The Experts below are selected from a list of 123 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Stefan Jordan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
inside out the purposes of form in Friedrich Meinecke s and robert aron s explanations of national disaster
2010Co-Authors: Hugo Frey, Stefan JordanAbstract:This chapter compares how a German and a French historian wrote instant contemporary histories of their times; Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) in his Die deutsche Katastrophe. Betrachtungen und Erinnerungen (1946) and Robert Aron (1898–1975) in Le Piege ou nous a pris l’histoire (1950).1 Our focus will be on the forms of argument the historians used to frame their works and how this shaped their communication of ideological assumptions. Meinecke subtitled his work ‘Reflections and Memories’; however, his short essay is not very autobiographical. The only trait of this in the book is his attempt to revise his own historical thinking, his belief in an elite German culture in the light of National Socialist barbarities. Generally speaking, his argumentation is abstract and he frames Die deutsche Katastrophe as a comparison of a variety of international and national trends and social patterns to develop a series of theses as to why Germany had fallen to Hitler. Conversely, Robert Aron portrayed the Vichy regime through autobiographical information about his flight from France to freedom in Algiers and he also intermingles pen portraits of leading collaborators. Thus the two forms of writing contemporary history are seemingly antithetical.
-
Inside-Out: The Purposes of Form in Friedrich Meinecke’s and Robert Aron’s Explanations of National Disaster
Nationalizing the Past, 2010Co-Authors: Hugo Frey, Stefan JordanAbstract:This chapter compares how a German and a French historian wrote instant contemporary histories of their times; Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) in his Die deutsche Katastrophe. Betrachtungen und Erinnerungen (1946) and Robert Aron (1898–1975) in Le Piege ou nous a pris l’histoire (1950).1 Our focus will be on the forms of argument the historians used to frame their works and how this shaped their communication of ideological assumptions. Meinecke subtitled his work ‘Reflections and Memories’; however, his short essay is not very autobiographical. The only trait of this in the book is his attempt to revise his own historical thinking, his belief in an elite German culture in the light of National Socialist barbarities. Generally speaking, his argumentation is abstract and he frames Die deutsche Katastrophe as a comparison of a variety of international and national trends and social patterns to develop a series of theses as to why Germany had fallen to Hitler. Conversely, Robert Aron portrayed the Vichy regime through autobiographical information about his flight from France to freedom in Algiers and he also intermingles pen portraits of leading collaborators. Thus the two forms of writing contemporary history are seemingly antithetical.
Hugo Frey - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
inside out the purposes of form in Friedrich Meinecke s and robert aron s explanations of national disaster
2010Co-Authors: Hugo Frey, Stefan JordanAbstract:This chapter compares how a German and a French historian wrote instant contemporary histories of their times; Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) in his Die deutsche Katastrophe. Betrachtungen und Erinnerungen (1946) and Robert Aron (1898–1975) in Le Piege ou nous a pris l’histoire (1950).1 Our focus will be on the forms of argument the historians used to frame their works and how this shaped their communication of ideological assumptions. Meinecke subtitled his work ‘Reflections and Memories’; however, his short essay is not very autobiographical. The only trait of this in the book is his attempt to revise his own historical thinking, his belief in an elite German culture in the light of National Socialist barbarities. Generally speaking, his argumentation is abstract and he frames Die deutsche Katastrophe as a comparison of a variety of international and national trends and social patterns to develop a series of theses as to why Germany had fallen to Hitler. Conversely, Robert Aron portrayed the Vichy regime through autobiographical information about his flight from France to freedom in Algiers and he also intermingles pen portraits of leading collaborators. Thus the two forms of writing contemporary history are seemingly antithetical.
-
Inside-Out: The Purposes of Form in Friedrich Meinecke’s and Robert Aron’s Explanations of National Disaster
Nationalizing the Past, 2010Co-Authors: Hugo Frey, Stefan JordanAbstract:This chapter compares how a German and a French historian wrote instant contemporary histories of their times; Friedrich Meinecke (1862–1954) in his Die deutsche Katastrophe. Betrachtungen und Erinnerungen (1946) and Robert Aron (1898–1975) in Le Piege ou nous a pris l’histoire (1950).1 Our focus will be on the forms of argument the historians used to frame their works and how this shaped their communication of ideological assumptions. Meinecke subtitled his work ‘Reflections and Memories’; however, his short essay is not very autobiographical. The only trait of this in the book is his attempt to revise his own historical thinking, his belief in an elite German culture in the light of National Socialist barbarities. Generally speaking, his argumentation is abstract and he frames Die deutsche Katastrophe as a comparison of a variety of international and national trends and social patterns to develop a series of theses as to why Germany had fallen to Hitler. Conversely, Robert Aron portrayed the Vichy regime through autobiographical information about his flight from France to freedom in Algiers and he also intermingles pen portraits of leading collaborators. Thus the two forms of writing contemporary history are seemingly antithetical.
Martha Lucía - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Las Concepciones Centrales Del Liberalismo Y Del Socialismo Sobre La Nación En Europa: 1850-1914 (The Central Conceptions of the Liberalism and Socialism on the Nation in Europe: 1850-1914)
2015Co-Authors: Quiroga Riviere, Martha LucíaAbstract:Spanish Abstract: El articulo presenta desde la historia del pensamiento politico las reflexiones centrales alrededor del tema de la nacion en Europa de las dos corrientes de pensamiento mas importantes de la segunda mitad de siglo XIX, el liberalismo y el socialismo. Desde mediados del siglo las cuestiones de la nacion aparecieron para estas dos corrientes como un problema complejo y dificil. Dentro de su contexto politico y a traves de literatura secundaria, pero sobre todo del estudio de los textos de los mismos autores, se exponen, desde el liberalismo, las reflexiones en su debate sobre la “nacionalidad” y el “principio de las nacionalidades” de Lord ACTON, asi como la concepcion de nacion de Renan; y, desde el socialismo, los aportes alrededor de “la cuestion nacional” en Polonia e Irlanda de MARX y ENGELS, para luego entrar a exponer las expresiones mas decantadas y sistematicas sobre el concepto de nacion poco antes de la Primera Guerra Mundial del liberal conservador Friedrich Meinecke y del austromarxista OTTO BAUER. El texto muestra una problematica que lleva muchas decadas y unos presupuestos teoricos que, desarrollados en su tiempo, aun hoy juegan un papel en la teoria y la practica alrededor del problema de la nacion. Por esto, al final el articulo evalua de manera sintetica la resonancia de dicho legado.English Abstract: The article presents, from the history of the political thought the central reflections of the most important currents in the second part of the XIX century, liberalism and socialism, about the nation in Europe. From the middle of the century the questions about the nation were for these currents a complex and difficult problem. Inside its political context and using secondary literatura but overall by studying the texts of the authors themselves the principle reflections of the liberalism will be exposed -the discussion about the nationality and the principle of the nationalities by Lord ACTON and the question about what is (the meaning of) the nation asked by RENAN, and from the viewpoint of the socialism -the contributions about the national question in Poland and Ireland of MARX and ENGELS. The article develops than the most systematized reflections about the nation shortly before the First World War, of the liberal conservative Friedrich Meinecke and the Austromarxist OTTO BAUER. The text shows the continuity of an old and difficult problem with theoretical assumptions that although developed in their time still continue playing an important role for the theory and practice around the question of the nation till today. Therefore the article ends showing synthetically the echo of this legacy.
Troy R E Paddock - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rethinking Friedrich Meinecke s historicism
Rethinking History, 2006Co-Authors: Troy R E PaddockAbstract:This essay revisits the work of the German historian Friedrich Meinecke and offers new interpretation of his major works, Weltburgertum und Nationalstaat (1907), Die Ideen der Staatsrason in der neuen Geschichte (1924), and Die Entstehung des Historismus (1936). The standard interpretation of Meinecke's work maintains that World War I caused a break in his thinking and caused him to rethink the role of power in the state. By stressing the first half of Weltburgertum rather than the second, this article delineates a continuity of Meinecke's thought and points to the limitations of historicism as a historical narrative. It offers a possible explanation for how the conservative implications in the thought of an individual, who personally and politically was a Vernuftrepublikaner, could escape the author himself. This article also discusses what could be called the classical liberal critique of Meinecke's historicism, points to some of its limitations, and offers a more measured criticism of Meinecke that exa...
Avi Lifschitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
between Friedrich Meinecke and ernst cassirer isaiah berlin s bifurcated enlightenment
In: Brockliss L and Robertson R (eds.) Isaiah Berlin and the Enlightenment. (pp. 51-66). Oxford University Press: Oxford UK. (2016) (In press)., 2016Co-Authors: Avi LifschitzAbstract:This essay explores the hitherto neglected influence of Friedrich Meinecke on Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between a mostly French Enlightenment and its alleged rivals in Germany. Highlighting the structural and terminological similarities between Berlin’s account of the Counter-Enlightenment and Meinecke’s description of the precursors of historicism, it also provides as yet unpublished evidence from Berlin’s correspondence to this effect. Berlin’s endorsement of Meinecke’s dichotomy between Enlightenment and pre-historicism is situated against his distaste for attempts to reveal cross-currents and common themes across borders in eighteenth-century thought. This aversion to the study of transnational links in the Enlightenment is manifest in Berlin’s hostile reaction to Ernst Cassirer’s work on the topic.
