UBC #22: Hitler's Willing Executioners
Sep. 17th, 2006 03:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
truepennyGoldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. 1996. New York: Vintage Books, 1997
This is a very hard book to read, I give you all fair warning. The photographs, in particular, are hard to look at, hard to force oneself to understand. On page 407, that really is a German soldier posing for the photographer as he takes aim at a Jewish woman and her child. On page 224-25, those really are pictures, taken by a German soldier as mementoes, of Jews waiting to be massacred.
I don't understand antisemitism. I should say that, too. The Salem witchcraft trials make more sense to me than do the commonly held German beliefs about Jews Goldhagen describes in this book.
Goldhagen's thesis, reduced to the compass of a nutshell, is that the Nazis did not invent German antisemitism. He argues--and, I think, persuasively--that the Nazis reflected and acted upon beliefs that were quite widely held in Germany and had been for a hundred years or more, and that therefore, it wasn't a matter of the Germans obeying the Nazis (for whatever reason, fear or ingrained obedience or what have you) but--and this he never quite says, but I think it is a logical extension of his argument--the Nazis giving Germans permission, explicitly, repeatedly, and with approbation, to do what they wanted.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Because that's what Goldhagen proves, over and over again: that the Germans involved in the genocidal slaughter of the Jews were involved because they wanted to be involved. They weren't necessarily Nazis; they weren't necessarily in agreement with the Nazis (Goldhagen remarks that the men who plotted to assassinate Hitler were staunch antisemites; some of them participated in the extermination of Soviet Jews). They weren't coerced. They chose to kill Jews by the hundreds of thousands because--somehow--they believed, sincerely, that it was the right thing to do.
That "somehow" reflects a cognitive gap I can't bridge. I believe Goldhagen's evidence that these were beliefs sincerely and passionately held, but I can't put myself imaginatively into the shoes of someone who could believe those things.
Which, mind you, is not necessarily a bad thing, but it made the experience of reading this book rather hallucinatory.
I am not, of course, an expert on twentieth century German history, so when I say that Goldhagen's argument seemed persuasive, well researched, and compelling to me, you may take that for what it's worth. His writing style is pedestrian ranging to clunky, and he sometimes doesn't have the sense to let the atrocities committed by the Germans speak for themselves, indulging--albeit understandably--in rhetoric that is superfluous to the needs of his material. But these are surface flaws that do not detract from the achievement that is the book itself.
This is a very hard book to read, I give you all fair warning. The photographs, in particular, are hard to look at, hard to force oneself to understand. On page 407, that really is a German soldier posing for the photographer as he takes aim at a Jewish woman and her child. On page 224-25, those really are pictures, taken by a German soldier as mementoes, of Jews waiting to be massacred.
I don't understand antisemitism. I should say that, too. The Salem witchcraft trials make more sense to me than do the commonly held German beliefs about Jews Goldhagen describes in this book.
Goldhagen's thesis, reduced to the compass of a nutshell, is that the Nazis did not invent German antisemitism. He argues--and, I think, persuasively--that the Nazis reflected and acted upon beliefs that were quite widely held in Germany and had been for a hundred years or more, and that therefore, it wasn't a matter of the Germans obeying the Nazis (for whatever reason, fear or ingrained obedience or what have you) but--and this he never quite says, but I think it is a logical extension of his argument--the Nazis giving Germans permission, explicitly, repeatedly, and with approbation, to do what they wanted.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
Because that's what Goldhagen proves, over and over again: that the Germans involved in the genocidal slaughter of the Jews were involved because they wanted to be involved. They weren't necessarily Nazis; they weren't necessarily in agreement with the Nazis (Goldhagen remarks that the men who plotted to assassinate Hitler were staunch antisemites; some of them participated in the extermination of Soviet Jews). They weren't coerced. They chose to kill Jews by the hundreds of thousands because--somehow--they believed, sincerely, that it was the right thing to do.
That "somehow" reflects a cognitive gap I can't bridge. I believe Goldhagen's evidence that these were beliefs sincerely and passionately held, but I can't put myself imaginatively into the shoes of someone who could believe those things.
Which, mind you, is not necessarily a bad thing, but it made the experience of reading this book rather hallucinatory.
I am not, of course, an expert on twentieth century German history, so when I say that Goldhagen's argument seemed persuasive, well researched, and compelling to me, you may take that for what it's worth. His writing style is pedestrian ranging to clunky, and he sometimes doesn't have the sense to let the atrocities committed by the Germans speak for themselves, indulging--albeit understandably--in rhetoric that is superfluous to the needs of his material. But these are surface flaws that do not detract from the achievement that is the book itself.
Ramblings of an Austrian girl, living with the past
Date: 2006-09-18 08:38 am (UTC)Do I understand how this could happen or why my beloved grandparents believed and participated in such atrocities? Nope, I can't and I don't think they do either. They're too busy forgetting, pretending it didn't happen. When their world and their ideals shattered and they where confronted with the "new" reality, they had to go on somehow.
So, I'm 21 and attend a college. It's nowhere near my specialty, but I do see structures (?) where I find them.
The best way to motivate a people is to make them feel special and to give them an enemy. It unites, gives focus and hightens tolerance for drastic steps no one would accept otherwise. Good/Successful politicians know that, they needn't be German.
Now I'm having fun, so I'll ramble on.
Austrian nationality is made up from Wiener Sängerknaben, Mozart, Lippizaner and good cooking. What sounds like a (bad) joke, holds a kernel of truth. Identification with Austria is almost nonexistant. Flags are frowned upon, the lack of a national identity a virtue. We don't understand the pride that other people take in their country (like the Americans or the French), 'cause for us it will always leave a bad taste in our mouths.
There is one famous exception however, the famous "Schulterschluss" after the "schwarz-blaue Wende" in 2000, when almost every country trounced upon Austria for voting a the populistic party FPOE into government (admittedly it does have roots in the FDP). If it had been possible, the EU would have expelled us, instead the individual countries stopped bilateral contact for several months. The irony is, that this stopped the innernational criticism (which was very strong) almost completely: it was us against everybody. Suddenly being an Austrian, standing up for our government, was a matter of pride. (See, an enemy unites). That the FPOE crumbled under the pressure of ruling, is one irony more.
Since I was in France at that time, I had a slightly different experience. I constantly had to explain myself as if I were personally responsible for the FPOE or as if they wanted to start another WW. It was awful, but I never felt more austrian than then.
This experience is also the reason why I see antiamericanism with a critical eye. Antiamericanism is very popular in Europe these days, even in intellectual circles. At our college it happened more than once that an US student had to justify US policies in front of the whole class - poor guy if he/she was an Republican on top of that. But in Austria especially we see much that fills us with unease. (Even so "simple" things like Schwarzenegger not stopping the executions - it was a scandal. I mean, what did people expect - that guy is more American than most Americans.) Take our past into consideration and you'll understand.
Racism is not a trait unique to Germans and Austrians (even if a big part of the world made us believe that). Looking away isn't either. And I won't take the (emotional) responsibility for what my great- and grandparents did when I wasn't even born. What I will do, however, is to question the reasoning of politicians and the media and I will think twice before I start throwing stones. Oh, and I will try to explain when my child should ask me one day: "Mommy, who was Hitler?"
Monika H.