the German cause of the First World War. Fischer’s writings and interpretation of Bismarck largely contradicted the mainstream views of Bismarck and Bismarck’s Germany, and as substantiated by Feuchtwanger, “It contradicted much of the work done in Germany on the war guilt question and caused great controversy”.

The controversial nature of Fischer’s publication resulted however in a flow of reassessments of his original publications, still maintaining the criticism of Bismarck and resulting in a “massive attack on Bismarck’s creation”. The flow of secondary publications created a Fischer school of historical thought, which “stood on the political left and its opponents on the political right”.

Through the publication of Fritz Fischer’s Germany’s Aims in the First World War, the German historian utilized “political, economic, social and cultural evidence”, to persuade and research, thus creating a revision of historiography. The debate between Fischer and the right created significant disruption within the history fraternity, as “The left, who believed in critical social history, felt cheated because…the historical establishment strongly resisted their new and much more critical view of German history”. The Fischer school of historical thought was extensively revised in the 1980s, of which Bruce Waller refers to as the ‘conservative 1980s’. Edgar Feuchtwanger claims, “Revisionism provokes further revision”, as “German historians and the population in general began to view the past more reverently”. The political complexities of the Bismarckian era influenced and resulted in a change of interpretations of Bismarck Bismarck’s Germany, as moves to the more political right occurred, and thus a return to a more approving view of Bismarck was undertaken.

Through one of the most revered and respected historians on Bismarck, Otto Pflanze’s trilogy Bismarck and the Development of Germany (1963, but reprinted and reassessed in 1990), significant in grounds have been made to the overall historical value of the Bismarckian era. Bismarck’s assessment was, as argued by Kraehe, “taking into particular account the work of Helmut Bohme” whom Pflanze critiques, “Bohme’s account of the relationship between economic and political forces in domestic politics during the period of unification also appears overstated”. Pflanze argues against the typical liberal-nationalist interpretation arguing “the primacy of political and individual action”, continuing against the nationalist sentiment of early German historians in arguing that “the war of 1866 was neither inevitable nor necessary”. Pflanze significantly impacted upon historiography, contrasting the Fischer approach to German and Bismarckian history, although still remaining critical of Bismarck and Bismarck’s Germany. Kraehe argues that to Pflanze, “Bismarck was always larger than life”, due to the immense coverage and detail provided in Pflanze’s trilogy.

Pflanze uses differing concepts of investigation to outline the Bismarckian era, as outlined by Waller, “Pflanze uses psychological insight and works with Freudian concepts”. Pflanze in essence portrays a structuralist interpretation of Bismarck’s unification and impact, arguing that Bismarck took taking advantage of certain opportunities, “Pflanze stresses Bismarck’s flexibility, his concern to keep options open”. Pflanze’s changed views of Bismarckian historiography can be seen due to his “return to the sources”, and thus uses a “psychological history”, hich as Urbach concludes, enabled him to “analyse in detail”. Pflanze openly argued for the structuralist interpretation of Bismarck, within the nature of Bismarck’s opportunism and manipulation of events, rather than intentionally staging events. The 1980s biography Bismarck: The White Revolutionary, by Lothar Gall significantly impacted upon the historiography of Bismarck and Bismarck’s Germany, as Waller describes, “It is probably the most searching biography we have”. Lothar Gall portrays Bismarck as a revolutionary, however conservative in nature. As highlighted by Bruce Waller, Gall wrote Bismarck: The White Revolutionary “to counter the school of historians whom the individual matters little”, and thus like Pflanze investigated the implications of an individual upon a society. Whilst, “unlike Pflanze, Gall did not uncover new sources” he utilised the analysis of existing Bismarckian sources to investigate the true impact of Bismarck upon 19th Century Germany.

Whilst Waller points out that “most historians, but not the majority of students, have now consigned the view of Bismarck as a reactionary to history’s dust bin”, Gall’s major investigation was to highlight the reactionary nature of Bismarck’s role as chancellor. Gall’s 1980 biography was aiming to “describe the circumstances the chancellor faced and then to see the way he reacted to them”, and as highlighted by Urbach, “Gall wanted to show how Bismarck, when faced with developments he had not created himself, turned them to his advantage”. Thus, due to Galls idealisation that Bismarck was a reactionary, he “portrayed him after 1871 as the Zauberlehrling (sorcerer’s apprentice)”, arguing that he had lost his magic touch, an argument that may have been “the most devastating criticism of the man yet”.  Thus Gall portrayed Bismarck as a chancellor that “was not the great genius who knew and guessed it all well in advance”, as “Gall argues that the iron chancellor conjured up powers – nationalism, liberalism, and economic modernisation – which spun out of control and that therefore what he achieved was not what he had striven for”. Gall’s interpretation of Bismarck has been seen as largely critical, however still remains a significant German interpretation, countering the initial nationalist-liberal interpretations portraying Bismarck as totally in charge, whilst also countering the arguments that Bismarck’s planning was the leeway for Hitler’s ascendancy and dictatorship. In essence Gall identified Bismarck’s accomplishment as “imperfect and – to a point – unintended”. As noted by Urbach, Bismarck himself hinted at his own imperfection, “one cannot possibly make history, although one can always learn from it how one should lead the political life of a great people in accordance with their development and their historical destiny”.

The Bismarckian historical debate was notably influenced by the writings of Ernst Engelberg, writing in the 1980s, and proposing an altered interpretation of Bismarck. Engelberg as a Marxist “interpreted the Reichsgrundung as a phase of social progress that helped the working class to develop from a national base”. Whilst Waller argues that “Engelberg was a life-long communist and one of East Germany’s leading historians who in the past had insisted on strict Marxist history”, he argues that his biography of Bismarck is not fully weighted on Marxist ideology, “it additionally gives full weight to psychological and religious as well as to political and economic factors”. Engelberg, like Gall, did not utilise his own research and discover new sources, as stated by Urbach, “Engelberg used much of the old research of Erich Marcks and A.

O. Meyer”, however she continues by stating Engelberg “includes more analysis”. Engelberg’s argument of Bismarck is similar, yet differing to Gall’s, as both historians “see Bismarck as someone who tried to control the current of the time and not as a creator”, and thus to some extent was critical of Bismarck’s power, however Engelberg also defended the power of Bismarck stating that “despite the machinations, Bismarck was far from acting like an adventurer…On the contrary his preparations…proved to be prudent”. Waller states that Engelberg’s argument was influenced by “Prussianism”, highlighting Engelberg’s biography to be “Prussian to the extent of disparaging the attitudes and actions of other Germans, especially those who attempted to thwart Bismarck’s initiatives”. Engelberg proposed a favourable interpretation of Bismarck in his 1980s biography, arguing that whilst his control was not always complete, his ability was.

Engelberg critiqued the post war historiography arguing that Bismarck’s successors were “responsible for gambling away the inheritance”, and thus links made between Bismarck and the collapse of democracy were perverse. The historical interpretations of Otto von Bismarck have undergone an extensive change, due to changing social and ideological contexts of historians that have assessed the chancellor and his impact upon Germany.

The historical writings throughout time, from the early historians on Bismarck, such as Heinrich von Sybel, historians writing in the times of Nazism, and following the collapse of Nazism have all succeeded in assessing the personality and his impact, however were unable to emancipate themselves from their social and political contexts, and thus the interpretations of Bismarck have reflected these influences. The most recent assessments of Bismarck have also significantly transformed the historiographical debate; however have successfully avoided being overly impacted upon by context, and thus present an emancipated history of Bismarck and his impact upon Germany. The flourishing debate over the Bismarckian era will result in continual changing interpretations of the statesman; however the discovery of new sources and evidence highlights the sequential move towards the objective portrayal of Otto von Bismarck and Bismarckian Germany.

References

1. Urbach, Karina, (1998). Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. Pp 1143
2. Ibid. , p. 1143. Ibid. , p. 1144. Jaspers, Karl, (1960). Freiheit und Wiedervereinigung. Munich. Pp. 42
3. Heinrich v. Treitschke. (1867 – 97) Historische und politische Aufsatze. 4 volumes. Leipzig, (1874 – 79) Zehn Jahre deutscher Kampfre: Schriften zur Tagespolitik 1865 – 1879). 2 volumes. Berlin.
4. Kohn, Hans, (1961). The mind of Germany: education of a nation. London. Pp 188
5. Urbach, Karina, (1998). Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. Pp 1144 [8] Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, (1976). Bismarck und der Imperialismus. Munich. Pp. 15 [9] Ibid. , p. 1144.
6. Seier, Helmut, “Heinrich v Sybel”, in Wehler, Deutsche Historiker. Pp. 144
7. Ibid. , p. 144.
8. Urbach, Karina, (1998). “Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. , p. 1145.
9. There were only a few critical voices emerging. For example: Johannes Ziekursch, Politische Geschichte des neuen deutschen Kaiserreiches (3 volumes. Frankfurt. 1925 – 1930); Ulrich Noack, Bismarcks Friedenspolitik (Leipzig 1928).
10. Zmarzlik. Das Bismarckbild. Pp. 19.
11. Urbach, Karina, (1998). “Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. , p. 1148.
12. Ibid. , p. 1148.
13. Rothfels, Hans, (1924). Bismarck’s englische Bundnispolitik. Berlin.
14. Urbach, Karina, (1998). Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. , p. 1149.
15. Ibid. , p. 1150
16. Ibid. , p. 1150
17. Meaning he was in favour of the Weimar Republic, which collapsed in 1933, resulting in Hitler’s ascendancy
18. Mommsen, Wilhelm, (1935). Politische Geschichte von Bismarck bis zur Gegenwart 1850 – 1933. Frankfurt. Pp. 252
19. Urbach, Karina, (1998). “Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 998 Cambridge University Press. , p. 1151.
20. Quoted from Gall, ed. , “Geschiechtsschreibung”, pp9
21. Meinecke, Friedrich (1946). “Die deutsche Katastrophe: Betrachtungen und Erinnerungen”. Wiesbaden. Pp.
22. Feuchtwanger, Edgar (2001) Imperial Germany 1850-1918. New York and London: Routledge
23. Hallmann, Hans (1972). “Revision des Bismarckbildes : die Diskussion der deutschen Fachhistoriker 1945-1955”. Darmstadt
24. Waller, Bruce (1998). “Bismarck: Bruce Waller looks at recent debate about modern Germany’s greatest statesman”. History Review. March 1st. p. 41.
25. Urbach, Karina (1998). Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. Pp 1154
26. Ibid. , p. 1154.
27. Ibid. , p. 1154.
28. Taylor interview with the Westdeutscher Reundfunk, 31 March 1965
29. Urbach, Karina (1998). “Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. Pp 1154
30. Waller, Bruce (1998). “Bismarck: Bruce Waller looks at recent debate about modern Germany’s greatest statesman”.
31. History Review. March 1st. [35] Sturmer, Michael (1971). “Bismarck in Perspective”, Central European History 4. Vermont.
32. Feuchtwanger, Edgar (2001) Imperial Germany 1850-1918. New York and London: Routledge
33. Footnotes 11 of Michael Sturmer [38] Urbach, Karina (1998). “Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. Pp 1142
34. Ibid. , p. 1142. [40] Quoted in Schoeps, Hans-Joachim (1964). “Unbewaltigte Geshichte: Stationen deutchen Schicksals seit 1793”. Berlin.
35. Pp 108
36. Urbach, Karina (1998). “Historiographical Review, Between Saviour and Villain: 100 years of Bismarck Biographies”. The Historical Journal. Printed in the United Kingdom. 1998 Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1142
37. Sturmer, Michael (1971). “Bismarck in Perspective”, Central European History 4. Vermont.
39. Journal of Modern History 40. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. , p. 125. [55] Kraehe, Enno, (1990). ‘Review Article on Otto Pflanze’s Bismarck Trilogy’, Central European History, 23, 4. Emory University Press, Atlanta. , p. 369.
40. Ibid. , p. 369.
41. Ibid. , p. 369.
42. Waller, Bruce (1998). “Bismarck: Bruce Waller looks at recent debate about modern Germany’s greatest statesman”. History Review. March 1st.
43. Ibid. , p. 43.

Steven Brust once wrote: “In my opinion, the proper way to judge a novel is this: Does it give one an accurate reflection of the moods and characteristics of a particular group of people in a particular place at a particular time? If so, it has value. Otherwise, it has none. ” (Brust, Steven. 2005. Sethra Lavode). Brust, quite clearly has joined this debate regarding literary theories. He claims that if aspects of literary piece, aside from its own merits, are not significant then it has no worth.

It is continually and widely argued by critics of literature whether a book should be based on its literary merits alone, or if only certain aspects, such as history, regarding its writing should be relevant. The relationship between history and literary work is often questioned. There are four main models that have been devised to explain this. The first regards a piece literary work as universal and belonging to no time period. The model states that historical context has no significance in literary texts, and that both should remain autonomous from each other.

Critics are concerned with literary texts being artefacts in themselves that surpass the possibilities of a particular time, thus the idea of specific historical context is dismissed. R. S. Crane supports this view and in an essay said history is part of “the general history of culture” whereas literature should be “imaginative works considered with respect to those qualities which can truly be said to be timeless… quite apart from any knowledge of their origin or historical affiliation” (Crane, Ronald. 1967. History versus Criticism in the study of literature’, in The idea of the Humanities and Other Essays Critical and Historical, Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press). In short, this model centres around the basis that a literary work should be judged on its, as Crane said, ‘timeless qualities’ for example the quality of its linguistic features and other aspects that give a work literary merits. The second model regarding history and literature is based on the idea that the historical context of a literary piece helps lead to proper understanding of it.

A text is produced within a certain historical context but this should remain separate from the literary context. This model is often favoured by critics that analyse literary texts by considering their historical background and context. This can be regarded to any aspect whether it is: political, cultural or linguistic. A 1934 study by Basil Willey: The Seventeenth Century Background: Studies in the Thought of the Age in Relation to Poetry and Religion shows even by its title a support for this model.

It is implied that Willey and similar critics agree that historical context forms a foundation of understanding when studying a literary text. They would argue that literary work in order to be analysed must be understood and to be understood needs to be looked at in respects to its historical context. The third model when looking at the relationship between pieces of literature and history is essentially the opposite of the second. It centres on the idea that a literary piece can help us understand the time in which it is set.

This is explanation talks about realist texts in particular and how they can provide creative depictions of historical events or periods. It assumes that literary texts are almost subordinate to their historical context and they are reflections of their time. For example Keith Thomas appeals to Shakespeare to justify this point of view: “In Shakespeare’s plays, the curses pronounced by the characters invariably work… not just for dramatic effect” but that “it as a moral necessity that the poor and the injured should be believed to have this power of retaliation when all else failed” (Thomas, Keith. 971. Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Century England. London: Wensfield and Nicolson). This model is known as the reflective approach, it regards literary work as an aid to develop our knowledge of history using the historical context of a literary piece. The last model regarding literature and history is probably the most complex, though it is also seen as the most interesting to theorists. It claims that literary texts are connected with other discourses and this makes literature itself a part of history that is continually being written.

Critics that agree with this theory, widely known as ‘new historicists’, argue that the question of the relationship between history and literature is wrong; despite their differences the last three models assume that ‘history’ and ‘literature’ are fundamentally separate. They distinguish between the interpretations of literary texts and the transparency of history. Stephen Greenblatt writes in an essay: “methodological and self-conscious is one of the distinguishing marks of the new historicism in cultural studies as opposed to historicism based upon faith in the transparency of signs and nterpretive procedures” (Greenblatt, Stephen. 1990. ‘Towards a poetic of Culture’, in Learning to Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture. London: Routledge). Hence, new historicists argue that the making of the literary texts is a cultural practice, and only differ in their specific mode. No absolute distinction can be made between literary and other cultural practices. Theorists such as Hayden White, claim that this model implies that just like literary texts the ‘facts’ of history need to be read (tracing the past is similar to telling a story).

In an extract from White’s book, Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism, He writes: Histories ought never to be read as unambiguous signs… but rather as symbolic structures, extended metaphors, that ‘liken’ the events reported in them to some form with which we have already become familiar in our literary culture… By the very constitution of a set of events in such a way as to make a comprehensible story out of them, the historian changes those events with the symbolic significance of a comprehensible plot structure. (White, Hayden. 1991. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism.

Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press) Considering this we would come to the conclusion that methods of (critical) analysis should be suitable for both history and literary texts. In short, a new historicist perspective think that in the reading of a literary text the idea of historical context cannot be settled, and that this context is decided by a negotiation between the text and the reader Ultimately, the majority of literary theorists fall on the side that accepts the use and aid historical context when critically analysing a literary text.

Only the first model seems to completely disregard historical context in literary work for the belief that a piece of literature should be ‘timeless’. The second and third model accept historical context as part of the method of analysing a literary piece. However, still confidently differentiate between literature and history, they are seen as merely aids for each other.

The last model is set apart from the rest as it does not polarise the categories and treats them as to intertwine subjects that cannot be considered without each other. In my opinion historical context should be relevant to the reading of literary text, it is inevitable that the two should overlap especially during an in depth analysis of a literary text.

Section A: Plan of the Investigation

The investigation will explore the question: How did the Great Depression begin in Germany and what are its impacts on the economy? The scope of my research will mainly focus on the rise of the Great Depression in Germany, and its effects on the country’s economy. The breath of the research will cover between the periods of 1924 to 1933. The method used will be to gather mainly from secondary sources, such as books and websites, as well some primary sources, like pictures or autobiography written by the people in that time.

Also, I’ll compared and contrast this evidence, and evaluate the origin and purpose of my source for their limitation and reliability. Two sources – an autobiography ‘Children of the Unemployed’ written by Margot. L and textbook ‘Germany 1918-45’ by Josh Brooman – will be evaluated in depth as they provide major evidences. Finally, a conclusion will be settled based

upon the evidences and source evaluation.

Section B: Summary of Evidences

1. Before the Great Depression
A. Weimar Republic
Germany’s Weimer Republic was formed in 1919.1
Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to pay reparations to other countries like France.2

B. Dawes Plan
After the inflation in 1923, Germany’s recovery had been brought largely by American investment, this became a direct result of Dawes Plan in 1924.3 Dawes Plan was formulated to help the Weimar Republic out of hyperinflation and to stabilize its economy.4 The United State gave Germany a loan of 800 million marks to get the Dawes Plan started.5 Under Dawes Plan, Germany agreed to pay as much reparations as it could afford each year, starting with 1000 million marks.

C. American Loans
After Germany no longer suffered from inflation, in 1924 to 1929 foreign banks were willing to lend money approximately 25000 million gold mark to German borrowers.7

2. Economy Impacts on Germany
A. US respond to the Great Depression

In October 1929, the New York stock exchange on Wall Street crashed. They pull out their investment from Germany and demand immediate repayment.8 America gave Germany 90 days to re-pay money loaned to them.9 Most countries slid into depression as overseas markets suddenly declined.10 German business that had managed without loan was badly affected.11 In 1930, the United States started the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which stopped Germany and other foreign companies from selling their products in U.S. markets. German industrialists lost access to US markets and can’t obtain credit. Many industrial companies and factories either closed or shrank.13 In the summer of 1931, the Austrian Kreditanstalt Bank fell and soon the German Norddeutsche Wollkammerei and Darmstadterbank collapsed. 14

B. Fall in Economy
The value of German exports fell by 55%, from £630 million in 1929 to £280 million in 1931.15 In 1932, Germany’s industrial output fell to 40% of the 1929 level.16 Large mass of peasantry was affected by the fall in agricultural prices.17

C. Unemployment

The number of unemployment rose to more than six million by the early 1932.18. 60% of each new university graduating class was out of work.19 Millions of German workers had to put up with low wages, short-time working and worse conditions of work.20 German workers were paid unemployment benefit by the government for 26 weeks.21 An unemployed German looking for work in 1930.

Her placard says, “I am a trained shorthand typist, out of work, looking for any kind of work.”22 A 13 years old girl explains the system of crisis payment from the government, “First my father went to sign for the dole. Later, when the time during which he could sign on ran out, he got ‘crisis benefit’. He had to collect the money from the welfare. This was not enough to manage on. I often saw how my mother brooded over the question of clothing and feeding our family of six.”23

Section C: An Evaluation of Sources

Primary Source

L, Margot. Die Kinder der Arbeitslosen (Children of the unemployed). Ruth Weiland: 1993. The origin of the source is valuable because it’s a primary source. The author is a 13 years old girl, who lived in Ruth Weiland, Germany, during the period of the Great Depression from 1929 to 1933. Through her personal experiences, we have direct understanding of the economic and social situation in Germany at that time. She explained the system of crisis benefit her father has to collect in able to run the family life.

The purpose of her autobiography was to write down what she saw and experience while Germany suffered from massive rise of unemployed. However, there are limitations to this source because the reader only can understand the situation from her perspective, but not in general. As well, she was just 13 years old when she wrote her autobiography. Therefore she might not yet fully understand the system of crisis benefit and economy downfall of that time.

Secondary Source

Brooman, Josh. Germany 1918-45. London: Pearson Education, 2005. (accessed May 5, 2013). The origin of the source is valuable because the publishing company Pearson, is one of the largest and well known publisher in the world.24 The author they will pick and the book they will publish, must be in excellent quality and content, providing with authentic facts of history. Therefore they can able to sell the product, and attract people to buy and study about it. Moreover in this book, they provided many primary sources and understandable but detailed descriptions.

The purpose of this textbook is to educated students and people who are interest in German’s history during the period of Weimar and Nazi. The limitations of the book is that this was publish in England and written in English, therefore the content might not be as accurate as the one producing and written in Germany. As well, the book only tell us about the factual stuff, but they are possibility that it’s not the truth. Moreover, we can’t get any primary perspective of the people at that time.

Section D: Analysis

Before the Great Depression, Germany has a new Republic called Weimer that was formed in 1919.25 The new republic had serious weaknesses from the start. People blamed the government because of the country’s defeat and post war humiliation caused by the Treaty of Versailles. Under the Treaty of Versailles, Germany had to pay reparations to other countries like France and England in able to let those countries to build up their industry again.26 Germany soon faces many economic problems and drastic inflation.

After the inflation in 1923, Germany’s recovery had been carried largely by American investment, and this became a direct result of Dawes Plan in 1924.27 Dawes Plan was formulated to help the Weimar Republic out of hyperinflation and to a form of stability in its economy.28 The United State gave Germany a loan of 800 million marks to get the Dawes Plan started.29 Under Dawes Plan, Germany agreed to pay as much reparations as it could afford each year, starting with 1000 million marks.30 After Germany has no longer suffered from inflation. In between 1924 to 1929, foreign banks mostly American were willing to lend money approximately 25000 million gold mark to German borrowers.

However, Germany debts from the United State, later became the main reason that lead to the economic downfall in Germany during the Great Depression. In October 1929, a serious disaster struck the New York stock exchange on Wall Street. The stock value dropped severely, various economic problems began to emerge in the United States.32 The Americans had no option but to pull out their investment from Germany and demand immediate repayment. America gave Germany 90 days to re-pay the money that was loaned to them.33 In this period of time, most countries in the world slid into a depression as overseas markets for their goods suddenly declined.

Thus, German’s business which had managed without loaning money from the US were badly affected, too. In 1930, the United States started the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which is a new law that restricted Germany and other foreign companies from selling their products in U.S. markets,35 in able to secure their domestic demanded market, and it could efficiently decrease the unemployment rate and suppress the inflation. However, the sudden appearance of the tariff, German industrialists lost access to US markets and found that they couldn’t obtain the credit anymore.36 In result of this, many industrial companies and factories either closed or shrank.

Hence, the sudden decrease of German business led to the fall in German exports and the rise of unemployment rate. The value of German exports fell by 55%, from £630 million in 1929 to £280 million in 1931.37 Also, large mass of peasantry was affected by the sharp fall in agricultural prices. 38Furthermore, in the summer of 1931, under the pressure from the Great Depression, the Austrian Kreditanstalt Bank fell and followed by the German Norddeutsche Wollkammerei and Darmstadter bank also collapsed.

Millions of German workers had to start put up with low wages, short-time working and worse conditions of work.40 The placard of an unemployed German looking for work in 1930 says, “I am a trained shorthand typist, out of work, looking for any kind of work.”41 Her situation told that even the trained worker or professionals were also having high chance of not getting a job. Statistic stated that 60% of each new university graduating class at that time was out of work.

The Great Depression has significantly changed impact on the employment opportunities. The number of registered unemployed rose to more than six million by early 1932.43 Also, there were between one and three million jobless people who could not or did not register as unemployed. In total, there were between seven to nine million Germans that were out of work by 1932.44 This significant numbers really strike Germany’s economy into downfall, approximately 23 million people were directly affected by this.

People became poorer with not enough money to survive. Hence, the government were force to subsidize and aid those German workers by paying unemployment benefit for 26 weeks.46 Around that time, a 13 years old German girl who live during the period of the Great Depression explained the system of crisis payment in a part of her autobiography, she wrote, “First my father went to sign for the dole. Later, when the time during which he could sign on ran out, he got ‘crisis benefit’. He had to collect the money from the welfare. This was not enough to manage on. I often saw how my mother brooded over the question of clothing and feeding our family of six.”47 Through her personal experiences, we know that the Weimar government could only afford specific amount of money to each German workers, the money each person got was hardly enough from maintain and survive their family.

Section E: Conclusion

It is clear that Germany’s debts from the United States played a major part to the rise of the Great Depression in Germany, and it’s clear that the Great Depression impact deeply on the economy. When the Great Depression started, US demanded the immediate repayment, Germany straight away get effected, and couldn’t afford the debts which led to many economic problems. The major effects are, the fell in exports product, large shrank in German’s industrialist and companies, and that lead to the most significant influence, the large mass of unemployed in Germany, 1932.