AboutMichael FitzGerald Expertise I am an expert in German history between 1918 and 1945, particularly with regard to the Nazi era. I am also very knowledgeable about most areas of philosophy (I have an honours degree in the subject) and am able to answer questions on that subject too. In addition, I am very knowledgeable about poetry. One of my hobbies is also politics, mainly British and European though I follow the US political scene as well. Another one is the history of crime and punishment and British social history (the two often overlap!) I am willing to answer questions on all the above issues.
Experience Author of two published works, 'Storm Troopers of Satan,' an account of the lunatic fringes of Nazi ideology, and 'Adolf Hitler: A Portrait,' a biography of the German dictator. 'Adolf Hitler' was published in July 2006 by the top history publisher Spellmount and was named historical biography of the month by the Good Book Guide. I correspond with Ian Kershaw, Peter Stachura, Jeremy Noakes, Roger Moorhouse and Stan Lauryssens. I have undertaken research for radio, television, newspapers and magazines
Organizations Society of Authors
Education/Credentials I have an Honours degree in philosophy.
Awards and Honors LT prize for poetry
Historical Biography of the month, Good Book Guide
Expert: Michael FitzGerald Date: 1/8/2007 Subject: gulags and nazi concentration camps No2
Question Hello again! Although your previous answer was really illuminating I take the liberty to bother you again in a very short time. A friend of mine suggested that the recent interest in gulags in the last decade is not politically neutral. Its primary target -he argues- is to to wipe off the Marxist-Leninist ideology as a whole by means of an all-inclusive comparison between Nazism and Stalinism, leaving out the supposedly triumphant liberal democracy. He also argues that it is better to examine the gulag phenomenon in the context of a repressive state mechanism, (see Giorgio Agamben. After all, the Left itself was the first to criticise the gulag practice, in the early Fifties, in a time while the West conciously ignored it. I think that the observations of my friend are quite interesting and, if you find the time, I would like to have your opinion.
Best regards,
Apostolos
Answer Dear Apostolos,
In the first place I should like to apologise for not getting back to you sooner but I have been extremely busy and unable to find much in the way of spare time.
As a professional historian, I have to admit that any kind of historical event lends itself to many entirely different interpretations. I agree that the interest in gulags is not (and never has been) politically neutral.
As a libertarian, I have to declare my own personal view, which is that neither Nazism nor Communism can be proud of the excessive amounts of blood on their hands. I also feel that there have been many repressive regimes of both the left and right that have not gone to the same barbaric extremes as Hitler and Stalin. Repellent though they are, Mussolini and Franco, for example, were never in the same league as the 'big two' tyrants of their day.
I hate to disagree with the assumption that the left WAS the first to criticise the gulags, still more that this criticism only surfaced in the 1950s. I have read a great many accounts of the gulag phenomenon dating from the 1930s, from people almost exclusively either on the right or in the political centre. A British lawyer, D N Pritt, who was a leading member of the Labour Party and an avowed Marxist, was actually forced into defending the gulags in the 1930s, using a range of entirely dishonest arguments.
There is no doubt that Communism/Marxism is NOT necessarily dependent upon gulags for its success or survival, any more than there is any reason to doubt that almost ANY other Nazi leader (except perhaps Bormann or Goebbels) would have been less repressive than Hitler. There is much to admire about the theory of Communism and personally I have strong sympathy for it although I am not one myself. However, even though the excesses of Stalin have too often been used as a stick to beat Marxism with, they did occur and they were a tragic betrayal of the idealism with which many people used to view the Soviet Union.
