The Fundamental Sin of Books on Nazi Germany

For obvious ethical reasons, I try to avoid (as much as I possibly can) criticizing my opponents – “mainstream” historians who present (preach, actually) a very different perception of Nazi Germany. However, there is one occasion when I absolutely have to be very critical of the “orthodox” historians.

Their complete and utter failure to produce the necessary guide to Nazi Germany.

The “mainstream” (“orthodox”) historians failed to produce a genuinely comprehensive, objective and unbiased guide to Nazi Germany for two fundamental reasons.

I have already mentioned the first one – no “professional” historian has (or had) the necessary education, training and experience absolutely vital for the development of a genuinely comprehensive guide.

It does not mean, of course that all historians that specialize in Nazi Germany (let alone all historians) are professionally incompetent because they do not have knowledge and experience in the abovementioned areas.

While I would highly recommend every historian (“professional” or “amateur”) to take classes and get some practical experience in knowledge management, it is by no means the vital requirement for a professional competence of a historian.

Neither is systems analysis, of course. In fact, Nazi Germany is one of the very few systems (civilizations, actually) sufficiently complex to require systems analysis skills to come up with its comprehensive portrait. Another one is probably the Soviet Union, although it is far, far simpler than its Nazi adversary.

The second fundamental reason is that “professional” history of Nazi Germany, both World Wars and the interwar period as (i.e. the community of “professional” historians – university professors, employees of research institutes, etc.) still can not (actually, does not want to) sever the umbilical cord that firmly connects it with the anti-Nazi Allied propaganda of that (and post-war denazification) period.

One of the not-so-noble secrets of the community of “professional” historians of Nazi Germany is that this discipline (as practiced by them) is firmly rooted in the (mostly wartime and immediate post-war) anti-Nazi propaganda.

Which automatically makes all their “deliverables” (books, lectures, classes, documentaries, etc.) heavily biased against the Nazis. Which, in turn make these deliverables… well, not exactly scientific. To put it bluntly, these deliverables are not genuine history but only just another anti-Nazi propaganda tools.

There is nothing wrong about anti-enemy propaganda during the war – it is a perfectly legitimate (and highly efficient – if done right) psychological warfare tool. And although the whole denazification project conducted by the Allies in occupied Germany and Austria after WW2 was highly controversial (to put it mildly), the subsequent “economic miracle” in Germany and its current high living standards and prominent position in Europe, it was probably both necessary and successful. So, obviously, was the anti-Nazi propaganda.

Ideally, after the war is won, the propaganda activities of the victorious government would be gradually discontinued and the historians would be set free to pursue the historic truth (history is about discovering, disseminating and defending historic truth, after all).

Unfortunately, after the end of World War it did not happen – primarily due to a very urgent political necessity of denazification. Right after Nazi Germany signed the act of unconditional surrender (and thus effectively ceased to exist), victorious Allies were faced with a gargantuan task of transforming a thoroughly and deeply Nazi Germany (and Austria) into democratic and liberal nations.

Which, obviously, required applying a ruthless, powerful and omnipresent anti-Nazi propaganda for years (if not decades). Consequently, the Allies simply could not afford “academic freedom” in studies of Nazi Germany as the truth about the Third Reich (and the Allies) was capable of not only undermining the denazification project but killing it outright (especially given the outbreak of a new war – the Cold War).

In addition, there were historic facts that were very, very embarrassing to Western Allies (the USA, Great Britain and France). Armed robbery at Versailles that bore lion’s share of responsibility for the establishment of Nazi Germany and World War II; vital contribution of the West to the birth and maturity of the Soviet military-industrial monster (which made World War II inevitable); war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Allies in WW2 (and right after the war); the “Nuremberg farce”… etc., etc.

Consequently, for decades the Allies maintained – via funding and other means an iron grip on studies of Nazi Germany, essentially making it a propaganda endeavor – not genuine history. Obviously, in the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc nations the situation in historical sciences was far worse as every activity there was propaganda by law.

In addition, there was a powerful pressure from mass-media (that got so used to publishing anti-Nazi propaganda instead of truth that it had no desire to “change direction”).

And, obviously, from victims (first and foremost, from omnipresent Jewish organizations) for whom – for very obvious reasons – Nazi Germany was Absolute Evil.

No less obviously, this environment was not exactly friendly (actually, extremely hostile) to the honest and unbiased quest for historical truth. Worse, this extremely powerful external pressure forced historians of Nazi Germany to do something no genuine scientist (and yes, history is a science) should ever do – pass moral judgement.

It also cultivated powerful antipathy (i.e. negative emotions) towards the Nazis and powerful sympathy (i.e. positive emotions) towards the Allies. Powerful emotions that cloud judgement and thus create a grossly distorted picture of Nazi Germany.

And after the first generation of historians have been conditioned (i.e. transformed into anti-Nazi propagandists), it created a powerful peer pressure on the subsequent generations.

Consequently, it is very, very difficult for an academic historian (university professor, a fellow in a research institute, etc.) to “go against the flow” and search for the truth (i.e. genuine, objective and unbiased knowledge about Nazi Germany).

Hence, the only historians free to pursue historic truth about the Third Reich, are the “amateur” historians (i.e. not affiliated with any university or research institute).

In other words, historians who can not care less about peer pressure, pressure from the government, mass media, special interest groups, etc. Historians who work for the money – by selling their books and videos on the open market or pro bono – just to discover, disseminate (preach) and defend the truth about Nazi Germany. And for professional recognition (fame, if you will), of course.