Historiographic disputes about nazism and holocaust

Abstract

The main objective of this article is to discuss the historiographical battles that were formed around the Nazi phenomenon. The writing of the History of Shoah has long been secondary to the writing of National Socialism; then, the discussion was stuck to this one and, finally, it reached independence, conquering its own place in historiography. We consider that the whole historiography about National Socialism - the discussions arising from the Frankfurt School, the approach of the Bielefeld School, the debate between intentionalists and functionalists and its unfolding on some fronts in the historians' quarrel, revisionism, from the debate between Hayden White and Carlo Ginzburg and the historiographic discussions in the post-Cold War period - this is what makes the current stage of development of shoah research possible. The historiography that has focused on the analysis of the German historians' quarrel points to the characteristic that the debate did not advance the studies of the Nazi regime in terms of real knowledge, making it
necessary to pay attention to the fact that the interest in chronological events or in German history was not the objective, at least for a part of the historians, of the production that was developed. Before that, a strong contribution in the historiographical sense can be noted with regard to the historian's relationship with his, as put by Michel de Certeau, conditions of production. The positioning regarding the context, the narrative, the limits of historical writing and the social responsibility of the historian are undoubtedly advances provided by the historiography of National Socialism.