Customer Reviews

A History of the Holocaust: From Ideology to Annihilation (3rd Edition)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A History of the Holocaust by Bostwinick is a well-written, extremely informative book. While the author's passion is admirable, bias and repetitive contradictions take a great deal away from an otherwise splendid work.

Examples in Paraphrase:

1) Bostwinick documents how the Nazis had carefully and meticulously concealed the existence of death camps from the German people, yet states that all Germans share equal accountability and guilt for the Holocaust, as doing nothing about the Holocaust was equal to active participation in it.

Either the German people knew, or they did not know. If they did not know, as she implies, in what way are ordinary Germans morally accountable for the acts of Nazi fanatics?

2) Bostwinick admits that her family left Germany in the mid 1930s, and illustrates the inherent danger of opposing the Nazis after 1935. Yet at the same time, she assigns blame to non-Jewish Germans for not opposing Nazi policies during the deportations.

The implication seems to be that her family's act of self-preservation was justified, if not noble, and that Gentiles within Germany who chose not to risk their lives for an unknown, deserve to be viewed with contempt.

3) Bostwinick repeatedly criticizes the United States and The United Kingdom for doing nothing to stop the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis. She fails to mention the six years that it took the Allies to win the war. She also completely ignores the millions of lives that were lost by Allied soldiers, sailors, airmen, and at-large partisan special forces in the liberation of Europe from the Nazis.

How were the Allies to liberate concentration and death camps when they did not control the territories in which the camps were located?

4.) Dr. Bostwinick can't help displaying her own prejudices, in her sanctimonious quest to expose the prejudices of others.

In the prelude to "A History of the Holocaust" Dr. Bostwinick discusses her interest in observing all passing men who appear to be over the age of 75, while sitting in a Berlin cafe. In her words: "wondering, wondering, wondering"...whether or not the men she was observing may be former SS men. Yet she is unwilling to consider the fact that the same men may have been among the few Germans that has assisted in the rescue of Jews during the 40s, or whether these men are even German at all. She exposes her own personal prejudices; the same kind of prejudices that may have led to Nazism in the first place.

Again, Dr. Bostwinick's passion is admirable, and her biases understandable; I personally agree with many of her personal opinions and assessments. It is however my opinion that paradoxical ideology, and selective presentation of history have no place in a book that is intended for the purpose of learning.

I opine that students will achieve a less refined, yet a more valuable insight into the Holocaust by reading "Holocaust: Religious and Philosophical Implications" by John Roth and Michael Berenbaum, in which the authors present the horrors of the Holocaust by those who had survived it.

Future generations are far better served in their educational endeavors when they are given the opportunity to evaluate historical data, as opposed to accepting the political views of self-appointed experts, who have the audacity to call themselves teachers.

SC

The deeds committed during the Holocaust were horrid and lacked any form of human decency. Because of its horror, the study and meaning of the Holocaust is vital in preventing genocides from happening again in the future.

Rita Steinhardt Botwinick is a passionate writer and advocate. As an unbiased and objective historian, she is not. Botwinick's A History of the Holocaust: From Ideology to Annihilation is a well-written, concise history of the Holocaust. Well suitable for a high school or college level (survey) history courses.

While well written and concise, it is exceedingly biased, subjective and at times it contradicts itself, which regrettably undermines her otherwise excellent book.

The study of the Holocaust is a controversial subject. Historians are continuously battling over its interpretations and many schools of thought have emerged on the subject. As with any controversial subject, it is the historian's job to approach his or her subject with objectivity. Biased and subjective interpretations have no place in historical scholarship. While Botwinick is a passionate and persuasive writer, her total lack of objectivity inflicts a subjective, biased, prejudiced, dogmatic and narrow-minded analysis of the Holocaust.

An objective historian will let the facts speak for themselves. A good historian doesn't throw out unsubstantiated facts, launch name-calling attacks and make uncorroborated assumptions on foreign policies. You tell the stories of history by placing the historical evidence in its proper place; you then communicate its meaning in its proper historical contexts. History is not bending historical evidence to substantiate your desired outcome; your only outcome is to disseminate historical facts so your readers can judge for themselves.

Regrettably her book is riddled with subjective excuses, biased assumptions, unsubstantiated facts, contradicting statements and name-calling.

A few examples:

Current political interjection: "Jewish achievements in the areas of literature, science, philosophy, and religion remains monuments to an age of greatness realized by virtue of the bygone spirit of Islamic tolerance" (p 10).

Biased assumption: "All major Christian denominations, however, were united in their animosity towards Jews" (p 11).

Subjective excuses and counter negative projection on Christianity regarding the misogyny within the Judaism: "Actually, Jewish women were probably less subjugated than their Christian contemporaries" (p 35).

Biased assumptions regarding Germany in the 1930s: "The circumstances experienced by Germans in the early 1930s were not unique; other nationalities faced similar difficulties" (p 47).

Subjective excuses and underplaying the importance of the Versailles Treaty: "The treaty was harsh, that is unless one considers the terms of the agreement the Germans forced on the defeated Russians in 1918 at Brest-Litovsk" (p 47).

Name-calling: "master of the big lie," (p 65); "brain of a lunatic" (p 84); "hooligan" (p 114); "bullies" (p 121).

Contradicting statements: "The Germans always made money from their captives" (p 165) and contradicting the previous statement with the following, "None of the killers were permitted to profit in any way from the death of the Jews" (p 177).

Subjective statement and assumptions with political interjection: "As the leader of the free world during the war, the burden of inactivity falls heavily on the United States" (p 208).

Inappropriate political declaration: "Israeli success in its struggle to survive against great odds is a legacy for all Jews" (p 218).

If she could balance her text with more objectivity and remove her baises she would have the making of a very good book.