Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
I wasn't aware that Blair could give out knighthoods.
I'm in agreement with ljadw on this one by the way.
I'm in agreement with ljadw on this one by the way.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
He was the Prime Minister.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
Which is meaningless : it is probable that the knighthoods were proposed by a committee,and,it is possible that Blair never heard of Kershaw :why would a PM be interested in a historian? PM's are only interested in people who could contribute a lot of money to the election funds .
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
But it's the queen that actually knights them, right?Attrition wrote:He was the Prime Minister.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
1) In the NewYears honours list of 1998 (TB being PM),professor Michael Berridge got a knighthood,as head of the laboratory for molecular signalling ,at Barbraham Institute:if some one is saying that TB understood the meaning of molecular signalling,he is talking nonsense;probably no one in Whitehall knew what molecular signalling was .(nor did the Queen)
2) Kershaw got his knighthood at the Birthday Honourslist of 2002,almost ONE year before the invasion of Iraq. ,thus before Blair changed in Bliair
2) Kershaw got his knighthood at the Birthday Honourslist of 2002,almost ONE year before the invasion of Iraq. ,thus before Blair changed in Bliair
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
Don't be silly, she's "The Queen", not the Queen.LWD wrote:But it's the queen that actually knights them, right?Attrition wrote:He was the Prime Minister.
Monarchs were abolished for good in 1688; she's a civil servant who works for the Prime Minister, who's an executive president.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
Which didn't answer the question though did it? Not is it correct in any case.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
Getting back to topic, I'm not too impressed with either of them. I'm more impressed with the books by Kershaw's protégé Laurence Rees than with Kershaw. Kershaw did have his pet theory "Working towards the Führer", including a book titled such, "essays in honor of Sir Ian Kershaw" where his fellow professors puffed up his ego with personalized adorations in awe of his speculation. I find Kershaw (and Evans for that matter) to be professorial bores. Someone above mentioned Lukac's "The Hitler of History" (I too found that particular book on Hitler biographers to be excellent). There is a newer book by R. H. S. Stolfi titled "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny"...a good book which knocks Kershaw off his pedestal by pointing out some of the flaws in his biography.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
I thought that Kershaw's earlier work was very good but I never bothered with the biography, to my mind it's a genre which inverts cause and effect. I haven't bothered reading Rees because he gave genocide a musical accompaniment, in the Auschwitz documentary. I know someone who has the acquaintance of Kershaw, who says he's a decent bloke but strictly in the middle-class conformist mould. I had a quick look on Amazon about the Stolfi book - I hope he hasn't read the encomia underneath, with praise like that I'd emigrate to Pluto.
"Working towards the Führer" is a metaphor for the state, I wouldn't call it a pet theory so much as a description of the bleeding obvious.
"Working towards the Führer" is a metaphor for the state, I wouldn't call it a pet theory so much as a description of the bleeding obvious.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
It did and it's right.LWD wrote:Which didn't answer the question though did it? Not is it correct in any case.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
The "theory" could not have been too obvious as it is called a "theory" in the book and has been attributed to Kerhsaw. It has to do with personality and it's effect on state function. Kershaw originated the "theory of dictatorship" from a Nazi speech from 1934. Anyway, the book calls it a "theory" and gives Kershaw credit for it's "original scope".
I can concede and agree with above that some of Kershaw's specialized works are interesting.....I just didn't care for his 2 volume Hitler biography. I agree too that from Stolfi's standpoint, I wouldn't like the praise from certain quarters but he tried to show a more objective view of Hitler and pointed out the subjective nature of what he refers to as "the great biographers". I believe Stolfi is deceased.
I can concede and agree with above that some of Kershaw's specialized works are interesting.....I just didn't care for his 2 volume Hitler biography. I agree too that from Stolfi's standpoint, I wouldn't like the praise from certain quarters but he tried to show a more objective view of Hitler and pointed out the subjective nature of what he refers to as "the great biographers". I believe Stolfi is deceased.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
I don't think that's what he meant. If he had, then yes, "bleedin' obvious", but his model is more akin to the feudal/medieval model of leadership; direct, personalised and most importantly, largely unfettered by formal, legalistic frameworks. Even at the ideological level it was largely down to "will Adolf like this?" And yes, there is a difference between working to the whims of an individual as opposed to a quite sizable 'elite'. Even the She-Devil of Grantham didn't get it all her own way...."Working towards the Führer" is a metaphor for the state, I wouldn't call it a pet theory so much as a description of the bleeding obvious.
"It was like Hungary being between Germany and the Soviet Union. What sort of choice was that? Which language would you like your firing squad to speak?" Tibor Fischer 'Under the Frog'.
Re: Ian Kershaw vs Richard J Evans
It reminds me of this
As the Nazi regime developed over the years, the whole structure of decision-making was changed. At first there were laws. Then there were decrees implementing laws. Then a law was made saying, "There shall be no laws." Then there were orders and directives that were written down, but still published in ministerial gazettes. Then there was government by announcement; orders appeared in newspapers. Then there were the quiet orders, the orders that were not published, that were within the bureaucracy, that were oral. Finally, there were no orders at all. Everybody knew what he had to do. (Raul Hilberg)
As well as being an anatomy of the nazi regime, it describes the normal working of the bourgeois state. It is a feudal machine, except when there is a legislature which has a measure of independence. It was the residual independence of the Reichstag 1930-1932, which led the boss class to turn to the nazi party to return the state to its pre-1914 structure; in 1919 the SPD did the dirty work for them.
Apropos, does anyone remember when it was routine to minute meetings and then all of a sudden, anyone looking like they were going to put pen to paper got jumped on?
As the Nazi regime developed over the years, the whole structure of decision-making was changed. At first there were laws. Then there were decrees implementing laws. Then a law was made saying, "There shall be no laws." Then there were orders and directives that were written down, but still published in ministerial gazettes. Then there was government by announcement; orders appeared in newspapers. Then there were the quiet orders, the orders that were not published, that were within the bureaucracy, that were oral. Finally, there were no orders at all. Everybody knew what he had to do. (Raul Hilberg)
As well as being an anatomy of the nazi regime, it describes the normal working of the bourgeois state. It is a feudal machine, except when there is a legislature which has a measure of independence. It was the residual independence of the Reichstag 1930-1932, which led the boss class to turn to the nazi party to return the state to its pre-1914 structure; in 1919 the SPD did the dirty work for them.
Apropos, does anyone remember when it was routine to minute meetings and then all of a sudden, anyone looking like they were going to put pen to paper got jumped on?