Ph.D. (History), Associate Professor
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
Abstract. Based on an analysis of published works by American researchers (historians, political scientists, lawyers, sociologists, philosophers), the majority of whom was involved in the preparation and implementation of the process of re-education of Germans in the first postwar years, the authors aim to identify the main trends, approaches, assessments of the progress and future prospects of denazification of Germany from the point of view of American scientists and politicians of the first postwar decade. Denazification became one of the main public topics that was widely discussed in American society in the second half of the 1940s and 1950s, but these publications have not yet been the subject of a separate historiographical analysis in either ukrainian or foreign scientific literature that determines the novelty of the proposed article.
Discussions were formed by those who were involved in its implementation and did not always express the views of academics alone. Based on the methods of historiographic analysis and problem-chronological approach, it was found that the program of «re-education» of Germany and its implementation were ambiguously perceived and evaluated by different researchers, which led to the formation of two directions in historiography of this problem. The first and a little earlier formed direction showed a balanced positive assessment of the denazification policy even if certain problems, shortcomings or even partially negative results were stated. Another trend, which crystallized a little later, articulated a more critical, skeptical, and even negative view of US policy in occupied Germany. In American historiography there is a thesis that the Germans must solve their own problems.
The assessment of denazification took place at a time of critical geopolitical change in Europe, interest in which waned in the 1950s. Exacerbation of the confrontation with the USSR, fear of possible radicalization of Germany, problems of postwar economic recovery forced the United States to reconsider approaches to methods and rates of denazification policy and transfer control over its implementation to the newly formed Germany, an American ally.
Key words: American military administration, denazification, lustration, National Socialism, Germany.
- Cole, (1952). The Democratization of the German Civil Service. The Journal of Politics, 14(1), 3–18. [In English].
- Dorpalen, (1947). The Split Occupation Of Germany. The Virginia Quarterly Review, 22(4), 581–597. [In English].
- Fahy, C. (1946). The Lawyer In Military Government (Germany). Proceedings of the Section of International and Comparative Law (American Bar Association), 29-37. [In English].
- Friedrich, C.-J. (1950). Military Government and Dictatorship. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 267, 1–7. [In English].
- Griffith, W.-E. (1950). Denazification in the United States Zone of Germany. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 267, 68–76. [In English].
- Heberle, R. (1949). Observations on the Sociology of Social Movements. American Sociological Review, 14(3), 346–357. [In English].
- Herz, J.-H. (1948). The Fiasco of Denazification in Germany. Political Science Quarterly, 63(4), 569-594. [In English].
- Hilldring, J.H. (1948). What Is Our Purpose in Germany? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 255, 77–83. [In English].
- Holborn, H. (1953). American Foreign Policy and European Integration. World Politics, 6(1), 1–30. [In English].
- Johnson, A. (1947). Denazification. Social Research, 14(1), 59-74. [In English].
- Liss, (1947). Revival of Free Labor Organizations in the United States Occupation Zone in Germany: A Preview. Southern Economic Journal, 13(3), 247-256. [In English].
- Mccloy, J. (1950). Present Status of Denazification. Office of the U.S. High Commissioner for Germany, 5th Quarterly Report on Germany. October 1–December 31, 1950, 46-55. [In English].
- Meltzer, B.-D. (1947). A Note on Some Aspects of the Nuremberg Debate. The University of Chicago Law Review, 14(3), 455- [In English].
- Morgenthau, H. (1945). Germany Is Our Problem. New York: Harper&Brothers. [In English].
- Napoli, J.-F. (1949). Denazification from an American’s Viewpoint. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 264, 115- [In English].
- Neumann, R. G. (1948). New Constitution in Germany. The American Political Science Review, 42(3), 448- [In English].
- Nobleman, E.-E. (1947). Military Government Courts: Law and Justice in the American Zone of Germany. American Bar Association Journal, 33(8), 777-852. [In English].
- Plischke, E. (1947). Denazification Law and Procedure. American Journal of International Law, 41(4), 807–827. [In English].
- Plischke, E. (1947). Denazifying the Reich. The Review of Politics, 9(2), 153–172. [In English].
- Plischke, E. (1999) S. Department of State: A Reference History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. [In English].
- Rockwell, A.-J. (1950). Post-War Problems in Occupied Germany: American Democracy versus Russian Democracy. American Bar Association Journal, 36(5), 359-434. [In English].
- Shuster, G. N. (1949). German Reеducation: Success or Failure. Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, 23(3), 12-18. [In English].
- Speier, H., Riezler K. (1947). The Future Of German Nationalism. Social Research, 14(4), 421-454. [In English].
- Williams, F.-W. (1947). German Opinion and American Isolationism. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 11(2), 179-188. [In English].
- Yahraes, R. A. (1953). The Germans as Partners? The Antioch Review, 13(4), 468-484. [In English].
- Zink, H. (1946). American Military Government Organization in Germany. The Journal of Politics, 8(3), 329-349. [In English].
- Zink, H. (1946). A Political Scientist Looks at Military Government in the European Theater of Operations. The American Political Science Review, 40(6), 1097-1112. [In English].