Schirrmacher vs. Schwilk

[Rebing <Rebing@compuserve.com>]

I think that DIE ZEIT was right to believe that Schirrmacher must have been
in a bad mood ("übellaunig") when he attacked Heimo Schwilk for overstating
the novelty of his discoveries. Whether the Hitler and the EJ specialists
have so far taken into consideration all the implications of those
documents is pretty irrelevant to the general public I think, and certainly
no reason for polemics on the grand scale of the FAZ-Feuilleton. As a
member of the general public I was in fact highly interested and intrigued
by what Schwilk had unearthed. Even if Schwilk seems sometimes a bit too
eager to justify EJ I think he does it in such a knowledgeable manner and
with arguments which are very much worth pondering. At least he makes me
understand EJ better. 
As to his critic, I have read more perspicacious articles by Schirrmacher
than this one in which he accuses EJ of deliberately mystifiying his
relationship to Hitler. Indeed, to interpret EJs terseness of style as a
tactics of mystification is a temptation I sometimes felt myself when
trying to figure out certain passages in DIE SCHERE. But IMHO the
mystification is rather in the eye of the beholder than in the text. But
probably Schirrmacher was indeed too übellaunig to take his subjectivity
into consideration. 
The Schütz article in the TAZ seems an amusing (though superfluous) attempt
on the Left to continue their game of EJ bashing by saying: Look, even the
FAZ, mighty fortress of the conservatives, shoots at the EJ camp – we MUST
have been fighting a good cause all along!
The fortress, however, did not only shoot but, by printing the Gumbrecht
article, served rich food for thought. It helped me to understand better
the political and ideological climate in the twenties before both Hitler
and Stalin had embarked on their careers and proved to the world what they
were really capable of. Gumbrecht's high-powered lesson and Schwilk's
sympathetic effort made me come a long way from my first wincing at
learning that EJ felt that Hitler was not radical enough and that he sent
him a book of his with a dedication. Still, those times with their
nationalist fervour and their high hopes in the messianic qualities of
nationale Führer are difficult and irritating enough for us late-born
democrats at the end of the century. So I think for John King there is
still lots of chances and need for explaining them to us in his Work in
Progress. Right? Günter Rebing
PS: It was so interesting to read and compare the articles Olaf posted that
I opened them at the same time – which made my system crash and I lost
irretrievably both the Schwilk and the Schirrmacher texts. Has anyone out
there so much time on his hands that he could send them once more as
attachments to me?