There are alot of mainstream histories focusing on specific anti-Jewish blood libels throughout history. There are a few on the Beilis trial in Russia at turn of century and one on William of Norwich (I think there was an English theologian/monk that wrote
about it to, but not sure if he comments on his suspected killers). Of course, unlike the "Passovers" book, these books stay away from the messy details (or choose an event that is more clearly a matter of anti-Jewish persecution) and use the specific case study to understand
larger historical themes/patterns as well the backlash against Jews and pogroms. I have never got around to reading any of these, the only one I have read is Smith's "The Butchers Tale" which as a micro-history and piece of literature is quite good and reads as a true crime
thriller In the case of Smith's book, he presents alot of the details of the trial of a Jewish butcher accused of murdering gentile teenager in Konigsberg. Guilt/innocence is only small part, the reaction of Prussian state to pogroms and violence against Jews might be the most
interesting info; even aristocratic/autocratic regimes sought to protect Jews, not out of kindness of their heart, but because they thought it would spillover into other revolutionary activity (Romanovs seem to be only monarchy/political regime who dont involve themselves).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For any southern/SC history buffs, this definately would be worth your time looking into. Written by by an amateur historian who looks like he was able to write something that rivaled anything coming out of academia, without the PC constraints of course. amazon.com/Wade-Hampton-C…
I found it looking over my Clyde Wilson books ("Defending Dixie" and "From Union to Empire") two collections of his shorter writings done throughout his career. Certainly some of the more prized books I own that I hope I never lose. For those of you who do not know who Wilson is,
then do yourself a favor and look into his writings. He was one of the last outspoken, unreconstructed conservative southerners in Academia (history prof at U. of SC).His original study "Carolina Cavalier" is one of the greatest pieces of Southern/civil war history/biography and
This is an important point. Enzo Traverso wrote a book called "Fire and Blood" in which he argues that WWII is best understood as a civil war (not just because it takes place inside a system that had at times been understood as an integrated system of states or even a )
civilization) but because it was a war in which both sides understood the other as illegitimate, normal rules did not apply because various powers are not competing within an integrated Westphalian order, they have fundamentally different ideas of what that order should be, what
their culture is , what their morality is. Traverso frames the entire period between 1914 to1945 as a extended civil war,a total and an absolute war between the forces of modernity and transcendence, with the forces of modernity ultimately succeeding.
It depends on the specific book/academic you are talking about. In the case of Nazis, it has alot to do with that. There was more of an openness to asses the Italian fascists accurately. But Arendts work and the work of Adorno and others completely enveloped initial studies of
Nazism. It has changed in recent years though. Although, off top of my head, I cant think of any studies that demonstrate an openess to look at Nazism outside paradigm of totalitarianism.
To go back to your initial question, Cold war was essential because they had to do a
"both sidesism" for Soviets (a regime that could actually be described as slightly totalitarian given their definition)and Nazis (certainly not nearly as politically or socially totalizing as the other, although I think this use of totalitarianism is not actually helpful and I am
exiledjargon.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-co…
This is a great extended essay I was sent by (also written by) @Jargon_0 on the history of right populism in the last 150 or so years of American history. I have always been conflicted in trying to understand the history of conservative/rightist politics
(I use these terms as a stand in for the the healthier aspects of American political life, they dont always necessarily match with traditional poly sci definitions of these things). For example, in my lectures as a student teacher in grad school on the history of the conservative
movement, I presented it as essentially a material issue. Earlier conservative politics were funded by more domestic, even regional business types(think of extractive resource based industries) and the inclusion of more high finance types in the 70's and 80's changed the
I genuinely resent both Marxian/Dem-Soc as well Nat-Soc/ fascist ideologues who twist history to bolster their ideological bs. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that no serious professional historian of fascism currently working would actually be willing to sign on to this
as a serious statement on the nature of fascism as a historical phenomenon. Fascism as a final barricade of the bourgeoise and especially more domestic or national elements of capital does correspond with how certain fascist regimes unfolded in the interwar period. However, it
certainly does not capture the full picture of these regimes nor does it prove itself to be an immutable law of history that is still applicable to the 21st century. Enzo Traverso- an excellent Italian socialist historian-who's book "Fire and Blood" published by Verso (Gravel
Historiography/suggested readings for the history of the American empire. This is not a full accounting of the history of U.S. foreign policy, but instead is a number of suggested readings that I think help us understand the nature and history of US empire.
Williams for me is the single greatest historian of US empire. Not only did Williams give a full historical accounting of the origins and trajectory of US empire, but from a theoretical standpoint he was able to help historians understand many of the underlying motivations in
each travail and moment of US foreign policy. He is characterized as a Marxist historian by some, but I don't think that captures his full view and his nuance. "The Tragedy of US Diplomacy" is the best place to start and "The Contours of American history" is his magnum opus