Talk:Sonderweg

Untitled

Sonderweg, (literally: sonder= 'special', weg= 'path') is a theory in historiography that considers the German-speaking lands, or the country Germany, to have followed its own, unique course through its evolution and history, separate from other European countries: its own 'special' or 'alternative' development.

I would like to link my newly created webpage on Sonderweg. It can be linked at the following URL: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~blfay/sonderweg.html

acceptance

The article I added, from Heilbronner, states quite explicitly that "Sonderweg" is not accepted any more with historians. Intangible 04:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The need to distinguish

The Sonderweg theories of the 1960s and 1970s as propounded by Hans-Ulrich Wehler and other, mainly German historians, do not try to trace the development back to before the 19th century. They suggest that in some sense Germany went off the rails in the last few decades of the 19th century.

All this is very different indeed from wartime propaganda and the sort of 'theories' that attribute the Third Reich to a supposedly pathological 'national character'. These latter notions are essentially racist. Norvo (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Late June 2008

A few hours ago, I reread this article. Funny how the first time, months ago, I failed to notice how much redundancy there was in it. Even worse, there were internal contradictions in information presented. It said Haffner wrote in response to Vansittart although it also reported -- correctly -- the dates of the two books AND HAFFNER'S CAME FIRST! The article said the debate over "what caused the German catastrophe of Nazism" started with the collapse of the Third Reich, contradicting itself because there were several sentences about books from 1940-41 starting the debate. I cleaned up the first third or so of this article. There were also several very subtle mistranslations. Hurmata (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A minor mistake with a template ?

As I had met while reading the article a comma followed by and odd "August 2008", I removed what I thougth a typo : [1] (I did not look throughout the history to see how it happened). I see I am getting reverted : [2] and I took one or two minutes to understand what could be wrong. Eureka ! (Maybe) Should not the "citation" template be a "Fact" template ? If I am right this time, this should be corrected (of course this is minor, nothing serious). French Tourist (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, there was misunderstanding on both sides. When I looked at the history of the previous edits (consecutive versions displayed side by side), I looked only at the color coded raw markup code. I did not scroll down to check how the article versions would appear. Your edit summary, Since ca. 1965: typo (?), while accurate as far as it goes, does not specify what drew your attention. The "citations" tag at the top of the page is the clue to what the inline tag (tag within the text) was about. On the other hand, the one who placed inline tag got it wrong, and it is I who placed it there, weeks ago. It was my responsibility to format the Fact tag correctly. I have rectified the error. Hurmata (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sonderweg/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Below is a review of the article on Sonderweg argument. == General Review == This is a succinct and thoughtful analysis of the Sonderweg argument, an important historical position in European history. It is laid out in two chronological sections. The first section covers the 19th century to the rise of National Socialism, the second section, 20th century, starts with 1940 and includes the Sondwerweg in WWII, the early postwar period, since 1965, the sub-debate, and criticism. The author includes two examples of the ways in which the Sonderweg theory has been appropriated to explain, for example, why the Final Solution was carried out, and the Holy Roman Empire as a precursor to Nazi Germany. The writing is clear and concise, at times even elegant, and includes appropriate quotes and citations. Clearly the author is an authority on this subject, and this contribution to Wikipedia is a useful assessment of the Sonderweg argument. ===Attribution=== The article sufficiently cites key historians in the Sonderweg debate: Kocka, Mommsen, Wehler, and the Blackbourne Eley team, additional analysis by historians who have contributed to the discussion of the Sonderweg: Jarusch, Moeller, and Hammerow, and three articles on the Sonderweg controversy in general (Grebing, Groh, Pulhe). The section on Hitler's Willing Executioners (the subdebate) could perhaps have more citations; the conference topic on Ordinary Men/Willing Executioners may have provided the analysis for that paragraph, but it needs proper citations. ===Improvement of Organization=== While it makes sense to organize such an article chronologically, the use of "19th century" and "20th century" as organizing elements is misleading. The Sonderweg of 1900 is fundamentally different than the Sonderweg theory of 1945. Furthermore, there were three distinct versions of the Sonderweg: The national chauvinist version of the Second Reich, which I would have termed exceptionalism and the deployment of the Borussian myth that justifies the Little Germany solution; the Golden Mean -- the post 1900 assertion of the German special path between weak, decadent and inefficient authoritarian state (Tsarist Russia) and the weak, decadent and inefficient democratic states of France and Britain; and the Peculiar path that seeks to explain the failure of German democracy in the 1920s and the rise and deeds of National Socialism. Consequently, I suggest using a categorical organization, and assigning a time frame to the categories, rather than the straight chronological structure. ===The Subdebates=== There are two applications -- I would not call them subdebates, but rather examples of how the argument is used -- of the Sonderweg argument included in this article. It should be clear that the Post-War (WWII) Sonderweg is principally concerned with explaining National Socialism, the Final Solution, or the Holocaust, or all three in varying degrees. The inclusion of the Browning/Goldhagen controversy is a good example, but needs to be set in its context. It needs a topic sentence that frames the argument, and explains why it is included in the Sonderweg article. Rather than see Sonderweg as another esoteric argument among and between historians, it is important to understand "the peculiar path" as a model for looking at a set of historical choices. These two widely read books (Ordinary Men and Hitler's Willing Executioners) are examples of the scholarly debate spilling into popular history. It is important, therefore, for people who read popular history to understand the ins and outs of the scholarly debate, at least in its general forms. The Holy Roman Empire and the Sonderweg offer a classic example of going back to the past to find explanations that fit a perception/conception of the present. This is perhaps the weakest section of the article. There should be perhaps simply a link to the Holy Roman Empire, rather than a paragraph explaining what it was, followed by an explanation of the Holy Roman Empire and the Sonderweg in joint perspective and a clarification of what the conclusions were. I really didn't understand well why it was included. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 06:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

George Kennan

Did George Kennan ever comment upon the Sonderweg? If he did, could someone familiar with his comments please include them in the article?Hackercraft (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)