지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
DBpia Top 1%동일한 주제분류 기준으로최근 2년간 이용수 순으로 정렬했을 때
해당 논문이 위치하는 상위 비율을 의미합니다.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
The history debate about the collapse of Weimar Republic and the rise of ‘Hitler State’ still in progress from different motives. Bracher, Broszat and Kershaw analysed this history from different historical backgrounds and different perspectives.
Bracher ascribed the collapse of German democracy not to the Sonderweg (“special path” of German historical development) but to human action that followed conscious choice. He complained that too many Germans were willing during the Weimar-Nazi time periods to subscribe to a readiness for acclamatory agreement and pseudo-military obedience to a strong authoritarian state.
Broszat argued against the totalitarian and intentionalist interpretation about the Nazi regime and developed, with Hans Mommsen, a “functionalist” interpretation of Nazi Germany. Hitler, in his view, was a “weak” dictator, and the Third Reich was not a monocracy, rather a polycracy. Kershaw called Broszat an “inspirational mentor” who did much to shape his understanding of National Socialist Germany. Nevertheless he is noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which goes beyond the limits of the intentionalist and the funtionalist view of Nazi Germany. Hitler held absolute power but did not exercise it very much. He was “Lazy Dictator”.
Bracher ascribed the collapse of German democracy not to the Sonderweg (“special path” of German historical development) but to human action that followed conscious choice. He complained that too many Germans were willing during the Weimar-Nazi time periods to subscribe to a readiness for acclamatory agreement and pseudo-military obedience to a strong authoritarian state.
Broszat argued against the totalitarian and intentionalist interpretation about the Nazi regime and developed, with Hans Mommsen, a “functionalist” interpretation of Nazi Germany. Hitler, in his view, was a “weak” dictator, and the Third Reich was not a monocracy, rather a polycracy. Kershaw called Broszat an “inspirational mentor” who did much to shape his understanding of National Socialist Germany. Nevertheless he is noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which goes beyond the limits of the intentionalist and the funtionalist view of Nazi Germany. Hitler held absolute power but did not exercise it very much. He was “Lazy Dictator”.
목차
바이마르의 몰락-구조의 위기인가 정치의 실패인가
나치체제와 히틀러 다시 보기
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
[아하! 오늘!] 독일인의 선택 나치, 그리고 히틀러
이정현
새가정
2011
.03
히틀러의 《나의 투쟁》 : 전체주의와 대중 선동
최호근
내일을 여는 역사
2007
.12
민주적 법치주의를 위하여 : 바이마르공화국 법치주의논쟁의 교훈
정태욱
시민과세계
2004
.10
나치의 일자리 만들기와 재무장 : 그 신화와 비극
이진모
역사비평
2009
.05
히틀러에 의한, 히틀러를 위한, 히틀러의 국가? : 마르틴 브로샤트/김학이 옮김,『히틀러국가-나치 정치혁명의 이념과 현실』(서울: 문학과지성사, 2011), 549쪽.
권형진
역사학보
2011
.12
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-905-003298823