Communications

REVIEWS OF BOOKS

To the Editor:

Like Harold Brackman [AHR 104 (April 1999): 713], we were surprised and chagrined to find that the AHR assigned the review of Robert Chazan's Medieval Stereotypes and Modern Antisemitism to Albert S. Lindemann, author of Esau's Tears, a study that several scholars have labeled anti-Semitic. In his response, Lindemann attempts to dismiss Brackman's concerns as those of "an obnoxious and fatuous crank."

     AHR readers should know, however, that Brackman is hardly alone in his assessment of Lindemann's work. Robert S. Wistrich, one of the world's leading authorities on the history of anti-Semitism, characterized Esau's Tears as a "deeply pernicious book," which presents Jews as "largely responsible for the irrational hatreds to which they have so often fallen victim." Wistrich states that Lindemann's "presentation throughout is marked not only by sympathy for the arguments of anti-Semites but by an undisguised antipathy toward Judaism and Jews." Moreover, "Lindemann's own knowledge of Jewish history . . . appears little better than that of the anti-Semites whose arguments he echoes . . . He shows no mastery of primary sources, no traces of having done archival research, and almost no familiarity with works in languages other than English or even with the most recent secondary literature." Wistrich concludes, "It is appalling that Cambridge University Press has put its distinguished imprint on so profoundly biased and ignominious a work." ("Blaming the Victim," Commentary, February 1998.)

     Similarly, John C. Landau, whose review of Esau's Tears in Midstream (February–March 1999) is entitled "Antisemitism Relegitimated," states, "The very fact that it has been published by Cambridge University Press, . . . and that its author is a faculty member at the University of California at Santa Barbara, are causes for concern." He concludes, "We must not forget that the assault on Jews by German academics and intellectuals preceded, and helped to lay the groundwork for, the physical destruction of European Jewry."

     In his reply to Brackman, Lindemann lists places where his book has been applauded. He omitted, however, zundelsite.org, the web site of Ernst Zundel, Canada's most notorious Holocaust denier and disseminator of anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi tracts, where Esau's Tears is reviewed glowingly as "a remarkable book . . . the first objective university study of Jewish influence in the modern world." To be sure, an author cannot be held fully responsible for those who praise him, but Zundel's imprimatur should give one pause.

Eunice G. Pollack

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Stephen H. Norwood

University of Oklahoma

To the Editor:

Eunice Pollack and Stephen Norwood inform us that Harold Brackman has written a book. I am surprised: From the ugly epithets in his letter to the AHR, I assumed that his writing was done mostly with spray cans in dark alleys. How could such a crudely abusive letter, without a scrap of proof for the charges made, deserve a respectful reply?

     My reply listed ample and wide-ranging evidence against the charge of anti-Semitism. The differences between that evidence and the hostile reviews by Robert Wistrich and John Landau may be explained as follows.

     This field can be appallingly contentious. Readers may be familiar with the vituperative exchanges over Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963). While I would not care to defend Arendt on all points, what particularly strikes me is how often her critics resorted to insult ("self-hating Jewess") and gross misrepresentation. As even Norman Podhoretz, one of thosecritics, has recognized, "many of the criticisms were either wrong or unfair, sometimes to the extreme of outright defamation" (Ex-Friends [1999], p. 160). Arendt came to believe that there was a coordinated effort, characterized by shameless dishonesty, by prominent Jews and Jewish organizations to ruin her. Similarly, Raul Hilberg, now widely esteemed for his pioneering work, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961), has described, in his searing and bitter memoir, Politics of Memory (1996), how he was insulted and misrepresented, "for thirty years . . . almost buried under an avalanche of condemnations" (p. 137).

     Another point that sheds light on Wistrich's reaction is that in the opening pages of Esau's Tears I criticize his book, The Longest Hatred, as suffering from "a tendency to a colorful and indignant narrative, accompanied by weak, sometimes tendentious analysis." His review failed to mention that criticism, violating a key professional obligation.

     Wistrich's disregard for professional norms in the review went far beyond that. As I and others pointed out in detail (Commentary, letters section, April 1999), Wistrich blatantly misrepresented the contents of my book. Richard S. Levy, a leading authority on the history of anti-Semitism, wrote: "I cannot explain [Wistrich's] consistent misreading of Lindemann's motive and content . . . Lindemann, in the company of Hannah Arendt, Jacob Katz, and many others, does not accept the comforting but fallacious notion that Jews have had nothing to do with the generation of antisemitism. That he should have the anathema pronounced upon him . . . is shameful arrogance in a reviewer. Attributing direct quotations from antisemites to Lindemann himself is unforgivable." Prof. E.Z., the Holocaust survivor I quoted in my response to Brackman, further wrote, "that Professor Wistrich disagrees with you is of course to be expected. But the wildly inaccurate charges and generally hysterical tone of his review are unforgivable." Professor Ralph Raico: "Since I have just read your excellent book, I found Wistrich's treatment virtually incomprehensible—could he have been reviewing the same book I read? Wistrich produced a mere hatchet job, not surprising . . . considering the fact that he did not . . . declare his interest, i.e., your very justified criticism of the shoddy work displayed in his own books." Revealingly, Stephen Beller, another eminent scholar whose favorable review in the TLS I also quoted in my reply to Brackman, considers Esau's Tears to be a fundamentally philo-Semitic work, deserving "praise and not calumny." William Rubinstein, in his recent (January 1999) review in History (the journal of the British History Association), writes that "Esau's Tears merits an important place in any historical assessment of modem antisemitism, while the author deserves a medal for bravery in writing the book."

     I could add many such quotations, but I trust that the point is adequately made: Wistrich's review is not generally accepted as judicious, accurate, or even honest. John Landau's review is less shrill and brazen in falsehood but is also filled with remarkable distortions and misrepresentations. The passage from it quoted by Pollack and Norwood gives some sense of his bizarre views. As for Ernst Zundel, that he has quoted me favorably shows nothing; he and other Holocaust deniers have often cited prominent and respected scholars, among them Yehuda Bauer, Jacob Katz, and Raul Hilberg.

     Charges of anti-Semitism are serious; those who make them irresponsibly or dishonestly must be held to account. A number of prominent observers have recently remarked that as anti-Semitism steadily declines in the United States, a small but vocal minority of Jews paradoxically trumpets its existence everywhere. This reckless mudslinging brings discredit and disgrace to those who engage in it, aiding and abetting anti-Semitism rather than combating it.

Albert S. Lindemann

University of California, Santa Barbara

To the Editor:

Regarding my recent exchange with Albert Lindemann in your pages, I was not going to ask for a second bite of the apple until it occurred to me that I made an error requiring a mea culpa.

     In an astigmatic fit that sometimes makes me see all white supremacists as looking alike, I momentarily confused the dead James Earl Ray with the very much alive Byron De La Beckwith. The good news, presumably, is that Byron is still available from behind bars to do a book review for you, perhaps even of Lindemann's new book.

Harold Brackman

San Diego, California

ERRATUM

In the review of African American Women and the Vote, 1837–1965 (AHR 103 [October 1998]: 1329), reviewer Janice Brandon-Falcone used the year 1921 to refer to the Nineteenth Amendment and American women acquiring the right to vote. The year should have been 1919, when the amendment passed, or 1920, when it was ratified. Professor Brandon-Falcone regrets the error.

The Editors

LOCKSS system has permission to collect, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.