How does change happen in historiography? This article examines three scholars’writings on the Holocaust in order to shed light on this question. I argue that both internal (methodological) and external (sociopolitical) factors account for changes in the questions historians ask and the research agendas they pursue, as well for the different receptions that works with similar arguments enjoy at different points in time. But I stress that while muchwork in the theory of history examines methodological trends and problems, sociopolitical factors tend to be given short shrift; they are often acknowledged but rarely analyzed in any detail. Taking as its starting point the writings of three scholars who have provided an apparently similar framework for understanding theHolocaust, this article shows how differences in their works’ reception owe at least as much to external factors as to internal ones. This claim is not to neglect the fundamentals of historiography: source critique, use of evidence, contextualization, engagement with fellow historians’ writings, and so on. The works discussed here can be and have been criticized on these terms. Nor is it to overlook their differences. But methodological factors alone do not account for the very different ways in which these works have been received by historians and by a wider readership. Specifically, Arno J. Mayer, Gerhard L. Weinberg, and David Cesarani have all argued that the Holocaust needs to be understood in relation to the changing circumstances of World War II. While noting the different emphases of each author’s position, this article observes that their fundamentally similar argument has been received very differently over a space of thirty years. This reception history tells us something about the course of Holocaust historiography since the end of the Cold War, on the one hand, and something about how the changing world in which historians operate has altered the ways in which their works have been received, on the other. With its emphasis today on Nazi ideology,

中文翻译：

---

历史进程：Arno J. Mayer、Gerhard L. Weinberg 和 David Cesarani 关于大屠杀和第二次世界大战

史学如何发生变化？本文考察了三位学者关于大屠杀的著作，以阐明这个问题。我认为，内部（方法论）和外部（社会政治）因素都解释了历史学家提出的问题和他们所追求的研究议程的变化，以及在不同时间点对类似论点的不同接受。但我要强调的是，虽然历史理论中的许多工作都考察了方法论的趋势和问题，但社会政治因素往往被忽视；他们经常被承认，但很少详细分析。以三位学者的著作为出发点，他们为理解大屠杀提供了一个明显相似的框架，这篇文章展示了他们作品接受程度的差异是如何归因于外部因素和内部因素的。这种主张并不是要忽视史学的基本原理：来源批判、证据的使用、语境化、与历史学家的著作的接触，等等。这里讨论的作品可能并且已经根据这些条款受到批评。也不是忽视他们的差异。但仅凭方法论因素并不能解释这些作品被历史学家和更广泛的读者接受的截然不同的方式。具体而言，Arno J. Mayer、Gerhard L. Weinberg 和 David Cesarani 都认为，需要根据第二次世界大战不断变化的情况来理解大屠杀。在注意到每个作者立场的不同侧重点的同时，本文观察到，他们在根本上相似的论点在三十年的时间里得到了截然不同的接受。这段接受历史一方面告诉我们冷战结束以来大屠杀史学的进程，另一方面也告诉我们历史学家所处的不断变化的世界如何改变了他们作品被接受的方式，其他。在今天强调纳粹意识形态的情况下，