Forum: Nation: M. Framke and A. Weiß: The role of the nation in history writing in the 21st century

Von
Maria Framke, Historisches Seminar, Universität Erfurt; Andreas Weiß, Helmut-Schmidt-Universität / Universität der Bundeswehr, Hamburg

Nations and their symbols do play a role: four days after the fall of Kabul, on the occasion of Afghan Independence Day, people all over the country protested against the new flag of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan by waving the “former” national flag.[1] The former flag, however, had only been introduced in 2013. Founded as a sovereign, independent country in 1919, Afghanistan had seen a large number of flags of different regimes and governments in the course of the last century. Yet, it had never been able to overcome its inherent “defect” as a product of diverging colonial interests and continued to be exposed to foreign power politics.

The question of the continuing relevance of the nation, including its symbols, also plays a role in those states that have a different, clearly distanced relationship with the nation. In recent years, the debate around the nation has once again gathered momentum: for example, authors such as Jill Le-pore and Anne Applebaum have underlined the anti-democratic element in the resurge of right-wing nationalism. Aleida Assmann dedicated her last book, her “Corona-book”, as she called it, to the defence of the nation.[2] Promptly picked up and discussed by the media, for instance in Germany, the debates focused most notably on Western democracies, whom they defined as threatened. All three books concentrate on how the left and liberal sections of Western civil societies identify with the nation nowadays and discuss how to defend the nation, as a solidarity group, with left and liberal values. Attacks from the right should be, as Lepore suggests, counterposed with a positive re-interpretation or re-use of a liberal nationalism (see the essay by Jürgen Martschukat). A similar de-bate had evolved around the term (constitutional) patriotism in former West Germany. Another sug-gestion is to call for more civil society engagement. The defence of liberal democracies demands, as Applebaum puts it, participation, discussion, commitment, and debate, as this engagement allows every generation to build and define its nation anew. Others advocate instead the abolition of the nation-state, often equating statehood in the 21st century per se with the nation-state. In doing so, some critics postulate a supposedly ethnic homogeneity that hardly matches reality (see David Feest).

These debates have in common that the role of history writing and historiography is nowadays widely addressed in the wider public. However, both Lepore and Assmann find it problematic that the question of the nation has been left carelessly to non-academic voices, as scholars who research the theme are marginalised or criticised as old fashioned. The criticism has also to be seen against the reinforced interest of the “New Right” for the theme, whose interpretations reach a wide audience.[3] At the same time, historians have addressed certain aspects related to the nation; for example, the danger of a renewed or re-awakened nationalism was referred to in the context of the Brexit debate. A few German historians also participate in a eurosceptic debate that called for a more prominent place for nations within the European Union.[4]

In other European states, such as Poland (see Maciej Górny), Spain and Hungary, and in wide parts of the world, the discussion around the nation and its importance has never disappeared. Newly decolonized nation-states have needed to be defined.[5] New and sometimes old political and strategic rivalries emerged—and continue to persist—that were nationally charged to rally the people behind the objectives of the government, such as in Spain. At times, this intersected (and continues to do so) with colonial or other historical “wounds”, for instance when it comes to the relationships of China-Korea-Japan (see Marc Matten and Chikara Uchida) and Pakistan-India-Bangladesh.

Hence, this forum not only addresses the question of how the role of the nation is understood in contemporary political debates but also if it has (re-)gained importance in history writing in the 21st century. What role have historiographical insights about the nation, which are researched in universities, academies, and research centres as well as taught at schools, in public discourses? Hence, several forum articles should not be considered exclusively as academic contributions to these debates, but also as interventions in the politics of memory or as a starting point for wider discussion. This forum is not concerned with the nation as a political battle cry but as an analytical category.

Furthermore, the forum addresses the interplay of nationalism and globalization and pays attention to its challenges from contemporary historiography. Within the humanities, history took the lead to substantiate nation(-state)-building in the 19th century. The discipline lost this hegemonic status during the 20th century, when the social sciences seemed better qualified to handle the challenges of an increasingly decolonising and fragmenting yet equally globalising world.[6] In the 21st century, global history finally undermined the claims of classical national historiography as it has been argued with its lingua franca English—for which it was also criticized.[7] In her contribution, Julia Angster foregrounds how new theoretical and methodological approaches, such as global history as well as a new cultural and social history, challenged the classical focus on national history, particularly in its garb as writing the history of nations. To which extent Angster’s observations can be applied for other historiographies outside of Germany makes for different answers in and beyond the forum’s case studies. That is even more so as, outside of Germany, the writing of the history of the nation had (almost completely) disappeared. Following a political science debate, the return of the national (a national identity) is a defensive reaction against the dynamic social and technological changes and challenges that ostensibly came with globalisation; a debate that is also very much alive in Germany.[8]

We see cyclic engagements with the theme in historiography, but the extent to which this interest coincides with times of crisis or of rapid change remains an important question. Thus, the 1990s not only saw a resurgence of nationalism in Europe and Africa, but also a preoccupation with the nation as a concept and as a historical entity. Already at this time, however, it was foreseeable that the concept of the nation would be superseded by other concepts in history writing, a trend even more amplified with the coming of the new cultural history and the spatial turn.[9] At the same time, historians turned again to imperial history, a turn that could, for instance in the British case, be seen as an attempt to defend national history in a new garb against global and postcolonial interpretations.[10].

Themes and Questions

To answer these questions, the forum presents case studies from different regions: the Arabic region (Egypt, Iraq, Morocco), the Americas (Argentina, Brazil, the United States of America), Asia (China, Japan, Pakistan, Vietnam), and Europe (Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Poland).

Some of these countries have seen a long tradition of a problem-oriented discussion of the term “nation”. In the Argentinian case, for example, it has been discussed how football could function as a replacement for the nation, as non-academic actors occupied the term nation and wider parts of the public no longer follow its official semantic charge (see also Maximiliano von Thüngen).[11] For that reason, some of the case studies presented here address debates relating to rather populist appropriations of the nation and in doing so reveal new connections to international debates. The claim that the dominant contemporary non-engagement with the nation ought to be the result of an alleged left-centred politics of memorialisation, is, for instance, made in Latin America. Here one can see current global alliances built by dominant actors, who reframe history or even try to erase some actors from the (official) history (see, for example, the article by Georg Fischer, and also the articles by Jakob Müller and Martschukat).[12] New forms of nationalism and struggles around the interpretation of the role of the nation in the 21st century are not only visible on the side of the right, but also in the camp of the left as well in communist- and socialist-governed countries (see Matten and Martin Großheim). While the Argentinian presidential couple, the Kirchners, expressed more of a “classical”, left nationalism, similar to the one of the politically right (see von Thüngen), Chavism in Venezuela plays with an allegedly anti-imperialistic nationalism. The political dualism around the nation and our understanding of it has also led, in different states, to a dichotomy within remembrance culture (see the contributions by Müller, Górny, Martschukat). The forum addresses these multiple, parallel developments and gives insights into academic debates that are, in Germany, noticed only marginally or by an expert audience.

At the same time, it is expedient to discuss the question of this forum for those states that either look back at a shorter tradition of established historiographical interpretations or whose political history after 1945 has experienced fundamental changes (Feest, Großheim, Anushay Malik, Sophie Wagenhofer, Peter Wien). Here, and when one thinks of Brazil and Argentina, we can see the strong role of actors from civil society or academics outside of research for the reformulation of national historiographical interpretations in the early 21st century. At the same time, these actors deny academic historiography produced in public universities its predominance in interpretations of what defines the nation in the 21st century.

The contributions in this forum demonstrate how certain problems and results are quite similar. This is not only visible inside specific regions and comparable systems, like with the nationalistic policies of the communist regimes in China and Vietnam, but also between states that already went through nation-building in the 19th century (Argentina, Brazil) and those states that experienced fundamental changes in their political system, for example, from colonies or dependent territories towards a “modern” nation-state, in the 20th century. At the same time, several contributions highlight the necessity of engaging with new source material for future research on the topic (see Fischer, Malik, and Wien). The chosen examples clearly show the shift in methodology: from research focused on memory politics of/from the nation and the more traditional research on nationalism focused on parties and textbooks, to research centred more on culture and Alltagsgeschichte.

What remains to be done

A forum about the role of the nation in history writing of the 21st century could have considered a range of contributions with diverse geographical and thematic foci. Several gaps are due to contemporary global processes, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and political turmoil, which nevertheless point to the dynamic of the theme.

We would like to close this introduction by briefly introducing some interesting research and pointing to potential avenues for future research. In doing so, we hope to contribute to further opening up German debates to not only look inwards but also follow more closely the experiences and discussions in other parts of the world. The existence of blind spots in one’s own experiences with nationalism and the role of the nation becomes visible when addressing the question of a common German historiography after 1990. Notwithstanding all attempts to include the history of East Germany into German-German history—the latter still being written mostly from a West German perspective—research on the nation in Germany has often been initiated by non-Germans.[13]

Despite the forum’s global perspective, it does not include contributions to all regions of interest. Thus, the forum lacks an article on sub-Saharan Africa, even though a closer look at history writing in sub-Saharan countries would have provided further insights. While there are already important studies for this region, we would have liked to know in more detail how the historiography produced in such countries that harked back on European models to build one nation from/with different communities after decolonization nowadays understands the complexities of multi-ethnic states; even more so as such attempts already drew scepticism during decolonization.[14] This scepticism coincided with the height of pan-Africanism in the 1960s. Being one of the most intense periods of decolonization, this decade saw various international discussions revolving around alternatives to creating unified nations; one significant alternative for Africa was pan-Africanism. In debates around the nation, one also comes across other pan-movements, such as the older pan-Asianism, the then equally important pan-Arabism (see also the contribution by Wien), and across the non-aligned movement.[15]

The forum could have also included other country examples that would have potentially enriched the debate on the role of the nation in history writing. In the European context, one could think of Spain with its renewed regional conflicts, a case that is even more striking as the Catalonian nationalism had been regarded as more civil than the Basque and as potential contestations had been understood as solved after the end of the ETA terror. Potential pitfalls continue to remain hidden behind a positive charged undifferentiated left nationalism, which has been demonstrated in newer research on the history of emotions within Catalonian nationalism.[16] Likewise, one could have discussed the ramifications of the language question in France or the “divided” Italy. In the latter case, it would not only have been of interest to engage more closely with the Mezzogiorno, with Sardinia, or with _(Trans-)Padania, but also with Southern Tirol, which was shaken by bomb attacks in the late 1980s. Both this last example and also the Basque case show that the question of territoriality and nation had not yet been settled in late 20th century Europe.[17] The case of Great Britain has, by contrast, seen widespread attention in the last few years.[18]

Beyond Europe, Chile would have provided an interesting example due to its current constitutional debate. Likewise, India could have served for a detailed case study, not only to mirror the Pakistani developments. For some time now, the South Asian country has seen ferocious public and academic debates concerning the questions of who belongs to the Indian nation and how a national history should be written. These debates are further fuelled by the re-interpretation of the Indian nation as a Hindu nation on the part of the Hindu nationalist Modi government, an interpretation that is accompanied by relevant laws and governmental policies.[19] Similarly, concerning the Turkish-Islamic-Synthesis and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s dream of the rejuvenation of a Greater Turkey in a Neo-Ottoman garb, Turkey would have offered intriguing aspects for international comparison. As the British debate on the importance and role of empires has foregrounded, national narratives hold highly emotionalizing potentials—obvious also in the Japanese-Chinese case (see the contribution by Uchida). Recent research on the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, on Czarist Russia, and on the Ottoman Empire, however, emphasise that these states also repressed certain aggressive strands of nationalism and allowed partly for cosmopolitanism.[20] These findings link to highly topical cases such as Crimea, which point to the current interrelationship of nationalism and neo-imperial expansion in a revisionist garb.

Along with the state-regional approach of our forum, we could have extended the discussion on the role of the nation in current history writing through a detailed thematic focus. A contribution about the recent research on fascism and anti-fascism as a global phenomenon could broaden our understanding of “the nation” and its historiographical discourses.[21] Of equal interest would have been the perspective of international schoolbook research on approaches to the nation in lesson planning and textbooks across different countries (see also Uchida and Wagenhofer). Members of the German-Polish School Book Commission continue to publish about these questions.[22]

All this makes clear that the anachronistic nation continues to be highly topical in academic and public debates and will remain of interest to us. We hope that the contributions in this forum will lead to future discussions, and we wish you a pleasant reading.[23]

For a German version of this text, please see https://www.hsozkult.de/debate/id/diskussionen-5271 .

Notes:
[1] Tagesschau, 19.08.2021 2:37 p.m., <http://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/afghanistan-1025.html> (01.09.2021).
[2] Jill Lepore, This America. The Case for the Nation, New York 2019; Anne Applebaum, Die Verlockung des Autoritären. Warum antidemokratische Herrschaft so populär geworden ist (orig. Twilight of Democracy. The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, [2020]), München 2021; Aleida Assmann, Die Wiedererfindung der Nation. Warum wir sie fürchten und warum wir sie brauchen (The Reinvention of the Nation. Why We Are Afraid of Her and Why We Need Her), München 2020. See also, idem, Erinnerung, Identität, Emotionen. Die Nation neu denken, in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik (2020), 3, <https://www.blaetter.de/ausgabe/2020/maerz/erinnerung-identitaet-emotionen-die-nation-neu-denken> (01.09.2021).
[3] Previously, it was mainly political scientists who dealt with this dynamic; see e.g. Volker Weiß, Deutschlands neue Rechte. Angriff der Eliten – von Spengler bis Sarrazin (Germany’s New Right. Attack of the Elites – From Spengler to Sarrazin), Paderborn 2011. Cf. also the review of this book, after which the propositions of Thilo Sarrazin met the approval of nearly 50 percent of the Germans, Johannes Zuber, Rezension zu: ibid., in: H-Soz-Kult, <https://www.hsozkult.de/publicationreview/id/reb-17872> (02.09.2021).
[4] As a start from the sizable literature, inter alia Ben Wellings, English Nationalism and Euroscepticism. Losing the Peace, Bern 2012; Benjamin Grob-Fitzgibbon, Continental Drift. Britain and Europe from the End of Empire to the Rise of Euroscepticism, Cambridge 2016. From the German perspective, Dominik Geppert, Ein Europa der Nationen. Der europäische Einigungsprozess aus zeitgeschichtlicher Sicht, in: Arnd Uhle (eds.), Quo vadis Europa? Gegenwarts- und Zukunftsfragen der europäischen Einigung (Quo vadis Europe? Questions from the Present and the Future on the European Unification), Berlin 2020, pp. 39–56. Some English authors started also from a eurosceptic standpoint, but from a different angle, see Alan S. Milward, The European Rescue of the Nation-State, 2. ed., London 2000. On a bizarre element of the eurosceptic debate and its hopes for the continuation of the nation-state, see Brent F. Nelsen / James L. Guth, European Union or Kingdom of the Antichrist? Protestant apocalyptic narratives and European unity, in: National Identities 19 (2017), 2, pp. 251–267.
[5] On the interplay between decolonisation and nationalism see, for example, Jean Allman, Between the Present and History. African Nationalism and Decolonization, in: John Parker / Richard Reid (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern African History, Oxford 2013, pp. 224–242; Harald Fischer-Tiné, Marrying Global History with South Asian History. Potential and Limits of Global Microhistory in a Regional Inflection, in: Comparativ 28 (2018), 5, pp. 49–74, here 55–58.
[6] Here one might refer to Berber Bevernage / Nico Wouters (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of state-sponsored history after 1945, London 2018.
[7] For a critical statement on the problem of languages for global history see, Margrit Pernau, Global history. Wegbereiter für einen neuen Kolonialismus?, in: Connections. A Journal for Historians and Area Specialists, 17. December 2004, <https://www.connections.clio-online.net/searching/id/diskussionen-572?title=global-history-wegbereiter-fuer-einen-neuen-kolonialismus&q=Pernau&page=2&sort=&fq=&total=38&recno=38&subType=fddebateecno=38&subType=fddebate> (01.09.2021).
[8] See also Note 3.
[9] On the revival of nationalism in Africa and as a historiographical overview on research on the nation in Africa see Miles Larmer / Baz Lecocq, Historicising Nationalism in Africa, in: Nations and Nationalism 24 (2018), 4, pp. 893–917, here p. 906. On the resurgence of the debate: Benedict Anderson’s book was published anew in 1991, Eric Hobsbawm’s classic Nations and Nationalism since 1780 (1989) saw different editions during the 1990s, and Fukuyama came out in 1992 with The End of History and the Last Man, a book in which he postulated that the search for any form of government for all nations came to an end with the establishment of the liberal democracy. Even more radically, Samuel P. Huntington thematised in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) the end of the value of the nation as an analytical concept. An important impetus for these books came from the second half of the 1980s (Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, ext. new ed., London 1991; Eric J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality, 2. ed., Cambridge 1992; Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man, New York 1992; Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, London 1998). For the different phases in Hobsbawm’s reflections on the nation, which could be used for a more thorough theory of research cycles, see John Breuilly, Hobsbawm and Researching the History of Nationalism, in: John H. Arnold / Matthew Hilton / Jan Rüger (Hrsg.), History after Hobsbawm. Writing the Past for the Twenty-First Century, Oxford 2017.
[10] The most well-known and contentious example is Niall Ferguson, Empire. How Britain made the modern world, London 2003. An argument for the necessity of a new imperial history against postcolonial and national history interpretations in the case of Great Britain/the British Empire was made by Anthony Hopkins, Back to the Future. From national history to imperial history, in: Past & Present 164 (1999), 1, pp. 198–243. For theoretical insights into the relationship between British history writing, the Commonwealth and Europe in the 20th century, see J. G. A. Pocock, History and Sovereignty. The Historiographical Response to Europeanization in Two British Cultures, in: Journal of British Studies 31 (1992), 4, pp. 358–389.
[11] Pablo Alabarces, Für Messi sterben? Der Fußball und die Erfindung der argentinischen Nation, 2. ed., Berlin 2015. The book is based on the author’s PhD thesis that was originally published by the University of Brighton; idem, Football and Patria. Sport, National Narratives and Identities in Argentina, 1920–1998, Brighton 2001.
[12] Another such example is the thematisation of supposedly long ignored “migrant” and minority communities, such as the descendants of black Argentinians, see Uki Goñi, Time to challenge Argentina’s white European self-image, black history experts say, in: The Guardian, 31 May 2021, <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/31/argentina-white-european-racism-history> (24.08.2021). Ironically, the author of the article belongs to the traditional liberal upper middle class of Argentina.
[13] For an early West German example that has considered the nation as a threat, see, Dorothea Weidinger (eds.), Nation – Nationalismus – nationale Identität (Nation – Nationalism – National Identity), Bonn 1998, particularly ch. 6. For non-German contributions to the debate see, e.g., Régine Robin, Berlin. Gedächtnis einer Stadt (Berlin. Mind of a City), Berlin 2002, pp. 79–196; for recent attempts to connect the histories of both states, see for instance, Petra Weber, Getrennt und doch vereint. Deutsch-deutsche Geschichte 1945–1989/90 (Divided and Still United. German-German History, 1945–1989/90), Berlin 2020.
[14] Larmer / Lecocq, Historicising nationalism, with secondary literature; Denise Bentrovato, Narrating and Teaching the Nation, Göttingen 2015; Lisa Hoppel, Internationalistischer Nationalismus. Lehren aus dem panafrikanischen Befreiungskampf (Internationalist Nationalism. Lessons from the pan-African Fight for Independence), Wien 2019; Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Rethinking Chimurenga and Gukurahundi in Zimbabwe. A Critique of Partisan National History, in: African Studies Review 55 (2012), 3, pp. 1–26.
[15] For Europe see, Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen. The Modernization of Rural France, 1880–1914, Stanford 1976; for pan-Africanism and the question of state building after decolonisation see Andreas Eckert, Untergang einer Verheißung? Afrika nach der Unabhängigkeit, in: Historische Anthropologie 29 (2021), 1, pp. 75–97, particularly pp. 75–77; Torsten Weber, Embracing ‘Asia’ in China and Japan. Asianism discourse and the conquest for hegemony, 1912–1933, New York 2018; Carolien Stolte / Harald Fischer-Tiné, Imagining Asia in India: Nationalism and Internationalism (ca. 1905–1940), in: Comparative Studies in Society and History 54 (2012), 1, pp. 65–92; Carolien Stolte, “The People’s Bandung”. Local Anti-imperialists on an Afro-Asian stage, in: Journal of World History 30 (2019), 1–2, pp. 125–156; Jürgen Dinkel, The non-aligned movement. Genesis, Organization and Politics (1927–1992), Leiden 2018.
[16] For the Basque region see the chapter “Das Baskenland zwischen Terrorismus und Friedenssehensucht” in Walther L. Bernecker / Horst Pietschmann, Geschichte Spaniens (History of Spain), 4., rev. and updated ed., Stuttgart 2005, pp. 456–478. The history of nationalism is viewed through the history of emotions in Birgit Aschmann, Beziehungskrisen. Eine Emotionsgeschichte des katalanischen Separatismus (Relationship Crises. A history of emotions of Catalan Separatism), Göttingen 2021. For the complex memory politics in Spain, see Walther L. Bernecker / Sören Brinkmann, Kampf der Erinnerungen. Der Spanische Bürgerkrieg in Politik und Gesellschaft 1936–2006 (Memory Wars. The Spanish Civil War in Politics and Society 1936–2006), Nettersheim 2006; Sebastian Seibert, Freiheitskämpfer, Terroristen, Demokraten und Faschisten. Politische Gewalt aus der Perspektive irischer und baskischer Nationalisten (Freedom Fighters, Terrorists, Democrats and Fascists. Political Violence from the Perspective of Irish and Basque Nationalists), Frankfurt 2019.
[17] For a more recent engagement with the subject, see Marco Bresciani, Fascism, Anti-Fascism and the Idea of Nation. Italian Historiography and Public Debate since the 1980s, in: Contemporary European History 30 (2021), 1, pp. 111–123; Rolf Steininger, Südtirol. Vom Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gegenwart (South Tyrol. From World War I to the Present), Innsbruck 2014; Sebastian De Pretto, Im Kampf um Geschichte(n). Erinnerungsorte des Abessinienkriegs in Südtirol (Fighting for (Hi)storie(s). Memorial Sites of the Abyssinian War in South Tyrol), Göttingen 2020; Hans Karl Peterlini, Feuernacht. Südtirols Bombenjahre, Hintergründe, Schicksale, Bewertungen, 1961–2011 (Bonfire night. South Tyrols years of Bombs, Backgrounds, Destinies, Evaluations, 1961–2011), Bozen 2011.
[18] See also Note 4. Apart from the North Irish question, there is less interest in other nationalisms in Great Britain. For a recent counterexample, see Ben Jackson, The Case for Scottish Independence. A History of Nationalist Political Thought in Modern Scotland, Cambridge 2020.
[19] Tanika Sarkar, How the Sangh Parivar Writes and Teaches History, in: Angana P. Chatterji / Thomas Blom Hansen / Christophe Jaffrelot (eds.), Majoritarian State. How Hindu Nationalism is Changing India, London 2019, pp. 151–173; Kumkum Roy / Pankaj Jha, Whose History is it Anyway, in: Economic & Political Weekly 56 (2021), 28, pp. 23–26; Michael Gottlob, History and Politics in Post-colonial India, New Delhi 2011; Christophe Jaffrelot, Modi’s India. Hindu Nationalism and the Rise of Ethnic Democracy, Princeton 2021.
[20] See Pieter M. Judson, The Habsburg Empire. A New History, Cambridge 2016; Valerie A. Kivelson / Ronald Grigor Suny, Russia’s Empires, New York 2017; Nora Lafi, Kosmopolitismus als Governance. Das Beispiel des osmanischen Reiches, in: Bernhard Gißibl / Isabella Löhr (eds.), Bessere Welten. Kosmopolitismus in den Geschichtswissenschaften (Better worlds. Cosmopolitism in history), Frankfurt am Main 2017, pp. 317–342.
[21] Maria Framke, Delhi – Rom – Berlin. Die indische Wahrnehmung von Faschismus und Nationalsozialismus 1922–1939 (Delhi – Rome – Berlin. The Indian Perception of Fascism and National Socialism), Darmstadt 2013; Daniel Hedinger, Die Achse Berlin, Rom, Tokio 1919–1946 (The Axis Berlin, Rome, Tokio 1919–1946), München 2021; Hugo Garcia, Transnational history. A new paradigm for anti-fascist studies, in: Contemporary European History 25 (2016), 4, pp. 563–572; Kasper Braskén / Nigel Copsey / David Featherstone (eds.), Anti-fascism in a global perspective. Transnational networks, exile communities, and racial internationalism, Abingdon 2021.
[22] The publications of the German-Polish School Book Commission are accessible online, see: <http://deutsch-polnische.schulbuchkommission.de/publikationen/einzelveroeffentlichungen.html>
(03.09.2021). On the connection between geography textbooks and juvenile literature and the knowledge they transported of imperialism and nationalism in a global comparison, see also the special issue World Knowledge and Non-European Space. An International Comparison of Geography Textbooks and Children’s Books of the Nineteenth Century, ed. by Andreas Weiß, in: JEMMS 19 (2018), 1. See also note 15.
[23] The importance of the topic is also flagged in VHD Journal #10 (2021).

Zitation
Forum: Nation: M. Framke and A. Weiß: The role of the nation in history writing in the 21st century, in: H-Soz-Kult, 27.09.2021, <www.hsozkult.de/debate/id/diskussionen-5287>.
Redaktion
Veröffentlicht am
27.09.2021
Klassifikation
Weitere Informationen
rda_languageOfExpression_fddebate