What do you think?
Rate this book
Deutsche Geschichte des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts
»Wer sich in die Geschichte der deutschen Nation vertieft, der hat leicht den Eindruck eines unruhigen Lebens in Extremen ... Einmal erreichen deutsche Gestalten die höchsten geistigen Höhen, auf denen je Menschen gelebt haben, indessen gleichzeitig trübe Mittelmäßigkeit den öffentlichen Ton beherrscht. Von apolitischer Ruhe wendet Deutschland sich zur aufgeregtesten politischen Tätigkeit, von buntscheckiger Vielgestalt zu radikaler Einheitlichkeit; aus Ohnmacht erhebt es sich zu aggressiver Macht, sinkt zurück in Ruin, erarbeitet sich in unglaublicher Schnelle neuen, hektischen Wohlstand. Es ist weltoffen, kosmopolitisch, mit Bewunderung dem Fremden zugeneigt; dann verachtet und verjagt es das Fremde und sucht das Heil in übersteigerter Pflege seiner Eigenart. Die Deutschen gelten als das philosophische, spekulative Volk, dann wieder als das am stärksten praktische, materialistische, als das geduldigste, friedlichste, und wieder als das herrschsüchtigste, brutalste. Ihr eigener Philosoph, Nietzsche, hat sie das 'Täusche-Volk' genannt, weil sie die Welt immer wieder mit Dingen überraschen, die man gerade von ihnen nicht erwartet.«
Golo Mann
Golo Mann
1063 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1958
35 people are currently reading
353 people want to read
About the author
Golo Mann
66 books17 followersBorn Angelus Gottfried Thomas Mann, he was a popular German historian, essayist and writer. He was the third child of the novelist Thomas Mann and his wife Katia Mann.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
May 21, 2023
While I do have a number of problems with Golo Mann’s The History of Germany since 1789, it is a very intelligent book and more engaging at a personal level than is typical in most histories. This is not history for the passive reader nor is Dr. Mann’s target audience one with little or no background in German history. From the beginning he makes it clear that his intention to examine those who blame Germany for various things across history and exonerate the country of his birth. He has a declared purpose and while his product attempts to be academically neutral his intentions is to promote a point of view.
This is not as bad as it sounds. There is value in taking the less common POV in an effort to produce a more balanced opinion among your readers. The approach assumes that this is not the reader’s only knowledge of these times and places. I came to The History of Germany in part because of the lack of depth in this area and because Mann as a German, with an American Education should have been able to give me a POV more from the German perspective. And so my read, and his writing became a matter of how much and how reasonable was this application of the matter of perspective.
Late in the book, (it is over 500 pages) it occurred to me that unlike most countries, Germany is a concept as much as a geography. Prof Mann never makes clear what exactly or approximately what he means by Germany or Germans. What most of us think of as a single color on the map had no unified existence much before 1789 and the boundaries of that map did not mean the same as it might mean to an American until sometime in the mid 1800’s. My wording is cautious because Germany is also a concept and people who have varying amounts of shared identity. It is common for Germans to talk of a set of traditions and a culture and culture going back 1000 years, but theirs is hardly as coherent of an identity as might be the case among the peoples of, for example, Italy, another country that became a single unified political existence at about the same time.
The History begins in 1789 as the beginnings of Germany as a single political entity is associated with the Napoleon. Mann describes how a cluster of city-states, principalities and barely associated feudal heavily agricultural entities had a proto-national identity thrust upon them by the rest of Europe as a balance against the threat of post Napoleonic France. In making the boundaries, there was little appreciation for the relative size and power of the historic princelings, Protestant and Catholic divisions and local tendencies to defer to the Junker class.
Austria and or the Austria Hungarian Empire is described as being out there somewhere. Austria and Poland will be a shadow in and out of the next hundred and fifty years of history. The History was published in 1968. Never made clear was the degree to which Austria Germans and the German Germans shared history, geography, economics and cultural history. It would seem that absorption of the one by the other would have been an obvious outcome but Mann never clearly distinguishes what about these people never made for more than alliances. Geography could have been the barrier but Mann specifically states that German national history defies the primacy of the topological map.
As for Poland, The Professor also keeps them just on the periphery. Some portions are earmarked y Mann as properly German, such that these areas will always be a casus belli, but he would also have us understand that Russia will never have Poland as other than a satrap and buffer state.
The book begs for several grand views of central Europe laying out themes and issues from the Balkans to the Rhine to the North Sea. That is it could have benefited from another 200 pages.
Across the first third of the book one of the running themes is the role imposed upon some kind of German state as a balance of power. Across this time Germany would have its own reasons to favor France. Given that France is usually described as the historic enemy of Germany, this is an important counter argument. Politic within the evolving state would be based on a loose federation of semi-independent states with no shared method for electing national representatives and head of state powers shifting between a more or less recognized king, one or another elected or appointed chancellors. On-going national need would ultimately be described as a need for a constitution, independent courts freedom of speech and other minimal features of a late 20th century nation state. Perhaps the more fundamental disagreement are those who desire a larger or a smaller Germany.
Returning to the stated goal of proving that ‘it’ was not Germany’s fault. Mann tends to grant himself a lot of contradictions. The Nation of Germany is not the outcome of the militaristic Prussians. The Prussians were very nice people and not at all militaristic. Perhaps, but with the rise of Bismarck, it is the Prussian Army that backs him as he creates his version of a smaller distinctly Imperial Germany. Not mentioned by Mann is that Bismarck’s Germany is also heavily Protestant.
Mann denies the importance of the Junker class. Yet it is the Junkers and a tradition of deference to the Junkers that gives them at least 100 years of disproportional political influence.
Anti-Semitism receives many mentions. It is the one common notion of people from Poland and Russia into France. Until WW II it had its native believers across the white world and indeed they have found new expression in 21st Century America. Meaning heavily so among Germans. Mann never attempts to analyze the history of Anti-Semitism nor why Germany would be such a long standing practitioner of this prejudice and a violent practitioner at that. Jumping ahead to the holocaust; he has no problem explaining that violent Anti-Semitism was part of Hitler’s sickness. He making the case that Jews did find defenders among that generation of Germany’s religious. Understated is the fact that it was every day Germans who participated in all aspect of what he admits was pointless horrific murderer. Further is raises admittedly pointless question of how many were murdered. Mann is not among the Holocaust deniers, but it is not to his credit that he raises the question of the actual count of the innocent dead.
Rather than return to the Bismarck years and the end of the 19th century, there are the two world wars that must be discussed.
By the dictated treaty of the victors, Germany is labeled as the singular cause of World War I. Professor Mann makes a muddle of argument that technically Germany did fire the first shots, but the first aggressive actions of the war were not German. All of this hyper legality aside, The History of Germany adds little to the notion that the underlying, causes of World War I make no sense to a modern reader. Once again we read of several nations filled with people ready to and willing to fight for; something or other. Honor? Because they can? Jingoism? Neither here nor elsewhere have I found a case that says World War I was about anything or that one side was necessarily better, cleaner or more moral in its purposes than the other. Professor Mann, was aware of written proof that a victorious Germany would not have been good for Europe. Further proof of Germany’s lack of compassion as a victor can be found in the treaty they dictated to Russians. His point is that none of the documents can be offered as evidence that German went into the war with these particular aims. They evolved as the war became more deadly and costly. His argument is that in 1919, victors wanted something to give back to the population at home. Something that would pay for and somehow make the case for the victorious dead. From a German Point of View the Treaty they were forced to sign was hardly proof of allied commitment to the Wilson's peace without victory.
In relating German history preceding the Rise of Adolph Hitler, Mann makes clear that Hitler rose at a time when: German politics were severely unstable, when nationalistic resentments were at a peak and the beginnings of economic growth had been reversed by the world wide depression. Mann is of the belief that Hitler’s party was never more than Hitler himself. That under him, the political situation stabilized. Be a Nazi , be passive or be dead is a pretty definite way to achieve stability. The body politic stabilized. Be a Nazi or do not exist as a political party…. By massive spending he did create work, most likely the single most important reason why he could get away with enforced stability.
Mann points a finger at the rest of Europe as also being at fault. No one else forced Germany to have rational politics. By what mechanism or why they would want to confront another otherwise independent nation is not explained. Without going into a point for point discussion, this argument is infuriating. Every nation had its own issues and none of them were spoiling to go back into the known meat grinder of industrial warfare. German failed to be responsible for Germany. Germany wanted, or allowed itself to wage war, in a time and place when others had no desire or taste for war.
Allowing for Professor Man case at the highest, most theoretical level. Ther is much that explains, and almost excused Germany in World War II. However beneath some arguable discussions The History reveals some serious failures. Mann repeated argues that Nazism was never more than Hitler. That once he died it went away. No the loyal party followers learned to change their uniforms and deny and disavow. Not the same thing.
Further Mann has a tendency to slide over suffering by the nationals over run by the German Army. Hitler, Mann tells us had no intention of merely occupying nations. Hitler’s goal was to subordinate the losers as is the absolute right of the winners. Superior human rights belong only to superior humans, and superior humans win. The failed European states would have their entire culture subordinated to Hitler’s Germany. Note it is always Hitler’s will not the intentions or actions of the German Nation, or Army.
Faced with infamous German depredations he often write that these things are well known; there is no need to detail them here. Once the revenge of the Russian Army presses on Germany, we suddenly hear about roads filled with suffering women and children.
As a book of history there are observations that stay with me relative to The History of Germany since 1789.
1. I have little use for book reviews that tell me the reviewer is not going to review the book because the reader can read that where. It is your review in front of me, tell me about the book. Likewise a history that repeatedly says, go read about this elsewhere is hardly being definitive.
2. Professor Mann has a tendency to pronounce grand generalities about all humans, or diplomacy or philosophers and assume they are true because he says so. This is a typical lecture technique but becomes intrusive and distracting on the page. The reader is or should be asking, are these things true or are they just taking up space?
3. There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions.
This is a style of history writing that is hard to typify. It has the feel of a very learned discussion, but a personal conversation. More like a fireside post postprandial presentation worthy of close attention and consideration.
The History of Germany since 1789, sets out to prove that the usual history of Europe is unfairly, unsympathetic towards Germany. I garnered a much better understanding of that POV, but I also came away wondering what does it mean to be German?
This is not as bad as it sounds. There is value in taking the less common POV in an effort to produce a more balanced opinion among your readers. The approach assumes that this is not the reader’s only knowledge of these times and places. I came to The History of Germany in part because of the lack of depth in this area and because Mann as a German, with an American Education should have been able to give me a POV more from the German perspective. And so my read, and his writing became a matter of how much and how reasonable was this application of the matter of perspective.
Late in the book, (it is over 500 pages) it occurred to me that unlike most countries, Germany is a concept as much as a geography. Prof Mann never makes clear what exactly or approximately what he means by Germany or Germans. What most of us think of as a single color on the map had no unified existence much before 1789 and the boundaries of that map did not mean the same as it might mean to an American until sometime in the mid 1800’s. My wording is cautious because Germany is also a concept and people who have varying amounts of shared identity. It is common for Germans to talk of a set of traditions and a culture and culture going back 1000 years, but theirs is hardly as coherent of an identity as might be the case among the peoples of, for example, Italy, another country that became a single unified political existence at about the same time.
The History begins in 1789 as the beginnings of Germany as a single political entity is associated with the Napoleon. Mann describes how a cluster of city-states, principalities and barely associated feudal heavily agricultural entities had a proto-national identity thrust upon them by the rest of Europe as a balance against the threat of post Napoleonic France. In making the boundaries, there was little appreciation for the relative size and power of the historic princelings, Protestant and Catholic divisions and local tendencies to defer to the Junker class.
Austria and or the Austria Hungarian Empire is described as being out there somewhere. Austria and Poland will be a shadow in and out of the next hundred and fifty years of history. The History was published in 1968. Never made clear was the degree to which Austria Germans and the German Germans shared history, geography, economics and cultural history. It would seem that absorption of the one by the other would have been an obvious outcome but Mann never clearly distinguishes what about these people never made for more than alliances. Geography could have been the barrier but Mann specifically states that German national history defies the primacy of the topological map.
As for Poland, The Professor also keeps them just on the periphery. Some portions are earmarked y Mann as properly German, such that these areas will always be a casus belli, but he would also have us understand that Russia will never have Poland as other than a satrap and buffer state.
The book begs for several grand views of central Europe laying out themes and issues from the Balkans to the Rhine to the North Sea. That is it could have benefited from another 200 pages.
Across the first third of the book one of the running themes is the role imposed upon some kind of German state as a balance of power. Across this time Germany would have its own reasons to favor France. Given that France is usually described as the historic enemy of Germany, this is an important counter argument. Politic within the evolving state would be based on a loose federation of semi-independent states with no shared method for electing national representatives and head of state powers shifting between a more or less recognized king, one or another elected or appointed chancellors. On-going national need would ultimately be described as a need for a constitution, independent courts freedom of speech and other minimal features of a late 20th century nation state. Perhaps the more fundamental disagreement are those who desire a larger or a smaller Germany.
Returning to the stated goal of proving that ‘it’ was not Germany’s fault. Mann tends to grant himself a lot of contradictions. The Nation of Germany is not the outcome of the militaristic Prussians. The Prussians were very nice people and not at all militaristic. Perhaps, but with the rise of Bismarck, it is the Prussian Army that backs him as he creates his version of a smaller distinctly Imperial Germany. Not mentioned by Mann is that Bismarck’s Germany is also heavily Protestant.
Mann denies the importance of the Junker class. Yet it is the Junkers and a tradition of deference to the Junkers that gives them at least 100 years of disproportional political influence.
Anti-Semitism receives many mentions. It is the one common notion of people from Poland and Russia into France. Until WW II it had its native believers across the white world and indeed they have found new expression in 21st Century America. Meaning heavily so among Germans. Mann never attempts to analyze the history of Anti-Semitism nor why Germany would be such a long standing practitioner of this prejudice and a violent practitioner at that. Jumping ahead to the holocaust; he has no problem explaining that violent Anti-Semitism was part of Hitler’s sickness. He making the case that Jews did find defenders among that generation of Germany’s religious. Understated is the fact that it was every day Germans who participated in all aspect of what he admits was pointless horrific murderer. Further is raises admittedly pointless question of how many were murdered. Mann is not among the Holocaust deniers, but it is not to his credit that he raises the question of the actual count of the innocent dead.
Rather than return to the Bismarck years and the end of the 19th century, there are the two world wars that must be discussed.
By the dictated treaty of the victors, Germany is labeled as the singular cause of World War I. Professor Mann makes a muddle of argument that technically Germany did fire the first shots, but the first aggressive actions of the war were not German. All of this hyper legality aside, The History of Germany adds little to the notion that the underlying, causes of World War I make no sense to a modern reader. Once again we read of several nations filled with people ready to and willing to fight for; something or other. Honor? Because they can? Jingoism? Neither here nor elsewhere have I found a case that says World War I was about anything or that one side was necessarily better, cleaner or more moral in its purposes than the other. Professor Mann, was aware of written proof that a victorious Germany would not have been good for Europe. Further proof of Germany’s lack of compassion as a victor can be found in the treaty they dictated to Russians. His point is that none of the documents can be offered as evidence that German went into the war with these particular aims. They evolved as the war became more deadly and costly. His argument is that in 1919, victors wanted something to give back to the population at home. Something that would pay for and somehow make the case for the victorious dead. From a German Point of View the Treaty they were forced to sign was hardly proof of allied commitment to the Wilson's peace without victory.
In relating German history preceding the Rise of Adolph Hitler, Mann makes clear that Hitler rose at a time when: German politics were severely unstable, when nationalistic resentments were at a peak and the beginnings of economic growth had been reversed by the world wide depression. Mann is of the belief that Hitler’s party was never more than Hitler himself. That under him, the political situation stabilized. Be a Nazi , be passive or be dead is a pretty definite way to achieve stability. The body politic stabilized. Be a Nazi or do not exist as a political party…. By massive spending he did create work, most likely the single most important reason why he could get away with enforced stability.
Mann points a finger at the rest of Europe as also being at fault. No one else forced Germany to have rational politics. By what mechanism or why they would want to confront another otherwise independent nation is not explained. Without going into a point for point discussion, this argument is infuriating. Every nation had its own issues and none of them were spoiling to go back into the known meat grinder of industrial warfare. German failed to be responsible for Germany. Germany wanted, or allowed itself to wage war, in a time and place when others had no desire or taste for war.
Allowing for Professor Man case at the highest, most theoretical level. Ther is much that explains, and almost excused Germany in World War II. However beneath some arguable discussions The History reveals some serious failures. Mann repeated argues that Nazism was never more than Hitler. That once he died it went away. No the loyal party followers learned to change their uniforms and deny and disavow. Not the same thing.
Further Mann has a tendency to slide over suffering by the nationals over run by the German Army. Hitler, Mann tells us had no intention of merely occupying nations. Hitler’s goal was to subordinate the losers as is the absolute right of the winners. Superior human rights belong only to superior humans, and superior humans win. The failed European states would have their entire culture subordinated to Hitler’s Germany. Note it is always Hitler’s will not the intentions or actions of the German Nation, or Army.
Faced with infamous German depredations he often write that these things are well known; there is no need to detail them here. Once the revenge of the Russian Army presses on Germany, we suddenly hear about roads filled with suffering women and children.
As a book of history there are observations that stay with me relative to The History of Germany since 1789.
1. I have little use for book reviews that tell me the reviewer is not going to review the book because the reader can read that where. It is your review in front of me, tell me about the book. Likewise a history that repeatedly says, go read about this elsewhere is hardly being definitive.
2. Professor Mann has a tendency to pronounce grand generalities about all humans, or diplomacy or philosophers and assume they are true because he says so. This is a typical lecture technique but becomes intrusive and distracting on the page. The reader is or should be asking, are these things true or are they just taking up space?
3. There are too many inconsistencies and contradictions.
This is a style of history writing that is hard to typify. It has the feel of a very learned discussion, but a personal conversation. More like a fireside post postprandial presentation worthy of close attention and consideration.
The History of Germany since 1789, sets out to prove that the usual history of Europe is unfairly, unsympathetic towards Germany. I garnered a much better understanding of that POV, but I also came away wondering what does it mean to be German?
October 18, 2022
Golo Mann ist ein ausgezeichneter und kluger Geschichte-Erzähler. Allen, die sich für Deutschland interessieren, sei diese erstaunliche Erzählung empfohlen.
January 24, 2022
Zweifelsohne sowohl sachlich als auch sprachlich maßstabbildend für die deutsche Geschichtsschreibung der Nachkriegszeit. Es gibt aber doch Qualitätsunterschiede zwischen jenen Teilen, die der Autor aus der rein historischen Perspektive betrachtet - meiner Ansicht nach die besten -, und jenen, die er als junger Mensch miterlebt hat, aber eben doch mit einiger Distanz betrachtet - für mich die zweitbesten. Dort hätte das Buch auch enden sollen. Die Adenauerzeit und die beginnende europäische Einigung sind engagierter Journalismus. Golo Manns politische Präferenzen durchfärben freilich das ganze Werk.
April 12, 2020
A great overview of German history from 1789 until about 1960. This book differs from other similar history books both by its literary style and because the author does at times freely interpret and judge characters and events. It therefore may not have the distance and impartiality of a pure history book. Nonetheless delivers deep insights in some of the driving forces and overarching themes of German history since 1789.
July 15, 2020
Very long, but most definitely worth it. This book assumes you have a basic grasp of German history and provides deep analysis to complement it. Golo Mann, son of Thomas Mann, doesn't shy away from taking a view and judging history with a moral compass. This book is so much more than what the title would have you think. So much insight, so much to reflect upon. Everyone with an interest in understanding German (and European) history should read it.
October 29, 2015
I read this in the English translation. A very good overview of German history offering a helpful corrective to the pessimistic Anglo-Saxon view of German history most notable in AJP Taylor's work.
February 24, 2025
This is THE definitive history of Germany from 1789 until the mid 1960s when the book was published. The journey takes us through a century during which Germany was a number of independent states until Prussia, led by Bismark, unified the country, Germany’s attempts to establish democracy, the first and second world wars and the post war partition. But it isn’t just a history of events – there are chapters on philosophers such as Hegel, Heine, Marx, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and leaders including Metternich, Bismark and Adenauer are all profiled. If it happened during the years covered, it’s in the book. This is another book that came to my attention via an essay in Clive James’s “Cultural Amnesia”.
February 26, 2015
A fantastic overview about German history until 1960 or so.
Ein genialer Überblick über die deutsche Geschichte bis ungefähr 1960. Golo Mann schreibt schön, spannend und klar verständlich. Ich bin kein großer Fan von Geschichtsbüchern, aber dieses Werk ist definitiv lesenswert!
Ein genialer Überblick über die deutsche Geschichte bis ungefähr 1960. Golo Mann schreibt schön, spannend und klar verständlich. Ich bin kein großer Fan von Geschichtsbüchern, aber dieses Werk ist definitiv lesenswert!
March 19, 2024
Tolles Buch, jedoch offensichtlich nicht aktuell.
Mann starb 94, dieses Buch wurde aber schon 58 veroeffentlicht, welchen historischen Wert hat es dann? Ich bin mir relativ sicher der fruehe Teil des Buches wuerde heute aehnlich geschrieben werden, kontraer zu dem zweiten. Man hat zwar z.B. ein Kapitel ueber Adenauer, jedoch ist es kurz danach auch schon vorbei mit den Informationen zur Nachkriegszeit. Wie auch, das Buch kann ja nicht geupdated werden wenn es dem Bedarf.
Da ich dieses Werk ohne zu recherchierten erstmals kaufte um die deutsche Geschichte bis jetzt ein wenig zu verstehen muss ich nun wohl noch ein naechstes besorgen, was zum ersten historisch aktueller ist sowie auch an Ereignissen und Informationen.
Dennoch empfehle ich es, zumindest zeigt es die Perspektive aus einer Zeit in der man sich noch unsicher war ob sich Deutschland jemals wieder zusammen fuehre was interresant ist.
Mann starb 94, dieses Buch wurde aber schon 58 veroeffentlicht, welchen historischen Wert hat es dann? Ich bin mir relativ sicher der fruehe Teil des Buches wuerde heute aehnlich geschrieben werden, kontraer zu dem zweiten. Man hat zwar z.B. ein Kapitel ueber Adenauer, jedoch ist es kurz danach auch schon vorbei mit den Informationen zur Nachkriegszeit. Wie auch, das Buch kann ja nicht geupdated werden wenn es dem Bedarf.
Da ich dieses Werk ohne zu recherchierten erstmals kaufte um die deutsche Geschichte bis jetzt ein wenig zu verstehen muss ich nun wohl noch ein naechstes besorgen, was zum ersten historisch aktueller ist sowie auch an Ereignissen und Informationen.
Dennoch empfehle ich es, zumindest zeigt es die Perspektive aus einer Zeit in der man sich noch unsicher war ob sich Deutschland jemals wieder zusammen fuehre was interresant ist.
November 9, 2020
Vapid pomposity. I fail to understand the appeal of this wholly amateurish offering.
November 10, 2023
My favorite history book. I love how Mann illustrates the happening.
August 20, 2025
Guter Überblick
October 6, 2020
An excellent overview of the period which witnessed the formation of the German nation state in 1871 and its turbulent history since. The book also includes some interesting interpretations of events, such as rejecting the common idea of the Nazis being ideological fanatics, but rather interested solely in expanding their political power. The only negative is the sometimes overly-descriptive account of events.
February 24, 2025
[I read this book translated into English] This is THE definitive history of Germany from 1789 until the mid 1960s when the book was published. The journey takes us through a century during which Germany was a number of independent states until Prussia, led by Bismark, unified the country, Germany’s attempts to establish democracy, the first and second world wars and the post war partition. But it isn’t just a history of events – there are chapters on philosophers such as Hegel, Heine, Marx, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and leaders including Metternich, Bismark and Adenauer are all profiled. If it happened during the years covered, it’s in the book. This is another book that came to my attention via an essay in Clive James’s “Cultural Amnesia”.
June 1, 2015
This was an excellently balanced account of the recent history of Germany charting the development of a distinct and integral European nation out of the myriad petty states that existed prior to the shockwave sent rippling through Europe by the French Revolution and particularly by Napoleon. Mann charts the rise of a German nation while detailing the characters involved in this convoluted story, from Hegel to Hitler. This a fair and balanced account that places blame where its due and praises the many positive developments along the way. For anyone interested in German history in the modern era this is an ideal place to start.
July 25, 2019
Informative if not always an easy read due to its style of writing. It filled in some gaps in my basic knowledge of modern German history. The role of Napoleon in forging a German identity and the influence of Adenauer post World War II come to mind. Interesting also is the theme of how democratic institutions/parties were under-developed in Germany from the nineteenth into the early twentieth century.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews