By Jonathan B. Durrant

Using the example of Eichstätt, this book challenges current witchcraft historiography by arguing that the gender of the witch-suspect was a product of the interrogation process and that the stable communities affected by persecution did not collude in its escalation. Readership: All those interested in the history of witch persecution, gender history, the history of the Catholic Reformation, and the history of early modern Germany.

Leiden; Boston: Brill,  2007.  317p.

By Alison Rowlands

Given the widespread belief in witchcraft and the existence of laws against such practices, why did witch-trials fail to gain momentum and escalate into 'witch-crazes' in certain parts of early modern Europe? This book answers this question by examining the rich legal records of the German city of Rothenburg ob der Tauber, a city which experienced a very restrained pattern of witch-trials and just one execution for witchcraft between 1561 and 1652. The author explores the factors that explain the absence of a 'witch-craze' in Rothenburg, placing particular emphasis on the interaction of elite and popular priorities in the pursuit (and non-pursuit) of alleged witches at law. By making the witchcraft narratives told by the peasants and townspeople of Rothenburg central to its analysis, the book also explores the social and psychological conflicts that lay behind the making of accusations and confessions of witchcraft. Furthermore, it challenges existing explanations for the gender-bias of witch-trials, and also offers insights into other areas of early modern life, such as experiences of and beliefs about communal conflict, magic, motherhood, childhood and illness. Written in a lively narrative style, this innovative study invites a wide readership to share in the compelling drama of early modern witch trials. It will be essential reading for researchers working in witchcraft studies, as well as those in the wider field of early modern European history.

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2003. 257p.

By Sam Lawson

Previous studies commissioned by the EU have shown that the EU has been leading the world in imports of ‘embodied deforestation’ in the form of agricultural and timber products. This study goes a step further, by showing that the EU is also one of the largest importers of products resulting from illegal deforestation. The study estimates that in 2012, the EU imported EUR 6 billion of soy, beef, leather and palm oil which were grown or reared on land illegally cleared of forests in the tropics – almost a quarter of the total world trade. The Netherlands, the UK, Germany, Italy and France are among the largest consumers of these illegally sourced deforestation commodities, being collectively responsible for two-thirds of EU purchasing by value and three-quarters in terms of the areas of forest destroyed.

Brussels: FERN, 2015. 28p.

By Dr. Christoph Birkel, Daniel Church, Dina Hummelsheim-Doss, Nathalie Leitgöb-Guzy, and Dietrich Oberwittler.

As megatrends, globalisation and digitisation are bringing about rapid changes, including in Germany. They are opening up a range of new opportunities, not only in the fields of economics, science and culture, but also in the way we access information, communicate with each other and participate in political and societal decision-making processes. But these new opportunities are being undermined by a highly uneven distribution of the benefits of globalisation and digitisation. This is a worrying development, since the resulting inequalities not only increase the risk of transnational conflicts, struggles over resource allocation and mass migration, but also threaten civil peace and social cohesion in the societies affected by these developments. The direct and indirect repercussions caused by such tensions are being felt across Germany as well, for instance in the form of an ongoing terrorist threat on our continent, an increasingly harsh political discourse, political radicalisation and forms of politically motivated crime, as well as through the ways in which organised crime and criminal clan structures are challenging the rule of law. These developments are fuelling a feeling of insecurity, which in the wake of digitisation is being amplified by the fact that, on the one hand, access to information is becoming easier, faster and more comprehensive, while, on the other hand, the authenticity of that very information is becoming increasingly difficult to validate. Free and unrestricted access to knowledge and information is a precious good, as it promotes informational participation for broad segments of society and increases transparency and democratic control. At the same time, however, it is also becoming easier to disseminate inaccurate information on a large scale, or even launch targeted disinformation campaigns or manipulate public opinion in a time in which the need for reliable sources is greater than ever. This is especially true for safety, where “fake news” can have a momentous impact in a very short space of time. Although representative studies and surveys have shown the current level of safety in Germany to be relatively high, various surveys have indicated that the German public often perceives the risks to be higher. This is why representative victimisation surveys and other tools are indispensable. They make visible the gap between perception and fear, on the one hand, and statistics and scientific findings, on the other. This knowledge can help us to design targeted information campaigns to dispel such perceived threats and feelings of insecurity. Representative victimisation surveys can also help us to identify actual increases in crime rates, introduce appropriate countermeasures and update official crime figures by shedding light on the dark figure of unreported or hidden crime. In addition, knowing the reasons why victims report, or choose not to report, an offence they have experienced will also allow us to improve criminal prosecution approaches in the future. Enriched by comprehensive insights into crime-relevant factors, victimisation surveys have the potential to deliver the crucial insights needed to successfully address the safety-related challenges of the present. Following up on the first German Victimisation Survey (Deutscher Viktimisierungssurvey, DVS) undertaken in 2012, the 2017 survey provides us with fresh sets of data to assess the development of crime and crime-related attitudes in Germany. Based on a nationwide, representative sample of the German population aged 16 and over, the 2017 survey not only yields insights regarding the current security situation and perceived safety across the population, it also allows us to draw conclusions by looking at the developments and changes since 2012.

Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt - BKA, 2019. 127p.