pynchon-l-digest V2 #1838

[Paul Mackin]

Thanks, Rob. I've replied once again to Doug. My problem with him was that
he seemed to be saying Taylor was an H.D., somehow drawing as his text the
DeLong review. I don't think DeLong thinks T is an H.D. but perhaps he was
not forceful enough it making it perfectly clear to  Doug. As you probably
know. my teeth are still set on edge by Doug's charges of H.D. against those
not agreeing with him about GR. By the way I don't really think Doug is
nuts. It's just that his  positions suggest such at times.            P.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
Cc: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: pynchon-l-digest V2 #1838


>
> ----------
> >From: "Paul Mackin" <paul.mackin at verizon.net>
> >
>
> > If anyone can tell me what Millison is talking about please tell me.
>
> Hi Paul
>
> I think he was and still is trying to imply, using selectively-snipped
> passages from Bradford DeLong's review of the book on the libel trial and
a
> selectively-snipped and idiosyncratically-glossed passage from an
> Encyclopedia article, that A.J.P. Taylor's history of WWII equates with
the
> Holocaust-denial of David Irving. In fact, far from debunking Taylor's
> history the Brittanica article is actually framed as a discussion of some
of
> the more prominent and influential historical interpretations of WWII, and
> critical responses to these.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=108375&tocid=32898#32898.toc
>
>     The British historian A.J.P. Taylor challenged the thesis of sole Nazi
>     guilt in 1961, coincidently the same year in which Fritz Fischer
revived
>     the notion of German guilt for World War I. Taylor boldly suggested
that
>     Hitler's "ideology" was nothing more than the sort of nationalist
>     ravings "which echo the conversation of any Austrian cafe or German
>     beer-house"; that Hitler's ends and means resembled those of any
>     "traditional German statesman"; and that the war came because Britain
>     and France dithered between appeasement and resistance, leading Hitler
>     to miscalculate and bring on the accident of September 1939. Needless
to
>     say, revisionism on a figure so odious as Hitler sparked vigorous
>     rebuttal and debate. If Hitler had been a traditional statesman, then
>     appeasement would have worked, said some. If the British had been
>     consistent in appeasement -- or resisted earlier --the war would not
>     have happened, said others.
>
>     Fischer's theses on World War I were also significant, for, if Germany
>     at that earlier time was bent on European hegemony and world power,
then
>     one could argue a continuity in German foreign policy from at least
1890
>     to 1945. Devotees of the "primacy of domestic policy" even made
>     comparisons between Hitler's use of foreign policy to crush domestic
>     dissent and similar practices under the Kaiser and Bismarck. But how,
>     critics retorted, could one argue for continuity between the
traditional
>     imperialism of Wilhelmine Germany and the fanatical racial
extermination
>     of Nazi Germany after 1941? At bottom, Hitler was not trying to
preserve
>     traditional elites but to destroy the domestic and international order
>     alike.
>
> The way Millison snipped it, and his comments, imply that Taylor's
> interpretation has been discredited. In fact, Taylor's _Origins of the
> Second World War_ is still held in high regard in history faculties at
> universities (more so than Fritz Fischer's book in fact, despite the
> reappropriation of his general train of thought in the much-publicised
> _Hitler's Willing Executioners_), and is regarded by many as the standard
> work on the subject. But it's pretty obvious that Millison hasn't read
> Taylor's book and is only mudslinging again, as you noted previously.
>
> best
>
>
>