The Year 1968 in Germany continues to offer a rich field for historians, political scientists, and sociologists. They share this field with a number of former activists who are engaged in writing their own history, and journalists who understand the continuing attraction of the era for the wider public. I explore the role of the media in the construction of “1968” in chapter 6, but for now will focus on those individuals who have been particularly active in writing narratives that aim to explain the events, put them into a wider historico-political context, and offer an interpretive framework. My contention is that these chroniclers and interpreters have tended to ignore the extent to which “1968” has become removed from the historical events and has developed its own momentum as a discourse on the identity and aspirations of Germans today. Ironically, their “expert” status has given them privileged access to interpret “1968” for a variety of audiences, but they rarely openly reflect on the reasons why they chose the topic. Similarly, few acknowledge that their interpretations may be determined by their own attitudes to the era or that their verdicts themselves influence the direction of future research. Moreover, while the two other memory contests over Germany's Nazi and Socialist past were essentially backward-looking and largely politically sponsored, the discourse on “1968”—in spite of and perhaps also because of the efforts of its historians—is forward-looking and fueled by a sense that the period represents “unfinished business.” A good example for this is the American historian Jay Winter, who regards “1968” as a key moment in the twentieth century when “minor utopians” succeeded in putting the notion of liberation in the minds of millions of their contemporaries. While conceding that their immediate achievements were meager or nonexistent, he argues that their visions of an alternative reality precipitated “a series of moments of possibility, of openings, of hopes and dreams rarely realized, but rarely forgotten as well.”1 This chapter will demonstrate that the historicization of “1968” has not led to its deconstruction but added further layers to it.