Search

Copyright of Historische Zeitschrift is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses the so-called Sonderweg, or unique path of German history from aristocracy to democracy, as reflected in the Nuremberg war-crimes trial held by the allied powers to prosecute Nazi war criminals following the send of the Second World War. Using the example of the Krupp trial of 1947/1948, the author argues that the trials were employed by the allied powers to break the national socialist hold of the German legal system, and also to bring recent German history to light, arguing that prosecutors used a business history approach to the affair, which precluded true historical debate.

Unlike other historiographic disciplines contemporary history has to define itself in a both intra- and interdisciplinary arena. While the debate on when exactly contemporary history begins has accompanied its practitioners from the very beginning, the question as to what sets it apart from other social sciences has long been suspended. With the fields of research moving rapidly into the last decades of the twentieth century this problem becomes increasingly urgent. Not only does contemporary history investigate the same empirical phenomena that have already been analysed by sociologists, economists, and political scientists, it also appropriates the theories constructed by these neighbouring disciplines. The present article exemplarily outlines this borrowing practice looking at the careers of theoretical models such as value change, international interdependence and economic structural change first in their own fields, then among historians. Beyond the easily identifiable hazards of using the data compiled by contemporary social scientists and reproducing their findings, the more fundamental problem lies in the all-too-easy adoption of the theories by which these have been produced. The heuristic and explanatory appeal of these theories results from their epistemic proximity to the hermeneutic horizon of contemporary historians and leads to the adoption rather than critical reflection of such models. This danger, however, also leads to the great potential of contemporary history which should historicise and look beyond the perspectives of contemporary social scientists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dissolution of the Flick concern in 1985 was generally considered proof of the end of the family company and was interpreted as a classical case of failed entrepreneurial succession. Nevertheless there were many reasons for the failure of Germany's until then foremost family concern. In Flick's case, the combination of mutually intersecting problems was basically representative of the challenges and difficulties as well as shortfalls and mistakes facing West German industry during the 1970s and 1980s. They included misguided investment policies, lags in modernisation and rationalisation as well as a reluctance regarding outside capital. Also internal deficits regarding company structure and communication led to a lack of ideas at the top, which in times of crisis traditionally sought aid from the state. This practice led to the Flick political contributions affair of the 1980s and aggravated the crisis of the concern. Flick's case shows the extent to which corporate managements misconceived or underestimated structural change and so contributed to the crisis themselves. Further it illustrates some fundamental problems of family-run organisations in general as well as changes in public perception regarding the relationship between politics and private enterprise in the late "Bonn Republic". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]