The intellectual origin of the German "Strukturgeschichte" can be found in "Jungkonservatismus" of the Weimar period, not in the ideology of Nazis. The proponents of this intellectual stream shared an extreme antimodernist mode of thought. However, in comparison with the traditional "Altkonservativen," they have never intended to return to the premodern world, but to reorganize the modern world by their own "Geist." This ambivalent attitude toward Modernity has been the cause of historiographical paradox, a paradox between the extreme antimodernism and methodological "innovation." The forerunners of the German "Strukturgeschichte" are not the French Annales school, but the historians of the German "Volksgeschichte" of 1920s-1940s. The "jungkonservative" historians like Hans Rothfels and Hermann Aubin, who have rejected all modern political-ethical values, were free from the traditional etatistic concept of history. They accepted the new paradigm of "Volk" and started to research the anonymous and collective "structure" of premodern peasant societies. In this scientific milieu grew up a new generation of historians like Werner Conze, Theodor Schieder and Otto Brunner. They have been the projector of the German "Strukturgeschichte." The Strukturgeschichte, compared to the "Volksgeschichte," has taken the modern world, particularly industrial society, as the central theme of historical studies. But both share the ambivalent thought of Modernity. Under the influence of neoconservative social theories, especially that of Hans Freyer`s, the historians of the Strukturgeschichte critically diagnosed technocentric, functionalistic, and posthistoric features of "technisch-industrielles Zeitalter." The Strukturgeschichte has made an epoch in the history of German historiography with its ambivalent attitude toward Modernity and its own methodological instruments.