关于“纳粹主义历史化”争论背后的思考——以1987年布洛撒特与弗里德兰德的通信为考察对象  

On the Debate of“Nazi Historicization”:Based on the Communication between Martin Broszat and Saul Friedlander in 1987

作　　者：王琳 Wang Lin

机构地区：[1]南京大学历史学院,江苏南京210023

出　　处：《史学史研究》2020年第2期69-78,共10页Journal of Historiography

基　　金：国家社会科学基金项目“民族主义视阈下战后德国文化记忆变迁研究(1945—2000)”(项目编号:18SBB006);中央高校基本科研业务费择优提升项目(项目编号:3102019WGYTS01)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：20世纪80年代联邦德国爆发了"史学家之争",在这场争论的后期,马丁·布洛撒特和索尔·弗里德兰德之间展开了关于"纳粹主义历史化"的探讨。布洛撒特提出的"历史化"是指,对纳粹主义的研究应放在德国整体历史的背景下进行。弗里德兰德则认为,"纳粹主义历史化"势必会造成对纳粹历史书写的"正常化",从而可能丧失对它的道德评判。这一场关于纳粹主义"历史化"和"道德化"的争论反映出当时联邦德国的政治社会正处于"精神与道德转折"时期,其史学研究从传统的历史主义向批判社会史学转变,而身处其中的历史学家也在职业身份和个人背景中寻找自我定位。上述这些因素都为后续德国社会以反思纳粹主义和大屠杀为中心的记忆潮兴起作出了有益的铺垫。The"historian debate"broke out in the West Germany in the 1980 s,and there’s a dispute on Nazi historicization between Martin Broszat and Saul Friedlander in the late process of the debate.Brossard’s"historicalization"means that the study of Nazism should be placed in the context of the whole history of Germany.Friedlander believed that the"Nazi historicization"would inevitably lead to the"normalization"of writing of Nazi history,and thus research may lose its morality.This debate about Nazism’s"historicalization"and"moralization"reflects that the society of The Federal Republic of Germany was in the"spiritual and moral transition",its historical study changed from traditional historicism to critical social history,and the historians repositioned themselves in this process.All of these factors have laid a foundation for the subsequent the memory movement in which reflection of Nazism and Holocaust is central in Germany.

关 键 词：纳粹主义历史化 马丁·布洛撒特 索尔·弗里德兰德 

分 类 号：K091[历史地理—历史学]