1. “I no longer regard him as one [a colleague], and I do not intend to treat him as one …” Feldman “Dear Colleagues” circular of March 20, 1984, p. 2.

2. Feldman offers the novel claim that his Spring 1983 correspondence with me was “friendly” in his interview with The Daily Californian, February 12, 1985, p. 9. A misrepresentation of this sort before undergraduates ill suits someone who concludes his interview by claiming that I am “unfit to teach” or “give a grade” (p. 10).

3. Feldman justified his Rundschreiben of November 28, 1983 thusly: “I am particularly moved to take a public stand by comments made to me that Abraham has satisfactorily responded to Turner in his AHR letter and especially in his 22-page circular letter [sic] of November 18.” Feldman's qualifiers, “public,” and “directly” (“involve myself di rectly”) serve to trivialize his prior activities. My lengthy letter to Turner (November 18, 1983), was sent to those individuals listed as cc's in Turner's earlier letter to me. I closed that letter by asking Turner to supply me with the names of the unlisted recipients of his own. He did not answer, but I was subsequently contacted by unlisted recipients of his letter and supplied them and some few others with my reply to a letter that Turner had effectively made a public annex to his letter to the AHR.

4. For Catholic University, see The Nation, February 16, 1985, p. 181; for Cruz, Santa, Daily Californian, p. 10.Google Scholar Feldman's letters were subdistributed for him in Israel. At two of the three universities at which he admits intervening (Catholic University, Santa Cruz), his interventions were uninvited. What then does it mean for Feldman to say now that he “made it clear that everything [he] said and sent should be made available to” me. Why? Is it their fault? Are those who receive unsolicited criticisms of a third party called upon to transmit them to that third party?

5. To continue with the Preface to his new collection where he leaves off: Immediately after assuring the reader that his goal is “in no way to be confused with economic determinism or dogmatic theory building,” he asserts that “Much more it reflects the pragmatic and eclectic traditions of American historiography.” Now, that American tradition usually encompasses tolerance and the benefit of the doubt, but Feldman is sometimes short on those qualities. Further: “It is just as important to counter certain contemporary historiographical tendencies—such as conservative attempts to turn the clock back or, what might be even worse, to consider history from a purely anthropological perspective.…” Feldman, Gerald, Vom Weltkrieg zur Weltwirtschaftskrise (Göttingen, 1984), pp. 7, 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar, respectively. These remarks mirror certain “enemies to the left, enemies to the right” themes absorbing some liberal German historians and enunciated at the 1984 German Historikertag.

6. If an author writes, “the Committee on the Present Danger agreed to raise two million dollars to help the contras stave off totalitarianism in Nicaragua,” it is more than reasonable to conclude that the author is not only reporting the Committee's intent but himself believes that the contras are acting to stave off totalitarianism in Nicaragua. Oder?

7. My review of Graf, Christoph, Politische Polizei zwischen Demokratie und Diktatur (Berlin, 1983)Google Scholar appeared in the AHR 89 (1984): 467–68.Google Scholar Turner's description of business unity behind the Papen cabinet and its purposes appears in German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (New York, 1985), p. 297.Google Scholar

8. That Heinrichsbauer-Strasser relations discussed in these three pages were not at the center of my interests really only provides further evidence that Feldman's implicit and Nocken's explicit portrayal of my thesis—as being about business support of the Nazis—are way off the mark. Feldman cannot have it both ways.

9. Feldman's “Response,” n. 15.

10. Neebe, Reinhard, Grossindustrie, Staat und NSDAP 1930–1933 (Göttingen, 1981), p. 92.Google Scholar

11. Ibid. “Silverberg forderte im nachhinein eindeutige Konsequenzen gegenüber diesen Parlamentariern, konnte damit aber bei Springorum und Reusch nicht durchdringen.”

12. Actually the charge first appeared in Feldman's “Dear Colleagues” letter of March 20, 1984, where he alleged that the error was “designed to back up an interpretation which would otherwise make no sense.” That charge disappeared already before Feldman went into print.

13. My “Reply,” pp. 201–3 and Feldman's “Response,” p. 253, respectively.

14. Blank to Reusch, 14 October 1931, HA GHH 400 101 202 4/9, also SMW, pp. 1045, 46.

15. Sohn-Rethel, Alfred, Ökonomie und Klassenstruktur des deutschen Faschismus (Frankfurt, 1973), pp. 33–35.Google Scholar

16. Feldman's “Collapse,” p. 170 and n. 24.

17. See my “Reply,” pp. 211–13 and n. 75.

18. Feldman, “Response,” p. 256f.

19. Turner, Big Business, p. 13. Turner's footnote, like mine, reads “See Gerald Feldman …”

20. Feldman, “Kapp Putsch,” p. 127.

21. Feldman, Vom Weltkrieg, p. 228.

22. See Stegmann, “Deutsche Zoll- und Handelspolitik, 1924–1929,” in Mommsen et al., Industrielles System, pp. 499–513; “Hugenberg contra Stresemann,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 24 (1976): 329–78Google Scholar; “‘Mitteleuropa’ 1925–1934,” in Stegmann et al., Industrielle Gesellschaft, pp. 203–21; “Kapitalismus und Faschismus 1929–1934,” Gesellschaft 6 (1976): 14–75.Google Scholar Also, Mommsen, Hans, “Sozialpolitik im Ruhrbergbau” in Mommsen et al., Industrielles System, pp. 303ffGoogle Scholar.; Spiller, Jorg-Otto “Reformismusnach Rechts…,” pp. 593–602Google Scholar; Gessner, Dieter, “Industrie und Landwirtschaft, 1928–30,” pp. 762–78Google Scholar, and other essays in ibid.; Weisbrod, , Schwerindustrie in der Weimarer Republik (Wuppertal, 1978)Google Scholar, parts III and IV, where he argues that “heavy industry” retained a veto power within industry, but generally agrees with me on the differences between industrial groups, including on attitudes toward labor.

I made my differences with Weisbrod explicit in my book (e.g., p. 134, n. 53; p. 140, n. 70; p. 257, n. 69) but also clearly relied on him for other matters. This is normal. For example, see my “Reply,” n. 64, above. Weisbrod rejects Feldman's claim that I have “falsified and misconstrued” his arguments. See also Petzina, Dietmar, “Germany and the Great Depression,” Journal of Contemporary History 4 (1969): 58–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Herrmann, Walther, Bündnisse und Zerwürfnisse zwischen Landwirtschaft und Industrie (Dortmund, 1965)Google Scholar; Schäfer, Dieter, Der DIHT als politisches Forum der Weimarer Republik (Hamburg, 1966)Google Scholar; Gunther, Fritz and Ohlsen, Manfred, “Der RDI, 1919–1933,” in Fricke, Dieter, ed., Die bürgerliche Parteien in Deutschland (Berlin, Leipzig, 1970), pp. 580–619Google Scholar, and much else. Feldman's new claim appears in his “Response,” p. 258 and n. 27.

23. Hoffmann, Walther, Das Wachstum der Deutschen Wirtschaft (Berlin, 1965), pp. 392Google Scholar, 3 columns 5 and 7; compare Feldman, “Response,” p. 260. To make a false point, Feldman has introduced Hoffmann's numbers but not his heading. As to the textile industrialist Frowein, the dynamic quality of his industry also owed something to the introduction of synthetics during this period.

24. Respectively: “Dear Colleagues” letter of February 26, 1984 and repeated in the circulated draft of his article here; letter of February 26, 1984; ibid, and “circular” of March 14, 1984; letter of February 26, 1984 and his “Collapse,” p. 164; ibid. p. 163; ibid., p. 166; ibid., p. 165 and letter of February 26, 1984, etc.

25. See Feldman's “Response,” pp. 260, 265, 263 respectively.

26. See my “Reply,” pp. 227–28. I began preparation of an errata sheet for future sales as well as for broader distribution in Fall 1983. That was put in abeyance when I found myself occupied with a semi-public campaign whose central claims were those of fraud and mendacity. Feldman's characterization of an errata sheet appears in his February 26, 1984 circular, p. 3, line 1.

27. See my “Reply,” n. 103; Nocken, p. 5.

28. But had I not quoted extensively from the Gilsa letter in my “Reply,” here is what Feldman intended to present as his “rich and fascinating” understanding of the Mussolini reference: “Although Gilsa speculates about the relevance of the Italian experience, the entire letter is extremely pessimistic about the chances of taming the Nazis in the near future.” Of course, this was not von Gilsa's mere “speculation” but the third point in a numbered three-point recommendation. Nor was he “extremely pessimistic.” Feldman's construal is, at best, one-sided. This revision was sent to the editor and myself about three months after Feldman submitted the final draft of his essay. Feldman need not be a “mind reader.” I had already indicated to Turner (and Feldman) that part of the footnote in question referred to von Gilsa, not Reusch; Abraham to Turner (and Feldman) November 18, 1983, p. 8.

29. For the examination of Jung, “Reply,” pp. 231–32; on Heinrichsbauer, pp. 232–36.

30. Feldman's phrase is from his “Response,” p. 264. I point out some of these considerable discrepancies in the Appendix to my “Reply.”

31. Compare Feldman, “Response,” p. 264 and my “Reply,” pp. 224–27, 238–39 above.

32. Feldman, “Response,” n. 42.

33. AHR 88 (1983): 1143.Google Scholar

34. I made the offer in my letter to Turner of June 16,1983. He turned it down in his letter of June 27, 1983, p. 1; on file with the editor.

35. On May 11, 1983—about a year after what Feldman reports here and, apparently only after he had convinced himself of my fraudulence—Turner wrote asking me for the citation or text of “the two letters you quote on pp. 164 ff.” of my book. I replied on May 21, 1983 (as discussed in my “Reply,” n. 91). On May 28, 1983, Turner, a careful worker, submitted his letter to the editor of the AHR in which he wrote: “the use as evidence of nonexistent archival documents ranks, of course, among the gravest of scholarly offenses. … I therefore call upon Abraham to divulge, in this professional forum, proof that the two documents quoted by him on pp. 164–65 and 316 of his book—a letter from Martin Blank to Paul Reusch of December 29, 1930, and ‘instructions’ from Reusch to Blank of January 2, 1931—exist now or ever existed.” With minor changes, this letter, replete with its implications of purposeful falsification, then appeared in the October 1983 AHR. Again in his letter to me of June 27, 1983, a widely circulated annex to his letter to the AHR, Turner asked me “to clear up the matter of the quotations on pages 164–65 and 316 of your book which you attributed to a letter from Martin Blank to Paul Reusch of December 29, 1930, and to what you described as ‘instructions’ from Reusch to Blank dated January 2, 1931.” And a few lines later, “I would be ready to extend you a public apology in the Review if I received from the chief archivist … a statement to the effect that you have succeeded in locating a letter from Blank to Reusch dated December 29, 1930 and ‘instructions’ from Reusch to Blank, dated January 2, 1931.” Perhaps this was an innocent error, but repeated four times by Turner it could only generate confusion.

By the time of his unsolicited letter to Catholic University of February 29, 1984, Turner had, finally, cautiously abandoned his misdescriptions, writing, cryptically, of “an exchange of communications”; page 1, lines 8–9.

36. Abraham to Turner, November 18, 1983, p. 4. Turner's comment to the Times, October 1984, conveyed to me on October 10, 1984.

37. AHR 88 (1983): 1146.Google Scholar

38. Abraham (Stiepel) to Feldman (Munich), July 10, 1983, late afternoon telephone conversation. On the “cover letter,” see p. 242f. in the Appendix to my “Reply.”

39. This letter of August 17, 1984 was a reply to a letter from Feldman in which the author rejected Feldman's charges of fraud, his moralizing, and his entire modus operandi. Feldman cannot be pleased with its contents, however he mistranslates the word verfallen: “to hit or chance upon,” not “to fall back upon.”

40. Footnote 47 of Feldman's “Response” is really unworthy: 1) I did not describe Heinrichsbauer as Reusch's agent, but rather showed, beyond doubt, that he worked regularly with those who were; 2) My discussion (“Reply,” pp. 233–35) of events in the six months after Christmas 1930 becomes transformed into a comparison of “the second half of 1931” with the “second half of 1930.”

41. Feldman ought also to improve his verification. He has my age wrong three times (for the record, I was 29, 30, and 32 respectively), and his new description of Nocken's achievements is sheer mischaracterization.

42. Feldman repeatedly uses the words “fraud,” “fraudulent,” and “crime.” See, most recently, Daily Californian, pp. 9, 10.

43. All from “Response,” p. 250.

44. “Response,” p. 266.

45. Thus, Nocken's essay closes (p. 29) by ruling out and excluding “again warmed over, deficient” and “long since out of date and inapplicable” theses and theories. This is barely disguised code. Turner's Conclusion, “Myths, Preconceptions, and the Misuse of History,” pp. 349–59 (here, pp. 350, 351, 354, 356, 358) rules out any possibility that structural analyses of Weimar can illuminate any historical truth; they only produce or perpetuate “myths.”

46. In his “Dear Colleagues” circular of February 26, 1984, p. 2, line 3 off. Feldman wrote: “I am in complete agreement with a statement made by R. H. Tawney that ‘an academic adversary is not an Amalekite, to be smitten hip and thigh.” The actual quotation from Tawney reads “An erring colleague is not an Amalekite to be smitten hip and thigh.” Feldman has shown little appreciation for the difference between error and antagonism, but I would not think to claim that he has “invented” or “fabricated” the quotation. See Winter, J. M., ed., History and Society: Essays by R. H. Tawney (London, 1978), p. 126.Google Scholar This remark originally appeared in Economic History Review, 2d series, 7 (1954): 91–97Google Scholar as part of a “Postscript” to Tawney's 1941 article on “The Rise of the Gentry.”