INTRODUCTION

scholarly debate and research into National Socialism has made use of various more or less clearly defined models, such as totalitarianism theory, marxist interpretations, or the application of social and psychological concepts. More recently another approach has emerged which, while by no means new, has been attracting renewed attention. It starts from the assumption that the rise and dominance of National Socialism was a specifically German crisis within a general process of modernization, and it emphasizes those aspects of the movement and of the policies of its leaders which originated in ‘pre-modern’ structures, or which give an impression of hostility to modernization, or else were simply archaic. Certain economic interests and class-specific (particularly middle-class) values and behaviour; certain ideological slogans (Gemeinschaft or community), together with some important aspects of the practical politics of the Nazi regime (such as the persecution of the Jews) all fall easily in with this line. Thus the twin polarities of ‘modernity’ and ‘archaism’ seem to offer a useful tool for the analysis of recent German history.

One aim of this study is to challenge that assumption, though it is an aim that can be only partially accomplished here. A thorough examination of the question would require a more detailed theoretical discussion and a more precise definition of the diverse sensitive and complex concepts involved than I can undertake here. What I offer here is therefore more like an interim report, which points to some still open questions of theory and research. My objection to the application of ‘modernization’ theory to German history in the last century is broad and simple, and can be best explained with reference to a notable example of National Socialist policy.