The Holocaust: An Unfinished History

by Dan Stone

A revelatory new history that reexamines the brutal reality of the Holocaust—and reinterprets the events as a living trauma from which modern society has not yet recovered

The Holocaust is much discussed, much memorialized, and much portrayed. But there are major aspects of its history that have been overlooked. Spanning the entirety of the Holocaust, this sweeping history deepens our understanding. Dan Stone—Director of the Holocaust Research Institute at Royal Holloway, University of London—reveals how the idea of “industrial murder” is incomplete: Many were killed where they lived in the most brutal of ways. He outlines the depth of collaboration across Europe, arguing persuasively that we need to stop thinking of the Holocaust as an exclusively German project. He also considers the nature of trauma the Holocaust engendered, and why Jewish suffering has yet to be fully reckoned with. And he makes clear that the kernel to understanding Nazi thinking and action is genocidal ideology, providing a deep analysis of its origins.

Drawing on decades of research, The Holocaust: An Unfinished History upends much of what we think we know about the Holocaust. Stone draws on Nazi documents, diaries, post-war testimonies, and even fiction, arguing that, in our age of increasing nationalism and xenophobia, understanding the true history of the Holocaust is vital.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Holocaust, World War II, Politics, Audiobook, War

464 pages, Hardcover

Published January 23, 2024

About the author

Dan Stone was born in Lincoln and brought up in Birmingham. He studied at the University of Oxford and since 1999 has taught at Royal Holloway, University of London. Dan is a historian of modern Europe with particular interests in the Holocaust, comparative genocide, fascism, race theory, and the history of anthropology.

Reviews

[ancientreader · Rating 5 out of 5]

What's an unfinished history? Perhaps one about which there's always more to say, because it's too immense and complex ever to be fully understood; it's too dreadful to be comprehended; and it's still happening.

Here Dan Stone takes up several themes.

1. The popular narrative of the Holocaust as efficiently industrialized mass slaughter is mistaken, he points out: until quite late in the war, the slaughter of Jews (and of course of many others) was accomplished mostly by starving people to death, forcing them into conditions under which infectious disease or simple cold would kill them, and forcing them to dig pits, then shooting them into those pits. "Almost half of the victims of the Holocaust died of starvation in ghettos or were shot in face-to-face killing actions."

2. The Holocaust is not to be understood as a purely German phenomenon: in most of the polities taken over by Nazi Germany, anti-Semitism was already rampant, and the project of national "purification" was taken up with enthusiasm.

The genocide of the Jews could not have been so thorough and so brutal without almost ubiquitous collaboration across Europe and beyond. Historians have long known this, but the true extent of this collaboration has remained covered up by successive governments across the continent.

Nor was the Holocaust only European. Jews from North Africa were also murdered, not to mention how Jews in flight from Nazism found themselves in many parts of Asia.

3. Stone argues that historiography often neglects what he calls "the Nazi imaginary":

not just racial science but the mysticism of race, in which Nazi thinkers set out a metaphysics and an anthropology of German superiority and proposed that the movement of history was driven by a clash between good and evil, represented by the Germans on the one side and the threatening race-destroyers, the Jews, on the other.

I might say, in other words, that attention should be drawn to Nazism as not only a politics but a religion.

Stone's prose is clear and vivid, which is to say that he re-horrifies his subject. Having read a fair amount of Holocaust history, I'm (awful to admit) inured to many of the most familiar images. Reading Stone's book brought back my first visit to Auschwitz, in the mid-1980s, and the feeling of the world giving way, brought on by the physical presence of the artifacts of genocide -- the hair, the shoes, the suitcases, the ovens. This in itself -- Stone's ability to bring his history out of the weight of platitude and cliche that usually surrounds it -- is an accomplishment. It almost goes without saying that he makes his theoretical case convincingly.

The concluding sections of The Holocaust: An Unfinished History are in some ways even more painful, though, because here Stone takes up the dismaying truth that knowledge of the Holocaust isn't proof against the rise of authoritarianism, nationalism, xenophobia, and of course anti-Semitism. In the present context of war in Israel/Palestine, his discussion of how both extremist Zionists and extremist anti-Zionists conflate "Jews" and "Israel" is particularly useful for anyone trying to find moral ground in a place saturated with the history and future of wrongdoing. I should say, perhaps, "in a world saturated with the history and future of wrongdoing."

Brilliant book, strongly recommended. Many thanks to NetGalley and Mariner Books for the ARC.

[Traci Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an extremely well researched and detailed history of the Holocaust. It is very dense. I enjoyed it but struggled a bit with the writing style, finding the prose clunky and repetitive in parts. I deeply appreciate the reframing of so much of the Holocaust and the horrors being clearly and plainly stated. I do recommend this book but not as an entry point to the Holocaust bc of how much this book challenges and complicates well held beliefs.

[Matt Fuller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing. Kinda lacked a clear point beyond being contrary and was weirdly repetitive. The regular references to January 6th and the rise of Western far-right were also a bit embarrassing for serious scholarship.

[Geicodave · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book led me think about the Holocaust in new ways and increased my knowledge of the tragedy. For example, I learned more about the involvement of Romania than I knew before. More importantly, I came to share the author's view that the Holocaust involved, albeit in different and complex ways, the entire European Continent and that although it was German inspired and led, it was not completely or exclusively controlled by them. I would not recommend this book as a reader's introduction to the Holocaust, but for those who know about the Holocaust's events and chronology and are seeking ways to understand it more fully, Professor Stone's book is indispensable.

[Kristi · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am about to begin reading this book that " shatters many myths about the genocide". I have been reading about the Holocaust for more than 61 years. My interest began by my reading "The Diary of Anne Frank" when I was 14 in 1962. I have read as much as possible - histories and first-hand accounts - ever since. Eight of my uncles served in WWII. They were a medic in the South Pacific, tank driver for Patton in France, Boeing mechanic, Seabee, and tail gunner on a B-17. Only the last man listed failed to come home. Living on a farm in rural Iowa made it difficult to get great histories to read as the nearest bookstore was 50 miles away. I finished St. Olaf College (+ Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand), in Northfield, Minnesota in 1970 ( summa cum laude with a triple major - religion, Asian studies and psychology ) and left a PhD program in Clinical Psychology at the University of Minnesota ( then ranked in the top to programs in the United States) in 1973 to begin teaching psychology at St. Olaf. I am retired now and read and watch films ( especially documentaries ) whenever possible. That means I read 671 books last year!!!! Mr. Stone has an excellent academic history, but you have to forgive a 75-year-old woman who has doubts about "many myths" to be revealed and debunked. (Sorry Mr. Stone) I hope the hype is the truth because learning something new is a great joy!!! Here's to hoping this is a great book!!!!! OK, I have read the introduction (I actually finished the book, but this review was at first a product of the introduction ) - this may be a very long review. Quote from book: " The trauma of the Holocaust has been largely written out of the historiography...." Two thoughts... First I frequently find that the language employed by the author is very "grand" and unnecessarily pretentious. If this book reveals the truth of the Holocaust, I would like a high school student to be able to read it, not just scholars. Who was your intended audience??? Second thought: Not only has the trauma of the Holocaust disappeared from much of history, but Anne Frank's Diary has become a banned book in some states here in the U. S. I am also reminded of this quote: ‘Wherever books are burned, men also, in the end, are burned’ – The author who wrote these words was a nineteenth century German Romantic named Heinrich Heine. To my knowledge America is not burning books yet, but fascism seems closer than before in my life. Mr. Stone states "the genocide of the Jews could not have been so thorough and so brutal without almost "ubiquitous"collaboration across Europe" " ANTISEMITIC EUROPE".... I will address examples that the author provides. The Vichy government pre-empted the Nazis by issuing their own statutes concerning Jews. "the 'only "country" in Western Europe where Jews were deported from a zone not under direct Nazi occupation." The author says that FRANCE was anti-Semitic and acted against its Jews without being forced to do so by the Nazis. The Vichy government DID NOT represent FRANCE. They were a government of appeasement who wanted to hold on to their portion of France and their faux power. Their existence was at the "benevolence" of Hitler. I am not saying that there were not anti-semitic people in France, but the entire country cannot be condemned by the actions of traitors. Pierre Laval, the puppet leader, attempted to flee to Spain after France was liberated and was executed for treason on October 15, 1945 by the LEGAL government of France. Then the author moves on: "In Norway local police rounded up, guarded and deported Jews..." I recently read "Quisling, a Study in Treason by Hoidal, Oddvar K. Oslo : Norwegian University Press ; Oxford : Distributed world-wide excluding Scandinavia by Oxford University Press. At 913 pages with small print, I learned more about Vidkun Quisling than I had anticipated...... Mr. Stone states that NORWAY was seeking to establish a homogeneous society by deporting its Jewish population. Vidkun Quisling and his jack booted followers did not represent NORWAY. There is a reason why quisling is a word meaning traitor. At its height Quisling's party had 30,000 members - it never reached 40,000. The population of Norway in 1940 was 2,982,224. Even being generous and giving the party 35,000 members, that is still just over 1% of the population. NORWAY was not responsible for the deportation of its Jews. Nazi Germany invaded Norway on 9 April 1940 ( with military information provided by Quisling). Many Jews who could, fled the country. "Nearly two-thirds of the Jews in Norway fled from Norway". Of these, around 900 Jews were smuggled out of the country by the Norwegian resistance movement, mostly to Sweden but some also to the United Kingdom. "In "The Shetland Bus", David Howarth recounts the hundreds of trips made by fishing boats in the dark of Arctic winter to resist the Nazi onslaught.". In 1942, before deportations started, there were at least 2,173 Jews in Norway. Quisling managed to convince some Nazi intelligence ( not so intelligent really ) officials that he represented hundreds of thousands of Norwegians. There was no lie too big for Vidkun to tell. He also met with Hitler in person in December of 1939 and urged the capture of Norway. During the invasion the Norwegian government and the royal family fled north closely threatened by the Nazis ( the crown princess and her children were delivered to neutral Sweden and ultimately the U. S. ). I recommend the film: The King's Choice - Original title: Kongens Nei - 2016 a Norwegian film about the fact that King Haakon VII did not want to flee to England. He, the crown prince, and the government were ultimately rescued by the British. (When I was teaching at St. Olaf in 1987 I had the privilege to meet that crown prince, then King Olav V, when he visited the college. A colleague was in the Norwegian resistance and ended up in a concentration camp. ) On 25 September 1940, German Reichskommissar Josef Terboven, became the top civilian commander in Norway. After two years of direct civilian administration by the Nazis (which continued de facto until 1945), Quisling was finally put in charge of a collaborationist government on 1 February 1942. Quisling was executed by the LEGAL government of Norway on October 24, 1945. ( Sound familiar?? ) NORWAY did not deport its Jewish population. 1 percent of the population who had been placed in police and administrative positions by Vidkun Quisling and the Nazis did the dirty work. HUNGARY: Briefly Horthy as the leader did not want to participate in the deportation of Jews. On 18 March 1944, Adolf Hitler summoned Horthy to a conference in Austria, where he demanded greater acquiescence from Hungary. Horthy resisted, but his efforts were fruitless. While he was at the conference, German tanks rolled into Budapest, and on 23 March the government of Döme Sztójay was installed. Sztójay legalized the Arrow Cross Party, which quickly began organizing the deportation of Jews and the murder of other racial groups. Again the author speaks of the entire country of HUNGARY as enabling the Holocaust. As in Norway a far-right government was installed who with the supervision of Eichmann deported the Jews. Award winning book: "Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin" (2010), a history of Nazi and Soviet mass killing on the land east of the Molotov/Ribentropp line. Mr. Snyder pointed out 14 years ago that only one third of Holocaust victims ever saw a concentration / death camp. His book depicts the mass killing that took place east of the line that divided Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin via the non-aggression pact signed just days before the beginning of the invasion of Poland ( not a coincidence ). He goes into great detail about cooperation with mass killings in Eastern Europe. He does so country by country, not by stating that ALL of Eastern Europe was antisemitic. He considers Romania: Antonescu and his regime were responsible for the death of roughly 300,000 Jews, a figure second only to Nazi Germany. The Kingdom of Romania, under the rule of King Carol II, was initially a neutral country in World War II. As the military fortunes of Romania's two main guarantors of territorial integrity—France and Britain - were invaded or lost power, the government of Romania turned to Germany in hopes of a similar guarantee. They were unaware that the Nazis had already granted their blessing to Soviet claims on Romania. In the summer of 1940, as portions of the country were occupied the popularity of the Romanian government plummeted. Fascist and military factions staged a coup in September 1940 that turned the country into a dictatorship under Antonescu. The new regime officially joined the Axis powers on 23 November 1940. As a member of the Axis, Romania joined the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, providing equipment and oil to Nazi Germany and committing more troops to the Eastern Front than all other allies of Germany combined. Romanian troops were responsible for the persecution and massacre of 260,000 Jews in Romanian-controlled territories, though half of the Jews living in Romania itself survived the war. Romania controlled the third-largest Axis army in Europe. Yes, Anne Frank and her family were betrayed by a Dutch citizen, but they were also hidden and cared for by Dutch people for 25 MONTHS at the risk of losing their own lives. Consider this proposition.... If the Nazi operation Sea Lion ( sometimes Sealion ) had succeeded in the invasion of England ( probably a better plan than invading the Soviet Union ) and installed Mosley and his British Union of Fascists as the "legal" government which then deported Jews to the Holocaust, would you then say that ANTISEMITIC ENGLAND sought to establish a more homogenous society. The entire country was responsible???? I am in no way stating that there were not evil men in countries across Europe who were more than willing to participate in the Holocaust. They were successful when given power by the Nazis and were a minority. Even Italy did not begin to deport Jews until after their surrender on June 8, 1943 and the susequent occupation by the Nazis of the zone not held by the Allies. YOU, MR. STONE, ARE CREATING A REPREHENSIBLE MYTH ABOUT ANTISEMITIC EUROPE. The author is almost universally kind to the United Kingdom and the United States. Although neither country participated in the Holocaust directly, they were not exactly heroic in their saving of Jewish lives. The author speaks of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism. There Jews and Freemasons were said to have made plans to disrupt Christian civilization and erect a world state under their joint rule. You say nothing of "The International Jew", a four-volume set of Antisemitic pamphlets originally published and distributed in the early 1920s by the Dearborn Publishing Company, an outlet owned by Henry Ford, the American automobile manufacturer. Ford's "International Jew" was translated into German in 1922 and cited as an influence by some Nazis. Samuel Miller Breckinridge Long was an American diplomat and politician who served in the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Long is largely remembered by Holocaust historians for making it difficult for European Jews to enter the United States during the 1930s and 1940s. In January 1940 he was appointed Assistant Secretary of State. In an intra-department memo he circulated in June 1940, Long wrote: "We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas." Why didn’t the president tell his State Department to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. Never forget the American creation of concentration camps for Japanese immigrants and American citizens... Charles Lindbergh one of America's greatest heroes of the 1930's became a voice for the isolationist organization "America First". On September 11, 1941, he gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, in which he identified groups that he believed were conspiring to force the U.S. into war against Germany. He identified the British, the Jews, and the Roosevelt Administration as the three most important groups who were pressing the country toward war. "The Jews are one of the principal forces attempting to lead the U.S. into the war. The Jews greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our Government. I am saying that the LEADERS of the Jewish race wish to involve us in the war for reasons that are NOT AMERICAN." Please remember the MS St. Louis a ship of the Hamburg America Line. Under the command of Captain Gustav Schröder, the ship set sail from Hamburg to Havana, Cuba on May 13, 1939, carrying 937 passengers, most of them Jewish refugees seeking asylum from Nazi persecution in Germany. Only 28 were allowed to disembark in Havana. After most passengers were refused admission to Cuba, Captain Schröder directed the St. Louis and the remaining 907 refugees towards the United States. He circled off the coast of Florida, hoping for permission from authorities to enter the United States. Neither Secretary of State Cordell Hull nor Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to intervene to admit the refugees. Captain Schröder considered running St. Louis aground along the coast to allow the refugees to escape but, acting on Hull's instructions, United States Coast Guard vessels shadowed the ship and prevented this. After refusal for entry by Canada, the captain returned to Europe, docking at the Port of Antwerp (Belgium) on June 17, 1939. The British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain agreed to take 288 (32 percent) of the passengers, who disembarked and travelled to the UK via other steamers. After much negotiation by Schröder, the remaining 619 passengers were also allowed to disembark at Antwerp. 224 were accepted by France, 214 by Belgium, and 181 by the Netherlands. The ship returned to Hamburg without any passengers. Why didn't Britain accept all the refugees instead of letting them be allowed temporary safety in ANTISEMITIC EUROPE??? Britain was not particularly receptive to Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi regime in Germany, and the other fascist states of Europe. Approximately 40,000 Jews from Austria and Germany were eventually allowed to settle in Britain before the War, in addition to 50,000 Jews from Italy, Poland, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe. Despite the increasingly dire warnings coming from Germany, Britain refused at the 1938 Evian Conference to allow further Jewish refugees into the country. The notable exception allowed by Parliament was the Kindertransport. Even more important to many Jews was the permission to settle in the British-controlled Palestine. The British government issued the Balfour Declaration, a public statement announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine, on 2 November 1917. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." The Mandate for Palestine was a League of Nations mandate for British administration of the territories of Palestine and Transjordan. In Palestine, the Mandate required Britain to put into effect the Balfour Declaration's "national home for the Jewish people". Unlike the declaration itself, the Mandate was LEGALLY BINDING on the British government. In order to try to maintain peace between the Jewish and Arab populations Britain strictly limited immigration. This limitation became nearly absolute after the White Paper of 1939 all but stopped legal immigration. And the United States... In 1924, Congress passed a law to set immigration quotas by country and limit total immigration to about 164,000 people per year. The 1924 US quota law set a limit of 25,957 immigration visas for people born in Germany. In 1933, the State Department issued visas to only 1,241 Germans. Although 82,787 people were on the German waiting list for a US visa, most did not have enough money to qualify for immigration. Between 1934 and 1937, there were between 80,000 and 100,000 Germans on the waiting list for a US immigration visa. Most were Jewish. Although, the State Department slowly began to issue more visas, the German quota went unfilled. 7,053 received visas; 18,904 were not issued. 1938: 19,553 Germans/Austrians received visas. 139,163 were on the waiting list. The U.S. filled the quota of 27,370 in 1939 and almost did so in 1940. In 1941 immigration became almost impossible, and the State Department canceled the waiting list. Between 1938 and 1941, 123,868 self-identified Jewish refugees immigrated to the United States. SOURCE: US HOLOCAUST MUSEUM. Canada was one of many nations that refused to admit Jews trying to flee the antisemitic oppression that would culminate in the Holocaust. CANADIAN MUSEUM FOR HUMAN RIGHTS. In 1937 the Australian government showed an interest in Jewish refugees, and encouraged the establishment of the Australian Jewish Welfare Society to organize aid for Jewish refugees. Nonetheless, at the Evian Conference in June 1938, Australia's delegate refused to increase the country's immigration quotas. After Kristallnacht the Australian government changed its policy. By the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, more than 7,000 Jewish refugees had arrived in Australia. Source Yad Vashem HOW MANY JEWS DID BRITIAN, CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND THE U.S. KILL BY ABDONMENT???? Mr. Stone you are not shattering a myth about the number of Jews killed outside of the " death camps" or convincing me that every COUNTRY in Europe was antisemitic. Hitler did not invent antisemitism. He found or forced co-operation from citizens of countries in Europe. ALL EUROPEANS MAY NOT BE TARRED WITH YOUR XENOPHOBIC BRUSH.

[Anna · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Holocaust is a topic that we have become very familiar with although its ability to shock never lessens. We all like to assign this level of barbarity to the distant past; something that happened a long time ago in history.

To read my full review please visit my blog at:
https://leftontheshelfbookblog.blogsp...

[Anna Gibson · Rating 4 out of 5]

"... in the case of the Holocaust, it is perhaps especially apt that history should be unfinished; the idea of endless questioning and an openness to new ideas operates as a logical counterpoint to the desire for final solutions, last words and completion."

Dan Stone's The Holocaust: An Unfinished History is an accessible, engaging argument for a reexamination of how/why the Holocaust happened, and how the nature of the Holocaust has been paradoxically "sanitized" in the past few decades.

Stone refutes, time and time again, the notion of a "clean" industrial genocidal mechanism in which the majority of Holocaust victims were killed en masse in efficient gas chambers. In one passage in the book, he refers to the popular media distortion of the Holocaust as "beautifying" it.

Stone writes:

"Many have interpreted the 'Final Solution' as a mechanistic process--a plan for industrial genocide--but this distracts us from what happened to most victims. The Jews killed in the Holocaust died in brutal, face-to-face shootings, were starved to death in ghettos or were murdered in death camps. But not only is the prevailing notion of industrial genocide a stock phrase which prevents us from thinking, it is not even accurate to describe a process that was violent, vicious and deeply traumatic... "

Stone's assessment is supplemented by numerous primary sources of those who witnessed these brutal deaths, including some who managed to survive the killings by climbing out of pits into which their friends, families and neighbors perished.

As Stone points out, the prevailing image of the Holocaust as a disturbing yet orderly industrial process starting with lines at Auschwitz-Birkenau leading to the gas chambers and then a crematorium only represented a relatively short period of time, and in comparison to the total numbers of people murdered, a fraction of Holocaust victims. For most of the active Holocaust, the victims died by bullets, disease, starvation--they died in their hometowns or were rounded up to massacre sites; they died by starvation and disease in ghettos and labour camps; they were killed in crude gas chambers at camps like Treblinka. Despite this, Auschwitz has become the "capitol" of the Holocaust in the public image, even though most of the victims did not die there.

Another extensive argument throughout Stone's book is the notion of how the Holocaust came to happen. Stone rightly points out that the idea of the Holocaust being "decided upon" in a singular moment is no longer shared by most historians, while deftly arguing that the aim of the Nazis regarding the "Jewish problem" was always, inevitably, leading towards death--even years before what most people imagine was the time period in which the so-called 'Final Solution' was created.

Perhaps one of the most startling, yet compelling, arguments to be found in the book is Stone's argument against the Germany-centric narrative of the Holocaust. More specifically, Stone argues that the Holocaust was not necessarily a singular genocide perpetuated by Nazi Germany, but a genocide throughout Europe that could not have occurred in the same vast numbers without active collaboration with Nazi Germany.

Stone deftly acknowledges that these intercontinental genocides throughout Europe would not have occurred without the Nazi Germany spark, but also argues, rightfully so in my opinion, that solely blaming "Nazi Germany" for the deaths without acknowledging the active collaboration that occurred in many countries does a disservice to the study of the genocide and its victims.

The shocking amount of collaboration is not something most countries wish to acknowledge, even today. Interestingly, Stone also argues that the uncovering of evidence of collaboration is related to the rise in far-right fascist movements in certain countries.

On this topic, I can't help but think back to another recent book, The Ravine by Wendy Lower, in which the author talked about receiving a far different reception in a certain country when they came back years later to see documentation related to the local government's involvement with the Nazi government.

A chapter towards the end of the book examines the legacy of what happened after liberation, but I do wish this chapter, and the final chapter on Holocaust memory, had been longer. The book itself is about 305 pages (the rest of the pages are notes and bibliography) but I felt frustrated that these sections were not particularly lengthy, since they were no doubt related to some of the critical arguments being made in the book about the traumatic legacy of the Holocaust and how it continues to impact the world today. I think I would have also appreciated Stone's examination of some of the more modern trends in Holocaust depictions and how they relate to the "beautifying" of the Holocaust in the popular imagination.

Overall, I think this book is an essential read in terms of upending some more pervasive, but perhaps not entirely accurate, depictions of the Holocaust.

I will finish with a quote from the book which stood out:

"The Holocaust teaches nothing except that deep passions that owe nothing to rational politics can move human beings to do terrible things. Which us to say, the Holocaust teaches us nothing, since nothing in the end can stop people from supporting these dark forces in times of crisis."

[Helga Cohen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Holocaust is revelatory in nature and reexamines the reality of the Holocaust. It gives a different perspective of what was going on in the world (not just in Germany) that allowed the Holocaust to happen. He challenges common assumptions and delves into neglected truths. He states that there is a collective failure to confront the reality of the holocaust. Stone emphasizes that this dark chapter is history remains “Unfinished”. We must grapple with its complexities.

The nature of Nazi brutality is associated with “industrial genocide” but also Jews died via face-to-face killings, starvation in ghettos and other forms of violence. Auschwitz was constructed from scavenged materials and worked to death. The aftermath of war is also addressed by Stone. Liberation often was accompanied of the survivors who die after release, some were still captive, and unable to go home. Eastern European Jews had no home any longer. Their stories were not told by officials who spoke of resistance and national security.

Stone speaks of the views about German decision making during the Holocaust. He declares ideology as the central focus of Nazi thinking and action. He also critiques the benefits of proper Holocaust education and communication that is proclaimed to be taught but is not sufficient. Stone writes with empathy, insight, and depth. He provides a balanced, nuanced approach. It is highly recommended to our understanding of the Holocaust.

[Paul Kerr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essential reading. Certainly not just another history of holocaust, but a successful attempt to relate this deep stain on humanity to current day issues. The details of non-German state collaboration is beyond shocking, as is the focus away from the well known gas chambers to a far more brutal face to face killing campaign that foreshadowed any systematic industrial genocide.

[Koen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boeiende geschiedenis van de Holocaust. Opvallend is dat Stone het belang van ideologie voor de daders weer naar de voorgrond brengt in zijn zoektocht naar een verklaring van de massamoord op de Joden. Ook heeft hij veel aandacht voor lokale dynamieken en collaboratie, waardoor het verhaal minder exclusief een Duitse aangelegenheid is (al dragen zij de hoofdverantwoordelijkheid) en meer een Europese geschiedenis. Ook nuanceert hij het beeld van de Holocaust als ‘industrieel’, dat is hooguit ten dele waar, en laat hij aan de hand van indringende dagboeken en getuigenissen zien hoe gruwelijk de slachtpartijen waren. Tot slot heeft Stone veel aandacht voor (en lichte kritiek op) de manier waarop wij de Holocaust herinneren en herdenken. Al met al een knappe synthese en waardevolle aanvulling op de bestaande historiografie.

[Tony Wohlfarth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Why another history of The Holocaust? That was my question as I read Stone's book. The highlight for me was Chapter 5 - A Continent Wide Crime - which examines its implications in diverse countries? I was surprised/disappointed by Holland. Stone writes the Dutch were willing to fulfill their task of rounding up Jews without considering the moral implications of their actions. Stone does not consider the extent to which each country had their own Nazi parties? A glaring omission, IMO. The final chapter draws parallels to the attacks on the US Capital on January 6, 2021. Interesting but nothing novel here. Overall, I would say a disappointing and painful read.

[Philip Talmage · Rating 2 out of 5]

Badly written, but nevertheless offering a useful overview of the holocaust. There must be some – presumably the author's students – who really appreciate reading e.g.: "We see [the 'collective intoxication' of Nazism] in the incel culture of the manosphere …"
Not me.

[Jenia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely thought it was a useful, thoughtful read. I think the arguments were sometimes repeated a little across the chapters, but it worked well as an audiobook.

[Oliver Shrouder · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting in some places, but marketing itself as a critical text means it is quite light on detail throughout, favouring arguments over historiography. The last 100 or so pages are the most engaging, being about liberation and legacy, but this does mean the first 200 or so pages are somewhat redundant, covering the Holocaust in a way that is much more deeply and thoroughly engaged with in other books.

[David Ducheyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredible in your face book that puts the holocaust in perspective, broadens your view, offers a critical narrative of 12 years of genocide and links it to current troublesome events.

It can happen again. It will.

[Zack · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned so much from Dan Stone’s “The Holocaust: An Unfinished History.” It is an incredibly well-written and accessible history to the 20th century’s great tragedy.

There is so much history in here on the Holocaust that is completely untold in the history classroom and popular conversation. Before reading this, I was unaware just how distorted some aspects of our “Holocaust Memory” can be. Things can become warped in our popular understanding of a historical event easily.

Much of this distorting process comes from a place of good intentions too, but leaves us with a less accurate representation of the true historical events. As we hold up certain icons as symbols of the Nazi’s evil we hide the realities of others, despite them perhaps being more potent. As we look to assign culpability and explain the unexplainable we simplify the reality and complexity of the phenomenon.

This book really opened my eyes to many histories of the Holocaust that I was previously unfamiliar with. And, as with all Holocaust scholarship, the more you uncover, the more deeply shocking and terrifying the events become.

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

WOW. Where do I start? With the over 100 highlights and notations I made? Or the fact I know this book is going to be in heavy research source rotation? Dan Stone combines years of research from historians and survivors into one book. He reminds us that the Holocaust was not only an action by Germany but by many. Many countries were actively working to remove Jewish citizens before the Germans ever occupied them. For this to happen, it takes ordinary people to participate, from the police to the neighbor next door. Many notes I made compared comments I hear today about crime, the economy, and immigration.

Thank you, NetGalley and Mariner Books, for the opportunity to review this ARC.

[Wing · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very good book. The scholarship is immense. The literature that the author has consulted seems bottomless, as the notes and bibliography at the end of book can attest to. The grotesqueness, perversity, depravity, and inhumanity depicted in the book are, although half-expected, still shocking. We are reminded that the Holocaust was much more than Auschwitz, Dachau or Belsen. It involved all sorts of persecutions that bore unspeakable and unimaginable cruelty. The Holocaust is “a warning that states, when elites become desperate to hold on to power, can do terrible, traumatic things, and that the deep psychology of modernity produces monsters the likes of which even the sleep of reason would struggle to generate” (pp.xxxi-xxxii). It is “not just a historical event occurring between 1939 and 1945. It names a transnational crime committed in Nazi-occupied Europe by the Third Reich and its allies” (p.267). And it “was never solely a German project but a crime in which Europeans from across the continent were implicated” (p.274). “[L]ocal participation was considerable, driven by greed, nationalist aspirations and ideological affinity with Nazism” (p.282). “The trans-European dimension of the genocide of the Jews which can itself be understood as part of the fallout from the earlier collapse of the European empires and thus necessarily connected to wider histories of imperial rule and decline, both in Europe and overseas, also throws up questions of responsibility, race and the role of the state” (p.290).

The author argues convincingly that the Second World War in Europe was driven entirely by the fanaticism of Nazism, and antisemitism was an inalienable part of it. It was always genocidal in its intent. Its ideology was irrational and delusional but that did not matter. It had the hallmarks of a religious cult and it had the ability to drum up emotions seemingly perpetually. The dark side of ethnic nationalism was unleashed by a toxic mixture of perceived humiliation and economic collapse. It was a doomed Ponzi scheme of sorts that ended in self-immolation. Seen from this perspective, the trajectory of the war and the horrors that took place had their internal logic. There’s method in this madness indeed - with horrible consequences. The predisposing and precipitating contexts, and contingent circumstances are discussed comprehensively.

Readable, comprehensive, informative, and thoughtful, this is essential reading for those who think truth matters and who want to learn from it. The world as a whole may never learn, but individuals can and must. Five stars.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thought reading this would be 'life-changing' on how I approach studying the Holocaust, but while informative on a few areas I wasn't as well brushed on (DP camps and European-wide collaboration), this book ultimately felt too short for it to really become a great addition to Holocaust/World War II history canon.

Judging from what Dan Stone urges on repeating, I think this book is meant to be for those who know the general history of Holocaust from popular media and high-school history class. He also targets those who downplay ideology in favour of escalation during times of warfare. Problem is that I already agreed with his thesis.

Comparisons to the modern resurgence of the far-right movement is also well-stated, but like a lot of things, this section is also too short. He did make a connection between new awareness of global European involvement in the Holocaust (new emerging scholarship) and the rise of European far-right movements, which I found interesting, as I didn't know that these timelines coincided.

The section on reexamining the Holocaust "in comparison" (as much as that can be done) to other genocides and colonial violence made me think about how *I* tend to put the Holocaust on a special pedestal, mostly in response to idiots to like to play "both sides" on the Nazis and the USSR. But even Dan Stone states that there 'can be' a comparison to gulags and the Holocaust, which just gets a flat no from me.

And the small section on how the Holocaust is weaponized by conservative governments around the world to prosecute academics and students when discussing new academic scholarship (Poland was not just a victim) or protesting against new injustice, such as the ongoing genocide in Gaza, was also very well done. Stone also provided some explanation for Zionism, which made me want to read more into the history behind the movement, as it wasn't just "they just randomly wanted to do collision", but also doesn't make the case for Zionism being a purely noble movement.

Overall, I wished for more details in this book. It feels less like a classic "history book", more like a contemporary post-2020, examination on how we discuss and treat the Holocaust. Some good insight, just wish there was more detail and deeper connections on how modern far-right movements parallel to the Nazis.

[Karen Schnakenberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another exceedingly important book that needs to be widely read. Stone's main argument is that existing accounts of the Holocaust rely too heavily on presenting Auschwitz as the representative face of the genocide rather than the culmination of a much wider and more brutal regime of murder that took place across Europe and was able to wreck the destruction that it did only because of widespread collaboration of governments and individuals. Of the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, about 1.5 million were murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, and that in a relatively brief period of months, with most of those killed having been transported there on trains from Western European. More than half of the 6 million of Russian, Polish, and Easter European descent wer more often lined up and shot face-to-face- as many as 45,00 at a time -burned alive, or starved or worked to death in what Stone defines as a "continent-wide" crime of incredible brutality. It's an important and complex history that needs to be more widely understood. Hard but necessary reading

[Kadin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deeply researched by one of the foremost historians of the Holocaust, Dan Stone's book about the Nazi genocide project of the 1930s and '40s challenges the conventional viewpoints about a tragedy that has been ingrained in our collective psyche. Just as the subtitle suggests, Stone looks at the untold stories and developments of the Holocaust—at less well-known massacres and pogroms and at places that we don't normally associate with the Holocaust. What is taught in classrooms, museums, and memorials about the Holocaust is not the whole story, and after reading this book the reader gets a better grasp of just how wide and far-reaching the Nazis reign of dystopian terror was. As he states in the book, the Nazis were absolutely culpable but were not the lone responsible party of the genocide. Hitler's "Final Solution" was a symptom of an already deep-seated disease of anti-semitism in Europe and around the world. And though the Nazis were able to cause much pain and suffering on their own, the reach of the Holocaust would never have gotten so far without assistance from foreign governments and the average person on the street. It's unsettling and eye-opening.

[MagicianME · Rating 5 out of 5]

Returning back to this book in 2024 is very eerie because the similarities between the holocaust and what is happening to Palestinians in Gaza (and has happened for decades) are very obvious. Especially the way the Holocaust happened in countries east of Germany - the tactics almost identical to Israeli tactics against the Palestinian civillian population.
When I started reading the book though, what had the biggest impact on me was that most Jews were killed outside of Germany and that the mass killing of Jews in concentration camps was a secondary plan that largely happened towards the end of the war. This book is a clear reminder that the Holocaust was a pan-European project, that was eagerly taken over by varios local authorities, militant groups or regular people in Croatia, Poland, the Baltics etc.

[sion · Rating 4 out of 5]

Führt eine Perspektive des Holocausts auf, welche in der deutschen Rezeption oft zu gering ausfällt: Die der europäischen Kollaboration, von Rumänien bis Frankreich, von unvorstellbar brutalen "Lynchmorden" in ländlichen Dörfern und vorauseilendem Gehorsam, eingebettet in die Maschinerie des NS-Staates, die selbstverständlich treibende Kraft und ideologischer Gestalter dabei bleiben.
Zudem kommen viele Zeitzeugen in Form von Zitaten, Tagebucheinträgem etc. zu Wort, die Perspektive liegt viel auf den Opfern und ihren Geschichten, nicht immer nur auf den Tätern.

Der Autor verirrt sich leider manchmal ein bisschen in den Kapiteln, insgesamt hätte es etwas geradliniger strukturiert werden können, was bei dem Thema aber auch nicht einfach ist.

Im Abschlusskapitel wird zudem der heutige deutsche Ansatz in Holocaust-Erinnerung, die zunehmende Verwässerung von Zionismus und Judentum und die israelische, sowie amerikanische Politik kurz (kritisch!) resümiert. Das ganze hätte meiner Meinung nach länger ausfallen dürfen, ist aber wohl nicht Inhalt dieses Werks und bedarf eines eigenen Buchs.

[David Verkmann · Rating 3 out of 5]

By its nature as a comprehensive history from the rise of naziism all the way to the end of the war (and even beyond in holocaust memory), it is not as comprehensive on any of the subjects. That said it gives a good overview of often overlooked things, such as the transnistrian jews, or DP camps.
The writing style is not the best, as it is repetitive (sometimes even word for word).
Really liked all the quotations from different survivors, and enjoyed the notion of thinking about puppet regimes and their degree of autonomy

[Ryan Crackel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A truly horrific, historical account of a genocide whose ripple effect we still see today in modern society. Dan Stone's organization of the events leading up to the holocaust along with the countries also complicit of heinous crimes towards Jews was truly hard to comprehend. If you have an interest in the history surrounding the holocaust, look no further.

[Jacob Kuchta · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book! Starting with my nitpicking I felt some of the chapters he kept going round and round making the same points. That’s really my only negative. Everything else about this book was really great! He provided so much perspective and info that I did not know in a way that was easily digestible!

[Chris Brook · Rating 4 out of 5]

Took a while to get through this one, obviously, but a very good historical text that looks at events through a broader, continent wide lens, and examines how many nations were actually complicit. Picked this up after reading Jennifer Szalai's review in the Times back in January.

[Alexis]

I could not get through the introduction. How dare Dan Stone write a book about such a serious topic and then taint it with his views on modern politics by using the deaths of millions of Jews, Americans, and Europeans as a platform to air his grievances against Trump and the American Republican Party.

If you have any actual interest in learning about the Holocaust and its “untold stories,” turn to Elie Wiesel, Viktor Frankl, or Lara Vapnyar, among many others. This is not a book about the Holocaust, it’s a 303 page self-important pseudo-academic rant.

In short: don’t bother.

[Erica · Rating 4 out of 5]

An important read. Though a mixed bag of delivery for me. Great book for general discussion, particularly for book clubs, and for those seeking additional perspective on some lesser known events and tragedies that occurred.

I would like to thank Mariner Books for providing me with an advance readers copy via access to the galley for free through the NetGalley program.

Expected publication: January 23, 2024.

The Story
Went into the insightful details of other countries and people groups who participated in the Nazi regime, as well as lesser known targets and survivors of the Holocaust.

Covered collaborative efforts from multiple places across Europe, outside of Nazi Germany to a rather astounding number. Others, who participated in deportation of Jews. Some notably on a lesser scale, some more unique and fringe, and some notions people may be less familiar with.

Great at describing events and scenes. The scale of brutality was well-depicted, in that it recognized other factors, including the persona of dictatorship as well as local conditions and influence.

Presented a good analysis of commemoration efforts.

Dense. Some parts were presented very nicely, others I thought could be expounded upon. I wanted to stay in the passages that were summarized well and read more details about them.

Because… when I became immersed, it would then change direction. I’m always happy to read through a variety of opinions and oppositional viewpoints. I actually enjoy sorting through them, but this book bounced around topics and viewpoints a lot. Sort of overshadowed my overall experience with the book. Switched from differing angles of subject matter. Some of which were more or less closely related to the topic at hand.

The main premise centered around this idea of “Holocaust consciousness.” It deconstructed the idea in many different directions, at different steps.

But didn’t delineate willful ignorance, as opposed to limited access, low-literacy, propagandization, and uninformed. Just touched upon midway through the book. Then conflated it all together with the cover up of crimes and postwar sympathizers, which I thought could have been separated out and elaborated upon a little more. Especially when it came to conspiracy theories and their points of origination. Whether based on access, perception, not being well-informed, or pure hatred.

Refuting conspiracies are mentioned a few times. But only by the term. When mentioned, was in a more shallow way, without fully exploring them. On the other hand, didn’t explore alternative, supporting ideas including the desire and need for preserving culture, heritage, and the survival of people. Whether on a physical or metaphysical basis, notably as it relates to ethnography and record-keeping. Or recognition of visible industrial presence in the form of merely being a good steward, with credit to religious beliefs and duties, as longstanding importance and appreciation in certain spaces such as preservation of art, in academia, or in finances.

Though mentioned quite a few times, it didn’t take a dive deep into Holocaust denialism like I thought it might. Perhaps we’ll see in a subsequent book.

It was a touch-and-go effort in between passages that were very comprehensive and perceptive. Because although mentioned in the book, how it was not going to be a detailed psychoanalysis of people, I think the strength of sentiment ended up leaning more into an intellectualization of human behavior. So, as powerful as the stories were, the connections to each idea overhead, in the way it was outlined, began to fall flat on me.

Yet, some passages were very clear and I gleaned so much from them.

Others read a bit muddy. Some propositions made big, conclusive jumps. There were intriguing ideas that stopped short. Mentioned partisan political grievances that felt less relevant along with characterizations and labels of subpopulations within certain political leanings that were a much farther stretch than what the presenting context appeared to be. Especially when compared to other countries. Some of the political leanings, ideology, principles, definitions, and supporting parties were mixed up. I suppose I didn’t always see how certain ideas and figures, particularly how modernized ones, were put into the social and political boxes that they were. Would have helped if they were defined up front, since definitions, principles, and perceptions, have changed over time.

Whether by mention of events that took place on January 6th. Variations of COVID-19 pandemic response. Then onto climate change. Left me wondering what additional debate is there to be had and what stories in this book need to be told, other than personal grievances with “certain” people as outlined in the book? It felt like attempts to draw some direct parallels that just weren’t there. At least not without some additional context or presenting research into understanding why people do the things that they do

Might be an issue with the way it was organized in that it made claims, then countered them, but the first was not presented with enough support to carry the idea and concepts through, nor accept it for what it was claiming in the first place. At least not enough for me to make certain conclusions or duality of thought otherwise, if I hadn’t know the subject matter to the extent that I do. Ended up feeling like this see-saw motion of “It was this, but not that…” Then later in reverse fashion, refuting the same, then revisited in multiple parts much later in the book. I didn’t expect a comprehensive review of everything in history, of course, but the presentation of topics and leads into each subject, would have benefited from some sort of transition or alert to changing viewpoints, reorganized fashion, or additional summation of points.

I suppose overall, there were times it didn’t present the deeper dive into additional details of lesser known events as much as an attempt to provide an alternate “opinion piece” commentary to fit within a modernized-framework. Which to me didn’t always make sense.

Because I received an ARC, it’s possible that a few final rearrangements of sentence or structural reorganization might put it all together much more completely. So I won’t comment too much beyond this, nor mention direct quotes for this review at this time before cross-checking the published copy.

That said, this book still offers insightful talking points, especially given the mentions of lesser known or published events given their respective complexities.

The Writing
Integration of German language was excellent.

Abbreviations not defined at introduction. Though these might be corrected in the final copy-edit.

Some definitions of terms were mentioned a bit too late.

Didn’t sort out the finer details politically, socially, economically, nor Biblically, whether Biblical message or sect. I wouldn’t necessarily expect a detailed breakdown of jurisprudence, doctrine, or theology, and all the complexities, but the framing of certain topics needed more context at first mention.

Particularly because, when it comes to religion and presenting counterpoints, it’s important to take into account how the Bolsheviks were destroying churches and outlawing certain faiths, so there was a concern on behalf of people. Hence, a likely alliance based upon the promises that Hitler made, from a “Christian” appearing (or at least “appealing”), manifesto coupled with his anti-communism messaging, where communism is known for not allowing practices of religion. Yet, was also an unlikely alliance given what the Bible actually teaches, in stark contrast to the evil that Hitler and his regime actually stood for both in ideology and the atrocities carried out.

An example, Christian, means many things to many people and viewpoints from strongest support from a Biblical Christian worldview, or for example differing sects of Jews, such as Messianic Jew, as well as those in authority and power such as purpose and jurisdiction of the PLO, were not well-distinguished. Nor recognizing what is mixed economy and what was experimental. Would have been a nice, simple introductory mention as to how Nazi is short for the German, National Socialist German Workers' party, in order to prepare and engage for readership starting context.

Though mere mention, it didn’t completely delineate differences amongst Jews as far as ethnicity and variations of religious practices. Nor collective nature of national identity. Instead tells about a broadly existing distinction, then after, often lumps them altogether. Which I think loses effect. Especially after having explained it a bit. Particularly around regional tensions and the designation of “Palestine” and “territorial” disputes, because it didn’t explore history back far enough. Didn’t mention Palestine as a name given by the Romans to separate it from Jewish heritage. None of this was mentioned or even remotely explored for consideration as a form of antisemitism.

Needed to delineate patriotism, nationalism, ethnocentrism, multiculturalism, xenophobia, and exceptionalism. Primarily within the context in which they were used in the book compared to historical outlook, and make a more well-rounded, stronger connection between ideas. Including the exploration of Jewish traditions and culture. Given that political partisanship is different around the world, whether socially, culturally, religiously, economically, or based upon matters of personal value and moralistic fronts. Would have benefited from a dedicated discussion as to what and how such proposals and/or ideas from within and outside the regime became internally shared culture and ultimately, enforcement of policy, including more about the modification of strategy and infrastructure for coordinated efforts.

As well as what constitutes as political leanings of “liberalism” and “radical-right” and “radical-left” with differences and commonalities among them, along with specific examples described in history for the topics being introduced. Came off as blaming certain problems on a modernized viewpoint of retroactively applied, particular leaning group, when there are spectrums, including opposing ones, to be considered. Which is fine if the book is focused on one over the other, but to consistently present differing viewpoints throughout, I expected an explanation and counter, so this particular aspect felt to be largely missing.

Slang terms, though mostly mentioned in the opening and conclusion, felt confusing. Both as introduction to new material that wasn’t discussed to length in the book nor their direct connections to the Holocaust. Such as “incel” which is more widely known to describe a persona of online subculture coupled with “manosphere.” Without mentioning origination out of men's liberation and accompanying vulnerabilities of human behavior such as isolation, lack of identity and purpose, social status, insecurities, fatherless homes, and influential dynamics. No mention of supporting research as it stands unclear as to whether a direct causal-relationship exists or how the “chicken or the egg” type concept should be applied here. Or how such behavior applies to contra-political leanings, as previously mentioned.

On the same note, did not mention representation of female participants amongst the Third Reich. Particularly, because to make a strong point to hold men to certain standards as delineated by presumed behavior and slang used in the book, at least alluding to holding certain qualities, then leaving out the objectives and fulfillment of women under such regime, then why not also mention slang for what would then perhaps align with the visions and expectations of Hitler that could be described as modern-day returns to “tradwife?” How about “soccer mom?” I mention this as contrasting example because certain claims were strong in conveying opinion, yet lacked direction and direct counter-comparison, to where I was asking myself “What exactly is being said or not said here?”

Sometimes said the same thing twice. It was difficult for me to know if reiteration was for effect or oversight. Especially because preceding lines were seemingly contradictory, so it felt like loose ends that weren’t tidied up. Notably those paired with reoccurring grievances on behalf of the author’s interjection of opinion being declared without supporting research.

Perhaps there will be structural changes in final copy to sort out and improve flow. It’s hard for me to say.

Aside, all else was well-explained.

Appreciated the maps and statistics.

Tone
Took a more philosophical tone just past midway. Which was what I was mostly looking forward to.

I’m familiar with the author’s work, though this book was just a bit different for me as noted.

Not all ideas weren’t as fully formed as I thought they would be at their first mention. It was in part due to uneven application of supporting research where I thought more was going to be, then provided elaborative detail I was expecting, which was lovely, then randomly veering off. Then coming back to. Sometimes coupled with, sometimes replaced with, unsatisfying remarks consisting of less-related topics that were loosely tied together by summation of narrowed worldview opinion as mentioned.

The angle was a mix of incredibly informative details about the Holocaust, presented as an upset with the current state of U.S. domestic policy, political affairs, and politically-leaning people. Which changed the entire tone in how I thought it would be. I just didn’t know if all the concepts were clear to me when I finally came to the end, or if inclusion of certain subject matter was supposed to be an added interest or strength to this book. Because otherwise, it leaves me with what I perceive as an attempt at revisionist history. Which I don't think that was the author's intent. To where I don’t think that given the light (although those well-studied would know, based on history and human behavior), in recent circumstances taking place in Israel, tensions in academic institutions, as well as protests and riots, that those same notions and grievances would remain solid in singular stance as they were presented, nor true.

Apart from having to sort out and set aside technicalities and less compelling, unchallenged authorial political grievances found in the book as I read along, the other parts of the were outstanding, and the stories speak for themselves.

Great book for discussion.

Blog post

[Jamie Bronstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent overview of the Holocaust whose major thesis is that it could not have happened without the thorough investment of countries all throughout Europe.