No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Die kulturwissenschafdiche Behandlung der Aufklärung, wie sie in den letzten Jahren verstärkt zu beobachten ist, führe ich im Wesentlichen auf drei unterschiedliche und nicht zusammenhängende Grunde zurück. Der erste ist eine weltweite Umorientierung der Forschung im Bereich der Literaturwisscnschaften, der zweite liegt in einer Befreiung vom philosophisch-normativen Potential des Begriffs selbst und der dritte hat etwas mit der Einbeziehung von Medien aller Art zu tun.

No description available.

No description available.

This article discusses ambiguous tactics of German Communist resisters in the Third Reich. The official historiography of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) portrayed Communist resisters as unfaltering heroes. By contrast, revisionist studies published after 1990 presented Communists as traitors and renegades. This study transcends these approaches that revolve around legitimation or de-legitimation of the dictatorship, and examines the dubious manoeuvring of three German Communists who strategically collaborated with the Nazis, namely Theodor Bottländer, Friedrich Schlotterbeck and Wilhelm Knöchel. While Knöchel’s attempts to outwit the Gestapo failed and could not prevent his execution, Schlotterbeck and Bottl€ander found ways to survive - largely without betraying their comrades. Even so, the Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (KPD), as well as its successor in the GDR, the Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands (SED), reprimanded venturesome, inventive and obstinate Communists, excluded them from the party and brought them to court. The harsh reactions are indicative of the inability of Communist historiography to acknowledge ‘Eigen-Sinn’, and highlight a central shortcoming of the antifascist doctrine. Likewise, more recent revisionist approaches have failed to recognise various attempts of Communists to minimise harm and survive in the grey zone between betrayal and loyalty.

The Turów open pit lignite mine in Poland is currently the subject of intense debates and influences coexistence in the German-Czech-Polish border region. The European Court of Justice has provisionally prohibited further operation following a lawsuit from the Czech Republic, but Poland refuses to implement it. The judgment and the previous disputes have led to great uncertainty in local society. The article examines various processes of border demarcation (boundaries) along national borders. These are thought of simultaneously in the present field and must be related to each other. In addition to political and geographical markers, social and cultural boundaries are drawn in discourses of the mining company and the trade unions. Using ethnographic methods, I approach the complex field of transformation in this region and clarify the underlying interdependencies from the perspective of those who continue to see the future of the region in open pit lignite mining.

Aus der Einleitung S. 7: „ „Der Hai wird nie wieder so stark sein wie in der Vergangenheit“ erklärte in Bezug auf Deutschland der tschechoslowakische Informationsminister Václav Kopecký in einer Sitzung der tschechoslowakischen Regierung im Herbst 1946. Die Rede drehte sich im gegebenen Augenblick um die deutsche Ostgrenze; Kopeckýs Worte erfassen jedoch durchaus die Hauptzüge des tschechischen und weitgehend auch des slowakischen Verhältnisses zu Deutschland und zu den Deutschen in der unmittelbaren Nachkriegszeit: das hohe Maß an emotionaler Belastung, Bedrohungsperzeption sowie an Entschlossenheit, mit dem großen Nachbarn womöglich gründlich abzurechnen...”