A History of the Holocaust: From Ideology to Annihilation, Third Edition

Rating:
Summary: Passionate, Yet Biased!
Review: 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.