Analysis of Daniel Goldhagens Book Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust - Term Paper Example

Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust Like any controversial topic, Daniel Goldhagen's book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, has its supporters and its dissidents. For example, some have accepted its argument with open arms, viewing the concepts in Goldhagen's book as sound. On the other hand, other critics are not quite so convinced. Some leading Holocaust historians felt that the book was incorrect and repetitive, as well as downright offensive. Those in disagreement with Goldhagen felt that his research and work was not very original, and his main argument malevolent and blown out of proportion. As far as Goldhagen's infamous chapter eight, "Police Battalion 101: Assessing the men's motives," the main point of argument with this chapter has to do with the accusation that many ordinary Germans had motivation to participate in the Holocaust, and had several motives for doing so. Many people have felt that the book's lacking cannot defend the attacks against it or, on the other hand, that the book's accomplishments do not explain its successful sales. However, this consideration of the book is shortsighted; focusing on Goldhagen tacks attention away from his important claims, and to examine the central points of the book itself. The book's thesis is quite familiar; its central claim reflects on a refutation of fifty years examination and research regarding the Holocaust. The important focus of chapter eight's concepts actually argues against the idea that the mass genocide of the Jewish people happened based on logic and the upper echelons of government. The mass murder of the Jewish people would have presented the Nazis with several difficult problems when planning how to approach the killings (Hilberg). However, the government planning was extremely complex, as well as the killing, which was very critical to the initial success of the extermination. The process by which the genocide was organized removed everyday individuals psychologically and morally from the actions of the government. This would mean that either the everyday individuals who took part in German society were unaware of the genocide, or may have even perhaps had some kind of resistance to the entire concept. However, Goldhagen does not agree with this concept; he feels that even ordinary Germans possessed anti-Semitic beliefs that allows them to somehow participate in, or overlook, the actions of the government. Goldhagen states that it was the "cognitive and value structures" of ordinary Germans--namely their virulently anti-Semitic beliefs--that constituted the "central causal agent of the Holocaust" (67-68). When first examining this concept, it really seems that Goldhagen's claim is perhaps more obvious than most would want to accept. If the everyday citizens of Germany were opposed to the mass extermination of the Jews, why would the Nazis have attempted so flawlessly to kill the millions they did murder Wouldn't the everyday German citizens make more attempts, personally and publicly, to assist the Jews The Anti-Semitism in Germany, therefore, was not an offshoot of the Nazis' own personal vendetta, but part of the social construct of all citizens of Germany. Therefore, Goldhagen feels that the Nazis cannot be blamed solely for the extermination of the Jews; the entire German people should be considered, as this seemed to have been more of a nationwide attempt. Hitler's leadership and conquering of Europe may have opened the door to mass killing; however, the media depiction of the Jews as subhuman and Hitler's control of the German people were not enough to undertake such a large project of genocide. Instead, Goldhagen feels that the hating of the Jewish people by the German people came far before this, and predated Hitler's control of Germany. Rather, it seems to have been a part of the German culture for quite some time. Goldenhangen's proof comes not on the focus of the extermination camps present in Germany and Poland. Instead, he focuses on the many massacres the German reserve police participated in during the start of the genocide. The actions of the police during this time period are very unsettling, and even disrupt the preconceived notion of what the genocide was actually akin to in our original thoughts. The reserve policemen's position needs to be examined in further detail to understand this. These policemen were not really members of the Nazi party, or working with the SS. They had not been swayed into killing by any means; they were comprised of many married men with families. They would be considered closely with the ordinary, everyday German. However, when they were asked to kill and massacre Jewish men, women, and children, they committed the atrocity without hesitation, even though they were allowed several chances to turn down the offer to kill these innocent people. So what was going on here with these men Why did they do this Christopher Browning, in his book Ordinary Men (1002) discussed what was going on with this type of situation, focusing on what he called "situational factors." These policemen never would have thought of committing such a horrible act discovered that they were inspired to do so by the peer pressure they were experiencing from both within and the outside. If the men decided not to kill, under the predispositions of the time, they may have felt they were refusing a very important obligation. Once they had killed and gotten the first time out of the way, they would be called to kill under the same circumstances again and again, and would more than likely grow cold and emotionless when committing the act. Goldhagen, however, does not agree with Browning. Browning's concepts may help to analyze the reason for the policemen deciding to kill, but Browning does not consider the fact that these men killed fanatically with a type of inhumane cruelty one can only imagine (Browning "Beyond Intentionalism" 88). In Goldhagen's eyes, these policemen killed with the fanatical cruelty they exhibited because this was part of their engrained cognitive structure. Basically, these men were predisposed to believing this was okay because they had been culturally and intrinsically brought up to share a common hatred of the Jewish people. This means that their cultural framework allowed them to commit the act, not any response to peer pressure (Ritter 382). It is interesting to note that most people probably relate better personally to Browning's concepts; Goldhagen's seem almost alien in the consideration of the engrained stereotype, but for 1930s thinking prior to any Civil Rights movement in America, America also had a form of racism established against its African-American citizens. In light of this fact, we can see that Goldhagen's thesis may actually hold weight. Of course, this does not mean that everybody agrees with Goldhagen. He has had his fair share of critics, and many of his arguments have been attacked with a kind of malicious hatred we may all find interesting. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why the book became a best seller. For example, Richard Neuhaus in First Things (August/September 1996), states that the concept of the willing policeman executioner is "incoherent, hateful and dishonest tract," because it refuses to acknowledge the German psyche post Weimar government (88). Not all critics, fortunately, attack the book in such a light. However, while Neuhaus's criticism may seem harsh, there is, on the other hand, a tone in Goldhagen's novel that seems to instigate these type of malicious feelings. The novel itself suffers from problems of tone (Bartov 62). Goldhagen states his initially claim as if it originally belongs to him, and he treats other scholars with a kind of pompus and dismissive approach that would only serve to make them desire a rebuttal of his own claims. At times, he sounds almost as if he holds contempt for his own fellow critics. Goldhagen thus at times seems more like a prosecutor than a scholar arguing a point, and this is also true of his attitude at times toward the German people in the book. Browning is not the only critic attacked by Goldhagen in his context; Goldhagen also attacks Hilberg and Arendt as well, pinpointed how these scholars' arguments regarding the Holocaust are flawed. So, this pompous kind of tone certainly leaves the readers with little empathy for the attacks on Goldhagen's works. Goldhagen thus appears to left himself open to criticism, because his fellow scholars have enjoyed picking apart these flaws. One of the flaws is the fact that this extreme hate would have had to fuel the entire Holocaust. Hans Mommsen agrees with this notion and feels that no event as complicated as this mass genocide can be explained only by a passionate feeling of hatred. Browning, perhaps more harshly states that Goldhagen's assumptions display "how anti-Semites write about Jews" (Browning "Beyond Intentionalism" 88) Another part of the novel left open for attach are the book's overall conclusions. Goldhagen tries to prove that regular, everyday German citizens murdered the Jews fanatically and cruelly, perhaps more sadistically than in other types of human populations (Mommsen 82). Is this concept supported by enough evidence in Goldhagen's book There is evidence, but on one hand, it does seem that Goldhagen may have just focused in on a very disturbing occurrence in Holocaust history that may cause us to rethink our approach to this genocide in general, but is this one circumstance enough to draw from Or do we need more Has he proved his claim That is difficult to say, for while there is evidence, there are obviously those who do not approve of Goldhagen's claims. Therefore, whether or not Goldhagen has supported his claim can be debated, but regardless, Goldhagen has unearthed a very critical and perhaps disturbing possibility. This possibility undermines previously exerted assumptions regarding the Holocaust and government involvement. Goldhagen is not without his fallacies and errors in his book (Baumen 84). There are two conclusions of Goldhagen's that simply cannot be accepted on the basis of his book. First, Goldhagen feels that regular, everyday Germans killed fanatically, and passionately, and seemed to have believed and wanted the genocide of the Jewish people. However, this seems to suggest that the Germans felt that their morals motivated them to murder; refusal to murder would mean a refusal, and perhaps equal to ethical failing. It is possible that some Germans felt this way, however, it seems difficult to claim that all possessed these feelings because they believed they were implementing justice. It can be assumed perhaps more correctly that the feelings of the ordinary Germans were spurned from the relaxed state of morals the German state was in at this time as far as the Jews were concerned. The danger of allowing racism and discrediting certain notions of right and wrong in a country can cause certain horrible actions. However, Goldhagen seems to overstate his claim, because it is simply difficult to prove that all Germans of the time felt this way. Furthermore, Goldhagen seems to list a series of rhetorical questions in response to the German citizens' supposed cruelty. Why bother to murder with demonic hatred those you simply want to kill anyway Only this scandalous hatred, Goldhagen says, can explain the cruelty. However, the fact that these kinds of acts of cruelty may not have been gratuitous is a fact Goldhagen never considers. He also dismisses Primo Levi's reflections of Nazi cruelty in The Drowned and the Saved. Doing this is a mistake because Levi seems to provide the needed connection Goldhagen's argument is missing. Levi's attempt to look deep into the logic of cruelty reflects on the fact that these actions were not gratuitous; instead, they allowed the torturers to view the victims as desperate and broken, exactly what anti-Semites wanted Jews to appear as. It is easier to kill a person, according to Levi, once that person has been reduced to sub-human standards. According to Levi: "Before dying, the victim must be degraded, so that the murderer will be less burdened by guilt." (94) However, regardless of the fact the book is flawed, these flaws have only seemed to help make the book a success. Germans have had an interested response to the book, feeling that Goldhagen presents a character mindset of the German people's own troubled struggle with what happened in the past However, some German critics have unfortunately dismissed this book because Goldhagen is Jewish; seemingly like a logical fallacy in itself. Others have refused to acknowledge the arguments because Goldhagen is American. This means that many feel Golhagen has "Hollywoodized" the Holocaust because the book is written by the so of a Holocaust survivor. Regardless, we cannot simply dismiss this book as a part of popular culture alone. It does present an argument worth considering, whether it is flawed or not. With its information and its gathering of research, this book seems like an unlikely candidate for a best seller, but its controversy has attracted many to consider the book. The book itself is very personal, and encompasses the scholar's voice as well as that of the advocate; however, this is perhaps its most gripping quality. In Germany, Goldhagen's prose has seemed to found a home and a supportive public, perhaps in the place we might least likely expect to find it. Therefore, it appears that the German nation has not totally rejected the concepts presented in the book. Perhaps the main focus for the book's success is Goldhagen's passion, coming across through his prose, and shaping his argument. Goldhagen insists on respectfully dividing the German mindset of the past and present; the Germany after the war's end, and the Germany of the early 19th and 20th centuries. Therefore, the book that seems to promote the indictment of the German people also provides a type of absolution to them, which perhaps is why the book has been so widely accepted in Germany. Works Cited Bartov, Omer. Germany's War and the Holocaust: Disputed Theories. London: Cornell University Press, 2003. Bauman, Zygmunt. Modernity and the Holocaust. Oxford: 1989. Browning, Christopher. Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland. New York: Harper Perennial, 1993. Browning, Christopher. "Beyond 'Intentionalism' and 'Functionalism': The Decision for the Final Solution Reconsidered", in The Path to Genocide. Essays on Launching the Final Solution, Cambridge 1992, pp. 86-121. Goldhagen, Daniel. Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. New Jersey: Vintage Publications, 1997. Hillburg, Raul. The Destruction of the European Jews. New York: Holmes and Meir, 1985. Levi, Primo. The Drowned and the Saved. New Jersey: Vintage, 1989. Mommsen, Hans. The Third Reich Between Vision and Reality. New York: Berg Publishers, 2003. Neuhaus, Richard John. "Daniel Goldhagen's Holocaust." Review of Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. First Things 65 (August/September 1996): 36-41. Ritter, Gerald. "The Historical Foundations of the Rise of National Socialism", in The Third Reich, London 1955, pp. 381-416. Read More