Hitler's Willing Executioners : Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating But Ultimately Unsatisfying
Review: Goldhagen dismisses a simple thesis (that the Germans who participated in the Holocaust did so unwillingly and were under duress) and replaces it with another simple thesis (that the same Germans were eager participants whose actions were the culmination of hundreds of years of history). He deserves points for the first but loses a few for the second. Sorry, it's not that simple.

Germans spent ten years under Nazi rule before the Holocaust started, that was ample preparation. Hitler (whose rise to power was not inevitable) had restored some measure of prosperity and security to Germany. Ordinary people remembered defeat during WW1 and the depression which followed. I think this led to a kind of blind faith, people didn't question, especially once Germany went to war.

One could write a book called "Hitler's Unwilling Executioners" and stitch together evidence of the uncertainty of Nazi leaders (not just the rank and file) every time Hitler made a major change in policy. Such an argument would be facile but one could do it. I think Goldhagen did something similar in reverse.

Still, it's a fascinating book, the author did his research, and anyone who is interested in the subject should read it. I'm still of the opinion that if Hitler had been hit by that car in 1938 the holocaust (and probably WW2) wouldn't have happened.

Rating:
Summary: Read Eichmann in Jerusalem instead
Review: Goldhagen is a glorified notetaker. He was willing to go through a ton of archival information to conclude that the Germans are a "uniquely" flawed people. Wow, it takes real bravery to defend such a proposition, which lambastes the people who gave us the Nazis. Our understanding of what led to such a tragedy can only be perverted by this book. Goldhagen offers the pretense of social science analysis with concepts devised and drawn in obviously contrived and arbitrary ways. He knew the conclusion before he started. If you examine his use of documentation, then you will see that there is no coherent stragegy for the use of his "evidence." He simply takes notes of shocking incidents and communiques and restates them for the reader. For this, he should be commended because it is his recapping of these shocking displays of behavior that make the book compelling. The book still ends up being a tortuous read because the details of events are endlessly provided (or spewed) without being distilled through the lense of a logically clear argumentative outline. Thus, there are no lessons to be gained from this except the wrong one: Having a German national character is "the" necessary and sufficient condition for the occurrence of genocides equal in proportion to the Holocaust. If you really want to learn about what enables a society to engage in such atrocities, then read Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt. If you have the fortitude, then move on to her Origins of Totalitarianism. Also, take a look at Ignatieff's argument about the " narcissism of minor differences" in shaping individuals' perceptions about the "other." Read Orwell for the ways in which "evil" becomes routine in life. Trust me. You will learn so many more valuable lessons about the types of factors driving such enormities of political violence.

Rating:
Summary: Compelling yet horrific in detail.
Review: Mr. Goldenhagen casts doubts on all those ordinary Germans we've seen in countless documentaries claiming no knowledge of the concentration camps, the unexplained diappearances of neighbors & generally the killing going on all around them. He covers in detail the activities of the police battailons, i.e. killing units, who operated behind the lines. Until recently this is a subject that has not been covered as other facets of the Holocaust. This book is a great contribution to that area. Much of what they did was away of the glare of publicity & as such the numbers of people they murdered will never be known.

Rating:
Summary: It could have been much better.
Review: As a Jew and student of the Holocaust, I eagerly looked forward to reading this book. The information is all there and no one could accuse the author of not doing his homework. But the book is, how can I say this?... dull. This could have been a classic but what ultimately does it in is the author's dry, pedantic style. It reads like a dissertation, which it apparently was. Very disappointing

Rating:
Summary: Hitler's Willing Executioners?
Review: Goldhagen presents his explanation for the motivation behindthe perpetrators of the Holocaust. Although he presents a great deal of well documented material on the brutality of the Holocaust, his explanation of "eliminationist anti-Semitism" as the sole motivation of the perpetrators is very implausible. It is simply difficult to believe that tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?)of perpetrators from France to the Soviet Union had the same motivation in mind. While there is no denying that anti-Semitism was present in Nazi Germany, the perpetrators also felt pressure from their superiors and each other to conduct such barbaric acts.

In at least the S.S. and the Army, the perpetrators were part of military units in which orders must be carried out. It is basic to all military organizations that one must obey superiors. Even in many civilian workplaces, it is often grounds for "immediate termination" to be labeled "insubordinate." Many perpetrators after the War claimed they were following orders but used this as an excuse to evade their responsbility. I am merely pointing out that orders were a factor, but not an excuse.

Goldhagen convincingly counters this traditional argument by pointing out that Himmler issued an order stating that those who did not want to participate in the killing were not required to do so. He adds that there were very few documented cases in which S.S., Army men, or members of other organizations were punished for such refusal. In fact, there were few requests for transfer out of killing units, and Goldhagen attributes this to the idea that the killers thought that what they were doing was right and that they ought to continue.

As mentioned, there were few requests for transfers and refusals to take part. What would have been the policy had there been greater numbers of requests for transfers and refusals? Did the men of the various killing units fear punishment if a greater number of transfers and refusals took place? After all, most were in military units. Would Himmler have continued this, or would he have instituted penalties? Himmler knew the basic mission was being carried out and did not appear to have changed his policy. What evidence is there to suggest his policy would have been different?

Goldhagen also offers us the wealth of photographs of Police Battalion members, S.S., and German Army members apparently enjoying the harrassment, torture, and sadistic treatment of Jews as evidence that the perpetrators committed these crimes because they were anti-Semitic and were zealously carrying out their mission. There again is no denying the barbarity and sadism that these photographs and thousands of others are portraying. These men and women apparently were proud of their service. While photographs are very telling, they do not generally show more than a few members of perpetrator units at a time. Where are the other members of these units? Are there individuals and units who did not photograph their operations? If so, why did they not want photographs? It is well known that there are few photographs of the operations of gas chambers and crematoria. While photos are very illustrative, they are very selective in that they show only what those doing the photographing want seen. We see only the fanatical and zealous killers here. Of the photos in Goldhagen's book showing troops who appear to be enjoying their work, we see at the most five soldiers. Pictures showing more than five soldiers appear to depict only mundane guard duty.

The focus of Goldhagen's book is eliminationist anti-Semitism and not the Goebbels' propaganda machine or the various orders S.S., Army, and Police Battalion units received from Hitler, Himmler, and Heydrich. Goldhagen does devote a significant amount of space stating that it was this anti-Semitism that was the SOLE motivating factor and actively argues against orders from Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, et al as being influential. Again, I find it difficult to believe that all 6 million Jews were murdered from France to the Soviet Union by tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands)--all with the same motivation.

When dealing with numbers of perpetrators, Goldhagen makes a respectable attempt to estimate how many were involved and cited the great difficulties inherent in doing so. One of the main downfalls; however, is his lack of definition of what he considers "ordinary Germans." Are "ordinary Germans" all Germans who are not members of the Nazi Party, S.S., Army, Gestapo, S.D., etc.? How is it that members of the Police Battalions are considered "ordinary Germans" while S.S. men and women are not? By not clearly defining "ordinary Germans," Goldhagen may be leading readers to believe that he is referring to "all Germans." This may be a reason why many critics of Goldhagen have accused him of writing about a "German collective guilt."

In summary, Goldhagen offers anti-Semitism as being the sole cause for the motivation for the perpetrators of the Holocaust. This is to be dismissed as overly simplistic, and pressure from superiors and peers were also factors. I raise the question of whether or not Himmler would continue his policy of allowing members of units to refuse killing or transfer out of killing units had a greater number have requested transfers or refused. Did all those in killing units want to be photographed? What were the attitudes of those who did not wish to be photographed? (Assuming the first question has a "yes" answer.)

Finally, who were "ordinary Germans?" Was this all Germans not in a killing unit? How were Police Battalions included in Goldhagen's definition of "ordinary Germans" if S.S. men and women were not? How did Police Battalions reflect what "ordinary Germans" were? We need a more precise definition. END

Rating:
Summary: Powerful Argument, Dense style
Review: I would urge any potential reader to dis-regard the attacks on the book that are based on the sentiment that Goldhagen fails to give sufficient credit to the "good Germans". This is pure sentiment and has nothing to do with the demonstrability or truth of Goldhagen's thesis. His book, from a purely logical point of view passes the LOGICAL tests of consistency independent of the potrayal of innocent Germans (and there certainly were many of those).

He argues powerfully and points to equally powerful evidence that the basic SOURCE of motivation of the Killing squads was a deep and systemic antisemitism. He demonstrates that the anti-semitism of Hitler was by and large not something new or isolated on Germany, nor in fact, in Western christain civilization! He points out that even many of Hitler's most powerful opponents, say in the church, shared in his anti-semitism. All this seems pretty irrefutable.

I have to add that Goldstein makes it clear that Germans who were children then and Germans born after are NOT guilty of anything. It is sad that he has to make such an obvious point, but I suppose the stupidity and sentiment of the book's opponents makes this necessary. However, he does ,roughly speaking, make the other obvious point that any German who was then an adult MAY or MAY NOT be guilty, BUT then DEMONSTRATES that there were VASTLY MORE that were guilty than is commonly imagined or claimed.

My only problem with the book is its dense, bombastic and un-necessarily emotional style. A more dispassionate and simple style would have served this book better.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing has been learned from the Holocaust.
Review: It is wrong to condemn people based on membership in an ethnic group. The idea of guilt by ethnicity, which led to the Holocaust, is aggresively propogated in this book. The irony is astonishing.

A better subtitle would have been "Ordinary People and the Holocaust".

Rating:
Summary: Challenging and Well Done
Review: Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's book is the most challenging and necessary book to be written about the Holocaust and the pre-1945 German people I have ever read. Goldhagen attempts to prove that, in his words, "a vast majority" of Germans actively supported and participated in the destruction of German and European Jews. His arguments are cogent, pertinent, and reasonable. His conclusions are controversial but not encumbered by prejudice, or preconceived ideas, or bias against Germans. His facts and arguments speak for themselves. Make no mistake though, Goldhagen is discussing antisemitism in pre-1945 Germany, the persecution and elimination of Jews by the Germans, and the causes and participants in this monumental human tragedy. This is not a pleasant topic; it assaults our humanity so savagely that we seek for some sign of hope or heroism or redemption in the accumulative horrific events. To Goldhagen's credit he does not succumb to providing anything but a cold, rational scrutiny of this horror and leaves it to his readers to cope in the pages of his book with what six million people (or more) had to face in harsh reality.

Some false questions or criticisms have been written regarding Goldhagen's work. I'll mention the most frequent I've noticed and explain why the questions or criticisms are not valid, in my opinion (and I presume in Goldhagen's).

First: Why focus on the Jews when the Nazis killed many other groups as well? The answer is self-evident - any book on such a huge, monstrous travesty as perpetrated by Germans before and during WW II does not have to be all-encompassing to be valid. Goldhagen's subject is Germany's treatment of German and European Jews (the Holocaust) - he makes no statement that other groups did not suffer and die, or don't merit study on thier own; it is simply beyond the scope of his inquiry.

Second: His work is biased or unbalanced because he does not include any study of so-called "good Germans." The very issue Goldhagen tackles in this book is, if you look at it inversely, just how many Germans were NOT Hitler's Willing Executioners. Goldhagen is always imprecise on actually how many Germans participated in one or more facets of the Holocaust - but his research and book is a search into quantifying who participated, when, and how. What Goldhagen has found and has proved about participants and non-participants is fundamental to his thesis.

Third: He is illogical or contradictory. Only reading the book will definitively put these questions to rest. But Goldhagen states his working assumptions, argues well for their coherence and pertinence to his thesis, and continually references his previous arguments as he makes point after point. I read plenty that disturbed me, but very little of it had to do with Goldhagen's methods and reasoning. Human nature, I think, demands that Goldhagen's thesis not be true. We don't want to believe something so monstrous about a people, a nation, a milieu. Goldhagen's arguments are forcable enough to withstand our own unwillingness to believe. One summation of this book would be that it explores a time, a place, and a people where "norms" of human nature -- of civilization broke down completely.

I have two major concerns about Goldhagen's work. He admits that it would be a monumental task to determine the actual numbers of people who were involved in even the major aspects of the Holocaust - such as how many pulled a trugger or turned on the gas or herded a child into a cattle car or supervised an incineration (see footnote 13 for Chapter 5). Quantifying and qualifying ordinary German's participation in the Holocaust is his central thesis. To form a lasting judgement on Goldhagen's questions and concerns, we must have this analysis of actual numbers. For Goldhagen's thesis to be universally accepted he or someone must undertake that task. In the interim, Goldhagen provides acceptable, reasonable, and fair arguments (in my opinion) upon which he bases his conclusions. But I can understand why this may not be acceptable or totally convincing to others.

The second concern is Goldhagen's sometime sparcity of sources for some aspect of an argument. A single author may suffice to "reasonably" prove a given point but I would feel much more comfortable if the author had found multiple corroborating sources. (In one instance he even cites a Gestapo report as a source for a town's participation and willing involvement in an event! There are few sources more questionable and untrustworthy than propaganda-prone Nazi institutions. In Goldhagen's defense he does not often cite Nazi institutions to corroborate an important interpretation for his thesis.)

This is a good book. It will challenge you. It is a first or early step in an endeavor I hope Goldhagen and others will continue to pursue.

Rating:
Summary: Disturbing
Review: This book is very disturbing to read. Frankly, anyone who has read William Shirer's book on Third Reich can believe any atrocity imputed to the Nazis and the Germans.

At the same time, I found this book extremely difficult to read. It is full of statistics. Moreover, I suspect the author was biased. It is easy to get proof for or against an argument once you have decided your subject matter.

I would like the same author to write a book on the good and kindly deeds done by the ordinary Germans during World War II as enough has been written already on the evil deeds. Only then I can believe that he is not biased.

Rating:
Summary: It COntinues to be Generally Inexplicable and Emotional
Review: I found Goldhagen's book both informative and valuable. As disturbing as the book is, it is also disturbing to read many of the "reviews" posted here on AMAZON, many from people who obviously never read the book.

Goldhagen goes out of his way, especially in the preface written to the German people before the book's release in Germany, to make it unmistakably clear that he is not a proponent of "collective guilt." (Those who read such into this work may very well be suffering from it.)

What Goldhagen does do is to drive home the point that most of us don't want to face. Namely, that the Holocaust could only have taken place with the willing participation of an entire society (using Goldhagen's definition of "generalization.") There were many and varied "ingredients" that needed to come together in order for the Holocaust to have happened. Goldhagen acknowledges this openly. But one of those ingredients, probably the bottom-line ingredient that allowed it to become historical fact was the willing participation of the perpetrators. Goldhagen does not make a moral judgement of this, but instead reveals the unmistakeable facts. He does try and attribute this phenomenon to a "racial eliminationist anti-semitism" that existed in Germany (and elsewhere)before the nazi regime. Whether Jews "flourished" in Germany prior to the Holocaust, or the fact that they were not "eliminated" before the holocaust (which is twisted logic in its most amazing form - The Holocaust would, of course, happened earlier! ) is irrelevant to the fact that virulent anti-semitism existed and was widespread and became manifest from time to time throughout European history. It all came together under the nazi regime...in Germany...and this included most Hans's, Fritz's, and Wilhelm's on every German streetcorner, which is the point Goldhagen is trying to drive home to us.

Racial anti-semitism is/was a form of racism. Racism (as we know it in the good old USA) included anti-semitism, and still does albeit to a relatively small degree. What the white (mainly of European descent) majority in the U.S. perpetrated against blacks was also naked racism. It is freightening to think that most of the "ingredients" required for a recipe of genocide existed in this country at the same time in history when the nazi's came to power in Germany. As David Brinkley put it, "In 1932 two influential leaders came to power, one in The United States and one in Germany. We were luckier than the Germans. We got Roosevelt, they got Hitler."

Understanding and recognizing ALL the ingredients necessary to produce a genocide the likes of the Holocaust will forever remain elusive and a mystery. But the fact is, it happened in Germany. And the fact is, it took most Germans willing to act (in some way, shape, or form either aggressively or passively) for this to happen. It could have happened elsewhere, and could have happened in the US toward the blacks. It is good enough for me to agree with David Brinkley and, with a sign of relief, realize that we were indeed "luckier" than the Germans. At the same time, let's not deny the facts. Let's become familiar with them so we can spot the ingredients that we know existed in Germany, ahead of time in other societies. Goldhagen drives home the fact that this virulent form of racial anti-semitism didn't just pop out of the clear blue sky in Germany in 1932.

Goldhagen has certainly raised eyebrows and emotions. Any discussion of the Holocaust always will.