This book is an extended essay, freely structured, that concentrates on the last 250 years of Germany history. It does not sit comfortably within the parameters of conventional historiography. For instance, it does not pretend to tell a story, let alone a singular, authoritative story. Nonetheless, stories are central to its explanatory program. More than that even, a privileged notion of narration determines the theoretical assumptions on which that program rests. Therefore this text consciously engages both with theory and with the particular interpretations of historical events when they are placed within the framework of that theory. I should also add that while the German case has been chosen for idiosyncratic reasons (I find it interesting and stimulating), I also believe it illustrates to an exceptional degree the advantages of the theoretical approach taken here.

First, then, the theoretical assumptions. This takes us into the epistemology and philosophy of history itself. There is, of course, no lack of theoretical work on history on the part of German thinkers. Indeed one might well regard their contributions in this field as manifold, enlightening, and dangerous. However the position taken up here is not born of a specifically German historical or philosophical school. It is based on the fundamental assumption that history is best seen as a problematic struggle between simultaneous conflicting or competing narratives. History is plural. If one were to look for a German intellectual who most exemplifies this approach it would be Bertolt Brecht. Dramatizing conflicting narrative strands is the fundamental agenda of his “epic” (by which he means narrative) theater. It defines his concept of “realism.” However, while the Brechtian notion of narrative (or narratives) is self-evidently of the utmost relevance to what follows, it takes us out of the specific field of the philosophy of history. And despite the large role German artists and intellectuals will play in the following pages, we should stick for the moment with historians, or at least with intellectuals who saw themselves as historians.