Olive Lockett
THE GOLDHAGEN CONTROVERSY
Ever since its publication in 1996, American author and former Harvard professor
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the
Holocaust” has generated enormous amounts of controversy throughout the
academic and public world in thoughts concerning the Holocaust. Goldhagen’s
thesis essentially states that Germans were fundamentally different to others,
particularly in reference to the deep, cultural anti-Semitism of Germans.
Goldhagen argues that while not all Germans agreed with the policies of the Nazis,
all Germans undoubtedly paralleled the Nazis’ views concerning the Jews. The
Harvard political scientist believes the Germans acted on the basis of “eliminitionist
anti-Semitism” with “joyful” enthusiasm. He divides his book into six parts, focusing
on discussing his thesis and presenting evidence that supports his theory. As can be
expected, Goldhagen’s critics are numerous. The essence of my historical debate is
the controversy surrounding Goldhagen’s startlingly unorthodox view of the
Holocaust and why the German people appeared to let it occur, as well as
examining his critics and why they oppose his theory. I will discuss the debate
surrounding Goldhagen’s book from critics and reviewers of varying origins.
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH
For my preliminary research, I began with researching the opposing arguments to
Goldhagen’s theory, as well as researching the historians themselves. During this
research I also obtained other highly useful documents, discussions and pieces of
writing. One most useful piece was an article written by Konrad Kwiet entitled
“Hitler’s Willing Executioners and Ordinary Germans - Some Comments on Goldhagen’s
Ideas” .(1996) Kwiet praises Goldhagen for addressing the “fundamental questions of
the Shoah” which he believes to be “much more relevant than those constantly discussed in
debates on dates and orders of the Nazi decision making process of the 'Final Solution'”. In
doing so, he also presents some criticism that concerns the sources on which
Goldhagen’s book is based. Kwiet highlights the fact that Goldhagen claimed his
book was based upon new sources, when in in fact only a “modest collection of archival
documents” provided the author with his evidence. Kwiet discusses how the
American historian Christopher R. Browning was the first to discover and
judiciously evaluate this material which Goldhagen also utilised - each arriving to
Olive Lockett
differing conclusions. He argues that Goldhagen’s dissertation was intentionally
“anti-Browning”, aiming to present his book as the modern and definitive work on
the Shoah. Kwiet also accuses Goldhagen of presenting his findings as new, arguing
that similar ideas were in fact presented half a century earlier. In this article,
Goldhagen is also accused of rejecting and criticising “any material which does not fit
into his model of description and interpretation” as indicated by his methodological
approach. Kwiet presents his own view, essentially discussing his belief that the
“process by which ‘ordinary Germans’ came to commit murder was… more complicated.”
As part of this research, I also found another interesting document. This document
entitled “A Nation on Trial” contains two articles, the first of which is written by
Norman G. Finkelstein, entitled “Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’ Thesis: A Critique
of Hitler’s Willing Executioners” (1997) Finkelstein writes a particularly scathing
review of Goldhagen’s book, arguing that it is “not at all a learned enquiry”, stating
that it is “worthless as scholarship”. Reflecting Kwiet’s argument, Finkelstein also
points out the fact that Goldhagen’s thesis and findings are not altogether new.
Ultimately, Finkelstein picks apart and criticises multiple elements of Goldhagen’s
book within his lengthy review. The second article in this document is entitled
“Historiographical Review: Revising The Holocaust” (1997) as written by Ruth Bettina
Birn - the Chief Historian of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Section in
the Department of Justice, Canada. Birn presents a mild criticism of Goldhagen’s
work, stating that “His assertion that German anti-Semitism was unique can only be made
by comparing it to other forms of anti-Semitism… It is odd that a professor of political
science makes no attempt to look at his evidence in a comparative framework.” She too
points out that historical documents have only been utilised by Goldhagen to a
“minimal extent”. She also accuses him of a small evidentiary base, which Kwiet
focused upon within his review. In her review, Birn also mentions to contrast
between Browning and Goldhagen’s conclusions - pointing out that the members
of Police Battalion 101 (which forms the third part of Goldhagen’s book) in fact
gave explanations for their behaviour. This formed the core for Browning’s study.
Birn appears to praise Browning for discussing a wide range of explanations for the
varying behaviours of the “executioners”, rather than Goldhagen’s narrow explanation
of deep anti-Semitism. Birn essentially dismisses Goldhagen’s work as a product of
a “professional American marketing strategy”. In her conclusion, she defends her lengthy
Olive Lockett
review of a book which she deems as worthless to academia by stating “When the
historical agenda can be dictated by advertising and marketing, professional historians must
respond.”
Evidently, there is a recurring pattern among the criticisms of Goldhagen’s book.
This pattern appears to include an accusation of limited sources, of his findings
being unoriginal and of his theory being merely a product for the media and general
public as formulated by advertising. In light of this preliminary research, I have
formulated enquiry questions which will be the basis of my project:
•
•
What were the events up to 1945 that gave rise to Hitler’s Willing
Executioners?
In answering this question, I will be discussing the events surrounding the Nazi
Government which led to the Holocaust. I will also discuss the evidence of antiSemitic feelings within Germany prior to 1939. I will then be speaking about the
Holocaust itself, its main elements, why it occurred and how. With this
paragraph, I aim to give some background to my area of debate, which essentially
surrounds the events of the Holocaust.
What is the essence of Goldhagen’s argument?
In this paragraph I will be discussing the nature of Goldhagen’s argument and
what his main points are, eventually making a personal judgement upon these. To
answer this question I will also be looking at the author’s context and his motives
in writing such a piece. I will also be explaining and exploring the sources which
Goldhagen used as evidence for his controversial theory. Ultimately, I will be
thoroughly examining Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” and making a
•
judgement upon the credibility of his arguments.
What was the nature of the criticism in the wake of the publication?
To answer this question I will be discussing the reactions of historians and critics,
mostly during the years of 1996 and 1997. I will be examining the documents of
Christopher R. Browning most closely, as he utilised the same documents as
Goldhagen for his book “Ordinary Men”. Browning is also a prominent critic of
Olive Lockett
Goldhagen’s theory. I will also be examining the arguments of Konrad Kwiet who
presented a paper at the book launch of Goldhagen’s “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”
staged at the U.S Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1996.
•
Almost 20 years on from the publication of “Hitler’s Willing
Executioner’s”, how has the debate evolved?
I am yet to find a sufficient amount of effective sources in order to answer this
question though I know that my focus will be upon historians and critics who have
written upon the Goldhagen Controversy within the last five years or so. I will be
comparing and contrasting between the opinions of 1996 and the present.
FUTURE RESEARCH
In order to complete my project, I must endeavour to research the historians
who agree with Goldhagen’s theory as well as general articles and discussions
which will aid in my judgment. I must also find the critiques, reviews and
reactions, both from the time of publication and from the present, of the
German community and the Jewish community. I have recently found Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen’s email address and plan on establishing a correspondence with
him. I wish to enquire about his feelings and reaction to his critics, therefore
gaining a unique and personal insight into Goldhagen and this controversy. I have
also borrowed “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” from the local library and have begun
reading, which will most certainly aid in my understanding of the debate. In
regards to my first enquiry question, I must also thoroughly research the
Holocaust itself, I will endeavour to find effective digital and written resources
which will help me in constructing this paragraph for my project. . In
understanding the events of the Holocaust I will research the works of the
prominent Holocaust historian and scholar, Yehuda Bauer - a respected authority
on the subjects of the Holocaust. I have achieved some enlightenment upon my
third enquiry question with my preliminary research, though I plan to broaden
Olive Lockett
my knowledge by researching the reactions of the German and Jewish
community. In particular, I plan to research the views of the Jewish Israeli
historian, Moshe Zimmerman. Zimmerman is from a Jewish family who fled
Hamburg and Nazi Germany in 1935. I will also be using John Rohl’s writing
concerning the Goldhagen controversy as he discusses Goldhagen’s critics and
speaks about the reception of his book within Germany - discussing both German
praise and German criticism. Rohl ends with suggestions for further reading,
which I will most certainly look into. In regards to my fourth enquiry question, I
must set about as to research present reactions and reviews of Goldhagen’s book
as almost 20 years have passed since its publication and most reviews and
discussions were published in 1996/1997. In order to answer this question I will
obviously be researching recent sources - within the last five years or so. I am
having some trouble obtaining such particular sources, therefore I will most
likely be asking for some help in answering this question. In terms of the project
itself, I will most certainly be reading past projects from students who have
completed their Higher School Certificate. As well as this, I have downloaded
and obtained a number of documents, which I intend to study closely.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Josef Joffre, 1997. “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s: An Exchange”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/feb/06/hitlers-willingexecutioners-an-exchange/
• Carl Schulkin, 1996. “Schulkin on Goldhagen, 'Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary
Germans and the Holocaust” https://networks.hnet.org/node/14773/reviews/16633/schulkin-goldhagen-hitlers-willingexecutioners-ordinary-germans-and
• Alex Tietjen, 2003. “An Examination of: Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing
Executioner’s: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996)”
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/bat101/
TietjenGoldhagenRev.htm
• Konrad Kwiet, 1996. “Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s and “Ordinary Germans - Some
Comments on Goldhagen’s Ideas”
http://web.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/pdf/01_kwiet.pdf
•
Olive Lockett
• Norman G. Finkelstein, 1997. “Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s ‘Crazy’ Thesis: A Critique of
Hitler’s Willing Executioner’s” Published in the New Left Review (London)
• Ruth Bettina Birn, 1997. “Historiographical Review: Revising the Holocaust” Published
in The Historical Journal (Cambridge University Press)
• DAAD, 2013. “Moshe Zimmerman”
https://www.daad.de/alumni/netzwerke/vipgalerie/nordafrika/12810.en.html
• William Lamont, 1998. “Historical controversies and historians” Published by UCL
Press (London)
This is a promising Proposal, Olive, with a good deal of useful material but some gaps you will
clearly need to fill. The relatively late selection of the Project topic has left you less well read than
you would wish to be but you have made some good progress in coming to terms with the issues in
contention. It is great to see you naming specific historians and demonstrating at least a working
knowledge of the broad outlines of the arguments they present. There is a gap when it comes to the
more recent historiography but I'm sure you are capable of doing the research necessary to fill in
this gap. The quality of your writing is generally strong though there are some moments where you
lapse so check all the adjustments I have made. You want to be able to edit your work in such a way
that very few such infelicitous moments creep through into the Project you finally submit. Above
all, master the apostrophe. This is taught in Years 7 and 8. It seems you may have been nodding off
at the time ... times! It looks ordinary to be consistently making such mistakes ... and you would not
wish to appear ordinary. I think the Enquiry Questions you have chosen are fine and should give
you the chance to explore the historiography of this issue successfully and come to your own
conclusion. I look forward to seeing what you can do with this topic.
8/10