Peter Fritzsche. <i>Hitler’s First Hundred Days: When Germans Embraced the Third Reich</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting in 2009 with Life and Death in the Third Reich, Peter Fritzsche has written several books that weave together first-person accounts with more traditional sources to help us better understand what life was like in Germany and Europe during the years of Nazi domination. There has always been a literary quality to Fritzsche’s scholarly writing. The addition of the diaries and letters—Ego-Dokumente, as German scholars call them—over the last twelve years has allowed him to explore more deeply the emotions of those living at the time: from the anguish of the men and women hunted by the authorities to the self-satisfaction enjoyed by those who wielded power and the civilians who aided them. In Hitler’s First Hundred Days: When Germans Embraced the Third Reich, Fritzsche tackles Hitler’s first one hundred days in power, January 30, 1933, until May 9, 1933. There is plenty to cover in that short time span, including the imprisonment, torture, and murder of political opponents; the burning of the Reichstag; a federal election and the passage of the Enabling Act at the beginning and end of March; and the first national boycott of Jewish businesses and the removal of Jews from the civil service in April, to name a few key themes. The first one hundred days wraps up at the start of May, marked by the conversion of the traditional May Day celebrations into the Day of National Labour. The author may have been encouraged to examine these months because of growing anxiety about the state of democracy in the world and especially in the United States, but Trump is not lurking here as obviously as some readers might expect. The focus remains firmly on everyday Germans and the ways they responded to and participated in these events, which Fritzsche argues fundamentally reordered German political culture by the time summer arrived.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".