This guy...
Nov. 11th, 2011 09:05 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rainwatersparkComments on Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners, Part II.
- Goldhagen acts as though the cruelty shown by the Nazis is unique. Never mind the fact that every war has its stories of atrocity. Never mind that you'll find examples of human cruelty scattered throughout history and even in the present day. No, "German" cruelty was exceptional, and clearly the only explanation for it is that Germans are horrible, horrible people! I mean, people never torture the perceived enemy in war, right?
- For a book whose title has Hitler's name in it, Goldhagen doesn't talk about Hitler at all. Well, okay, maybe he discussed Hitler in the sections that I didn't have to read for class, but Goldhagen doesn't blame Hitler for the Holocaust; he blames the entire German society. But I mean, come on, even if you don't like the intentionalist viewpoint, is anyone going to say that the Holocaust would have happened without Hitler?
- What disturbs me most about this book is its take-home message: the Holocaust was a unique event that came about because of the awfulness of German society. Therefore, the Holocaust will not ever be repeated in human history. Other historical events have already proved that to be wrong.
- I'm not very comfortable with Goldhagen's sources and his use of them. He extrapolates a lot from photos: "Look, Germans are smiling in these photos, that means they approved of the Holocaust!" I really don't think his interpretations are unassailable. Moreover, he uses a quotation from a German policeman to show that the "Jew hunts" were widely talked about and implicitly approved of; he makes absolutely no comment about the fact that in said quotation, the speaker voiced disapproval and actually silenced a joke about the "Jew hunts." In fact, he seems more mistrustful of testimony from the policemen than from other sources, which is just outright bias. Goldhagen also accepts his sources unquestioningly. He talks about numerous anti-Semitic pamphlets that were written in Germany, but he makes no mention as to whether such pamphlets were widely read or how much of an impact they had on popular opinion, or even whether such pamphlets represented a majority of publications in Germany.
It just seems as though Goldhagen throws out or ignores any evidence that is contrary to his thesis, and that's bad historical writing.
- Goldhagen acts as though the cruelty shown by the Nazis is unique. Never mind the fact that every war has its stories of atrocity. Never mind that you'll find examples of human cruelty scattered throughout history and even in the present day. No, "German" cruelty was exceptional, and clearly the only explanation for it is that Germans are horrible, horrible people! I mean, people never torture the perceived enemy in war, right?
- For a book whose title has Hitler's name in it, Goldhagen doesn't talk about Hitler at all. Well, okay, maybe he discussed Hitler in the sections that I didn't have to read for class, but Goldhagen doesn't blame Hitler for the Holocaust; he blames the entire German society. But I mean, come on, even if you don't like the intentionalist viewpoint, is anyone going to say that the Holocaust would have happened without Hitler?
- What disturbs me most about this book is its take-home message: the Holocaust was a unique event that came about because of the awfulness of German society. Therefore, the Holocaust will not ever be repeated in human history. Other historical events have already proved that to be wrong.
- I'm not very comfortable with Goldhagen's sources and his use of them. He extrapolates a lot from photos: "Look, Germans are smiling in these photos, that means they approved of the Holocaust!" I really don't think his interpretations are unassailable. Moreover, he uses a quotation from a German policeman to show that the "Jew hunts" were widely talked about and implicitly approved of; he makes absolutely no comment about the fact that in said quotation, the speaker voiced disapproval and actually silenced a joke about the "Jew hunts." In fact, he seems more mistrustful of testimony from the policemen than from other sources, which is just outright bias. Goldhagen also accepts his sources unquestioningly. He talks about numerous anti-Semitic pamphlets that were written in Germany, but he makes no mention as to whether such pamphlets were widely read or how much of an impact they had on popular opinion, or even whether such pamphlets represented a majority of publications in Germany.
It just seems as though Goldhagen throws out or ignores any evidence that is contrary to his thesis, and that's bad historical writing.
