ed.) Die westeuropäische Sicherheit und die deutsch-französischen Beziehungen, 1914-1963. With the assistance of Elisabeth Müller-Luckner. (München: Oldenbourg Verlag 2000).
American "Reparations" to Germany, 1919-33: Implications for the Third-World Debt Crisis. (Princeton: Princeton Studies in International Finance, 1988).
The End of French Predominance in Europe: The Financial Crisis of 1924 and the Adoption of the Dawes Plan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976). Paperback edition, 1988. ACLS web edition, 2005.
Old Wine in New Bottles. Review of Christopher Clark's Sleepwalkers. The New Criterion, Jan. 2015.
The Price of Freedom. Review of Adam Tooze, The Deluge. Wall Street Journal, 14.11.14.
"John Maynard Keynes and the Personal Politics of Reparations--Parts 1 &2, Diplomacy & Statecraft 25 (2014, Nos. 3-4): 453-71, 579-91.
"J.M. Keynes et les réparations. Une histoire revisitée," Revue d'histoire diplomatique 130-31 (2015.4, 2016.2), 343-61, 109-24.
"J.M. Keynes et les réparations. Une histoire revisitée," Revue d'histoire diplomatique 129-30 (2015.4, 2016.2), 343-61, 109-24.
"What Historians Get Wrong about World War I," Time Magazine, 1 August 2014.
"Intelligence and Grand Strategy in France, 1919-1940," in Jonathan Haslam and Karina Urbach, Secret Intelligence in the European States System, 1918-1989 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014).
Bretton Woods and the Triumph of American Monetary Policy, Review essay in H-Diplo, vol. 6 , no. 7 (2014).
Review essay on Marc Trachtenberg, The Cold War and After, H-Diplo ISSF Roundtable, Vol. IV, no. 1 (2012).
"Reappraising Herbert Hoover," Library of Law and Liberty (2012)
"Central Bankers in the Dock," H-Diplo Review Essay, 24 October 2011, http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/essays/PDF/Schuker-Ahamed.pdf
Review Essay on Robert Boyce, The Great Interwar Crisis and the Collapse of Globalization, H-Diplo Roundtable, Vol. XII, No. 11 (2011).
"The 1919 Peace Settlement: A Subaltern View," Reviews in American History (36/4) 2008, 575-85.
"Les Etats-Unis, la France, et l'Europe, 1929-1932," in Jacques Bariéty, ed., Aristide Briand, la Société des Nations et l'Europe (Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 2007), 383-96.
"A Sea Change in the Atlantic Economy: How the West Pulled Ahead of the Rest and Why It May Cease to Do So," in Anthony Hay et al., eds., Is There Still a West? The Future of the Atlantic Alliance (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2007), 89-124.
"One National Divisible: Samuel Huntington's Jeremiad on the American Future," Orbis 50 (2006), 187-202.
"Round Up the Usual Suspects: The Latest Latin American Debt Crisis," Orbis 47 (2003), 541-59.
"Money Doctors between the Wars: The Competition between Central Banks, Private Financial Advisers, and Multilateral Agencies," in Marc Flandreau, ed., Money Doctors: The Experience of International Financial Advising, 1850-2000 (London: Routledge, 2003), 49-77.
"The Gold-Exchange Standard: A Reinterpretation," in Carl-L. Holtfrerich and Harold James, eds., The International Financial System: Past and Present (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 77-94.
"Reflections on the Cold War," Diplomacy and Statecraft 12 (2001), 1-9.
"The European Union from Jean Monnet to the Euro: A Historical Overview," in Joan Hoff and Ann Fidler, eds., The European Union: From Jean Monnet to the Euro (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2000), 15-31.
"Bayern und der rheinische Separatismus, 1923-24," in Jahrbuch des Historischen Kollegs Nr. 3 (Munich, 1998): 75-111.
"American Foreign Policy: The European Dimension," in John M. Haynes, ed., Calvin Coolidge and the Coolidge Era: Essays on the History of the 1920s (Hanover and London: University Press of New England/Library of Congress, 1998), 289-308.
"The Rhineland Question: West European Security at the Paris Peace Conference," in Manfred Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman, and Elisabeth Glaser, eds., The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after Seventy-five Years (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 275-312.
"Woodrow Wilson versus American Public Opinion: The Unconditional Surrender Movement of 1918," in Guido Müller, ed., Internationale Beziehungen im 20. Jahrhundert: Deutschland und der Westen. Festschrift for Klaus Schwabe (Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1998), 101-10.
"The Candidacy That Never Was: Owen D. Young and the Presidential Election of 1932," in Kenneth W. Thompson, ed., Statesmen Who Were Never President (Lanham, MD.: University Press of America, 1996), 2:125-44 .
"Europe's Banker: The American Banking Community and European Reconstruction, 1918-1922," in Marta Petricioli, ed., A Missed Opportunity? 1922: The Reconstruction of Europe/Une Occasion Manquée? 1922: La Reconstruction de l'Europe (Bern: Peter Lang, 1995), 47-59.
"Ambivalent Exile: Heinrich Brüning and America's Good War," in Christoph Buchheim, Michael Hutter and Harold James, eds., Zerrissene Zwischenkriegszeit. Wirtschaftshistorische Beiträge: Knut Borchardt zum 65. Geburtstag (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1994), 329-56.
"Origins of American Stabilization Policy in Europe: The Financial Dimension, 1918-1924," in Hans-Jürgen Schröder, ed., Deutschland und Amerika in der Epoche des Ersten Weltkrieges 1900-1924/Germany and the United States in the Era of World War I, 1900-1924 (Providence: Berg, 1993), 377-407.
"American Policy toward Debts and Reconstruction at Genoa, 1922," in Carole Fink, Axel Frohn, and Jürgen Heideking, eds., Genoa, Rapallo, and the Reconstruction of Europe in 1922 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 95-122.
"Owen D. Young" and "Charles Gates Dawes," in Larry Schweikart, ed., Encyclopedia of American Business History and Biography: Banking and Finance, 1913-1989 (New York: Bruccoli Clark Layman, 1990), 68-77, 482-92. .
"The End of Versailles," in Gordon Martel, ed., "The Origins of the Second World War" Reconsidered: The A.J.P. Taylor Debate after Twenty-Five Years. (Allen & Unwin, London: 1986,1999), 49-72.
"France and the Remilitarization of the Rhineland, 1936," French Historical Studies (1986), 299-339. Abridged Chinese-language version, "The Military and Economic Background of France's Concession Policy in the Rhineland Crisis, 1936," trans. Quan Yi, in The Second World War History Bulletin 10 (1989).
"American 'Reparations' to Germany, 1919-1933," in G. D. Feldman et al., Die Nachwirkungen der Inflation auf die deutsche Geschichte 1924-1933 (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1985), 335-84. rpt. in Mark Thomas, ed., The Disintegration of the World Economy between the Wars (Cheltenham: E. Elgar, 1996), 1:445-93.
"Origins of the 'Jewish Problem' in the Later Third Republic," in Frances Malino et al., eds., The Jews in Modern France (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1985), 135-80.
"Frankreich und die Weimarer Republik," in Michael Stürmer, ed., Die Weimarer Republik. Belagerte Civitas (Königstein: Athenaeum, 1985), 93-112.
"Finance and Foreign Policy in the Era of the German Inflation," in G. D. Feldman et al., eds., Historische Prozesse der deutschen Inflation 1914-1924 (Berlin: Colloquium Verlag, 1978), 343-61.
Awards & Honors
Research fellow, German Marshall Fund of the United States, 1998-99
Stipendiat, Historisches Kolleg (Munich), Stifterverband für die deutsche Wissenschaft, 1996-97
Secretary of the Navy Senior Research Fellow, Naval War College, 1992-93
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellowship in International Security, 1987-89.
American Council of Learned Societies Fellow, 1976-77, 1986.
Senior Scholar, Western European Area, Fulbright Commission, 1985.
American Philosophical Society grantee, 1985.
Tauber Institute for the Study of the Holocaust, Fellow, 1982.
George Louis Beer Prize, American Historical Association, 1977.
Literature Review (back to top)
Several scholars have explored the public's opinion of Hitler in America throughout the years prior to, during, and after his reign as the leader of Germany. In an attempt to find a general public opinion about Hitler, most of these scholars have surveyed mainstream American periodicals and newspapers during the years he was in power. At a time when public opinion polls were not widely used beyond forecasting local election results, leading U.S. newspapers and journals seemed to have been one of the best ways to determine a general consensus about American views of Hitler. While graduate students Kenneth Work and Eugene Bacon explored both newspapers and journals in their research, most of the people who have written on this subject only surveyed several mainstream journals over a specified number of years. Historian Michael Zalampas argued that periodicals are useful because they provide a wide variety of sources for information and did not publish under the same time pressures as newspapers. Graduate student Liesel Ashley Miller also looked at periodicals because "daily newspapers and radio broadcasts were not afforded days or even hours at times to review and rewrite information and thus could not provide as thorough reports as the weekly or monthly periodicals." That said, daily newspapers still proved to be a reliable source in determining general American opinion. Campus newspapers are particularly helpful because they proved to be one of the few vehicles through which students' voices could be heard. Furthermore, student newspapers provided a place in which student opinion was shaped, as well as reflected.
The scholarship that has been written on this subject tends to take two forms. Some historians have tried to focus on American perception of National Socialism as a whole, including the policies that Nazism advocated. The majority of scholars, however, have looked specifically at the U.S. perceptions of Hitler himself, who they view as the creator of the regime, in an attempt to get to the core of National Socialism. Both of these types of studies serve utmost importance to this paper because Hitler becomes almost interchangeable with Nazi Germany as a whole. This proves to be true, as scholars who attempted to give an overview of American perceptions of Nazi Germany discuss in great detail the perception of the "Hitler regime" instead. Writing his dissertation in the 1950s, Daniel Day Shepherd attempted to find a consensus among American opinion of German National Socialism by surveying the opinions of diverse groups in society. He focused primarily on how these groups felt toward the "Hitler regime," as if every aspect of Third Reich could be attributed to Hitler himself. He freely interchanged "Hitler regime" with "Nazi regime" and "National Socialism" in his concluding remarks about how each group of Americans felt during this time. This reflects the idea that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state, and thus, all aspects of that nation were controlled by Adolf Hitler.
Liesel Ashley Miller specifically stated in the introduction of her Master's thesis that she was looking at American perceptions of Hitler "the man," not at his rise to power or his Nazi policies on the Jewish question. She focused more on Hitler's personal life, his personality, his role as the German leader, and his role in the war. This is how her work differed from Michael Zalampas', whom she claimed focused more on Hitler's policies, the Nazi Party, and the Third Reich. Zalampas' Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich in American Magazines, 1923-1939 never made a clear distinction between "Hitler" and "his regime," as he hardly ever separated the two in his writing. Miller claimed that her work, like graduate student Roberta Siegel's "Opinions on Nazi Germany: A Study of Three Popular American Magazines, 1933-1941," does make a clear distinction between the German people and the German government (Hitler), and thus, raises questions about him as the leader and what kind of control he had over the Nazi state.
Thus, Hitler's name is often used synonymously with that of Nazi Germany itself. Kenneth Work further proved this with his 1996 attitudinal research on Georgia State University students who were asked to give their opinion of Hitler. Work's research showed that the students were very familiar with Hitler's name, as almost every student associated Hitler with being the leader of Germany during the Second World War. His research also confirmed the results of a previous study in which eleventh graders who were questioned about twentieth century history overwhelmingly associated Hitler with being the leader of Germany during World War II. Thus, all of the scholars tended to focus on American public perception of Hitler "the man" in one form or another because his name was interchangeable with Germany prior to and during World War II.
This study, as well, focuses on student opinion of Hitler rather than of Germany or the Nazi movement because student newspapers, like the more mainstream magazines, freely interchanged Hitler's name with Nazi Germany, especially beginning in 1936. Hitler had become equivalent to Germany by this point in the minds of American students. This can be seen specifically in debates over whether or not America should participate in the Olympics or send delegates to the 550th Heidelberg University anniversary celebration.
Most studies attempted to capture a general public opinion and to include the opinions of the majority of American society, and thus, they surveyed popular magazines. For example, Kenneth Work claimed that he used Time, Newsweek, and The Literary Digest because they were the leading magazines of the day. He chose The Reader's Digest, The Saturday Evening Post, and Review of Reviews because of their large circulations. Historian Toni McDaniel also selected twelve periodicals based on their "moderate to large readership" and their "interest in publishing articles about Hitler." These magazines, although massively circulated, target specific parts of the population, and therefore, do not "represent" all Americans. It appears that America did not necessarily have a general consensus, but unfortunately, there has been an entire segment of the population—the youth—which these magazines do not necessarily target, and thus, student opinions have often been left out of such studies. Because the mass-circulated periodicals are written by and appeal to members of an older generation, we do not know whether or not the views they expressed were consistent with attitudes of the younger generation.
Daniel Shepherd Day attempted to divide American public opinion into groups of individuals. He surveyed magazines that would give the best reflection of American labor opinion, business opinion, farm opinion, church opinion, and intellectual opinion because he wanted "to ascertain the views of those groups which occupied influential positions among the American population, and which either reflected or shaped the opinion of a large section of the population." While Day's intentions are good, he also failed to include a large segment of the population by not including youth opinions in his study. And although youth may not have "occupied influential positions among the American population," Day is hypocritical because he states that "to consider only the general or average opinion of the American people is to overlook or minimize the attitudes and convictions of those factions of the population which reflected more discernment than was evident among average citizens."
Youth views are important because they include an important group of future policy-makers that is often overlooked or lumped together with the older generation. It is important to distinguish between the two different generations because they do not necessarily always agree with one another. Furthermore, the student movement proved to be extremely important in the 1930s as Robert Cohen discussed in his book, When the Old Left Was Young.The movement was very large while "[a]t its peak in the late 1930s, the student movement's demonstrations involved hundreds of thousands of students annually—by some estimates almost half of America's undergraduate population." The movement was also quite influential with students organizing the first national student strikes and shaping political discourse on campus for the remainder of the decade. Cohen's book offers insight into how youth in America viewed important foreign policy issues at the time, such as fascism, the Nazi movement, and the war in Europe. Cohen focused on the isolationism of the student movement, which helps one to better understand what students meant when they called for action against Hitler in their student newspapers. Cohen also recognized most historians neglect of the students' voices, which he attributes to the fact that "[h]istorians, as a middle-aged group, tend not—outside of those working on the era of the 1960's—to take youth seriously enough to study their ideas or the history of student politics." Cohen's explanation proves to be a fairly accurate one when looking at the studies of American perceptions of Hitler.