1 Immanuel, Geiss et al., Ansichten einer künftigen Geschichtswissenschaft (Munich, 1974), pp. 15ffGoogle Scholar., and Conze, Werner, “Die deutsche Geschichtswissenschaft seit 1945: Bedingungen und Ergebnisse,” Historische Zeitschrift 225 (1977): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Krieger, Leonard, “European History in America,” in Higham, John, History (Princeton, 1965).Google Scholar Cf. also Landes, David S. and Tilly, Charles, History as Social Science (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1971).Google Scholar

3 Ritter, Gerhard, Das deutsche Problem, rev. ed. (Munich, 1962), p. 8Google Scholar; Dehio, Ludwig, Gleichgewicht oder Hegemonie? (Krefeld, 1948)Google Scholar, and Holborn, Hajo, The Political Collapse of Europe (New York, 1951).Google Scholar

4 Fischer, Fritz, Griff nach der Weltmacht (Düsseldorf, 1961)Google Scholar trans. as Germany's Aims in the First World War (New York, 1967), and Der Krieg der Illusionen (Düsseldorf, 1969) trans. as War of Illusions (New York, 1974). For summaries of the voluminous literature cf. Jarausch, Konrad H., “World Power or Tragic Fate? The Kriegsschuldfrage as Historical Neurosis,” Central European History 5 (1972): 72ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Moses, John, The Politics of Illusion (New York, 1975).Google Scholar

5 See the discussion in Kocka, Jürgen, “Theorien in der Sozial- und Gesellschaftsgeschichte,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975): 9–42.Google Scholar Cf. the controversy between Hillgruber, Andreas, “Politische Geschichte in moderner Sicht,” Historische Zeitschrift 216 (1973): 529–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, “Moderne Politikgeschichte oder ‘Grosse Politik der Kabinette’?” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975): 344–69Google Scholar, refereed by Schmidt, Gustav, “Wozu noch ‘politische Geschichte’?” Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 1975, no. 17, pp. 21–45.Google Scholar

6 Heinrich, August Winkler, ed., Organisierter Kapitalismus (Göttingen, 1973).Google Scholar Cf. also Barkin's, Kenneth critique, “Organized Capitalism,” Journal of Modern History 47 (1975): 125ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Wehler, H.-U., Das deutsche Kaiserreich 1871–1918 (Göttingen, 1973)Google Scholar, based on his earlier Bismarck und der Imperialismus, 3rd ed. (Cologne, 1972). See also Zmarzlik, Hans-Günter, “Das Kaiserreich in Neuer Sicht?” Historische Zeitschrift 222 (1976): 105–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Mayer, Arno J., Dynamics of Counterrevolution in Europe 1870–1956 (New York, 1971)Google Scholar, and the ensuing controversy with Peter Loewenberg, Joachim Remak, and Paul Schroeder in the pages of the Journal of Modern History.

9 Hillgruber, Andreas, Kontinität und Diskontinuität in der deutschen Aussenpolitik von Bismarck bis Hitler (Düsseldorf, 1969)Google Scholar, and Hildebrand, Klaus, The Foreign Policy of the Third Reich (Berkeley, 1973)Google Scholar, as well as “Innenpolitische Antriebskräfte der nationalsozialistischen Aussenpolitik,” in Wehler, H.-U., ed., Sozialgeschichte Heute (Göttingen, 1974), pp. 635ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Stegmann, Dirk, Die Erben Bismarcks: Parteien und Verbände in der Spātphase des Wilhelminischen Deutschlands: Sammlungspolitik 1897–1918 (Cologne, 1970)Google Scholar, and, building on earlier suggestions of Roth, G. and Sauer, W., Groh, Dieter, Negative Integration und revolutionārer Attentismus: Die deutsche Sozialdemokratie am Vorabend des Ersten Weltkrieges (Frankfurt, 1973).Google Scholar Cf. the criticism of Buse, Dieter K. in the Journal of Modern History 46 (1974): 732ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Nipperdey, Thomas, “Wehler's ‘Kaiserreich’: Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 1 (1975): 539–60.Google Scholar One of the ironies of the current debate is the reversal of the normal fronts with the traditionalists stressing change and the critics asserting continuity!

12 Röhl, John C. G., From Bismarck to Hitler: The Problem of Continuity in German History (New York, 1970), p. xiii.Google Scholar

13 Namier, Lewis, Diplomatic Prelude 1938–1939 (London, 1948)Google Scholar, and Hofer, Walther, Die Entfesselung des zweiten Weltkrieges (Stuttgart, 1954).Google Scholar For Hitler's consistency cf. also Trevor-Roper, Hugh Redwald, “Hitlers Kriegsziele,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 8 (1960): 121–33.Google Scholar

14 Taylor, A. J. P., The Origins of the Second World War, 2nd rev. ed. (London, 1963).Google Scholar For the controversy see Carr, William, “National Socialism: Foreign Policy and Wehrmacht,” in Walter, Laqueur, ed., Fascism: A Readers Guide (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 151–78.Google Scholar

15 For apologias see Hoggan, David, Der Erzwungene Krieg (Tübingen, 1961)Google Scholar; Irving, David, Hitler's War (New York, 1977).Google Scholar Hitler's planning is stressed by Hillgruber and Hildebrand (see n. 9).

16 Hans Mommsen, “National Socialism: Continuity and Change,” in W. Laqueur, ed., Fascism, pp. 179–210, in contrast to Mosse, George L., The Nationalization of the Masses (New York, 1975)Google Scholar, and Jäckel, Eberhard, Hitler's Weltanschauung: A Blueprint for Power (Middletown, 1972).Google Scholar

17 Kielmannsegg, P. Graf, “Von den Schwierigkeiten deutsche Geschichte zu schreiben,” Merkur 25 (1971): 366–69Google Scholar versus H.-U. Wehler, Kaiserreich, pp. 238ff.

18 Cecil, Lamar, The German Diplomatic Service, 1871–1914 (Princeton, 1976)Google Scholar; Lauren, P. G., Diplomats and Bureaucrats: The First Institutional Responses to Twentieth Century Diplomacy in France and Germany (Stanford, 1976)Google Scholar; and Kenneth Mernitz, “Characteristics of German Diplomats, 1933–1945” (m.a. thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, 1978).

19 Eyck, Erich, Das Persönliche Regiment Wilhelms II (Erlenbach-Zurich, 1948)Google Scholar; Röhl, J. G. C., Germany Without Bismarck: The Crisis of Government in the Second Reich, 1890–1900 (Berkeley, 1967)Google Scholar; and Mommsen, Wolfgang J., “Die latente Krise des Wilhelminischen Reiches: Staat und Gesellschaft in Deutschland 1890–1914,” Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 15 (1974): 7–28.Google Scholar

20 Rich, Norman, Hitler's War Aims (New York, 1973), 1: 11ff.Google Scholar, as well as his paper “Nazi Imperialism: Retrospect and Perspective” at the 1975 Georgetown Forum. Cf. Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Nationalsozialistische Aussenpolitik 1933–1938 (Frankfurt, 1968)Google Scholar as well as his paper, “Organisation, Entwicklung und Bedeutung des aussenpolitischen Instrumentariums im Dritten Reich, 1933–1945,” at the same conference, now also in his essay collection cited in n. 36.

21 For the term cf. Goodspeed, D. J., The German Wars, 1914–1945 (Boston, 1977).Google Scholar For the conceptualization of the following discussion see Gantzel, K.-J. et al., eds., Konflikt—Eskalation—Krise: Sozialwissenschaftliche Studien zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkrieges (Düsseldorf, 1972).Google Scholar

22 For the documentary background consult Geiss, Immanuel, July 1914: The Outbreak of the First World War (New York, 1974)Google Scholar, Eubank, Keith, The Road to World War Two (New York, 1973)Google Scholar, and Adamthwaite, Anthony P., The Making of the Second World War (London, 1977).Google Scholar For introductions into the voluminous literature see Berghahn, Volker R., Germany and the Approach of War in 1914 (London, 1973)Google Scholar, and Carr, “Foreign Policy and Wehrmacht,” pp. 151ff.

23 Jarausch, K. H., “Die Alldeutschen und Bethmann Hollweg: Eine Denkschrift Kurt Riezlers aus dem Jahre 1916,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 21 (1973): 435–68.Google ScholarHitler, Adolf, Mein Kampf, trans. Mannheim, R. (Boston, 1943), pp. 131ff.Google Scholar

24 F. Fischer, Germany's Aims, passim; Immanuel, Geiss and Wendt, Bernd J., eds., Deutschland in der Weltpolitik des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts (Düsseldorf, 1973)Google Scholar; Geiss, I., German Foreign Policy, 1871–1914 (London, 1976), pp. 173ff.Google Scholar; and Fischer, , “Zum Problem der Kontinuität in der deutschen Geschichte von Bismarck zu Hitler,” in his Der Weltkrieg und das deutsche Geschichtsbild (Düsseldorf, 1977), pp. 350–63Google Scholar, which shows continuity in socioeconomic structures as well as power-political aims, but admits “a qualitative leap … in the extermination policy towards Jews and Poles.”

25 For my own interest in these questions cf. Jarausch, K.H., The Four Power Pact, 1933 (Madison, 1966)Google Scholar, and The Enigmatic Chancellor: Bethmann Hollweg and the Hubris of Imperial Germany, 1856–1921 (New Haven, 1973).

26 Hildebrand, K., “Hitler's Ort in der Geschichte des preussisch-deutschen Nationalstaates,” Historische Zeitschrift 217 (1973): 584–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Karl D. Bracher, “The Role of Hitler: Perspectives of Interpretation,” in W. Laqueur, ed., Fascism, pp. 211–25. See also Mason, Timothy, Sozialpolitik im Dritten Reich: Arbeiterklasse und Volksgemeinschaft (Wiesbaden, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for Hitler's relations with the workers.

27 Lack of restraint is also Craig's, Gordon A. chief criticism in his introduction to From Bismarck to Adenauer: Aspects of German Statecraft, rev. ed. (New York, 1965), pp. ixff.Google Scholar and his exposition in Germany, 1866–1945 (New York, 1978).

28 For a critique of the concepts and the literature cf. Hans Mommsen, “Continuity and Change,” pp. 179ff., 205ff.

29 For the concept cf. Stürmer, Michael, Regierung und Reichstag im Bismarckreich, 1871–1880: Cāsarismus oder Parlamentarismus (Düsseldorf, 1974).Google Scholar For critiques see Gall, Lothar, “Bismarck und der Bonapartismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 223 (1976): 618–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Mitchell, Alan, “Bonapartism as a Model for Bismarckian Politics,” Journal of Modern History 49 (1977): 181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Hillgruber, A., “Grundzüge der nationalsozialistischen Aussenpolitik 1933–1945,” Saeculum, 1973, no. 4, pp. 329ff.Google Scholar Cf. the special issue on “International Fascism” of the Journal of Contemporary History 11 (1976), and Francis L. Carsten, “Interpretations of Fascism,” in W. Laqueur, ed., Fascism, pp. 415–34.

31 Turner, Henry A., “Hitlers Einstellung zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft vor 1933,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 2 (1976): 89–117Google Scholar, and Alan S. Milward, “Fascism and the Economy,” in W. Laqueur, Fascism, pp. 379–412. See also Mason, T. W., “Labour in the Third Reich, 1933–1939,” Past and Present 33 (1966): 112–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for a related point.

32 Eley, Geoff, “Sammlungspolitik, Social Imperialism and the Navy Law of 1898,” Militārgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 15 (1974): 29–63Google Scholar, and Mommsen, W. J., “Europäischer Finanzimperialismus vor 1914: Ein Beitrag zu einer pluralistischen Theorie des Imperialismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 224 (1977): 17–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Eugen Weber, “Revolution? Counterrevolution? What Revolution?” in W. Laqueur, Fascism, pp. 435–67. Cf. also his “Introduction” to The European Right: A Historical Profile (Berkeley, 1966), pp. 1ff.

34 Otto Pflanze, “Bismarck's Quest for Social Consensus,” paper delivered at the 1976 American Historical Association meeting in Washington, D.C. See also the comment by K. H. Jarausch, “Contemporary and Historical Perceptions of Social Order in Nineteenth-Century Germany,” at the same session.

35 Berghahn, V., “Fritz Fischer und seine Schüler,” Neue Polititsche Literatur 19 (1974): 243ff.Google Scholar and Mann's, R. forthcoming volume on “Quantitative Analysen zum Nationalsozialismus,” previewed in his report in the Jahrbuch der historischen Forschung 1976/7 (Stuttgart, 1978), 79–84.Google Scholar

36 Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, “Zur Kontinuität und Diskontinuität in der deutschen Aussenpolitik im 20. Jahrhundert,” in his collection, Von der Strategie der Gewalt zur Politik der Friedenssicherung (Düsseldorf, 1977)Google Scholar, unfortunately discusses the problem of continuity more in relation to 1945 than to 1933.

37 Wehler, H.-U., Modernisierungstheorie und Geschichte (Göttingen, 1973).Google Scholar For a spirited defense of the hermeneutic usefulness of the paradigms cf. also his “Kritik und kritische Antikritik,” Historische Zeitschrift 225 (1977): 347–84.

38 Weinberg, Gerhard L., The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany: Diplomatic Revolution in Europe, 1933–1936 (Chicago, 1970).Google Scholar Cf. also the essays in Funke, M., ed., Hitler, Deutschland und die Mächte: Materialien zur Aussenpolitik des Dritten Reiches (Düsseldorf, 1976).Google Scholar

39 Hildebrand, K. in his introduction and conclusion to “Imperialismus, Wettrüsten und Kriegsausbruch 1914: Zum Problem der Legitimität und Revolution im internationalen System,” Neue Politische Literatur 20 (1975): 160–94, 339–64.Google Scholar Perhaps one should add the alternative of evolutionary change to the dichotomy between status quo and revolutionary upheaval which Hildebrand takes from Kissinger.

40 Rosecrance, Richard N., Action and Reaction in World Politics: International Systems in Perspective (Boston, 1963)Google Scholar, and Northedge, F. S. and Grieve, M. J., A Hundred Years of International Relations (London, 1971)Google Scholar are recent examples of explanations on the level of the international system. Cf. Dehio, Ludwig, Germany and World Politics in the Twentieth Century (New York, 1959).Google Scholar

41 Gerschenkron, Alexander, “On the Concept of Continuity in History,” in his collection, Continuity in History and Other Essays (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 11–39.Google Scholar See also Alff's, W. critical “Bemerkungen zu A. Hillgrubers Auffassung des Kontinuitätsproblems der deutschen Geschichte,” in his essay collection, Materialien zum Kontinuitätsproblem der deutschen Geschichte (Frankfurt, 1976), pp. 142–50.Google Scholar Most intriguing is his notion of a “change in the German national character” due to a “process of education after 1871,” ibid., pp. 16ff.

42 Cf. above, n. 24. For the general issue of illiberalism see also Dahrendorf, R., Society and Democracy in Germany (Garden City, 1967)Google Scholar, and Stern, F., The Failure of Illiberalism (Chicago, 1975).Google Scholar

43 Joll, James, 1914: The Unspoken Assumptions (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Cord-Meyer, Henry, The Long Generation (New York, 1973)Google Scholar recognizes that the problem ought to be approached from this perspective, but fails to solve it. Cf. Jarausch, K. H., “Liberal Education as Illiberal Socialization: The Case of Students in Imperial Germany,” Journal of Modern History 50 (1978): 609–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also P. W. Schroeder, “The Autonomy of Diplomatic History,” luncheon address at the 1978 meeting of the Southern Historical Association in St. Louis.

44 Nipperdey, Thomas, “1933 und die Kontinuität der deutschen Geschichte,” Historische Zeitschrift 227 (1978): 86–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Although understandable as a reaction to the simplistic monocausality of much of the holocaust literature, his trivialization of antisemitism (it “does not belong to the dominant continuities of German history”) needs to be challenged. Cf. also Gay's, Peter “Introduction: German Questions,” in his Freud, Jews and Other Germans: Masters and Victims of Modernist Culture (New York, 1978), pp. 3–28.Google Scholar

45 Gerschenkron, “Continuity,” pp. 38ff. For the broader perspective cf. also Feuchtwanger, E. J., “Introduction” to his collection, Upheaval and Continuity: A Century of German History (London, 1973), pp. 11–27Google Scholar, Krieger, L., “Nazism: Highway or Byway?” Central European History 11 (1978): 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the provocative essay by Calleo, David, The German Problem Reconsidered: Germany and the World Order, 1870 to the Present (Cambridge, 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar