Explore the vast range of titles available.

Peripheral cultures have been largely absent from the European canon of historiography. The principal aim of this book is to contribute to redressing the balance. It does so by offering an insight into the complexities of historical writing in nineteenth‐century East‐Central Europe and by ascertaining this tradition's place within the European historiographical heritage. At the core of the book lies a comparative analysis of the life‐work of five prominent scholars: Joachim Lelewel (Polish); Simonas Daukantas (Lithuanian); František Palacký (Czech); Mihály Horváth (Hungarian) and Mihail Kogălniceanu (Romanian). Rather than approaching these scholars' historical achievements from a narrow perspective, the book accommodates them in the context of their promotion of a unified vision of national culture. It discusses their accomplishments in the fields of language and literature, their pursuits in publishing journals and primary sources, and their contribution to the institutionalization and professionalization of the historical discipline.Through the reconstruction of these scholars' shared intellectual background and an in‐depth analysis of their historical narrative the author puts forward the claim that the five historians' professional and political agenda, influenced predominantly by liberalism and Romanticism, shared far more with their contemporaries elsewhere than has previously been assumed and thus renders them genuine representatives of a common European tradition.

Interwar Vienna was considered a bastion of radical socialist thought, and its reputation as \"Red Vienna\" has loomed large in both the popular imagination and the historiography of Central Europe. However, as Janek Wasserman shows in this book, a \"Black Vienna\" existed as well; its members voiced critiques of the postwar democratic order, Jewish inclusion, and Enlightenment values, providing a theoretical foundation for Austrian and Central European fascist movements. Looking at the complex interplay between intellectuals, the public, and the state, he argues that seemingly apolitical Viennese intellectuals, especially conservative ones, dramatically affected the course of Austrian history. While Red Viennese intellectuals mounted an impressive challenge in cultural and intellectual forums throughout the city, radical conservatism carried the day. Black Viennese intellectuals hastened the destruction of the First Republic, facilitating the establishment of the Austrofascist state and paving the way forAnschlusswith Nazi Germany. Closely observing the works and actions of Viennese reformers, journalists, philosophers, and scientists, Wasserman traces intellectual, social, and political developments in the Austrian First Republic while highlighting intellectuals' participation in the growing worldwide conflict between socialism, conservatism, and fascism. Vienna was a microcosm of larger developments in Europe-the rise of the radical right and the struggle between competing ideological visions. By focusing on the evolution of Austrian conservatism, Wasserman complicates post-World War II narratives about Austrian anti-fascism and Austrian victimhood.

The volume, stemming from the long-term cooperation of scholars working on East Central European intellectual history, discusses the patterns of patriotic and national identification in the light of the multiplicity of levels of ethnic, cultural and political allegiances characterizing this region in the early modern period.

Bruce F. Pauley draws on his family and personal history to tell a story that examines the lives of Volga Germans during the eighteenth century, the pioneering experiences of his family in late nineteenth-century Nebraska, and the dramatic transformations that influenced the history profession during the second half of the twentieth century. An award-winning historian of anti-Semitism, Nazism, and totalitarianism Pauley helped shape historical interpretation from the 1970s to the '90s both in the United States and Central Europe. Pioneering History on Two Continentsprovides an intimate look at the shifting approaches to the historian's craft during a volatile period of world history, with an emphasis on twentieth-century Central European political, social, and diplomatic developments. It also examines the greater sweep of history through the author's firsthand experiences as well as those of his ancestors who participated in these global currents through their migration from Germany to the steppes of Russia to the Great Plains of the United States.

The world wars, genocides and extremist ideologies of the 20th century are remembered very differently across Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe, resulting sometimes in fierce memory disputes. This book investigates the complexity and contention of the layers of memory of the troubled 20th century in the region. Written by an international group of scholars from a diversity of disciplines, the chapters approach memory disputes in methodologically innovative ways, studying representations and negotiations of disputed pasts in different media, including monuments, museum exhibitions, individual and political discourse and electronic social media. Analyzing memory disputes in various local, national and transnational contexts, the chapters demonstrate the political power and social impact of painful and disputed memories. The book brings new insights into current memory disputes in Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe. It contributes to the understanding of processes of memory transmission and negotiation across borders and cultures in Europe, emphasizing the interconnectedness of memory with emotions, mediation and politics.

The studies in East and Central European History Writing in Exile 1939-1989 offer concise analysis of the organization and the intellectual work of historians exiled from the Baltic States, including Baltic Germans, Belorusia, Ukraine, and Poland in the West.

Historical revisionism, far from being restricted to small groups of ‘negationists,’ has galvanized debates in the realm of recent history. The studies in this book range from general accounts of the background of recent historical revisionism to focused analyses of particular debates or social-cultural phenomena in individual Central European countries, from Germany to Ukraine and Estonia.

The past may be approached from a variety of directions. A myth provides a sense of direction: it reunites people around certain values and projects and pushes them in one direction or another. The present volume brings together a range of case studies of myth making and myth breaking in east Europe from the nineteenth century to the present day. In particular, it focuses on the complex process through which memories are transformed into myths. This problematic interplay between memory and myth-making is analyzed in conjunction with the role of myths in the political and social life of the region. The essays include cases of forging myths about national pre-history, about the endorsement of nation building by means of historiography, and above all, about communist and post-communist mythologies. The studies shed new light on the creation of local and national identities, as well as the legitimization of ideologies through myth-making. Together, the individual contributions show that myths were often instrumental in the vast projects of social and political mobilization during a period which has witnessed, among others, two world wars and the harsh oppression of the communist regimes.

The aim of this article is to evaluate the impact of public sector reform on academic literature from the post-NPM perspective. There have been several investigations into post-NPM public governance models and their impact on public sector reform. Yet, the research problem faced when analysing post-NPM literature is the lack of studies examining the multitude of possible public governance models (PGM) with sufficient comprehensiveness, especially in Central and Eastern European (CEE) states. In order to effectively address the research problem, a bibliometric analysis was performed, following three objectives: (i) an investigation into the evolution of PGM literature, (ii) identification of the core publications and authors based on publication frequency, and (iii) a citation network analysis (a historiograph), indicating the relations among the most-cited publications. It involved the identification of 16,374 publications in the Web of Science database, narrowed down to the 100 most cited between 1994 and 2017, and the application of the HistCite bibliometric analysis software, covering descriptive statistics, bibliometric indicators, and historiographic citation analysis. The research results reveal a growing research interest in the topic, as supported by bibliometric indicators. In addition, important differences as regards coverage and diffusion of individual post-NPM models are indicated. Namely, most publications focus on the ‘governance’ paradigm and subsequent critical rethinking, as indicated by several post-NPM modernisation proposals. Furthermore, we have shown that such evaluation of governance and related doctrines may be biased in favour of subjective, pluralistic Western ideas about governance, presumably limiting their impact within the CEE and several other regions. Hence, the regions’ particularities in terms of governance (post-socialism, Rechtsstaat culture, EU membership, small states, etc.) must be further taken into account in the post-NPM literature.

In the “Year of Prussia” 2001, celebrated in Germany because of the three-hundredth anniversary of Prussia's becoming a kingdom in 1701, the editor of the culture section of Die Welt, Eckhart Fuhr, remarked in a review of recent publications, “The discourse (on Prussia) has long since lost all of its (former) severity, obstinacy, and passion. The Germans today,” he declared, “are perfectly comfortable with the ambiguity of the Prussian legacy.” His colleague, the historian and Die Zeit journalist Volker Ulrich, agreed. He observed that the discussion about Prussia lacked a critical edge and regretted that no “truly sharp anti-Prussian book” had appeared among the many new publications. Gavriel D. Rosenfeld reached the same conclusion in his article, “‘A Mastered Past?’ The West-German Historiography on Prussia after 1945,” published in 2004 in the journal German History. He interpreted as a sign of “normalization” the fact that—unlike thirty years ago—Prussia is no longer the source of sharply formulated historical debates.