I was reading Meyers book on the "final solution" and he brought up an interesting moment in early Nazi German relations with outside world, specifically international Jewish community. In response to the international Jewish boycott of German goods, Hitler and others arranged a
boycott of Jewish businesses domestically (I think internationally as well). At that moment Rabbi Stephen Wise organizes rallies across US and a meeting at Madison Square Garden to step up, not only boycotts, but international trade sanctions on Germany. Hitler personally
responded with a statement arguing that "Jewish Marxism" in USSR claimed millions of lives but our German "national revolution" has claimed hardly any lives and most Nazis's have not harmed any Jews. Goering organized a meeting of four representatives of different communities
within German Judaism and implored them to talk with their co-ethnics and get the boycott called off. These German Jews met with eleven of the top leaders of Anglo-Jewry who were able to get a call with Rabbi Wise. Wise initially was going to listen to them as he was also assured
by US Secretary of State Cordell Hull that the German govt would curb their own anti-Semitic excesses. However, Wise stubbornly proceeded continuing the back and forth and growing tension between the national socialist regime and domestic/international Jewish community.
Its interesting how organized this all was and how formal it could be. Sometimes I find people in the context of history talk about "international Jewry" and the autistic historian in me rolls my eyes because I find it weird
to talk about such a diverse group as a block/hive mind. However, this episode seems to point to extreme organization.
I have been impressed with Mayer's book so far as he keeps demonstrating that from the vantage point of German-Jewish relations things were much more nuanced
than they sometimes are presented, as a Jew he considers the ideology of Nazism to be inherently wrong or even evil, but the actual day to day relationship all the way up until 1939/42, it was anybody's guess how things would end.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Until a few days ago, I thought this book by Christopher Othen was the only academic work on international volunteers for nationalist side of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out there is at least one other one, as I found this book by Judith Keene entitled "Fighting for Franco".
I wasnt able to give it thorough read, but my impression is that Kenne's book is more driven by chacter studies and personal bios of these more eccentric right-wing types that fought on nationalist side; whereas Othens book seems to have more of a genral approach that doesn't
really drill down deep into the bios of any single one volunteer. Hes also good for discovering some more obscure dyanmics within the right, like the fact that Mosley and certain other more modernist/technocratic left-leaning fascist types
Heather Cox Richardson wrote an interesting book where she argued that part of the failure of reconstruction was the inability for some republicans, even radicals (many of which were laissez-faire libs) who steadfastly championed "free labor" ideology as cure to all the
problems of backwards south, to understand contradictions inherent in its application to black ex-slaves . The actual real world economic conditions of black sharecroppers were radically out of sync with Repub "free labor" "laissez faire" ideology.
When blacks seem to sour on or even rebel against these social/economic arrangements that just seem like a continuation of slavery in some sense, traditional "free labor" repubs lose interest in their cause (they are more concerned with the universal application of
I think I found patient zero or the missing link for Fonerite reconstruction historiography. James G. Blaine's memoir of his time as a Republican congressional rep for Maine and eventually a senator from 1861 to 1881. This memoir contains a large amount of political/
historical analysis of reconstruction and its shocking how much it resembles all the post 1960's/70's reconstruction literature in its extreme radical liberal political views and even loud virtue signaling about the downtrodden freedmen. Especially during the time of
reconstruction itself, historians like Claude Bowers were quick to point out, that most radical Republican politicians that loudly proclaimed themselves to be crusaders for the rights and dignity of the freedmen were usually just anti-southern and vindictive as when these
Goody is less known, but this book is really important for understanding the leftist critique of "western civ" and "Eurocentrism" (I don't know if it was written before Said's book, but if it was, then Said ripped alot of his framing from Goody, because its identical
in certain areas). Basically "Theft of History" was a critique of "Eurocentric" history in that it looked at the claims of traditional European writers and historians in terms identifying the west as having originated or invented certain types of science or philosophy or even
certain concepts like "love", "romance, "chivalry", "honor", "liberty", etc. While it easy to pick apart some of the chauvinistic European writers from eighteenth century, they were sort of right in a number of areas and Goody's book is not particularly convincing in its .
Purchased this last night, have been looking for something like this for quite awhile. There was a French historian named de Rougemont that wrote a book like this with the same name. Tony Judt also has something similar and there other essays on the subject (and other books).
Padgen is just the editor, this is a collection of essays digging into to antiquity, middle ages, but primarily the last 300-400 years documenting different ways Europe as a single entity, political unit, civilization, or culture has been conceptualized. I know from Judt, Padgen,
and some of these other people you might be getting modern cosmopolitan EU propaganda. However, I am kind of obsessed with trying to understand why Europe develops in a decentralized manner and why it ultimately resisted the temptation in such a small geographical location
This is a great thread of, to my knowledge, one of the better single volume US economic histories. This issue of the development of "Sunbelt" and south's post-war economic and political modernization is an important body of literature that many probably aren't aware of.
A number of good books, but Schulman’s “From Cotton-Belt to Sunbelt” is the best. What initially spurred this was Roosevelt's insistence on “modernizing” the south, referring to it in 1938 as Americas “economic problem no.1”. The primary way the federal govt accomplished this
was by awarding disproportionate number of military contracts to southern states which spurred development of heavier industry as well as growth of white-collar jobs related to science, engineering, technology,etc.