Post-1945 West German Historiography: Conservatism, Continuity, and Confronting the Nazi Past

In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, most West German historians rejected Friedrich Meinecke’s self-critical approach. Prominent figures like Gerhard Ritter instead sought to isolate National Socialism from the broader continuum of German national history. Ritter attributed the roots of Nazism to modern democratic mass society, which he blamed for eroding traditional religious and moral standards and enabling nihilism. Consequently, he believed the historical profession's primary duty was not to critique but to reinforce the German national tradition, aiming to restore national self-confidence.

This position reflected the traditional nationalism pervasive within the German historical profession, which had led many to initially support Hitler. After 1945, the West German historical association (Verband der Historiker Deutschlands, VHD) never formally apologized to colleagues forced into exile, and few émigrés were invited to return. Notably, only 21 of 134 exiled historians returned, with many settling in the communist East. A pervasive legend was constructed that the profession had remained largely untouched by Nazism, a myth only scrutinized through thorough investigation in the 1990s.

The post-war profession was dominated by conservatives like Ritter and Hans Rothfels. While Ritter had contact with the July 1944 resistance and was imprisoned, Rothfels, persecuted as a Jew, emigrated in 1938 and returned to a prominent career. Together, they played a major role in exculpating the profession from responsibility for Nazism and stifling methodological innovation. A "tamed historism" prevailed, focusing on political history researched in state archives and centered on great statesmen and the nation-state.

Efforts were made to reconfigure national historical figures for the post-war era. The Prussian reformers were portrayed as liberals, and the revolutionaries of 1848 were hailed as forerunners of the Bonn Republic. The 1950s Bismarck debate only partially challenged the myths surrounding the "iron chancellor," ultimately reaffirming his stature. While institutes like the Institute of European History in Mainz (founded 1950) promoted European perspectives, this was often framed within a conservative concept of a "Christian occident" (christliches Abendland), serving anti-communist interests.

Anti-communism strongly shaped historical interpretation, evident in the popularity of totalitarian theory, which equated the "brown" (Nazi) and "red" (GDR) dictatorships. The "loss of the German East" became a major historiographical focus, supported by institutes like the Collegium Carolinum (Munich, 1956) and the Herder Institute (Marburg, 1950). Theodor Schieder led a project documenting the expulsion of Germans, ironically after having earlier supplied the Nazis with plans for ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe.

Organizationally, the VHD, closely allied with the refounded Association of German History Teachers, maintained traditional academic structures. The powerful Ordinarius (full professor) system, with its lengthy qualification requiring a Habilitation, ensured the dependency of younger scholars and autocratic departmental rule. A significant innovation was the institutionalization of contemporary history (Zeitgeschichte). The Institute of Contemporary History in Munich (founded 1951) and its journal, Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte, became central to studying National Socialism, though its early work often marginalized Jewish Holocaust narratives and focused narrowly on German resistance.

From the 1960s, interpretations began to shift toward understanding broader German entanglement with Nazism and its social history. Institutions like the Forschungsstelle für die Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus in Hamburg (founded 1960) contributed to this diversification. Other key institutions shaped the research landscape: the Commission for the History of Parliamentarism and Political Parties (founded 1951) investigated Weimar democracy; the Max Planck Institute for History in Göttening (refounded 1955) housed major projects like the Dahlmann-Waitz bibliography; and the Historical Commission at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences oversaw works like the New German Biography.

Furthermore, the Historical Commission in Berlin (founded 1959) focused on Prussian history, while the Bundeswehr’s Military History Research Office (founded 1957) became a center for scholarly military history. Crucially, German Historical Institutes were established in major capitals like Paris, London, and Washington, financed by the West German government to mediate between German and international historiography. Collectively, these institutions facilitated a slow, complex, and often contested engagement with the National Socialist past within a framework marked by substantial continuity.