Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:59:10.127Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Recent Writing on Interwar Austria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Extract

The 1970s were an interesting and significant decade for the historiography of contemporary Austria. Among Austrian scholars, the tradition of Koalitionsgeschichtsschreibung, a reflection of the political and bureaucratic system of Proporz which reigned in the 1950s and 1960s, began to break down. With the triumph of Social Democracy under Bruno Kreisky, fewer historians—especially those of the “left”—were willing to continue sharing in the orderly division of responsibility for the recent past. Moreover, some of the controversy aroused in Germany by Fritz Fischer's work began to invigorate Austrian historical studies. Both in Austria and abroad, historians became less inclined to treat Austria as a unique case, and increasingly interested in the Alpine state as a study in the general development of contemporary central Europe. The publication of Norbert Schausberger's Der Griff nach Österreich in early 1978—the fortieth anniversary of the Anschluss—marked in some respects a milestone in this direction; it provides the opportunity to review a sampling of the more interesting recent literature, and to reflect, as well, on some general problems of conceptualizing contemporary Austrian history.

Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fischer, Fritz, World Power or Decline: The Controversy over “Germany's Aims in the First World War” (New York, 1974), p. 124.Google Scholar

2 Craig, Gordon A., Germany 1866–1945 (New York, 1978), pp. 763–64.Google Scholar