• John F. Kennedy – Speech in the Paulskirche, 25 June 1963
  • TobiasSeller
  • 18.01.2024
  • Geschichte
Um die Lizenzinformationen zu sehen, klicken Sie bitte den gewünschten Inhalt an.

John F. Ken­ne­dy – Speech in the Pauls­kir­che, 25 June 1963

1
Ana­ly­se the given text. (bul­let points are fine)
2
Ex­plain what achie­vements Ken­ne­dy at­tri­bu­tes to the Frank­furt As­sem­bly and the his­to­ri­cal re­fe­ren­ces he makes. Make sure to give re­fe­ren­ces to the text.
3
Take a cri­ti­cal stance on the author’s the­sis that the Pauls­kir­che “was the cr­ad­le of Ger­man de­mo­cra­cy”.

I am most ho­nou­red [...] to be able to speak in this city be­fo­re this au­di­ence, for in this hall I am able to ad­dress mys­elf to those who lead and serve all seg­ments of a de­mo­cra­tic sys­tem ... As one who has known the sa­tis­fac­tion of the le­gis­la­tor's life, I am parti­cu­lar­ly plea­sed that so many mem­bers of your Bun­des­tag and Bun­des­trat are pre­sent today, for the vi­ta­li­ty of your le­gis­la­tu­re has been a major fac­tor in your de­mons­tra­ti­on of a working de­mo­cra­cy, a de­mo­cra­cy world­wi­de in its in­flu­ence. In your com­pa­ny also are se­ve­r­al authors of the Fe­de­ral Con­sti­tu­ti­on who have been able th­rough their own po­li­ti­cal ser­vice to give a new and las­ting va­li­di­ty to the aims of the Frank­furt As­sem­bly.

One hundred and fif­teen years ago a most lear­ned Par­li­a­ment was con­ve­ned in this his­to­ric hall. Its goal was a united Ger­man Fe­de­ra­ti­on. Its mem­bers were poets and pro­fes­sors, la­wy­ers and phi­lo­so­phers, doc­tors and cler­gy­men, free­ly elec­ted in all parts of the land. No na­ti­on ap­plau­ded its en­dea­vors as warm­ly as my own. No as­sem­bly ever stro­ve more ar­dent­ly to put per­fec­tion into prac­ti­ce. And though in the end it failed, no other buil­ding in Ger­ma­ny de­ser­ves more the title of “cr­ad­le of Ger­man de­mo­cra­cy”.

But can there be such a title? In my own home city of Bos­ton, Fa­neu­il Hall – once the meeting-​place of the authors of the Ame­ri­can Re­vo­lu­ti­on – has long been known as the “cr­ad­le of Ame­ri­can li­ber­ty”. But when, in 1852, the Hun­ga­ri­an pa­tri­ot Kos­suth ad­dres­sed an au­di­ence there, he cri­ti­ci­zed its name. “It is”, he said, “a great name – but there is so­me­thing in it which sad­dens my heart. You should not say ‘Ame­ri­can li­ber­ty’. You should say ‘li­ber­ty in Ame­ri­ca’. Li­ber­ty should not be eit­her Ame­ri­can or Eu­rope­an – it should just be ‘li­ber­ty’.”

Kos­suth was right. For un­less li­ber­ty flou­ris­hes in all lands, it can­not flou­rish in one. Con­cei­ved in one hall, it must be car­ri­ed out in many. Thus, the seeds of the Ame­ri­can Re­vo­lu­ti­on had been brought here from Eu­ro­pe, and they later took root around the world. And the Ger­man Re­vo­lu­ti­on of 1848 trans­mit­ted ideas from ide­a­lists to Ame­ri­ca and to other lands. Today, in 1963, de­mo­cra­cy and li­ber­ty are more in­ter­na­ti­o­nal than ever be­fo­re. And the spi­rit of the Frank­furt As­sem­bly, like the spi­rit of Fa­neu­il Hall, must live in many hearts and na­ti­ons if it is to live at all [...].



Taken and ab­bre­vi­a­ted: http://www.pre­si­den­cy.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9303 (16.11.2023)

I am most ho­nou­red [...] to be able to speak in this city be­fo­re this au­di­ence, for in this hall I am able to ad­dress mys­elf to those who lead and serve all seg­ments of a de­mo­cra­tic sys­tem ... As one who has known the sa­tis­fac­tion of the le­gis­la­tor's life, I am parti­cu­lar­ly plea­sed that so many mem­bers of your Bun­des­tag and Bun­des­trat are pre­sent today, for the vi­ta­li­ty of your le­gis­la­tu­re has been a major fac­tor in your de­mons­tra­ti­on of a working de­mo­cra­cy, a de­mo­cra­cy world­wi­de in its in­flu­ence. In your com­pa­ny also are se­ve­r­al authors of the Fe­de­ral Con­sti­tu­ti­on who have been able th­rough their own po­li­ti­cal ser­vice to give a new and las­ting va­li­di­ty to the aims of the Frank­furt As­sem­bly.

One hundred and fif­teen years ago a most lear­ned Par­li­a­ment was con­ve­ned in this his­to­ric hall. Its goal was a united Ger­man Fe­de­ra­ti­on. Its mem­bers were poets and pro­fes­sors, la­wy­ers and phi­lo­so­phers, doc­tors and cler­gy­men, free­ly elec­ted in all parts of the land. No na­ti­on ap­plau­ded its en­dea­vors as warm­ly as my own. No as­sem­bly ever stro­ve more ar­dent­ly to put per­fec­tion into prac­ti­ce. And though in the end it failed, no other buil­ding in Ger­ma­ny de­ser­ves more the title of “cr­ad­le of Ger­man de­mo­cra­cy”.

But can there be such a title? In my own home city of Bos­ton, Fa­neu­il Hall – once the meeting-​place of the authors of the Ame­ri­can Re­vo­lu­ti­on – has long been known as the “cr­ad­le of Ame­ri­can li­ber­ty”. But when, in 1852, the Hun­ga­ri­an pa­tri­ot Kos­suth ad­dres­sed an au­di­ence there, he cri­ti­ci­zed its name. “It is”, he said, “a great name – but there is so­me­thing in it which sad­dens my heart. You should not say ‘Ame­ri­can li­ber­ty’. You should say ‘li­ber­ty in Ame­ri­ca’. Li­ber­ty should not be eit­her Ame­ri­can or Eu­rope­an – it should just be ‘li­ber­ty’.”

Kos­suth was right. For un­less li­ber­ty flou­ris­hes in all lands, it can­not flou­rish in one. Con­cei­ved in one hall, it must be car­ri­ed out in many. Thus, the seeds of the Ame­ri­can Re­vo­lu­ti­on had been brought here from Eu­ro­pe, and they later took root around the world. And the Ger­man Re­vo­lu­ti­on of 1848 trans­mit­ted ideas from ide­a­lists to Ame­ri­ca and to other lands. Today, in 1963, de­mo­cra­cy and li­ber­ty are more in­ter­na­ti­o­nal than ever be­fo­re. And the spi­rit of the Frank­furt As­sem­bly, like the spi­rit of Fa­neu­il Hall, must live in many hearts and na­ti­ons if it is to live at all [...].



Taken and ab­bre­vi­a­ted: http://www.pre­si­den­cy.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9303 (16.11.2023)





5




10




15




20




25




30




An­no­ta­ti­ons

1 'le­gis­la­tor’s life': Ken­ne­dy had been a mem­ber of both houses of the Ame­ri­can Con­gress (i. e. the Ame­ri­can par­li­a­ments).

2 'fe­de­ral con­sti­tu­ti­on': Ken­ne­dy means the Basic Law (Grund­ge­setz) which had been drawn up in 1948/49.

3 'Frank­furt As­sem­bly': the par­li­a­ment in the Pauls­kir­che 1848/49

4 'ap­plau­ded': Here Ken­ne­dy re­fers to the pu­blic sup­port the Pauls­kir­che par­li­a­ment re­cei­ved in the US; to stri­ve ar­dent­ly: to try very en­thu­si­a­sti­cal­ly to achie­ve sth.

5 'Fa­neu­il Hall': (pro­nun­ci­a­ti­on: Fan’-yul) a hall in Bos­ton where Ame­ri­can re­vo­lu­ti­o­na­ries met who fought against the Bri­tish in the Ame­ri­can War of In­de­pen­dence in the 18th cen­tu­ry

6 'Hun­ga­ri­an pa­tri­ot Kos­suth': Kos­suth was the lea­der of the re­vo­lu­ti­o­na­ry mo­vement in Hun­ga­ry in 1848; he de­man­ded in­de­pen­dence from Aus­tria. Kos­suth spoke th­roug­hout whole of Eu­ro­pe and his spee­ches were read ever­y­whe­re. When the Hun­ga­ri­an mo­vement was fi­nal­ly crus­hed by Aus­tri­an and Rus­si­an tro­ops, Kos­suth es­caped. He tou­red Great Bri­tain and the USA.

7 'seeds of the Ame­ri­can re­vo­lu­ti­on': Ken­ne­dy al­lu­des to the ideas of the Eu­rope­an En­ligh­ten­ment (Auf­klä­rung) which in­flu­en­ced the Ame­ri­can free­dom figh­ters.

1

The given source / The source at hand ...

Tip

Apart from the ob­vi­uos aspects, such as what type of source, which type of text, who, when and where, also cover its ad­dres­sees, theme and in­ten­ti­on.

2

Achie­vement

Lines

Fur­ther Ex­pla­na­ti­on and his­to­ri­cal re­fe­rence































Task 3) Sen­tence star­ters
  1. "Con­side­ring the Pauls­kir­che as the 'cr­ad­le of Ger­man de­mo­cra­cy,' one might ques­ti­on how..."
  2. "To as­sess Ken­ne­dy's claim about the Pauls­kir­che, we should look at..."
  3. "If the Pauls­kir­che is to be seen as the 'cr­ad­le of Ger­man de­mo­cra­cy,' what does that imply about..."
  4. "One could argue against Ken­ne­dy's view by poin­ting out that..."
  5. "To bet­ter un­der­stand the con­text of Ken­ne­dy's the­sis re­gar­ding the Pauls­kir­che, it's im­portant to con­sider..."

Tem­p­la­te for the Ana­ly­sis of Se­con­da­ry Sources

Se­con­da­ry sources are re­con­struc­tions and in­ter­pre­ta­ti­ons of the past. Se­con­da­ry sources are books, es­says, news­pa­per articles, spee­ches etc. about the past writ­ten today. Most of what a per­son knows about the past comes from re­a­ding se­con­da­ry sources, be­cau­se in most cases it is im­pos­si­ble to study pri­ma­ry sources con­cer­ning an event in the past which one is in­te­res­ted in. But be­cau­se se­con­da­ry sources pre­sent the past based on the author’s per­spec­ti­ve it is necess­a­ry to be cri­ti­cal when ana­ly­sing them. The ana­ly­sis of all se­con­da­ry sources fol­lows the same line and can be made in three steps:

  1. Be­fo­re Re­a­ding the Text: Is Any Ad­di­ti­o­nal In­for­ma­ti­on Pro­vi­ded? Be­fo­re star­ting to read a text, al­ways be on the loo­kout for ad­di­ti­o­nal in­for­ma­ti­on, ge­ne­ral­ly in­clu­ded in the an­no­ta­ti­ons. If you know so­me­thing about the author of a text and his/her at­ti­tu­de to a cer­tain his­to­ri­cal pro­blem, it will be ea­sier to un­der­stand the text.
  2. Basic Iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on and In­spec­tion of the Text: The For­mal Ana­ly­sis
  • What kind of source is the text? The given text is a se­con­da­ry source.
  • Which type of text is the text at hand? (ex­amp­les: spee­ches about the past de­li­ver­ed re­cent­ly, news­pa­per articles about the past pu­blished la­te­ly, ex­tracts from a mo­dern his­to­ry book, ex­tracts from mo­dern his­to­ri­cal es­says etc.)
  • Source? The text is quo­ted from (author, title, place and date of pu­bli­ca­ti­on, page). Or: The text is quo­ted from the in­ter­net (in­ter­net ad­dress).
  • Who wrote the text? The name of the author must al­ways be given. A short text may be writ­ten, if the author is well-​known (cf. an­no­ta­ti­ons).
  • Where was the text pu­blished? Usu­al­ly this place is not of much in­te­rest if you dis­cuss se­con­da­ry sources. But so­me­times it can make the ana­ly­sis ea­sier, if the place of pu­bli­ca­ti­on is known.
  • When was the text writ­ten? Se­con­da­ry sources are – broad­ly spe­a­king – texts which have been pu­blished re­cent­ly. So the date when a text was pu­blished is usu­al­ly not of much in­te­rest. But it can make a dif­fe­rence if a text was pu­blished be­fo­re or after a cer­tain event of the re­cent past.
  • Ad­dres­sees? Who is ad­dres­sed by the ex­tract from a his­to­ry book/the news­pa­per article/the speech about the past? Usu­al­ly one can con­clu­de that the au­di­ence are people who are in­te­res­ted in his­to­ry. If the text ap­peared in a news­pa­per, then the ad­dres­sees can be de­fi­ned as “the ge­ne­ral pu­blic”. If a se­con­da­ry source is ra­ther com­pli­ca­ted, the ad­dres­sees are pro­fes­sors and/or stu­dents at uni­ver­si­ty, i. e. they are ex­perts.
  • Theme? What is the main topic which is dealt with in the text? The ans­wer to this ques­ti­on can only be given after a ca­re­ful study of the text its­elf!
  • In­ten­ti­on? Which in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on of the past be­co­mes ap­pa­rent in the text at hand? What are the main points the author makes about a his­to­ri­cal event in the past? How does he/she in­flu­ence the ad­dres­sees? The ans­wer to this ques­ti­on can only be given after a ca­re­ful study of the text its­elf!
  1. Pre­sen­ta­ti­on of the Con­tent in a Struc­tu­red Ana­ly­sis The struc­tu­red ana­ly­sis is a con­ti­nuous text in which the main ideas of the text are de­pic­ted. So the points the author of the text makes must be com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the rea­der of a struc­tu­red ana­ly­sis. It is not enough just to pa­ra­phra­se the text. Most im­portant: The parts where the in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on of the past by the author be­co­mes ap­pa­rent should be given spe­cial em­pha­sis when ana­ly­sing se­con­da­ry sources.
  2. Trans­fer of Know­ledge Here the task is to prove that the his­to­ri­cal facts which are men­ti­o­ned in the se­con­da­ry source are known, be­cau­se it is im­pos­si­ble to dis­cuss an opi­ni­on about an event if there is no know­ledge of the event its­elf.
  3. Eva­lu­a­ti­on The opi­ni­on which has be­co­me ap­pa­rent in the ana­ly­sis of the text is to be eva­lu­a­ted here; eva­lu­a­ti­on means pro­ving one’s know­ledge of the in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on ex­pres­sed in the text, one’s know­ledge of con­flic­ting in­ter­pre­ta­ti­ons and their pros and cons, and try­ing to for­mu­la­te one’s own in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on.



3. Pre­sen­ta­ti­on of the Con­tent in a Struc­tu­red Ana­ly­sis: The struc­tu­red ana­ly­sis is a con­ti­nuous text in which the main ideas of the text are de­pic­ted. So the points the author of the text makes must be com­mu­ni­ca­ted to the rea­der of a struc­tu­red ana­ly­sis. It is not enough just to pa­ra­phra­se the text. Most im­portant: The parts where the in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on of the past by the author be­co­mes ap­pa­rent should be given spe­cial em­pha­sis when ana­ly­sing se­con­da­ry sources.



4. Trans­fer of Know­ledge: Here the task is to prove that the his­to­ri­cal facts which are men­ti­o­ned in the se­con­da­ry source are known, be­cau­se it is im­pos­si­ble to dis­cuss an opi­ni­on about an event if there is no know­ledge of the event its­elf.



5. Eva­lu­a­ti­on: The opi­ni­on which has be­co­me ap­pa­rent in the ana­ly­sis of the text is to be eva­lu­a­ted here; eva­lu­a­ti­on means pro­ving one’s know­ledge of the in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on ex­pres­sed in the text, one’s know­ledge of con­flic­ting in­ter­pre­ta­ti­ons and their pros and cons, and try­ing to for­mu­la­te one’s own in­ter­pre­ta­ti­on.

x