Taylor and the Holocaust: summing up

[jbor]

----------
>From: Doug Millison <millison at online-journalist.com>
>

> At the very least, I'm glad to have highlighted the fact that
> "jbor's" historical authority on WWII,

Well, no, not just "jbor's historical authority" at all. As I think I
mentioned previously, and as corroborated in the 'Atlantic' article cited by
Doug, Taylor's _Origins_ is one of, if not *the* standard work on European
foreign policy prior to WWII, and has been on university history curricula
for forty years now.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/04/kennedy.htm

> At the very least, I'm glad to have highlighted the fact that
> "jbor's" historical authority on WWII,
> A.J.P. Taylor, is a historian
> of WWII origins favored by neo-Nazis

Insinuations like this are a typical rhetorical tactic of Doug's: my
"historical authority" is one favoured by neo-Nazis (and so, it is thus
implied, I am a neo-Nazi). Bereft of logic or substance as it is, it's still
inexcusable and defamatory.

> At the very least, I'm glad to have highlighted the fact that
> "jbor's" historical authority on WWII,
> A.J.P. Taylor, is a historian
> of WWII origins favored by neo-Nazis
> -- an unfortunate reflection on
> a revisionist historian who, despite the shortcomings of his work, is
> not considered a Holocaust denier.

Imo Taylor is hardly a "revisionist historian", and he is not classed as
such by many academic historians (the University of San Diego page of notes
on the "Taylor thesis" is not typical, however, even the comment there is
that "Taylor practiced a legitimate revisionism that is found in every field
of history.") In actual fact, Taylor's analyses of the primary source
material broke new ground. Taylor's _Origins_ caused such controversy when
it was published because it debunked the prevailing "victor's histories"
which were a distortion of the actual causes of the war and the alleged
motives of the warring nations.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/05/23/irving/index1.html

What others might do in taking Taylor's writings out of context is no
reflection on him or his work ... except in Doug's warped view of the world.

> It might be worth considering why Pynchon makes one of GR's most
> wounded characters, Brigadier Pudding, a detail- and
> contingency-oriented historian (plodding along with his
> can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees Things That Can Happen in European
> Politics)

Isn't the significant thing here that Pudding is attempting to write about
things that *can* happen, rather than about things which *had* happened? The
notion that history might be used predictively is what is being satirised,
not the style of detailed historical research and analysis which Taylor
practiced.

> who apparently doesn't have a clue about the bigger forces
> that swept him (and the rest of the world) into the hells of WWI and
> WWII, forces which continue to keep him in ignorance and impel him to
> self-destructive behavior.

I agree with you that Blicero's "sweeping" historical recognition of those
"bigger forces" could certainly be favourably contrasted with Pudding's
tunnel vision. (_GR_ 722-23) Blicero certainly seems to have a good grasp of
the "big picture", and presents a historical vista and interpretation which
is close to his creator's. Imo.

snip

*****

The account of David Irving's lies and misrepresentations in court will
probably sound familiar to others on this list, as it did to me:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2001/05/23/irving/index1.html

    ... Guttenplan writes that the presiding judge, Charles Gray, was
    annoyed when Evans held up the trial by insisting on seeing a copy of
    and source, text or document Irving referred to.

    "Having been through your work," Evans told Irving from the witness box,
    "I cannot really accept your version of any document, including passages
    in my own report, without actually having it in front of me." Gradually,
    Judge Gray came to see the necessity of Evans' seeming pedantry. Evans
    recounts one instance in which Irving claims to quote from Evans'
    report, "Irving casts doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremberg War
    [Crimes Tribunal]." What Evans had actually written was "Irving casts
    doubt on almost all testimony at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials or
    during the prior interrogations if it does not fit his arguments,
    alleging it was obtained by torture and threats."

    That's just a minor example of the pattern of distortions that Evans
    demonstrated. ...

The current exchange has been similarly typical of the pattern of
distortions and lies which Doug employs. To my mind, the need to resort to
duplicity and slander on such a regular basis merely indicates the weakness
of the arguments, and the arguer.

best