Talk:Ernst Nolte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||||||
|
|||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] "Extremely controversial"
The article says Ernst Nolte is an extremely controversial German historian. Indeed, there are controverses, but do we say (in the Wikipedia, for example) that George W. Bush is an extremely controversial American president? We can speek about all the controverses, but I don't think we may qualify a person as controversial, extreme, dangerous, difficult, criminal, etc., without mentioning the authority who came to that conclusion. Karel Anthonissen 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Lipstadt says he is a dangerous revisionist - actually he says that the last scientific word on the Holocaust has not been said. He believes/ed in the Holocaust but he recognizes that the evidence is weak or nonexistant - ie he couldn't find any. I guess he is dangerous, he welcomes the search for truth - he's a mad man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nolte has never doubted the holocaust and he has never explained , that "the evidence is weak or nonexistant". He has doubted aspects of the holocaust (Wannsee conference, the more prominent role of gas chambers in comparison to mass executions) , but not the genocide. I do not say that he is misunderstood by (most) of his critics,- but his provocative approach is more based on frivolity, than on denial of the holocaust or sympathy for the NS. (Although he has some sympathy for early italian fascism) Calling an historian with somtimes highly challenging and interesting, sometimes bizarre views a "dangerous" "mad man" does not help finding the truth. His basic idea, that there is a radicalising Link between the Nazis and the Bolsheviks is interesting and it is not immoral to find answers to this question. He deserves some praise to have asked it. Unfortunately, he used a tasteless language of frivolity and provocation, ignored all his reputable critics - and did find the the wrong answer ( or at least an insufficent one).He believes an mostly unjustified antisemitism has completed an justified antibolshevism. More likely it was antibolshevism that has completed antisemitism--89.52.167.131 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the way: The Frankurter Allgemeine Zeitung has stopped publishing his articles long years ago due to his radicalising views. This Notice should be added to the article. I would do it myself, but my English is to poor, I´m afraid.--89.52.167.131 16:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "neo-liberal"
Why is the article saying Nolte is "neo-liberal"? How is this justified? Why is "neo-liberal" used to label a historian? The term "neoliberalism" refers to economics and has nothing to do with Nolte's views.
-
- Agreed. I've removed the term "neo-liberal" and also "philosopher". It's quite sufficient to describe him as a "German nationalist historian". Norvo 03:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Some minor disagreement with removing the philosopher label. Nolte was trained as a philosopher, not a historian; through he works primarily as a historian, has also written philosophical works (e.g Nietzsche und der Nietzscheanismus, which I believe translates as Nietzche and Nietzchism); and whose historical work has been heavily influenced by philosophy to the extend that his work as often been described as philosophical history (see the comments of Charles Maier in the book edited by Baldwin, Re-Working the Past cited as in the reference section). While I am here, on a completely different subject, fascism when it is being referred in the generic sense is always written with a small f. Fascism with a capital F refers only to the movement that existed in Italy between 1919-1945; fascism with a small f is used as a generic descriptive term for an number of extreme right-wing movements that existed in Europe between 1919-1945. Since Nolte is clearly using the term fascism in the generic sense, it should be written without capitalization. --A.S. Brown 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Frivolity in the "Historikerstreit"
One of the key features of Nolte's writing on the Third Reich is frivolity. There's the astounding comment, for example, (and I'm relying entirely on memory) that Hitler might as well have been 'made for' Charlie Chaplin.
The notion that "the Jews throughout the world" (sic) declared war on Germany in 1939 is a bizarre, non-literal use of the expression "declare war". There was no Jewish state in 1939; there was no Jewish army; and the claim lacks seriousness. (After all, by September 1939 the Jews still living in Germany were in effect forced to live in certain streets and appartment blocks). Nolte seems to mingle the would-be figurative and the literal, while writing as if Germany had done nothing to offend Jews. Moreover, if he'd consulted something like Keesing's Archive he'd have discovered that at least one Arab leader in Palestine had also pledged support to Britain. At the very least there may have been local issues at work here, arising from the situation in the British Mandate.
When Nolte claims that Germany in some ill-defined way acted in self-defence he again plays fast and loose with the figurative and the supposedly literal. Norvo 03:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Habermas?
I'm very surprised there's no mention of Jürgen Habermas in this discussion....surely Nolte's chief German opposition in the Historikerstreit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Skylucy1, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs)
- That´s true that far left Habermas should be mentioned as example of Nolte´s opponents. --Dezidor 16:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 11:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
