Holocaust Revisionism: Cause and Effect Analysis of Nazism and Stalinism

Discuss the validity of the assertion: “fascism was a response to communism which provided both the motive and the method for the fascist response” (Nolte, “The Past That Will Not Pass”

21) as it relates to Nazism and Stalinism.

Word Count: 3859

Amanda Nour ToufeiliHistory

Table of Contents

Research Question: Discuss the validity of the assertion: “fascism was a response to communism

which provided both the motive and the method for the fascist response” (Nolte, “The Past That

Will Not Pass” 21) as it relates to Nazism and Stalinism.

Thesis: Through analysis of both regimes, both inferences made by Nolte can be refuted. Nazism

was not a reaction to Communism – anti-Semitism was established before the Bolshevik

revolution and the Jewish Bolshevik in Germany was most likely fascist propaganda. Secondly,

communism could not have provided the methods for a fascist response – although some

parallels are made between dekulakisation and the Final Solution, there exists very distinct

differences. More importantly, news of the gulags had not reached Germany until the 1940s.

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................... 1

Abstract..................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction................................................................................................................................3-4

1. Fascism as a Response to Communism Theory

1.1 Jewish Bolshevism Conspiracy................................................................................5-6

1.2 Threat of Communism in Germany..........................................................................6-7

1.3 Origins of Hitler’s Anti-Semitism............................................................................7

1.4 The Sonderweg Thesis..............................................................................................8

2. Dekulakisation and the Final Solution

2.1 Causal Nexus..........................................................................................................9-10

2.2 Genocidal Nature....................................................................................................10-11

3. Gulag Archipelago and the Concentration Camps...............................................................11-13

Conclusion................................................................................................................................13-14

Works Cited..............................................................................................................................15-16

Abstract This extended essay deals with the thesis which sparked the Historikerstreit, the

intellectual debate in late 20th century Germany on Holocaust revisionism. Ernst Nolte, a

reputable German revisionist historian, published his thesis “The Past That Will Not Pass” in

which challenged the singularity of the Holocaust. He argued that “fascism was a response to

communism which provided both the motive and the method for the fascist response” (21). The

purpose of this essay is to discuss the validity of the assertion as it relates to Stalinism and

Nazism.

The scope of this investigation deals with Hitler’s Final Solution and Stalin’s

dekulakisation. As this topic lends itself to cause and effect investigation, not only is it necessary

to compare and contrast the genocidal nature of dekulakisation and the Final Solution but

continuity must be established and proven. Nolte’s arguments will be systematically investigated

and analyzed. Many academic journals compiled in Forever in the Shadow of Hitler will be

consulted for historiography. Primary sources such as letters, Hitler’s memoirs and speeches will

be used to attempt to determine the cause of his anti-Semitic sentiment and evaluate the state of

communist upheaval in Germany post-WW1.

Through analysis of both regimes, both inferences made by Nolte can be refuted. Nazism

was not a reaction to Communism – anti-Semitism was established before the Bolshevik

revolution and the Jewish Bolshevik in Germany was most likely fascist propaganda. Secondly,

communism could not have provided the methods for a fascist response – although some

parallels are made between dekulakisation and the Final Solution, there exists very distinct

differences. More importantly, news of the gulags had not reached Germany until the 1940s.

Word Count: 281

Introduction

The Historikerstreit (Historians Dispute) of 1986-1989 attempted to redefine Holocaust

revisionism. Ernst Nolte, a West-German revisionist historian, was responsible for launching this

debate in his publication of the speech “The Past That Will Not Go Away” in 1983, where he

challenged the singularity of the Holocaust and uniqueness of Nazism, making parallels to the

atrocities committed in the Soviet Union under Stalin. It is important to discuss the validity of

his assertion that “fascism was a response to communism which provided both the motive and

the method for the fascist response” (21) as it relates to Stalinism and Nazism. As expected,

this speech was met with widespread criticism and divided historians along historiographical

lines with conservative Nolte supporters such as the journalist Joachim Fest, and historians

Andreas Hillgruber and Michael Stürmer on one side and liberal challengers such as Jürgen

Habermas and Peter Gay on the other. Foreign historians such as Ian Kershaw and Richard J.

Evans also contributed to the debate attempting to come to a compromise between both views.

This comparative analysis between Nazism and Stalinism was not merely an academic

exercise but was an attempt to “historicize” and “relativize” the Nazi past, putting it in broader

perspective of the twentieth century history. West German revisionist wanted to confront the

Nazi past as part of an argument of German identity for future new generations to move forward.

In context of the Cold War and the publication of the atrocities committed under Stalin shortly

before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, West German historians where quick to re-

evaluate Nazism – this mastering of the past and coming to terms with searing experiences of

World War II, is what Germans call Vergangenheitsbewältigung. The importance of this

comparison is therefore to come to a consensus on the collective memory and definition of

German national identity. If the Holocaust is comparable – as the so called revisionist suggests –

3

then Germany can regain national acceptance such as Soviet Russia. Recent examples of this

lack of national identity include the inability to decide on a Holocaust Museum for Berlin (Evans

17)

Those who oppose Nolte argue that the revisionists are trying to “humanize Nazi

atrocities by pointing indignantly at crimes committed by others” (Gay 22). Alternatively,

Richard J Evans argues that “the comparison of two events does not indicate their equation, but

rather the isolation of what they have in common in order to determine how they differ” (Evans

133) It is only by engaging in this exercise can we prevent their repetition in the future. To

discuss the claim mentioned by Nolte above, it is necessary to return to the root cause of Nazi

ideology specifically anti-Semitism and evaluate it as a response against Bolshevism.

Furthermore, not only do the mass exterminations in both regimes need to be compared in origin

and method but a causal nexus needs to established and proved between them.

Despite the possible similarities made between the two totalitarian systems, there is little

evidence to support that Hitler was influenced or inspired by Bolshevism. Through analysis of

both regimes, both inferences made by Nolte can be refuted. Nazism was not a reaction to

Communism – anti-Semitism was established before the Bolshevik revolution and the Jewish

Bolshevism in Germany was most likely fascist propaganda. Secondly, communism could not

have provided the methods for a fascist response – although some parallels are made between

dekulakisation and the Final Solution, there exist very distinct differences. More importantly,

news of the gulags had not reached Germany until the 1940s. Since historians have thoroughly

debated on this topic, many of their interpretations, once placed in historical context, will be

consulted as evidence to further refute Nolte’s claim.

4

Fascism as a Response to Communism Theory

Nolte furthers justifies his claim by victimizing Hitler: “Did the Nazis, did Hitler, only

commit an Asiatic deed, perhaps, because they thought that they and those like them were

potential or real victims of Asiatic deeds themselves?” (Nolte, “The Past That Will Not Go

Away” 22). Nolte is referring to the alleged communist threat (which he claims was led by Jews)

that was threatening post WW1 Germany. He believes that the Germans resorted to

counterideology – anti-Semitism – in order to defend Germany. It therefore follows that anti-

Semitic ideology originates from anti-Bolshevism. To Nolte, fascism, Communism's twin, arose

as a desperate response by the threatened middle classes of Europe to what Nolte has often called

the “Bolshevik peril”(Nolte, “The Past That Will Not Go Away” 19) In order to answer the

question posed by Nolte, the legitimacy of the communist threat must be examined as well as the

connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism.

Nolte believes that the continuous revolutions in Munich 1917-1918 allowed for Hitler’s

“extermination complex” in which the leading revolutionary figures were Jewish (Evans 35). In

1939, Henri Rollin wrote The Apocalypse of Our Times where he stressed that "Hitlerism"

represented a form of "anti-Soviet counter-revolution" that employed the "myth of a mysterious

Jewish-Masonic-Bolshevik plot." (qtd. in Maier 52). Rollin investigated the National Socialist

belief, which was taken primarily from White émigré views, that a vast Jewish-Masonic toppled

the Russian and German empires and unleashed Bolshevism. Most of the leading revolutionaries

who convulsed Europe stemmed from prosperous Jewish families: Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev

and Zinoviev in Russia, and most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin. With more than

four out of seven members of the Politburo being of Jewish decent, the Jewish conspiracy was

further reinforced.

5

In his speech in 1934 Hitler further propagated this conspiracy: “we do not want a

situation here in Germany, as in Russia, in which 98% of official key positions are held by alien

Jews who not only can never be classed as members of the proletariat, but who have never

earned an honest penny in their lives.” (qtd in Domarus 92). This quote demonstrates Hitler’s

equation of anti-Bolshevism and anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, one should not confuse tactical

statements with historical motives. The fact that this quote was taken from a speech leads to its

potential limitation as a propaganda technique. Contrastingly, Kremlin records indicate that in

1935 only 5.2% of members of Bolshevik party were Jewish (Domarus 122).

Nolte comments that “Hitler’s anti-communism was understandable, and to a certain

point justified” since the “mighty shadow of events in Russia fell more powerfully on Germany”

(Nolte, “Standing Things on Their Heads” 149). However, according to Richard J. Evans, the

Comintern was not fully consolidated until mid-1920s (Evans 36) and therefore the nature of

communism in Germany is very different than that of the Bolsheviks. In letters written by Rosa

Luxemboug from prison she criticizes the “Red Terror” and Bolshevik regime in Russia.

Furthermore, in her published article "The Russian Revolution", she criticized the Bolshevik

dictatorship and called for a different dictatorship of the proletariat, not the One Party Bolshevik

model.

The threat of Communism, led by Bolshevik Jews, was most likely the result of fascist

propaganda to instil fear in the German people. It is evident that the Communist Party of

Germany was unpopular as in the elections of 1932 it had less than half the Nazi votes (Shirer

332). In Mein Kamf Hitler wrote: “it is not an element of organization but a ferment of

decomposition. The gigantic empire in the East is rife for collapse.” (Hitler 181). It is evident

6

that Hitler did not see Russia as a serious threat; it follows that Germany was not under serious

communist threat, certainly not one instigated by the Bolshevik Jews.

Joachim Fest notes that through the examination of Mein Kampf and other personal

Hitler documents, there is no hint that Hitler’s ideas where formed by observations of Bolshevik

Revolution (65) . Nowhere does it suggest that Hitler’s anti-Semitism ‘originated’ from

pathological, let alone justified, fear of Communism (66). In Mein Kamf Hitler criticizes the

Social Democrats as well as the Bolsheviks – all parties associated with socialism and leftist

politics. He was fighting against Weimar Democracy and the Versailles System rather than

Bolshevism. Hitler’s anti-Semitic ideology was initiated in Vienna 1914, in which he associated

socialism, not Bolshevism with the Jews. Socialism was a conspiracy theory in Austria, which he

believed was trying to alienate the German speaking workers of Vienna (Hitler 35). It follows,

that Hitler’s anti-Semitic ideology was in place before Bolsheviks came to power.

There remains however a connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism;

perhaps Nolte is more justified in claiming that Hitler’s anti-Semitism was strengthened by

revolutions in Munich, as Charles Maier explains, rather than initiated by them: "the major role

Jewish leaders played in the November (Russian) revolution was probably more important than

any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs." (164). Hitler’s anti-Semitism was

also strengthened by Alfred Rosemberg, one of the main authors of key Nazi ideological creeds,

when he escaped Bolshevik revolution and joined Nazi party in 1920s (Shirer 208).

Nevertheless, the roots of Nazi anti-Semitism were gratuitous: it was born out of a political

fantasy, in which the Jews were held responsible for all that the Nazis believed was wrong with

the modern world.

7

Other historians contend that anti-Semitic sentiment was the ‘inevitable’ result of

Germany’s history – this is called the Sonderweg thesis. Sonderweg, meaning ‘special path’, is

theory that proposes that Germany has followed a unique course from aristocracy into

democracy, distinct from other European countries. The term was first used in the 1800s as a

source of pride for the German people; however after 1945 it started to have a negative

connotation. The criticism of Nolte came mainly from historians who favoured the Sonderweg

and functionalist interpretations of German history.

During the 1970s, the functionalist and internationalist schools of German historiography

emerged, amongst them was Fritz Fischer who advocated the Sonderweg approach and stated

that Nolte’s views did not take into account origins of the National Socialist dictatorship from

the 19th century Second Reich. He argued that the anti-Semitic Völkisch movement in the 1850s

was “when the ideological seeds of the Shoah were already planted.”(qtd. in Maiwr 366).

Although the Sonderweg may explain the lack of success of the Weimar Republic – due to the

failure to build democratic institutions of the 19th Century, Nolte supporters feel that it fails to

account for similarities and distinctions with other totalitarian dictatorships. As connections are

established, the Sonderweg thesis may be further rejected.

The intentionalist and functionalist historians argued that the drive for the ‘Final

Solution’ came from within Germany, not as the result of external events. Intentionalists argued

that Hitler did not need the Russian Revolution to provide him with a genocidal mindset, while

functionalists argued it was the unstable power structure and bureaucratic rivalries of the Third

Reich, which led to genocide of the Jews (Kershaw 69). It is not surprising that both these

schools were compromised of mainly Marxist historians who attempted to portray the entire

people of Germany as “evil” rather than solely the Nazi party.

8

Dekulakisation and the Final Solution

Next, the inference that communism “provided the motive” for a “fascist response” will

be evaluated. Nolte raises the question: “wasn’t class murder by the Bolsheviks the logical and

real precondition of ‘race murder’ by the Nazis? The Final Solution was the attempt of the

complete destruction of a universal race... the exact counter-part of the attempt at the complete

destruction of a universal class” (“The Past That Will Not Pass” 22). For Nolte, the "racial

genocide" as he calls the Holocaust was a "punishment and preventive measure" on the part of

the Germans for the "class genocide" of the Bolsheviks. (21) The origins and genocidal aspect of

dekulakisation and the Holocaust must therefore be compared.

Dekulakisation was a policy instigated by Stalin on December 27 1929 in which he called

for “liquidation of kulaks as a class” (Solzhenitsyn 41). This was mainly a proletarian movement

designed to destroy “enemies of the people” or in other words the bourgeoisie. Coupled with

collectivisation, dekulakisation’s main purpose was to socialise the countryside and procure

grain needed for industrialisation of Russia. Dekulakisation is therefore a policy that was placed

in reaction to the capitalist system. Similarly, Hitler’s Final Solution announced on January 20

1942 called for execution of the systematic genocide of European Jews. Kershaw argues that

most of the Jews in Germany were essentially the bourgeoisie – the upper middle class (196).

Although it is important to take into account this sweeping generalization, it is likely that this

was how the Nazi perceived the Jews. Hence, the establishment of the causal nexus –

communism and fascism are less radically opposed doctrines than twin products of bourgeois

revolution – two revolutionary answers to hopelessness of liberal age. Essentially, the Nazis and

the Bolsheviks both identified the bourgeoisie as the enemy.

9

In the Black Book of Communism, Stephane Courtois makes a direct connection between

dekulakisation and the Final Solution: “the genocide of a ‘class’ may well be tantamount to the

genocide of a ‘race’. The death of a Ukrainian kulak child whom the Stalinist regime purposely

sacrificed in the famine ‘is equal to’ the death of a Jewish child in the Warsaw Ghetto, who died

as a result of Nazi-instigated starvation.” (387). This is further reflected in Robert Conquest’s

Harvest of Sorrow in which he accuses the Soviets of instigating a man-made famine in order to

break Ukrainian nationalism – he called this the Holodomor. Slogans such as “Our class enemy

must be wiped off the face of the earth” circulated the Ukrainian countryside. The Ukraine was

the ‘breadbasket’ of Europe but it did not want to be represented by Russia or the USSR and for

Stalin this was problematic. Although the methods used during this famine of 1932-1934 will be

discussed in the next section, it is important to note the genocidal aspect in comparison with the

Nazi’s Final Solution. There is further evidence for some ethicized characteristics such as the

‘Diaspora people’ – German, Finns and Poles – that were features of the mass killings of the

Nazi regime. Order No. 00485 was signed by Yezhov, leader of NKVD, in order to “liquidate

‘Polish diversionist and espionage groups.”(Courtois 225) A total of 144,000 Poles were arrested

and 110,000 shot – a mini-genocide. These Western estimates are likely to be accurate as they

were written after the Glasnost period of liberalisation in Soviet Russia and after the Communist

collapse in 1991. Moreover, NKVD officials were issued with a “quota” of kulaks to find

whether kulaks existed or not – further proof of the systematic planning of the Bolsheviks of the

extermination of the kulaks.

Despite the parallels made between the Nazi genocides and that of the Bolsheviks, there

must be evidence to support that the Nazis ‘copied’ the Bolsheviks in order to confirm Nolte’s

claim. The German political scientist and Nolte’s main adversary, Jürgen Habermas, notes - the

10

news of Soviet dekulakisation and the Holodomor did not reach Germany until 1941 (Habermas

38). Therefore the Soviet atrocities could not possibly have influenced the Germans as Nolte

claimed. German historian and Hitler specialist Eberhard Jäckel states that "the Nazi murder of

the Jews was unique because never before had a state decided and announced, on the authority of

its responsible leader, that it intended to kill in its entirety, as far as possible, a particular group

of human beings, including its old people, women, children and infants, and then put this

decision into action with every possible instrument of power available to the state" (qtd. in Evans

102). Hitler’s crimes systematically destroyed limited targets: Gypsies, Jews and Communists.

On the contrary, Stalin’s deaths were often random: envy, revenge or just plain coincidence

could bring death and torture upon entire family. The “liquidation of kulaks as a class” was not

to be taken in biological sense but in the political sense – dekulakisation was merely an

instrument of terror. There was little evidence that Stalin intended the mass murder of the

Western bourgeoisie such as the Nazis anti- Semitic intentions towards the countries they

conquered. This may explain why the United Nations recognize the Holocaust but not

dekulakisation (or even Holodomor) as genocide.

Gulag Archipelago and the Concentration Camps

The next question Nolte poses is: “Was not the Gulag Archipelago prior in history of

Auschwitz?” (“Three Faces of Fascism” 83) He also wrote that "the so-called annihilation of the

Jews under the Third Reich was a reaction or a distorted copy and not a first act or an original."

(“The Past That Will Not Pass” 19) This reference to the “so called annihilation of the Jews” led

to the reaction of many historians. According to his quote, the purpose of Nolte’s writing seems

to be denying the extent of the Holocaust – this bias proves to be a limitation to the validity of

his arguments. However, Habermas referred to dekulakisation as the “expulsion of the kulaks”

11

(42), further proof that in comparative analysis it is difficult not to undermine the atrocities of

one to compare it with the other – however, this is an indication of the motives of historians who

debate upon them. The methods used to instil suffering of humans, in both the gulags and the

concentration camps, need to be compared to evaluate the continuity between them.

Nolte asserts that everything that the Nazis did, with the sole exception of gassing had

already happened in the Soviet Union (“Standing Things on Their Heads” 151). He even goes as

far as claiming that Kurt Tucholsky, a German-Jewish journalist in 1920-30, wished German

women and children of educated class death by gas. Although he even admits that he “has only

encountered these comments in right wing radical literature” and therefore validity of this claim

is disputed (qtd. in Evans 67). Moreover, Hans-Ulrich Wehler argues most forcefully that the

sufferings of the kulaks deported during the Soviet “dekulakization” campaign of the early 1930s

were in no way analogous to the suffering of the Jews deported in the early 1940s. After all,

there was “no Soviet Treblinka built to murder people on arrival” (qtd. in Kershaw 283).

Conversely, in the Harvest of Sorrow Robert Conquest draws similarities between the

man-made famine of the Ukraine and Belsen, a concentration camp located in northern

Germany. Conquest, being a “Cold Warrior”, asserts this to emphasize the brutality of the

Soviets; however, he still maintains the position that the Nazis crimes were much “worse”

(Kershaw 377). OPGU reports describe the activities of the Twenty Five Thousander: “these

people drove the dekulakized naked in the streets, beat them, organized drinking-bouts in their

houses, shot over their heads, forced them to dig their own graves, undressed women and

searched them, stole valuables, money, etc.” (Courtois 329). This evidence, although a valuable

primary resource is unlikely to have been altered as it is written by Russian secret police and

portrays urban activists in a negative light.

12

Despite the obvious difference of the gassing already mentioned by Nolte, the Nazis also

dehumanized and systematically murdered their victims. Upon arrival, they were rounded up and

divided into groups according to age and gender – in Soviet Russia it was mainly men who

occupied the gulags. Although labelling of the victims is similar in both regimes, in the gulags

they were not permanently tattooed onto the victims. A further example of the degrading of the

Jews was the cutting of the women’s hair and forcing them to walk around naked. In Soviet

Russia, victims were not subject to experimental testing such as Eugenics as were the Jews.

In Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago, published in 1997, he

describes the harsh conditions of the gulags that that he had witnessed. It was not uncommon for

guards to randomly shoot prisoners. Each zek, political prisoner, displayed a number which was

visible at all time. Solzhenitsyn, having been victim of the gulag, has been criticized for deeming

the labour camps as death camps and exaggerating the degree of suffering. Nevertheless,

conditions such as the cold, hunger, disease and long work days were very similar. Joachim Fest

recalls that when reading a personal account of survivors, it is difficult to discern if they are

victims of the gulag or the concentration camps (Fest 68).

Conclusion

The purpose of this essay was to discuss the validity of the assertion “fascism was a

response to Communism which provided both the motive and the method for the fascist

response”(Nolte, “The Past That Will Not Pass” 21) in relation to Stalinism and Nazism.

Through analysis of both regimes, both inferences made by Nolte can be refuted. Nazism was

not a reaction to Communism – anti-Semitism was established before the Bolshevik revolution

and the Jewish Bolshevik in Germany was most likely fascist propaganda. Secondly,

communism could not have provided the methods for a fascist response – although some

13

parallels are made between dekulakisation and the Final Solution, there are very distinct

differences. Furthermore, news of the gulags had not reached Germany until the 1940s. The

motives behind Nolte’s claim was to "term [Nazi Germany] practically a liberal idyll in which

the rule of law obtained in comparison to the Soviet Union” (Evans 39).

Even after collapse of Soviet Union, we know much more about Nazi crimes than we do

about the Soviet ones and only full access to archives will allow for sufficient evidence to lead to

a holistic conclusion. Furthermore, most of the sources consulted were written during the Cold

War period – it is therefore difficult to make a sound historical comparison of Soviet Russia and

Nazi Germany as the concept of totalitarianism dominated comparative analysis.

It is imperative to call into attention that simply because parallels exist, it does not excuse

or condone other crimes. The fact that an event was unique does not mean that it cannot be

rationally explained. It made little difference to the victims whether they died was because they

belonged to a racial group or a social class. It should therefore not alter the guilt of those who

carried out the crimes whether they did so in the name of an ideology like socialism or in the

name of a worldview like fascism. Now that the Holocaust has been compared to the Soviet

atrocities, the next question is if it can be compared to others such as the Rwanda or Armenian

Genocide. More importantly what could this mean for the German national identity. "The

question is not when will Nazism finally be viewed as part of history as usual, for that day is

unlikely ever to come, but how will this period, with all its anguish and inexplicability, be

situated within our collective memory.  How the history of this era will be written is the issue

over which the dispute has been fought, a question that will continue to prompt controversy."

(qtd. in Kershaw 199)

14

Works Cited

Primary Sources

Domarus, Max. The Essential Hitler: Speeches and Commentary. New York: Bolchazy-

Carducci, 2007. Print.

Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. Boston: The Houston Mifflin Company, 1943. Print.

Luxembourg, Rosa. Trans. Dave Hollis. Revolutionary History. 13 Sept. 1993.Web. May 3 2010.

<http://www.marxists.org/archive>

Secondary Sources

Courtois, Stephane et al. Trans. Jonathan Murphy. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes,

Terror, Repression. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999. Print.

Evans, Richard. West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape from the Nazi Past. New

York: Pantheon Books, 1989. Print.

Fest, Joachim. “Encumbered Rememberance: The Controversy about the Incomparability of

National-Socialist Mass Crimes.” Forever in the Shadow of Hitler: Original Documents

of the Historikerstreit. Trans. James Knowlton and Truet Cates. Atlantic Highlands:

Humanities Press International, 1993. 63-70. Print.

Gay, Peter. Freud, Jews, and Other Germans: Masters and Victims in Modernist Culture. New

York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print.

Habermas, Jürgen. “A Kind of Settlement of Damages: The Apologetic Tendencies in German

History Writing.” Forever in the Shadow of Hitler: Original Documents of the

Historikerstreit. Trans. James Knowlton and Truet Cates. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities

Press International, 1993. 34-44. Print.

15

Kershaw, Ian. The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems in Perspective and Interpretation. 3rd ed.

London: Hodder Headline PLC, 1993. Print

Maier, Charles. The Unmasterable Past: History, Holocaust and German National Identity.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Print

Nolte, Ernst. “The Past That Will Not Pass.” Forever in the Shadow of Hitler: Original

Documents of the Historikerstreit. Trans. James Knowlton and Truet Cates. Atlantic

Highlands: Humanities Press International, 1993. 18-23. Print.

--- “Standing Things on Their Heads: Against Negative Nationalism in Interpreting History.”

Forever in the Shadow of Hitler: Original Documents of the Historikerstreit. Trans.

James Knowlton and Truet Cates. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press International,

1993. 149-154. Print

---. Three Faces of Fascism. Trans. Leila Vennewitz. Munich: R. Piper and Co. Verlag, 1965,

Print.

Shirer, William. Rise and Fall of The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York:

Simon & Schuster. 1990. Print.

Solzhenitsyn, Alexander. The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary

Investigation. Moscow: Basic Books, 1997. Print.

16