'As an historian, Taylor was constantly let down by his impulse to show off: it led him to sensationalise, and thereby to trivialise, his subject.' DiscussAlan Taylor was one of the leading and arguably one of the most famous if not the most famous historian of the twentieth century. His narrative style of writing won him much praise and criticism. He was once quoted as saying, when speaking of one of his most greatest works English History 1914 - 1945, 'The first function of an historian was to answer the child's question, "What happened next?"'1 In many peoples eyes he was seen as an historian of the people.Taylor was an enormously charismatic and authoritative figure, he was fiercely articulate, intelligent and authoritative.
He was widely read, it has been estimated he read over 7,100 books between 1914 and 1985,2 he had a retentive and analytical mind. He was renowned for his quickness, he gained this reputation from the many debates he took part him. However this quickness, lead many to believe he was rather superficial, he did not probe deeply enough into his subjects, which leads us to the question of whether he did trivialise his subjects through his exhibitionist nature.In order to answer this question, one ought to look at three of Taylor's most famous works, The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848 - 1918, The Origins of the Second World War and English History 1914 - 1945.The Struggle for Mastery in Europe 1848 - 1918, was published in October 1954.
3 It was admired by an vast number of Historians, it can be seen as one of Taylor's most substantial books. The books general theme surrounds Germany's struggle for European dominance and the Great Powers attempts to prevent them from gaining this supremacy. The overall reviews of this book overall were very favourable. Taylor was even recommended for a Fellowship of the British Academy on the basis of his bibliography.
4 The book was commended for its diplomatic content, Taylor once wrote, "I established my academic reputation instead of being merely a public entertainer."5 Taylor here can be seen possibly to be agreeing that he has been known to sensationalise and that this has held him back in the world of academia. However Taylor is believed later to have found the book to be rather dull in spite of the books popularity. This view however could be used to emphasise the sensationalist argument. I could possibly show that Taylor liked causing a stir, he possibly strived for the negative comments as they were what gave him the most exposure.If we look now to undoubtedly the most controversial and provocative books to be written by Taylor, was the infamous Origins of the Second World War.
According to Taylor in his autobiography, he had not intended to be at all controversial. Taylor claims that there were vested interests in the traditional version of events leading up to the Second World War. Many accused Taylor of vindicating Hitler. The book is reported to have a received a strong neo Nazi following when published in Germany.
However the book overall does not really focus in that much on the role of Hitler. However the views that he does put forward surrounding Hitler are fairly irrelevant to the origins of the Second World War. He is highly selective with the evidence used, which is not uncharacteristic of Taylor, this reflects his narrative style of writing.The book received an enormous amount of scrutiny. The book was described as perverse, perilous, and intellectually unpardonable.
Taylor's renowned arch enemy Hugh Trevor-Roper suggested that Taylor concealed, selected and rearranged certain pieces of evidence to support his radical interpretations. Trevor-Roper claimed that the book, 'will do harm, perhaps serious harm, to Mr Taylor's reputation as a serious historian.'6 The quote was indeed rather true, in the world of academia the book caused enormous furore and did to some extent damage Taylor's reputation. The majority of criticism focused on peoples views that Taylor somehow excused Hitler's crimes. This was largely one of the reasons why it was so well received amongst Neo Nazi's and former members of the Nazi party.
Taylor largely denied he had intended people to read his interpretation that way. He claimed many critics and ordinary people misunderstood to book to a large extent, "My book can be read in two ways"7In the 1963 edition of the book Taylor introduced the chapter, 'Second Thoughts.' Here, to some extent he rebutted some of the criticism he received using new information and evidence. In the 1964, American edition of the book, Taylor included a preface which annoyed and angered many American readers, who still clung to the traditionalist view of the origins of the Second World War. The book again not surprisingly received hostile and abusive reviews.The motives that Taylor had for writing this book are rather important in establishing whether or not he intended to be so overwhelmingly sensational or whether in fact he was 'showing off'.
One motive that can be noted as to why Taylor decided to write a book of such a nature was that it had never been done before. His motives could arguably be described as being scholarly. He read fifteen volumes of British Diplomatic Documents, eight German Diplomatic Documents and one Italian Diplomatic Document, all covering the 1930's.8 No one previously had written an analysis based on this evidence, this could be possibly seen as an example of Taylor's desire for innovation rather than a desire to 'show off.'
