Zionism: Past and Present

The Holocaust as a Unique Historical Event

The Holocaust as a Unique Historical Event I have been a shadow Mine was another creator. —Dan Pagis1 The following remarks are related to the illuminating analysis presented by Professor Peter Pulzer in his article ‘Erasing the past: German historians debate the Holocaust.’2 Professor Pulzer is right to distinguish two approaches to the way the historical present relates to the historical past: that of Ranke who advocates accounting for the past from its own sources and its own perspective and that of Croce who emphasizes the involvement of the present in the past and of the past in the present. Croce’s view, that all history is contemporary history, formally states that there are thematic relationships between the present and the past. Because of the mutual involvement of the two dimensions, when a researcher deals with the past from a perspective detached from his own situation, this becomes a significant act. Dealing with the past from within is even more significant precisely because of the past’s bearing on the present. The dependence of the present course of events on the events of the past does not excuse the researcher from having to exercise sober judgment in all consciousness of the problems attendant on any contemporary study of past collective experience. Hegel’s statement, that whatever we are, we are 155 This article was first published in: Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 22, no. 1, 1988. Reprinted here with permission of the publisher. http//www.tandf.co.uk 156 Zionism also historical (geschichtlich) creatures,3 can be interpreted as pointing to the distinction between total involvement and the attempt to interpret with maximum detachment. The Singularity of Historical Events There is, however, another theoretical aspect of the German controversy, which did not receive attention although it is also related to the thematic relationship between the dimensions of time. Heinrich Rickert posed the question as to whether the conceptual distinction between asserting facts and formulating concepts4 has any meaning in the study of history. The question is a relevant one for the natural sciences as well, once we are aware of the interrelation and even dependence between the assertion of facts or events and the theoretical or hypothetical scientific framework. The existence of atoms or electrons, for example, cannot be confirmed without the framework of a theory of particles, let alone an overarching theory of the functional relationships between events. But one difference between the two disciplines that does emerge is that the historical context is a comprehensive sphere and the individual events parts of the whole, whereas in the science of nature, individual phenomena are examples of the general theory.5 One can conclude that history, that is historical science or research, can attempt to present reality, but not with regard to the general, only with regard to the particular , because it is only the particular, which really takes place.6 It therefore seems surprising that those German historians who deal with the Nazi past and the Holocaust in the context of the Gulag, seem to ignore the concept of the singularity of historical events. Recognition of such a concept would have forestalled the various attempts to question the uniqueness of the Holocaust. I shall now discuss the conceptual confusion surrounding that issue before commenting on the substance of the debate. Auschwitz and the Gulag The conceptual confusion manifested in Ernst Nolte’s writings can be illustrated by several examples. He states that the Third Reich should not be studied in isolation even within the frame- 157 The Holocaust as a Unique Historical Event work of the ‘Epoch of Fascism.’7 What does Nolte mean here by isolation? He goes on to say that the singularity of the Third Reich cannot be denied but that penetrating analysis shows it to be a part of the history of mankind.8 This can strike the reader as a banal statement. Historical events, including the Nazi regime and its deeds, are part of a historical context, whether that context is seen diachronically or synchronically. To rule over the world presupposes the reality of the world, not only as a material globe but also as the sum total of events. The Nazi regime is, because of its historical character, part of historical reality. But a totalitarian regime is not the total given reality. It is created. The attempt to overcome this pseudo-isolation becomes apparent when Nolte argues...