Saul Friedländer and the Future of Holocaust Historiography

Abstract

Saul Friedländer is the ‘theorist historian’ who, more than any other scholar, has made major contributions both to writing the history of the Holocaust and to the theoretical discussions about the metahistorical issues at stake in this history-writing. In this chapter, I want to ask whether Friedländer has conformed to his own theoretical guidelines concerning the writing of Holocaust history in The Years of Persecution and The Years of Extermination and to consider what the answer to this question tells us about where Holocaust historiography now stands. Steven Aschheim suggests that there is no reason why Friedländer’s theoretical writings should mesh exactly with his ‘concrete history’,1 but even so it is instructive to note where the gap between the two lies. I argue that where narrative structure, mul-tivocality and the incorporation of memory and testimony are concerned Friedländer’s two-volume history does indeed follow quite closely his theoretical demand to produce an ‘integrated history of the Holocaust’ that does not domesticate the past.2 But I go on to suggest that, somewhat ironically, by conforming to his own guidelines, Friedländer has brought about precisely that which he appeared to want to resist: the historicisation of the Holocaust. I will not argue that this is a bad outcome. Instead, Friedländer’s achievement rests in bringing about a practical reconciliation between himself and Broszat by furthering a process of historicisation (Broszat’s aim) but maintaining the Holocaust as the central point of importance in the consideration of the Nazi regime (the loss of which was Friedländer’s fear in the exchange).KeywordsCultural HistoryNarrative StructureNazi RegimeGerman HistorianRwandan GenocideThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.