Re: war crimes and FS

[Gelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

 The Horkheimer *Gesammelte Schriften* contains the
Horkheimer/Neumann correspondence, (17 letters) and most of it
dwells on theoretical matters, i.e. the whole question of
'dialectics'. Some of it revolved around differences between Neumann
and Pollock, which in turn touches on the whole issue of a
'theoretical' understanding of the rise of Nazism - as open a
question now as it was then. Perhaps you should give us an account
of the arguments upon which you base your conclusion that
Neumann/Kirchheimer "were closer to a dialectical relationship
between theory and practice" than Horkheimer/Adorno. (Axel Honneth
defended this position with much fervour ten years ago in "Kritische
Theorie - Vom Zentrum zur Peripherie einer Denktradition", but I
always felt that he had projected Habermasian theorems into this
debate in such a way that it much confused the issues.)

A detailed analysis of that Horkheimer/Neumann correspondence,
conducted with an open mind - meaning that it would not simply take
the validity of the Habermas/Honneth views on these things for
granted - now *that* would be an interesting project.

One aspect of the Neumann-analyses I've never seen discussed in any
of the English-speaking literature on the Frankfurt School is that
which is associated with his erstwhile student Raul Hilberg: what's
now called Holocaust research. No doubt you're familiar with Dan
Diner's book:  *Zivilisationsbruch - Denken nach Auschwitz*.
For those who don't know it: contains papers by Adorno, Anders,
Arendt, Bloch, Horkheimer, Kracauer, Lowenthal, Marcuse, Neumann,
Benjamin. Includes an interview with Raul Hilberg on Neumann: "Das
Schweigen zum Sprechen bringen - Ein Gespr=E4ch =FCber Franz Neumann und
die Entwicklung der Holocaust-Forschung." [Getting the Silence to
speak - a discussion on Franz Neumann and the development of
Holocaust Research.]

>I have recently ploughed my way through the archival record of Franz
> neumann's contributiuon with the OSS (along with Marcuse and Kirchheimer=
) to
> the nuremberg war crimes trials, and have just read a short essay by
> Horkheimer on the Eichmann trial. If ever there was a topic giving good
> reasons for preferring the Neumann / Kirchheimer side of the FS to that =
of
> Adorno/Horkheimer, this I think is it. Whilst Neumann et al were contrib=
uting
> towards Nuremberg, with Neumann first chief of research for the IMT at
> Nuremberg, A&H were in california writing a would-be book on dialectics =
-

you seem to regard this as something heinous. (a 'would-be' book?)

> but
> which side of the FS were closer to a dialectical relationship between t=
heory
> and practice on this issue?

hic Rhodos, hic salto. The correspondence is available.

> Michael Salter
>
>
-------------------------------------------

Dr. Frederik van Gelder
Institut fuer Sozialforschung
Frankfurt University
Senckenberganlage 26
60325 Frankfurt am Main

Gelder@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------------