I hope everyone enjoyed their weekend. A little wet up here on the east coast, but we managed. Here is an article on Kershaw Hunting Knives to help you through a boring Monday.

Kershaw Hunting Knives-How Do Kershaw Knives Stack Up To Their Competition? by Jimmy Harris

When it comes to hunting, you need effective hunting knives after you make the kill, and this is where Kershaw hunting knives really shine. These are probably the most widely used knives among hunters today, and would probably be a smart investment for you.
Remember, even if you are the best hunter in the world, and can kill any animal you want at any given time, without being able to skin it properly, it won't make for a very tasty meal. Kershaw hunting knives are some of the most effective at skinning an animal, and best of all, you can find one that fits your budget, however, larger or small it might be.

Even if you only have ten dollars to spend on one, you can still find a relatively effective knife that will meet your needs. The first thing to think about before buying is what kid of animal you plan on hunting. Obviously, the kind of hunting knife needed to skin a rabbit will be different than the one needed for deer, elk, etc.

Kershaw hunting knives are among the most popular in the industry, and also the best at skinning virtually any kind of animal you want, but be sure to find the one that matches the animal you are hunting.

Kershaw makes knives suited to all different kinds of animals, and obviously the bigger the animal you are targeting, the bigger the knife needs ot be.

Here is a quick review of the most popular hunting knives Kershaw offers. The first is the deer hunting, and hence the name, this knife is designed specifically for skinning deer. This is Kershaw's first fixed blade hunting knife, and offers a very firm grip, and thee steel edge is enough to easily skin any deer you catch.

The antelope hunter is known for being lightweight, but yet very harps and effective at skinning antelope, and I'd highly recommend if you find yourself hunting these larger game.

Yes, you will pay more for big game hunting knives, but this will be true of any company. I'd advocate you start out at their website to see the different kinds offered, and once you've identified the one that fits your needs, hit discount sites such as eBay or Amazon, and try to save some money in the process. I'd highly recommend Kershaw hunting knives for your hunting needs.

About the Author
To learn more about Kershaw Hunting Knives, check out http://www.internethuntingtips.com/. This is a popular site that teaches you all about hunting game demos, equipment, the best locations, and anything you've ever wanted to know about hunting.

#7 - Clayton Kershaw

What do PEER 1 and a racetrack have in common? Well PEER 1 has just sponsored two of its employees, system administrators Kevin Lee and Elson Rodriguez, to race in the 24 Hours of LeMons at the Carolina Motorsports Park in Kershaw, South Carolina. Yes, sys-admins do have a life outside of the data center.

What is 24 Hours of LeMons you ask? It’s a weekend-long race for cars purchased, fixed up, and track-prepped for total of only $500 or less.

Kevin Lee’s team, “On The Run From Nuns” spent a total of two months working after hours, visiting junkyards on a regular basis, to put together a 1981 Turbo Diesel Mercedes for the race.  The team had no outside help and completely rebuilt the car themselves.

“I spent so much time at junkyards, I never want to see another one again,” said Kevin. “We spent two months straight prior to the race literally tearing the car down and replacing every part on the motor.”

The fantastic 2-day event was an awesome experience, even through the pouring down rain on Saturday and the blistering hot sun on Sunday. Kevin Lee and Team wound up placing 25th out of 74 cars total, after a broken trans axle took them out of the race mere minutes before its end!

Being the Community Evangelist for PEER 1, I was able to fly out to South Carolina and attend this event taking videos, hanging out with the Team, and getting a few interviews – one of them being with Jay Lamm, “The Chief Perpetrator.”  The 24 Hours of LeMons is his of Jay’s, an Emeryville entrepreneur who produced the editorial content of specialty publications back in the ‘90s -- car magazines touting, for example, Corvettes.

Jay now owns his own company, DriversDoor Inc. that produces cover-to-cover books and magazines for outside clients who don’t want to run their own editorial staff. Lamm said he got the idea after watching one too many of the high-level concourses with show cars worth millions preening on the greensward -- the annual August classic at Monterey's Pebble Beach comes quickly to mind.

"There's certainly a time and place for events like Pebble Beach," he said, "but they use what I call a 'checkbook-wrench' to solve problems." When one of their cars needs to be spiffed up to world-class standard, or when one of the cars has a simple problem, the owners "write a check."

"I wanted to make this race a real challenge," he said of his decidedly down-market contest, "and one way to do that is make sure it's a really crappy car and you have to make it (run) anyway."

It was definitely a challenge and the PEER 1 Team survived the noise, grit, grime and FUN.

You can view hundreds of pictures taken at the event by clicking here and here.

I'm a great believer in baseball's chain that runs from rookie ball all the way to the big leagues. It's a great system that enables young players to mature while refining and improving their game. The NFL has no farm system, and as a result I believe there are far too many players in the league that have incomplete games, and that's created an overload of guys who can only function is specific situations. The NBA has only recently figured out that it's not such a terrible thing to have a draft choice spend a little time at the lesser level, rather than having a prospect rot on the bench while not getting useful minutes in real game action. The NHL doesn't get much attention from the masses, but there's no question in my mind that developing talent down on the farm is producing a better brand of player at the top level.

Baseball has always done it best. Aside from the ill-fated bonus baby period in the 1950's, which was by and large a dismal failure, players have started their professional careers in small towns facing fairly low-level competition and have either succeeded or failed as they climb the ladder. The system works like a charm.

I was critical of the Kansas City Royals last season when they jumped Alex Gordon from AA to the bigs and had him learn the ropes against the game's best pitchers. Sure, Gordon came on some following an absolutely miserable first few months. But I remain convinced that he'd have been far better served spending most of last season at AAA Omaha, and I'm steadfastly maintaining that the Royals have hindered his growth as a player by not promoting him via tried and true baseball methods. Gordon is doing okay this season, but he's hardly been spectacular. More importantly, he's already been surpassed at the major league level by prospects on other teams who got that needed AAA experience under their belts.

That brings me to a pair of exceptional young talents who are getting the rush treatment right now. Diamondbacks OF Justin Upton and Dodgers LHP Clayton Kershaw should both be plying their craft in the minors right now.

Upton got his first look at major league pitching late last season and largely struggled. I assumed he'd start this season at AAA, but he made the big club and earned a regular spot in the lineup following a dynamite spring. Upton was sensational early, and I was getting set to simply admit I was all wet, and that he was simply one of those exceptions to the rules. But Upton has apparently been figured out by major league hurlers, who are making him look ridiculous right now. Since May 19, Upton is 9/61. Anyone can have a slump, but the fact that he's been K'd an astounding 33 times in that stretch is a strong indicator that he's totally overmatched right now. The Diamondbacks need to send him down and let him work on his strike zone approach. Keeping him in the lineup in the heat of a pennant race is bad for Upton and bad for the team.

Ditto for Kershaw. There is zero question that he's got big league stuff and monster upside. But Kershaw's command just isn't there yet. The southpaw sensation is having to work awfully hard almost every inning as he walks himself into one jam after another. What that means is that while the Dodgers are monitoring his pitch counts carefully, most of the 90-100 pitches he's throwing are in high stress situations.

I'm sure Upton and Kershaw are thrilled to be in the majors, enjoying the awesome perks and excitement that accompany life in the big leagues. It would have to be a letdown to get sent down, there's no doubt about that. But in both cases, I'm convinced it's the right move on both counts.

GETTING AN EDGE WITH MILLEDGE

Lastings Milledge was one of the hot buzzer players in pre-season fantasy drafts. Milledge was listed on almost every "expert" page as a sleeper worthy of at least a late-round stab. For the first two months of the 2008 season, that looked like mighty bad advice. But Milledge is heating up and those who were patient with him (I wasn't, for the record) are now being rewarded. Over his last 17 games, Milledge has gone 19/65, which in itself isn't anything spectacular. But he's also contributed some big peripherals in that run. Four HR, six SB along with 11 runs and 8 RBI. Clearly, his value is on the rise, and he's definitely worth checking out in leagues where he's still available.

MARMOL BURNOUT BREWING?

Carlos Marmol has been amazing for the Cubs, but if Lou Piniella doesn't take it a little easier, either Marmol's arm or his production is almost sure to fall off. Marmol faced just one hitter in Tuesday's Cubs win against the Braves. But this was the 34th appearance for Marmol in just 65 games. That's a ridiculous workload. Cubs fans are rejoicing in their team's success so far this season. But if Marmol is worn down come playoff time, that century-long streak without a World Series title is going to continue. Marmol is vital to this team's success, particularly once the post-season rolls around. The Cubbies are in great shape right now in the NL Central. Piniella would be well served to start lightening Marmol's workload immediately.

HAMILTON IS HUMAN

I guess it had to happen sometime. Josh Hamilton is in a 1/17 slump. This coincides, however, with Hamilton also getting knocked down for a couple games with a viral infection. Hamilton's fantasy owners shouldn't worry, nor should they utter even one mild complaint. With that sweet (not to mention unbelievably quick) swing, the slump will end very shortly and Hamilton will resume his mashing. I own Hamilton in six of my seven leagues, and the only one where I don't have him is a keeper where his owner from last season wisely protected him. Someone made me an offer for Hamilton a couple of days ago in one of those leagues. My fastest rejection of the season. There really aren't more than maybe five players in all of baseball that I'd consider trading Hamilton for right now.

GETTING WARM, HEATING UP, SIMPLY ON FIRE

Roy Oswalt came into Tuesday night's action having allowed three or more runs in all but one of his 13 prior starts. The long time Houston ace looked like his old self in slamming the Brewers, though, and he could be ready to roll. Oswalt had another groin issue earlier this season, a recurring problem for him the last few years. I have to think this injury was lingering as it's that type of hurt that takes forever to go away. The Tuesday effort looks like a major buy signal for Oswalt.

Vlad Guerrero came into June hitting an incredibly low .246 with almost no power. Here comes Big Daddy Vladdy. The main man on the Angels is 10 for his last 21 and three of those hits went over the wall. Another one that ended up as a double almost broke the wall. Guerrero's days as a Top 10 fantasy producer are history as he can't run anymore. But he's still a dynamic player who can offer four category production. And he's also still about the most fun player in the game to watch when he's taking his cuts.

Nick Markakis is on a major tear. The Baltimore OF actually started getting cut according to one site's fantasy buzz index as his average sunk below .250, but unless those owners were in extremely shallow leagues, that was just plain dumb. Markakis is now 26/61 over his last several games, and I'm expecting a power surge to take place shortly.

FEEDBACK

Always welcome at espnradio1100@gmail.com along with any question you might have!

Jimmy Rollins

Clayton Kershaw - RRO

Seth Smith - RRO

It's rare as a sports fan that you get to witness history. I may have done so on Sunday when I was fortunate enough to witness the highly-anticipated debut of one of the best prospects in baseball: 20 year old pitcher Clayton Kershaw. I watched the young lefty's first start in the big leagues from the Loge level of Doger Stadium on a cloudy afternoon in Southern California, and I left with the same butterflies I came in with.

Now I'm not one to believe the hype. I am one of the biggest cynics you will find when it comes to young talent, especially young, hard-throwing pitchers. I'm used to seeing guys come up from the minors with electric stuff who fail because they have no idea how to pitch.

They throw 95+, but leave it in the middle of the plate. They have a devastating breaking ball, but can't throw it for a strike. They get caught up in trying to strike everyone out, and build up 100+ pitches by the fifth inning.

And that is exactly the kind of immaturity Kershaw displayed in his first inning of work. After striking out Cardinals leadoff hitter Skip Shumaker, he walked the second hitter and gave up an RBI double to the great Albet Pujols (due in part to shotty fielding by Juan Pierre). Kershaw ended up striking out the side, but threw over 20 pitches and looked like he had no chance of locating his breaking ball. I figured he'd struggle to get through 5 innings and give up 3 or 4 runs while striking out 7 or 8 (shades of Chad Billingsley, and we see how that's turned out so far).

But, presumably after a mid-inning talk from dugout leader and catcher Russel Martin, Kershaw turned the corner. He got a groundout on the second pitch of the at-bat to start the second inning, and he cruised from then on.

With the game tied at 2 (the second run scored on a sun-ball off James Loney's face and a high throw to home from Blake DeWitt), Kershaw, rather than being satisfied with a great first start, finished his job by getting a fly out to left field with runners on second and third to keep the game tied. After the Dodgers took the lead in the bottom of the sixth, Kershaw was in line for the win in his first big-league start, and would have gotten it if not for a leadoff walk by Cory Wade and a throwing error by Martin in the seventh.

Kershaw's final line: 6 innings, 5 hits, 2 ER, 1 walk, 7 strikeouts, 102 pitches

I know the Cardinals aren't exactly the '27 Yankees, but Kershaw looked brilliant. More impressive than the mid 90s fastballs and the 12-6 curveball was the fact that he actually PITCHED. He was economic with his pitches and got big outs when he needed to.

I believe the hype. Kershaw is the best lefty starter the Dodgers have seen since....um....Odalis Perez? Kaz Ishii? Carlos Perez? Wilson Alvarez?

I don't want to draw any comparisons to a certain Dodgers Hall of Fame left-handed starter (we'll just call him Randy Nofax), because that would be unfair, but Kershaw certainly looks like the real deal.

He hit 97 twice, didn't give up a hit, and left after one. Word is he is pitching on Tuesday....for the Dodgers!

Zebulon sucks.

Kershaw Leonard

Agency
Expression, Dubai

Via

Non è recentissima ma mi piaceva troppo e ve la ripropongo di nuovo nel caso fosse sfuggita anche a qualcun'altro ;-)

Before Todd became a pastor, he preached itinerantly, and he always took his family along, including his four year old son.  Todd was preaching up a storm one night somewhere.  It was a powerful sermon, and Todd really got wound up and red-faced. 

His son told him something peculiar after the service, "Daddy, as you were preaching tonight, it looked like Jesus was attached to you." 

Todd was awed at the thought.  But then his son continued, "Yeah, Daddy, it looked like he had you around the neck choking you."

Well I don't know about you, but that's one sermon critique I'm not so sure I want to hear.

I shot an email to Benchmade and asked if they would fix it or replace it given the circumstances and the amount of people having problems with this particular knife. Surprisingly they offered to replace the knife with one of 4 different knives.  I chose the 913D2 Nitrous Stryker.  I cannot wait to get it.  I used to be a huge fan of the 910 Benchmade but I never liked the thin liner lock on it.  I hear that the liner lock on the 912D2 and 913D2 are much thicker and stronger.

I just thought this was real nice and just shows again what a really good company will do for you when you have problems with their product.

For the record, Benchmade, Spyderco, and Kershaw have all gone above and beyond when it comes to taking care of their customers.

Thanks Benchmade!

So then I made the mistake of diving into a couple specific knife forums and quickly became overwhelmed by the onslaught of information, opinions and debates that rage back and forth on the subject. I'm one of those guys that always has a knife handy (or several) for every day usage, takes great care in maintenance and appreciates the form and finish as well as the function of knives. Even so, my eyes have been opened to the large world of both knife collectors as well as knife users. Who knew there were dozens of types of steel as opposed to just a few basic ones? A lot of the terminology I did know, but a lot of it was completely foreign to me.

I've had my fair share of knives over the years. Cheap ones, decent ones, army issue ones etc etc. All have served me well and some I regret losing/selling. In particular, I had a nice Tramontina hunting knife with a rosewood handle I had lost while trekking in the woods and a C5 pocket knife which was a favored EDC (every day carry). I really liked the Gerber multi-tool that replaced the C5 as standard issue as well, that is until my wife bought me a really great Schrade Tough Tool with a leather sheath that I adore and still enjoy nearly 8 years later. :)

I guess in many ways my love of knives goes as far back as when I was a kid living in the country who always carried a knife in the woods, be it a cheap pocketknife or hunting knife. I learned very early the usefulness and benefits of a blade and that's when I developed my appreciation for them. I loved to look at them in army surplus stores, hardware stores and magazines like US Cavalry or SIR even as young as 10 or so. Whenever I got the chance I'd buy myself a cheap little chinese knockoff or novelty knife from a dollar store, whatever the money of a kid could buy me. In many ways it's a rite of passage for a boy, especially in rural Canada. So I shouldn't be so surprised that I've begun taking a serious look at quality blades and exposing myself to the larger world of knife appreciation that I find on many gun/hunting/outdoors forums.

I've rambled on long enough so let me get to the topic at hand. After reading all of this new information I decided I wanted a new EDC. I wanted it to be less than $50, of good steel, compact size, and of a brand and design well spoken of by collectors and enthusiasts alike. I also wanted it to be something I can look at and handle in person, so that left out online buying. Believe it or not that's not such an easy list to satisfy, especially the price. After careful consideration, I picked up a Kershaw 1470 Storm.

I like the Sandvik 13C26 steel it uses much better than the 420HC I see on knives costing even twice as much. The alloys in it are good for the weather we have around here (intense fog/humidity/rain) on the Atlantic coast. It has a 3 inch blade, small profile and no easy open assist, that makes this a very usable and non-intimidating knife that won't draw a lot of attention when I'm using it. It's also ambidextrous which makes this lefty a happy man. It can be stripped apart for cleaning and has a reversible, removable clip as well as a lanyard hole. Overall a fantastic buy for $40 Cdn and I'd recommend this to anyone who needs a nice well crafted pocketknife that won't break the bank.

Kershaw has gained themselves a supporter and I hope they continue to make great knives like this in the future. Kershaw in turn, can thank my wife for buying this for me and in doing so made me a fan of their products. When she reads this she'll get a good chuckle out of it and will forgive me for my seemingly endless prattling on about getting a new knife. I truly was a kid in a candy store and even now I'm still fondling it every 5 minutes or so appreciating it's quality!!

Plusieurs questions ont suscité de vifs débats en 1986 et, encore aujourd'hui, la controverse historiographique est toujours d'actualité.

1. Est-ce que les crimes de l'Allemagne nazie incarnent le mal absolu dans l'Histoire, ou est-ce que les crimes de Joseph Staline en Union soviétique sont équivalents, sinon pires?
   
2. Est-ce que l'histoire allemande a suivi une « voie spéciale » (Sonderweg) conduisant inévitablement au nazisme?
   
3. Est-ce que d'autres génocides, dont le génocide des Hereros, le génocide arménien et le génocide des Khmers rouges au Cambodge, sont comparables à l'Holocauste ?
   
4. Est-ce que les crimes commis par les nazis sont une réaction aux crimes soviétiques sous Staline, comme Ernst Nolte l'a soutenu?
   
5. Le peuple allemand devrait-il supporter un fardeau de culpabilité pour les crimes nazis, ou bien les nouvelles générations d'Allemands pourraient trouver des sources de fierté dans leur histoire? 

L’ouvrage retenu pour cette analyse historiographique, soit Qu’est-ce que le nazisme? Problèmes et perspectives d’interprétation de Ian Kershaw, s’inscrit dans le contexte mouvementé des années quatre-vingt : soulignons au passage le cinquantième anniversaire de la prise de pouvoir nazie en 1983, le plaidoyer de Martin Broszat pour une « historicisation » (Historisierung) du national-socialisme en 1985 et l’ouverture du mur de Berlin le 9 novembre 1989.

Publiée en 1985, l’œuvre de Kershaw vient proposer une complémentarité entre les intentions d’Hitler et les structures du Troisième Reich. Toutefois, je défends la thèse que l'on peut déceler le penchant structuraliste de l'auteur dès le début des années 80 (qu’il exprime de façon implicite) et qui atteindra son point culminant lors de la parution de sa biographie sur Hitler en 1998.

Articulée autour de trois aspects, cette analyse tentera d'illustrer certaines hypothèses qui peuvent expliquer les différentes prises de position de Kershaw : le contexte particulier entourant l’auteur et ses écrits d’avant 1985 est d’abord exposé, puis suivi par la relation entre l’esprit de l’époque et l’ouvrage à l’étude et pour terminer, par l’énoncé d’une hypothèse, celle du hasard ou des circonstances de la vie, quant à l’explication de la perspective adoptée par Kershaw dans l’œuvre analysée.

D’entrée de jeu, la nationalité de Ian Kershaw est un élément explicatif de sa prise de position en ce qui a trait au débat « intentionnalisme/structuralisme ».

Britannique et non d’origine allemande, l’auteur n’appartient pas de fait à la « génération des jeunesses hitlériennes » – celle des historiens qui furent adolescents lors de la période nazie – et par conséquent, ne se sent pas concerné par l’âpreté de leurs polémiques.

Ses premiers travaux l’ont exposé aux débats historiographiques des années soixante-dix, cependant comme il le souligne lui-même dans sa biographie de Hitler, « n’étant pas allemand et m’intéressant surtout à la réception de l’image de Hitler […] je suis resté pour l’essentiel étranger à ces débats. » Analyser le IIIe Reich avec une certaine distance permet dès lors à son auteur d’adopter une position conciliante entre les deux approches.

Pour bien mener la mise en contexte historiographique, il importe aussi de prendre en considération les deux ouvrages de Kershaw qui furent rédigés quelques années avant la parution de l’œuvre à l’étude. Bien que toujours à l’écart des débats historiographiques en Allemagne, Kershaw ne se considère cependant plus comme un novice en la matière.

C’est en 1980 et en langue allemande qu’est publié Der Hitler-Mythos. Volksmeinung und Propaganda in Dritter Reich (The « Hitler Myth ». Image and Reality in the Third Reich), où Kershaw étudie « l’autorité charismatique » du Führer selon le modèle développé par le célèbre sociologue Max Weber. Œuvre proposant une interprétation nouvelle – l’auteur utilise un concept de la sociologie pour expliquer la création du « Mythe du Führer » qui serait à l’origine du ralliement au régime nazi de la grande masse du peuple allemand –, on y découvre cependant une tendance structuraliste.

De plus, l’historien adopte aussi une approche radicalement nouvelle dans Popular opinions and political dissent in the Third Reich. Bavaria, 1933-1945, publié en 1983, dans lequel ouvrage il se distance des études traitant « par le haut » le IIIe Reich en abordant plutôt le système « par le bas », c’est-à-dire en étudiant la conscience politique de « l’Allemand ordinaire » dans une région déterminée.

En somme, dans les années soixante-dix, la dichotomie entre sa nationalité et son objet d’étude incite Ian Kershaw à se distancer des deux courants qui s’opposent, intentionnaliste pour l’un et structuraliste pour l’autre, puisqu’il ne se sent pas concerné par les polémiques entre des historiens appartenant à la « génération des jeunesses hitlériennes » d’une part et d’autre part, ne se considère pas encore comme un spécialiste de la période - fait à rappeler, Ian Kershaw a débuté sa carrière d’historien en tant que médiéviste -, toujours en apprentissage avec son mentor, Martin Broszat. (Soulignons que Broszat est reconnu pour sa position structuraliste : faut-il voir dans la relation Broszat-Kershaw des années soixante-dix un signe précurseur de la même tendance pour Kershaw, laquelle est implicitement exprimée dans l’ouvrage étudié et devient une approche clairement définie dans sa biographie de Hitler publiée en 1998?)

Pour faire suite, il me semble pertinent de mettre en perspective l’esprit de la société allemande à l’époque de la rédaction et de la parution de l’ouvrage à l’étude.

D’abord, l’œuvre de Kershaw vient répondre à un engouement populaire, celui « d’un public de plus en plus étendu, réclamant des analyses exhaustives et des ouvrages de référence sur l’histoire du nazisme. » La nécessité d’une compréhension de la singularité du IIIe Reich est ravivée entre autres, par les nombreuses manifestations de 1983 que suscite le cinquantième anniversaire de la prise de pouvoir nazie. En proposant une étude – destinée à l’origine aux étudiants – sur les problèmes et les perspectives d’interprétation du nazisme, Ian Kershaw s’applique ainsi à répondre aux préoccupations de l’époque, ce qu’il reconnaît lui même : « [affirmer] que les préoccupations du présent déterminent la manière dont les historiens abordent le passé est une évidence. »

C’est aussi en 1985 qu’est utilisé pour la première fois le terme « historicisation » par l’historien Martin Broszat, dont j'ai déjà mentionné les liens professionnels avec Ian Kershaw lors de leur participation commune au « projet bavarois » d’entre 1977 et 1983. Or, le Plaidoyer pour une historicisation du national-socialisme de Broszat présente l’idée d’une « normalisation » des procédés méthodologiques utilisés pour l’étude du IIIe Reich, en appliquant « les principes de rigueur dont fait preuve toute enquête historique minutieuse déployant des hypothèses de « portée intermédiaire » susceptibles d’être soumises à une vérification empirique. »

Martin Broszat aspire à restituer le passé nazi dans un portrait complexe du régime hitlérien, en ne limitant pas son analyse uniquement au domaine historico-philosophique ou politico-idéologique et en rejetant les a priori moraux. Ian Kershaw, pour sa part, propose lui aussi une perspective innovatrice en voulant rétablir le passé nazi, mais en utilisant cependant la complémentarité de deux approches polémiques et non pas en créant une nouvelle perspective d’étude, comme c’est le cas pour Broszat avec sa « normalisation ».

Le plaidoyer de Broszat suscite davantage de controverses que l’essai de Kershaw compte tenu que certains historiens, comme Saül Friedländer, perçoivent dans le concept de « normalité » la négation de la spécificité et de la place historique de la politique d’extermination du IIIe Reich.

Quant au « bilan historiographique » sur la période nazie de Ian Kershaw, il est le reflet des points de vue divergents des années soixante-dix entre historiens allemands et celui des débats polarisés du début des années quatre-vingt entre défenseurs d’une approche intentionnaliste et partisans de celle des structures.

Par ailleurs, lorsqu’il affirme que les « [composantes] essentielles d’une explication du IIIe Reich, « intention » et « structure » doivent faire l’objet d’une synthèse, plutôt que d’être mises en opposition […] », Kershaw propose une approche qui attire davantage la louange que la critique puisqu’en s’inscrivant dans une logique atypique, il lui est permis par conséquent d’exposer les thèses en présence avant de trancher dans un sens le plus souvent nuancé.

Dans cette troisième et dernière partie, mon objectif est de présenter d’entrée de jeu l’hypothèse « du hasard » pour expliquer la thèse de la complémentarité défendue par Ian Kershaw.

D’abord, cette conjecture ne réfère aucunement au hasard de l’histoire - tout historien sérieux rejette la « théorie du nez de Cléopâtre » qui ne ramène l’histoire qu’à l’accidentel; utiliser le hasard pour comprendre l’histoire est un moyen détourné pour se soustraire à la recherche des causes d’un phénomène ou d’un événement à l’étude -, mais plutôt au hasard de la vie, c’est-à-dire aux circonstances imprévues intervenant dans l’existence d’un individu.

C’est ainsi que, lors d’une entrevue en octobre 2002, Kershaw se rappelle toujours d’un événement capital survenu il y a quelque trente années : « […] je suis tombé par hasard, au comptoir d'un café, sur un ancien nazi. Au milieu de la conversation il me dit : "Vous les Anglais, vous avez manquez un[e] occasion. Vous auriez dû vous allier avec nous et ensemble nous aurions détruit le bolchevisme et dominé le monde." Et toujours pendant cette conversation je me rappelle exactement, mot pour mot, ce propos qu'il m'a tenu, affirmant que les Juifs sont des poux. J'ai été tellement choqué par son comportement que j'ai ressenti le besoin de savoir ce qui avait pu se passer en Allemagne dans les années trente. Ce fut une autre grande étape. » 

Si Kershaw se souvient encore de cette rencontre, c’est qu’il lui accorde une importance majeure dans son cheminement professionnel. Je peux ainsi extrapoler davantage en supposant que cette circonstance fortuite l’aurait incité à s’écarter des courants univoques – ceux ne privilégiant qu’une seule approche dans l’étude historique – et qui n’avaient pu jusque-là lui fournir une réponse éclairée sur la période nazie.

La relation entre Kershaw et Broszat constitue le deuxième aspect de notre hypothèse. Encore une fois, Kershaw n’est pas insensible à la part du hasard : « [j’ai] ensuite eu la chance, en 1975, de pouvoir quitter mon emploi de conférencier en histoire médiévale […] [et à] la même époque, Martin Broszat, grand historien allemand de la période nazie, m’a invité à participer au sein de son équipe à un projet d’histoire sociale relatif au nazisme. » (il est à noter que l’italique des mots « chance » et « invité » est une initiative personnelle pour souligner l’importance que Kershaw lui-même semble accorder au hasard pour expliquer sa reconversion à l’étude du IIIe Reich)  

J'estime que c’est à l’époque de sa participation au projet de Broszat que Kershaw rejette de façon définitive toutes les théories « hitlérocentristes » et qu’il adopte davantage les thèses structuralistes, en ne considérant toutefois pas le Führer comme le « maître du Reich », mais plutôt en insistant sur son « pouvoir charismatique ».

Pourquoi Ian Kershaw choisit-il alors de concilier les approches dans son ouvrage Qu’est-ce que le nazisme? Problèmes et perspectives d’interprétation si nous savons qu’à ses débuts, il est plutôt un adepte de l’approche structuraliste – notamment par sa relation avec Broszat et par son écrit The "Hitler myth" : image and reality in the Third Reich paru en 1980 – et qu’il se qualifie lui-même comme « historien structuraliste » dans son livre le plus récent (son imposante biographie sur Hitler)?

À l’époque de la rédaction et de la parution de son essai sur le nazisme, je considère la position de Kershaw comme étant celle d’un historien qui souhaitait demeurer à l’écart du débat des intellectuels allemands de l’époque d’une part et d’autre part, que le contexte des années quatre-vingt se prêtait davantage à une explication dégageant les problèmes fondamentaux d’interprétation du IIIe Reich dans une perspective dialectique des deux courants polémiques en question.

Peut-on alors avancer que Kershaw fut foncièrement structuraliste durant les trois dernières décennies? S'il est difficile de discerner les motivations d'un auteur à travers l'ensemble de son oeuvre, cette analyse historiographique démontre à l’évidence que non, même si on y décèle une tendance implicite vers le structuralisme. 

J'estime plutôt que le contexte de l'époque, soit l'âpreté des débat durant les années 80, et son sentiment « d'étranger »  - le fait qu'il ne soit pas Allemand et qu'il ait débuté sa carrière en tant que médiéviste - font en sorte que de concilier les deux tendances était la seule approche valable pour comprendre cette période historique. Cet ouvrage lui permet de faire le bilan des différentes approches avant de prendre lui-même position.

Il importe de préciser ici que même si sa biographie de Hitler en est une de type stucturaliste, Kershaw ne réduit pas le Führer à un simple rôle de pantin ou de dictateur faible. C'est la structure polycratique du système nazie et « l’autorité charismatique » du chef qui permettent notamment d'expliquer le fonctionnement du régime. (encore une fois, il ne fait pas abstraction des intentions dans son analyse!)

En définitive, il appert que la thèse de l’historien peut être bien synthétisée par cette citation de Marx: « Les hommes font leur propre histoire, mais ils ne la font pas de leur propre mouvement, ni dans des conditions choisies par eux seuls, mais bien dans les conditions qu’ils trouvent directement et qui leur sont données et transmises. »

Déjà et avant la parution récente de sa colossale biographie de Hitler, d’aucuns considèrent Ian Kershaw comme l’un des plus grands spécialistes de la période nazie et son lumineux essai sur le nazisme à l’étude comme son livre maître. Si la référence à cet ouvrage est fréquente dans l’histoire du phénomène nazi, sa détraction semble y être absente. Lorsque j'analyse la relation entre le contexte mouvementé des années quatre-vingt, les premiers écrits de Kershaw et l’ouvrage soumis à l’analyse, il est néanmoins possible d’émettre certaines hypothèses quant à l’approche conciliante d’un historien britannique peu concerné par les disputes et les conflits moraux au sein de la confrérie allemande et qui se montre soucieux de contribuer par sa réflexion à la compréhension du Troisième Reich.

Ce qui est intéressant à retenir de cette étude, c'est, d'une part, l'interrelation entre l'état d'esprit de la société et celle de l'auteur et, d'autre part, entre les hasards, soit les circonstances de la vie et les choix conscients de l'individu.

N'est-ce pas la contradiction de l'auteur, soit le fait qu'il n'a pas toujours eu une ligne de pensée rigide (qu'elle a évolué selon le contexte particulier de l'époque et ses propres préoccupations du moment) en utilisant, par exemple, une approche conciliante dans les années 80 même s'il avait une pensée plutôt structuraliste, qui nous permet aujourd'hui de bénéficier de deux ouvrages majeurs sur la période nazie (une biographie de Hitler et l'ouvrage de synthèse dont je viens d'analyser)?

1) Browse our pages to find what you want

2) Write down the item #, the quantity desired and the price

3) Send an email to elgerbay@yahoo.com that includes the information you wrote down and your name & address

4) Allow up to 24 hours for us to send you a Paypal email invoice. Through the security of Paypal, you can pay via your Paypal account, a credit card or an e-check. Or, after getting your invoice, you can mail us a money order or cashier's check.

* Orders are not considered final until they are paid in full

** We use only USPS Priority Mail for shipping, which means you will usually recieve your order within 3-4 days of payment

*** All items listed for sale are things we either have in the store, or can get within a couple of days