Writing and Rewriting the Reich: Women Journalists in the Nazi and Post-War Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an impressively researched and compelling read, Writing and Rewriting the Reich: Women Journalists in the Nazi and Post-War Press makes a significant contribution to the scholarship of the Third Reich and postwar West Germany. Deborah Barton’s book intersects with the historiography on gender and German history, female perpetrators in the Third Reich, and postwar memory. Her work explores women’s agency as journalists, how they navigated power in the Third Reich, their role in covering or hiding Nazi brutality and, significantly, how they used gendered assumptions of ‘apolitical’ work to rewrite their own narratives after 1945. Barton’s analysis reveals that the Nazi regime utilized women journalists in a variety of ways: as agents of ‘soft power’ which normalized everyday life in the Third Reich; as women who ‘beautified’ war and occupation; and as writers who propagated National Socialist ideology. Analysing the complex negotiations surrounding gender and power, Barton shows that even as women occupied a subordinated position in Nazi Germany, privileged women built their careers as journalists and reaped the benefits from their status in the racially defined Third Reich.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".