| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bortz, Olof
(författare)
-
Artur Szulc, I skuggan av Auschwitz
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Historisk Tidskrift. - 0345-469X .- 2002-4827. ; 137:3, s. 334-336
-
Recension (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 4. |
- Bortz, Olof
(författare)
-
Early Reactions to Raul Hilberg's History of the Holocaust, 1961-7
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of contemporary history. - : SAGE Publications. - 0022-0094 .- 1461-7250. ; 56:3, s. 745-765
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Raul Hilberg's landmark study of the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, was published in 1961. This article tells the story of the early response to Hilberg's book. For the first time, journalists, scholars, intellectuals and representatives of Jewish communities engaged in a debate about the history and political significance of the Holocaust. This debate preceded the controversy surrounding Hannah Arendt's articles on the trial of Adolf Eichmann and had more far-reaching consequences. Countless reviewers in the American press praised Hilberg's analysis of the bureaucratic administration of genocide. They noted his conclusion that all of German society was involved in the 'destruction process' and its implications for the contemporary West German leadership. Scholars also lauded Hilberg's book, although some of them criticized his inclusive perpetrator category and argued that he overlooked the importance of Nazi ideology and dictatorship. Hilberg's claim that Jewish victims abetted their persecutors gave rise to a debate in Jewish journals and newspapers. Writers and historians objected to Hilberg's purported ignorance of their experiences and of Jewish history. As this article shows, the reception of Hilberg's work marks a crucial step in the formation of the Holocaust as part of historical consciousness.
|
|
| 5. |
- Bortz, Olof
(författare)
-
Fascismens aktualitet : Historia som analogi och kontrast
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift. - Lund. - 0039-0747. ; 123:3, s. 543-559
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Relevance of Fascism: History as analogy and contrastPoliticians, intellectuals, journalists, and scholars in several different countries have used the concept of fascism to describe political developments during recent years. Right-wing populist parties and extremist movements have gained ground in national elections, while political leaders worldwide have challenged democratic norms and institutions. Is the concept and history of fascism useful as a tool for understanding this situation? Or does it obscure the novelty and specificity of what is going on? This article analyzes various answers to this question, gathered from proponents and critics of the utility of the concept of fascism for understanding contemporary politics in Sweden, the USA, France, Spain, and Germany, during the past ten years. In countries where fascism has played a central role in national history, a nostalgic embrace of the memory and history of fascism, although not its political program, has accompanied the ascent of right-wing populist and extremist parties. In other countries, such as Sweden and the USA, historians and intellectuals have dismissed using the concept of fascism as a label for the Sweden Democrats or Donald Trump as historically incorrect. Although such critique can indeed adduce a long list of differences between historical fascism and contemporary politics, it also contributes to making the history of fascism into a politically useful past in the present.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Bortz, Olof
(författare)
-
Forskarna, nazismen och den vetenskapliga objektiviteten : USA, Storbritannien och Frankrike, 1935–1939
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Historisk Tidsskrift. - 0018-263X .- 1504-2944. ; 143:2, s. 169-196
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Focusing on different interpretations of the ideal of scholarly objectivity, this article examines books and reviews dealing with Nazism written by American, British, and French scholars between 1935 and 1939. After the rise of the Nazi regime in 1933, scholars in three of the Western democracies that later faced Germany in the Second World War sought to explain the character and goals of Nazi ideology and the Nazi state. Some already specialised in German history, others gravitated towards the topic because of political developments. Often, their research and reviews led them to reflect on scholarly objectivity, impartiality, and neutrality.One notable example was the American political scientist Frederick Schuman who visited Nazi Germany in 1933. Schuman argued, while claiming to strive for an honest, undistorted depiction, that Nazi ideology, since it demanded either rejection or acceptance, rendered impartiality and neutrality impossible. His American colleagues, mainly political scientists and historians, took him to task for being overly critical of a regime which in their view had positive aspects. Émigré scholars in the US and France such as Fritz Ermarth, Fritz Morstein Marx, and Harald Mankiewicz, who had been forced to flee the Third Reich, were expected to set their experiences aside, allowing Nazi authors to speak unchallenged. While Schuman was criticised for his approach, Ermarth, Morstein Marx, and Mankiewicz were lauded for a form of objectivity which implied refraining from critical comment.The reception of Henri Lichtenberger’s L’Allemagne nouvelle, first published in French in 1936 and in English translation the following year, is another case in point. Lichtenberger was one of the founding fathers of German studies in France and worked for French–German understanding during the 1930s. In his book, he went to great lengths not to criticize the Third Reich and its leadership. Although several scholars, especially in the US, praised Lichtenberger’s impartial approach there were also dissenting voices who took exception to his reticence. In 1938 and 1939, ever more scholars argued for the importance of taking sides in response to a state which in their view posed problems greater than the question of scholarly objectivity. In this context, the sociologist Aurel Kolnai’s indictment of Nazism, despite making no pretence to being dispassionate, seemed more attuned to the situation. The ideal of scholarly objectivity and impartiality proved not only its persistence in the scholarly encounter with Nazism, but also its inadequacy as a response to the challenge posed by the Third Reich. It was only when that regime appeared as an immediate threat to other countries that scholarly discourses changed.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
