Viewed from across the Atlantic, it is no doubt remarkable that a growing number of prominent historians, Ute Frevert and Hartmut Kaelble among them, have been vigorously promoting the notion of a “Europeanization” of German historiography whose predominant focus so far has been the rise and development of the modern nation-state. Whether this has something to do with the Zeitgeist of the enlarging European Union or is due to the fact that multi-volume national histories like those by Thomas Nipperdey and Hans-Ulrich Wehler have lost their allure, it represents a shift that is presumably permanent. [...]
Fünf Wochen wartete er im Zentralgefängnis von Sarajevo auf seinen Prozess. Jeden Tag verabschiedete er sich von Mitgefangenen, die nach ihrer Urteilsverkündung nicht mehr zurückkamen. Denn für die Erschießungskommandos endete der Krieg nicht mit Kapitulation. Auch nach der Befreiung brachten sie Tag für Tag Verurteilte um, ehemalige Kriegsgegner, vermeintliche Kriegsverbrecher, „Volksfeinde“, Diebe, Mörder und Spione, die „Diener der Okkupanten“. Als solcher war auch er angeklagt. [...]
There is the related question of the continuities and discontinuities in European history. As far as the 20th century is concerned, 1914, 1917, 1933, 1945, and 1989 have long been identified as major turning points and have been examined in innumerable studies. The argument underlying this contribution to the internet portal “European History” is that 1941 was perhaps the most crucial year in the history of Europe, if not of the world, during the past century. [...]