I try to avoid (as much as I possibly can) criticizing my opponents – “mainstream” historians who present (preach, actually) a very different perception of Nazi Germany. However, there is one occasion when I absolutely have to be very critical of the “orthodox” historians.
Their complete and utter failure to produce the necessary guide to Nazi Germany.
The “mainstream” (“orthodox”) historians failed to produce a genuinely comprehensive, objective and unbiased guide to Nazi Germany for two fundamental reasons.
I have already mentioned the first one – no “professional” historian has (or had) the necessary education, training and experience absolutely vital for the development of a genuinely comprehensive guide.
It does not mean, of course that all historians that specialize in Nazi Germany (let alone all historians) are professionally incompetent because they do not have knowledge and experience in the abovementioned areas.
While I would highly recommend every historian (“professional” or “amateur”) to take classes and get some practical experience in knowledge management, it is by no means the vital requirement for a professional competence of a historian.
Neither is systems analysis, of course. In fact, Nazi Germany is one of the very few systems (civilizations, actually) sufficiently complex to require systems analysis skills to come up with its comprehensive portrait. Another one is probably the Soviet Union, although it is far, far simpler than its Nazi adversary.
The second fundamental reason is that “professional” history of Nazi Germany, both World Wars and the interwar period as (i.e. the community of “professional” historians – university professors, employees of research institutes, etc.) still can not (actually, does not want to) sever the umbilical cord that firmly connects it with the anti-Nazi Allied propaganda of that (and post-war denazification) period.
One of the not-so-noble secrets of the community of “professional” historians of Nazi Germany is that this discipline (as practiced by them) is firmly rooted in the (mostly wartime and immediate post-war) anti-Nazi propaganda.
Which automatically makes all their “deliverables” (books, lectures, classes, documentaries, etc.) heavily biased against the Nazis. Which, in turn make these deliverables… well, not exactly scientific. To put it bluntly, these deliverables are not genuine history but only just another anti-Nazi propaganda tools.
There is nothing wrong about anti-enemy propaganda during the war – it is a perfectly legitimate (and highly efficient – if done right) psychological warfare tool. And although the whole denazification project conducted by the Allies in occupied Germany and Austria after WW2 was highly controversial (to put it mildly), the subsequent “economic miracle” in Germany and its current high living standards and prominent position in Europe, it was probably both necessary and successful. So, obviously, was the anti-Nazi propaganda.