1. Goldhagen is manifestly going out of his way to make it clear that he does not hold the children of the perpetrators responsible for what the perpetrators did. This may be what elisemdescribes as an act of faith, as distinct from an act of analysis (http://truepenny.livejournal.com/454276.html?thread=3104644#t3104644), but I prefer it to the alternative.
2. Germany after WWII is equally manifestly outside the scope of his book.
He would possibly have been wiser to keep his mouth shut on the subject of postwar Germany, but I don't see that it affects the strength of the book as a whole.
no subject
But, to be fair:
1. Goldhagen is manifestly going out of his way to make it clear that he does not hold the children of the perpetrators responsible for what the perpetrators did. This may be what
2. Germany after WWII is equally manifestly outside the scope of his book.
He would possibly have been wiser to keep his mouth shut on the subject of postwar Germany, but I don't see that it affects the strength of the book as a whole.