Finally, it is worth mentioning the status of the history of GDR in “21.0”. In 1990, the writer Stefan Heym (Stefan Heym) asserted on the eve of the disappearance of the GDR: “Apart from becoming a footnote in world history, GDR has no other meaning.” In 2008, Hans-Wu The fifth volume of Hans-Ulrich Wehler’s “German Social History” (Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte) was published, in which he completely reduced the history of Democratic Germany to “a footnote” and made a comment on Heim The best response. Although some scholars refuted Weller’s approach, related discussions did not have a lasting impact. The GDR has always had an awkward position in the writing of German history and world history. The same is true in Rod’s work. In his analysis of the state of religious beliefs on 140 pages, he only mentioned “Germany” for the first time, and only a few words. After that, only when the topic of German reunification and East-West confrontation was involved, the GDR appeared as an inevitable object. In almost all the surveys of Germany, from industrialization, the role of the nation-state, immigration issues to European integration, whether it is in the selection of issues or the analysis of the situation, the western region has spread its huge wings, covering the eastern region. In this regard, Rhodes’s foothold is not the Republic of Berlin, but the Republic of Bonn.
In the historical book market of the 21st century, on the one hand, the grand narrative has lost its effectiveness, and the past, present and future cannot be connected in a simple mode of meaning; on the other hand, non-professional readers are eager to read summary and There are historical works with a broader perspective and a sharper perspective in time and space. After being published in Germany in 2015, “21.0” was quickly republished three times. Hans-Peter Schwarz praised Rohde’s writings, arguing that after Ralf Dahrendorf and Erwin Scheuch, no one in Germany considered the current social, political, economic and Moral issues are so deeply understood. In Rod, there are some unique charms of him as a historian. He has always been loyal to the disciplinary belief developed from the historicist tradition: exploring the causal relationship of specific phenomena, but not turning it into a universal law that emphasizes inevitability. He has been on the road of constructing persuasive arguments and constantly testing them. This is a unique way of doing things in history. He is also a typical contextualist, who firmly believes that thoughts will become dangerous once they break away from their reality. He has never concealed his clear position, even those that are too clear and inevitably raise objections. As a historian, he tells us: the new and the old are always entangled with each other, development will be in different directions, trends will be full of contradictions, problems will be numerous, and the future is uncertain. But as an optimist, he still believes that there will be an open future that is not only better but not just worse, even if humans cannot make clear predictions about it.
