Search results

The purpose of this paper is to study how two accounting professors at a German university dealt with their denazification, a process carried out by the Allied Forces following the Second World War to free German society from Nazi ideology. It is argued that the professors carried a stigma due to their affiliation with a university that had been aligned with the Nazi state apparatus.

The paper uses Goffman’s work on “Stigma” (1963/1986) and “Frame Analysis” (1974/1986) to explore how the professors aimed to dismiss any link with the Nazi regime. Primary sources from the university archives were accessed with a particular focus on the professors’ post-war justification accounts.

The paper shows how the professors created a particular frame, which they supported by downplaying frame breaks, primarily their Nazi party memberships. Instead, they were preoccupied with what Goffman (1974/1986) terms “the vulnerability of experience,” exploiting that their past behavior requires context and is thus open to interpretation. The professors themselves provide this guidance to readers, which is a strategy that we call “authoring” of past information.

The paper shows how “counter accounts” can be constructed by assigning roles and powers to characters therein and by providing context and interpreting behavior on behalf of the readers. It is suggested that this “authoring” of past information is successful only on the surface. A closer examination unveils ambiguity, making this strategy risky and fragile.

The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the fate of the buildings and public spaces created by the Nazis. By doing so, the author explains how Germany has handled this difficult legacy as part of a wider narrative of Germany’s post-war national reconciliation with its Nazi past.

Visits to Germany; interviews with German academics and museum professionals running memorials and museums relevant to the subject; study of literature related to specific Nazi sites and also literature related to the Nazi legacy in Germany more generally, as well as discussion with academics interested in dark tourism and national self-examination of difficult historical legacies.

Far more Nazi buildings remain in existence than is generally realised. For many years after 1945, Germany ignored the architectural legacy of the Nazi period through a mixture of shame, other more pressing priorities and pragmatism. Originally, it was pressure from survivors and families of victims of Nazi terror that led to public acknowledgement of the historical significance of some Nazi sites. In more recent years, German reunification, the passing of the complicit generations in Germany and growing national self-confidence have led to a greater willingness to acknowledge the importance of these sites.

First paper in English examining Nazi architecture in the round and the first one offering a critical analysis of Germany’s handling of the architectural legacy of the Third Reich.

The Intelligence Library of the Control Commission for Germany contains some 20,000 books and pamphlets, and its function is to provide an information service on German affairs for the benefit of the various divisions and branches of the main headquarters of the Control Commission in Germany. It is true that few special libraries are ever likely to be formed in similar circumstances, but some account of the ways in which these unique conditions were met may serve to illustrate the fundamental principle that the organization of a special library must be freely adaptable to the particular circumstances governing its existence.

This chapter aims to analyze whether European security shapes future American grand strategy or not. For restrainers, the present American grand strategy has to be revisited due to the fact that there is no balance of power logic for further American presence in Europe. Moreover, China is a great power to be balanced in Asia. The chapter problematizes the assumptions provided by restrainers. It will argue that the United States has been acting in Europe as the pacifier, and it has a deep-seated interest in European peace. European security has been built upon the American preponderance of power, and a potential imbalance of power is a threat to the United States. While Russia is a revisionist power in Europe intended to change the status quo in Europe, China is a great power in Asia. However, the United States has both sufficient material power and allies to balance Russia and China simultaneously, and pivoting to Asia requires no American pullback in Europe.

The Nationalökonomische Gesellschaft (Austrian Economic Association, NOeG) provides a prominent example of the Viennese economic circles and associations that more than academic economics dominated scientific discourse in the interwar years. For the first time this chapter gives a thorough account of its history, from its foundation in 1918 until the demise of its long-time president, Hans Mayer, 1955, based on official documents and archival material. The topics treated include its predecessor and rival, the Gesellschaft österreichischer Volkswirte, its foundation in 1918 soon to be followed by years of inactivity, the relaunch by Mayer and Mises, the survival under the NS-regime and the expulsion of its Jewish members and the slow restoration after 1945. In particular, an attempt is made to provide a list of the papers presented to the NOeG, as complete as possible, for the period 1918–1938.