Aus der Einleitung: "Vitamine sind Produkte ernährungsphysiologischer Experimente, die seit den 1890er Jahren durchgeführt wurden und Aufklärung über gravierende Erkrankungen in niederländischen und britischen Kolonien liefern sollten. Ihren Namen erhielten sie 1912 durch den polnischen Biochemiker Casimir Funk.1 Die Identität der Vitamine war durch ihre Leistung bei der Heilung von Mangelkrankheiten bestimmt. Im angloamerikanischen Raum und später in der übrigen Welt etablierte sich rasch eine alphabetische Nomenklatur: Vitamin A verhütet die Augenkrankheit Xerophthalmia, Vitamin B verhütet Beriberi, Vitamin C verhütet Skorbut. Zu diesen Vitaminen kamen in den 1920er Jahren das antirachitische Vitamin D, das Antisterilitäts-Vitamin E und das blutungsstillende Vitamin K hinzu. Die schon in geringsten Mengen gegebene Leistungsfähigkeit dieser Wirkstoffe weckte große Erwartungen, die weit über die experimentell herausgearbeitete Kompetenz hinausgingen. Schon über die von der IG Farben als Betaxin oder Betabion vertriebenen Vitamin B1-Präparate ließ sich jedoch zunächst nicht mehr sagen, als dass sie Beriberi heilten, was für den Inlandsmarkt keine besonders lukrativ erscheinende Aussage war.2 Der Schweizer Historiker Beat Bächi zeigt eindringlich, dass auch der weltweit führende Schweizer Vitamin-C-Produzent Hoffmann-La Roche noch Ende der 1920er Jahre die therapeutischen und kommerziellen Aussichten der Askorbinsäure nicht bestimmen konnte. Die Verwendung als Skorbutheilmittel spielte natürlich keine große Rolle. Es schien aber möglich, dass sich der spezifische Einfluss, den das Vitamin auf die oxydoreduktiven Vorgänge des Organismus ausübe, auch in anderen therapeutischen Richtungen auswirken könne. Bächi verweist darauf, dass die Propagandabteilungen der pharmazeutischen Firmen eine markante Rolle bei der Etablierung von Anwendungsgebieten spielten. Aber mehr noch setzte sich für alle Vitamine die Indikationsstellung Hypovitaminosis durch, der relative Vitaminmangel, mit der Vitamingaben für einen letztlich unbegrenzten Bereich an Erscheinungen empfohlen werden konnte.3 Vitamintherapien richteten sich nicht an die an Avitaminosen leidenden Kranken, sondern an Gesunde, die aufgrund von Hypovitaminosen noch nicht gesund genug waren bzw. Mangelkrankheiten vorbeugen wollten. Vor allem das Vitamin C wurde in den 1930er Jahren als universal einsetzbares Mittel zur Stärkung und Optimierung des Organismus konzipiert." [...]

In the post-Second World War period, the medium of film has been arguably the leading popular culture protagonist of a demonized Adolf Hitler. Between 1968 and 1990, thirty-five English-language films featuring representations of Hitler were released in cinemas, on television, or on home video. In the 1968 to 1979 period, fifteen films were released, with the remaining twenty coming between 1980 and 1990. This increase reveals not only a growing popular fascination with Hitler, but also a tendency to use the Führer as a sign for demonic evil. These representations are broken into three categories (1) prominent; (2) satirical; (3) contextualizing which are then analyzed according to whether a representation is demonizing or humanizing. Out of these thirty-five films, twenty-three can be labeled as demonizing and nine as humanizing, and there are three films that cannot be appropriately located in either category. In the 1968 to 1979 period, four films employed prominent Hitler representations, five films satirized Hitler, with six contextualizing films. The 1980s played host to five prominent representations, six satires, and nine contextualizing films. In total, there are nine prominent representations, eleven satires and fifteen contextualizing films. Arguing that prominent representations are the most influential, this study argues that the 1968 to 1979 period formed and shaped the sign of a demonic Führer, and its acceptance is demonstrated by films released between1980 and 1990. However, the appearance of two prominent films in the 1980s which humanized Hitler is significant, for these two films hint at the beginnings of a breakdown in the hegemony of the Hitler sign. The cinematic demonization of Hitler is accomplished in a variety of ways, all of which portray the National Socialist leader as an abstract figure outside of human behaviour and comprehension. Scholarly history is also shown to have contributed to this mythologizing, as the survival myth and myth of the last ten days have their origins in historiography. However, since the 1970s film has arguably overtaken historiography in shaping popular conceptions of the National Socialist leader. In addition to pointing out the connections between film and historiography, this study also suggests other political, philosophical, and cultural reasons for the demonization of Adolf Hitler.

In the post-Second World War period, the medium of film has been arguably the leading popular culture protagonist of a demonized Adolf Hitler. Between 1968 and 1990, thirty-five English-language films featuring representations of Hitler were released in cinemas, on television, or on home video. In the 1968 to 1979 period, fifteen films were released, with the remaining twenty coming between 1980 and 1990. This increase reveals not only a growing popular fascination with Hitler, but also a tendency to use the Führer as a sign for demonic evil. These representations are broken into three categories (1) prominent; (2) satirical; (3) contextualizing which are then analyzed according to whether a representation is demonizing or humanizing. Out of these thirty-five films, twenty-three can be labeled as demonizing and nine as humanizing, and there are three films that cannot be appropriately located in either category. In the 1968 to 1979 period, four films employed prominent Hitler representations, five films satirized Hitler, with six contextualizing films. The 1980s played host to five prominent representations, six satires, and nine contextualizing films. In total, there are nine prominent representations, eleven satires and fifteen contextualizing films. Arguing that prominent representations are the most influential, this study argues that the 1968 to 1979 period formed and shaped the sign of a demonic Führer, and its acceptance is demonstrated by films released between1980 and 1990. However, the appearance of two prominent films in the 1980s which humanized Hitler is significant, for these two films hint at the beginnings of a breakdown in the hegemony of the Hitler sign. The cinematic demonization of Hitler is accomplished in a variety of ways, all of which portray the National Socialist leader as an abstract figure outside of human behaviour and comprehension. Scholarly history is also shown to have contributed to this mythologizing, as the survival myth and myth of the last ten days have their origins in historiography. However, since the 1970s film has arguably overtaken historiography in shaping popular conceptions of the National Socialist leader. In addition to pointing out the connections between film and historiography, this study also suggests other political, philosophical, and cultural reasons for the demonization of Adolf Hitler.

Univ., Diss. u.d.T.: Reuleaux, Nele: Das Problem der Entdifferenzierung zwischen Tätern und Opfern des Nationalsozialismus im Konzept der intergenerativen Traumatransmission--Hannover, 2005.

Univ., Diss.--Freiburg (Breisgau), 2005.

Ed. commerciale de : Thèse : ? : Universität Klagenfurt : 2002. / Bibliogr. p. 347-384.

Diss.--Freie Universität, Berlin, 1967. / Bibliography: p. 203-213.

This historical dissertation investigates the international proliferation of Fordism in politically illiberal settings during the 1920s and 1930s. Based on American, German, and Soviet primary sources, it is the first archive-based study of this process. The dissertation's main finding is that the implementation of Ford's ideas and practices was a key component of illiberal modernization drives - that is, projects of state-led economic growth which explicitly fashioned themselves as alternatives to Western liberal capitalism. This point of view is a departure from previous accounts of the global success of Fordism, which subsume the story under the spread of American market capitalism or portray it as a process of quasi-self-explanatory technology transfer. It is also distinct from the well-known approach in history and the social sciences that describes Fordism as a specifically capitalist production regime (in distinction to a later post-Fordism). The argument pursued here requires a re-interpretation of Ford Motor Company's position within the American corporate arena of the 1920s and 1930s. Undertaken in the opening chapter, this re-examination characterizes the production practice of Ford Motor Company as an illiberal strategic alternative to the American business mainstream. Subsequent chapters trace the reception of Ford's political and business writings abroad, reconstruct the Nazi and Soviet motorization effort in the wake of Ford's model, and examine the transfer of Ford's mass production techniques to Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The empirical results show that motorization and productive efficiency, both associated with Ford's innovations, became hallmarks of illiberal modernization efforts in these countries. The dissertation highlights the importance of non-market motivations for economic actors and policy-makers. It introduces the term illiberal modernism to describe the motivating power of ideology on economic practice during the interwar years. / History

No description available.

No description available.