FREE ESSAY ON ORDINARY MEN OR WILLING EXECUTIONERS

ORDINARY MEN OR WILLING EXECUTIONERS

The arguments of Christopher Browning and Daniel John Goldhagen contrast greatly based on
the underlining meaning of the Holocaust to ordinary Germans. Why did ordinary citizens
participate in the process of mass murder? Christopher Browning examines the history of a
battalion of the Order Police who participated in mass shootings and deportations. He
debunks the idea that these ordinary men were simply coerced to kill but stops short of
Goldhagen's simplistic thesis. Browning uncovers the fact that Major Trapp offered at one
time to excuse anyone from the task of killing who was not up to it. Despite this offer,
most of the men chose to kill anyway. Browning's traces how these murderers gradually
became less squeamish about the killing process and delves into explanations of how and
why people could behave in such a manner.
Goldhagen's book however, has the merit of opening up a new perspective on ways of
viewing the Holocaust, and it is the first to raise crucial questions about the extent to
which eliminationist anti-Semitism was present among the German population as a whole.
Using extensive testimonies from the perpetrators themselves, it offers a chilling
insight into the mental and cognitive structures of hundreds of Germans directly involved
in the killing operations. Anti-Semitism plays a primary factor in the argument from
Goldhagen, as it is within his belief that anti-Semitism "more or less governed the
ideational life of civil society" in pre-Nazi Germany . Goldhagen stated that a 
"Demonological anti-Semitism, of the virulent racial variety, was the common structure of
the perpetrators' cognition of the German society in general. The German
perpetrators… were assenting mass executioners, men and women who, true to their
own eliminationist anti-Semitic beliefs, faithful to their cultural anti-Semitic credo,
considered the slaughter to be just." 
Though his statements seem quite harsh in content, they are not completely unjust for
there is no obvious reason why a culture cannot be fanatically consumed by hatred.
Goldhagen argues that for centuries, nearly every German was possessed of a homicidal
animus towards Jews and thus 80 to 90 percent of Germans would have relished in the
occasion to eliminate Jews. (Goldhagen dissents from Christopher Browning's estimates
that 10-20 percent of the German police battalions refused to kill Jews as 'stretching
the evidence ). It is one of Goldhagen's central arguments that the police battalions
were prototypical of the murderous German mind-set. Goldhagen's true distinction from
Browning is to argue that German anti- Semitism was not only a significant but rather it
was the sufficient condition for perpetrating the extermination of the Jews. Goldhagen
observes that if it was not for "Hitler's moral authority", the "vast majority of Germans
never would have contemplated" the genocide against the Jews. He also argues that by the
time Hitler came to power, the model of Jews that was the basis of his anti-Semitism was
shared by the vast majority of Germans. To rebuttal his claim I must ask that if
anti-Semitism was true to not only the Germans but also the other European countries then
why didn't a massive scale anti-Semitism movement come into play elsewhere? It is true
that Goldhagen believes "Had there not been an economic depression in Germany, then the
Nazi's, in all likelihood, would never have to come to power." However, this statement
simply requires a question that if the Germans were fanatically anti-Semitists then why
did they have to wait an economic depression to attain power and act out their
anti-Semitist beliefs?
Anti-Semitism, according to Goldhagen, was symptomatic of a much deeper German
dissatisfaction. It served the Germans as a "moral rationale" for releasing "destructive
and ferocious passions that are usually tamed and curbed by civilization". Goldhagen uses
the testimonies from the Reserve Battalion 101 as evidence to assert his claims on the
anti-Semitic nature of the Germans. He tends to use much of the same evidence that
Browning used but he, in trying to prove his point, neglected to use some the vital
information that Browning used to assert his own claims, thus selecting only the relevant
information. Goldhagen uses numbers to give an idea of the make-up of the men, there age,
status, and participation in the Nazi regime. While pointing out the ages of these men
serving in the Reserve Battalion 101, he makes a significant claim that these men were
mostly over the age of 30 and thus are "not the wide-eyed youngsters ready to believe
whatever they were told." "These were mature men who had life experience, who had
families and children. The overwhelming majority of them had reached adulthood before the
Nazis ascended to power. They had known other political dispensation, had lived in other
ideological climates." This argument deems relevant to Goldhagen's claims and quite
frightening but what about the status of these men. Mostly from the lower middle class
and that of the lower class these men were not from the good universities, if one at all
and they were probably very concerned with making sure that their families were taken
care of. If you look at the fact that most of these men were of the lower middle and
lower class, they were most likely used to succumbing to someone else's orders of a
higher status. If they did not obey and work then what would happen to their families.
Goldhagen's argument based on the Reserve Battalion 101 is that these men were ordinary
Germans, had no problems doing their duty for the Nazi Regime, and were proud of it.
Browning on the other hand tends to argue, by using the testimonies of the men of Reserve
Battalion 101, that these men were 'ordinary' and not fanatical anti-Semites. Browning
believes that these men, or at least most of them, succumbed to peer pressure, obeyed
their orders, and hoped to advance themselves. When looking at Goldhagen's statistics the
largest groups of men were employees at a lower or intermediate level (pg207). Though
Goldhagen has made a clear and valid point that these men were not boys it is important
to also look at their status in society.
It is of common knowledge that the largest group of people to suffer in the Holocaust was
the Jews, but what about other victims? In Goldhagen's novel the explanation of the
protests against the Euthanasia program are clearly described as Germans upset only
because these victims were Germans but deemed 'Life unworthy of life'. The Euthanasia
program saw "German physicians take the lives of more than seventy thousand people". Here
Goldhagen has a very valid point but it does not convince me that the Germans have a
strong history of anti-Semitism. These protests, show that the "(1) Germans recognized
the slaughter to be wrong, (2) expressed their views about it, (3) openly protested for
an end to the killing, (4) suffered no retribution for having expressed their views and
for pressing their demands, and (5) succeeding in producing a formal cessation of the
killing program, saving German lives." As Goldhagen's view is a valid, one I must wonder
about the awareness factor. These Germans protested because their loved ones were being
killed and they were clearly aware of their deaths. As it is clearly known, the extent
the Jews being killed was not so clear for it was not so close to home and even as a
Nazi, the chain of events were very spread out so the full magnitude of the horrors were
not so evident. I am sure that some knew and were anti-Semites but can Goldhagen make
such a large claim to an entire population?
What about the people who helped the Nazi's, who were not German? According to Goldhagen,
"Germans stood up for Poles" and when seventy-eight out of three hundred Poles were to be
killed to set an example Trapp was remembered as being "very shaken after this action. He
even wept. He was what one would call a fine human being and I deem it impossible that it
was he who had ordered the shooting of the hostages." This event, according to Goldhagen,
illustrates the juxtapositions the Germans and in this specific case the Reserve
Battalion 101, had toward the Poles, for they indeed did kill them but spared more then
they were ordered to. This clearly exemplifies to Goldhagen a very disturbing view that
they could kill Jews by the thousands at a time but to kill seventy-eight Poles was a
tragedy. The way I see it, the Germans were not fighting against the Poles, it would have
been like killing the United States killing British soldiers when they were fighting
against the Germans. In war, there is always an enemy and, in a twisted point of view,
the Germans believed that their enemies were the Jews. This again does not prove to me
that these men were 'ordinary Germans' and 'fanatic anti-Semites'. According to Browning
the "German police quite naturally had considerable contact with Poles who collaborated
in the Final Solution and helped them track down Jews… Often unwilling to make
accusatory statements about their comrades or to be truthful about themselves, these men
must have found considerable psychological relief in sharing blame with the Poles."
Browning continues on to explain how the Poles helped the Germans either by showing them
were the Jews were hiding, " The residential district was searched again. In many cases
with the aid of the Poles" , or just bringing them flasks of alcohol to ease their
troubles. What seems to trouble me about Goldhagen's view, is based on his assertion that
'Ordinary Germans' were zealously anti-Semites but then why would the Poles be so willing
to help, for they were not Germans, so thus cannot necessarily contain the same German
hatred and anti-Semitism that Goldhagen deems so obvious and prevalent.
Goldhagen clearly believes that the men of the Reserve Battalion 101 had every chance to
leave or refuse to act. According to Browning yes, that choice was there but how many
would openly speak of this is another factor. Browning believes that under the great
amount of pressure it is unlikely that many men who would have wanted to speak out would,
though some did. Goldhagen spends a considerable amount of time addressing the
photographs taken of the Reserve Battalion 101. In the many photos it is clearly obvious
that the men are smiling or having an enjoyable time and this, "openness about their
genocidal slaughtering-making it available to the view of so many other German men and
women who happened to be stationed in Poland…. These Germans' willingness to make
an extensive photographic record of their deeds, including their killing operations, in
which they appear with cheerful and proud demeanors as men entirely comfortable with
their environment." Goldhagen's argument has a very clear point considering the content
of these photographs but what Browning questions is the extent to which these men really
knew what they were doing. Did they know the how many Jews were being killed? 
Goldhagen also delves into the extent that these men talked of their activities. Some men
say that they were ordered not to speak of what they had done while others do not recall
any such claim and thus did speak of it. Goldhagen sees the men who were so openly
speaking of such horrid events as truly believing in the killings of the Jews. One of
Goldhagen's most "significant and revealing actions of the men of Police Battalion 101
are, on the one hand, the men's incessant volunteering to kill and, on the other, the
failure of the men to avail themselves of the opportunities to avoid killing." While
Browning believes that these men where 'ordinary' men Goldhagen's assertions on these
matter seem quite able to show that at least in some examples these men where proud of
their doings.
" The opportunities given to the men to avoid killing have already been touched up upon.
In addition to the en who chose not to kill, the recalcitrant lieutenant served as a
powerful example to the entire battalion that the men could refuse to kill without
suffering tangible hardships. Furthermore, from the battalion commander down to its
non-commissioned officers, those in command positions showed understanding for the
disinclination that their subordinates might have had in performing their unsavory tasks.
As one of the men puts it when discussing Trapp's initial offer, 'it did not take special
courage for someone to step forward'." 
It is of my belief that these 'ordinary' men were of a combination of both Browning and
Goldhagen's views. I do believe that a country can have underlining anti-Semitism and
though it might not be obvious, it is part of their heritage. My main comparison is of
the African Americans in the United States. There was a large part of American history
devoted to the denial of blacks as citizens, denial to vote, denial that they are human.
There was a time when signs were posted, like the ones in Germany, to ban blacks from a
neighborhood. Then what about the lynching and the photographs in the American archives
were people are smiling or the use of these photographs as postcards to send to family
members who were unable to 'enjoy' such a 'wonderful occasion' as killing a race of
people. Today those events do not happen but there is very strong underlining racism that
still exists. Thus, I do believe, like Goldhagen, that there can be undertones in a
society to have hatred for another group unlike the majority. I am sure Goldhagen would
then point out that America did not kill in the same extent as the Germans nor did
Americans try to spread this belief. This then brings me back to the statement Goldhagen
used that without "Hitler's moral authority", the "vast majority of Germans never would
have contemplated" the genocide against the Jews and "Had there not been an economic
depression in Germany, then the Nazi's, in all likelihood, would never have to come to
power." America did not have economic depression while a man as Hitler was in power, but
is it completely conceivable that a similar even could have happened in the United
States, we did kill tens of thousands of African Americans. 
In a depressing manor, I do believe that people can do horrible things, we are animals,
but I cannot single out the Germans to be as horrible as Goldhagen has made them out to
be. His argument is a good one, but my grandfather, my grandmother, my father, my aunt,
my uncle, my cousin, etc. etc. are not deeply routed fanatic Anti-Semites. During the war
my grandfather did not willingly want to kill and actually escaped from a British prison
and instead of going back, to join the fight of the Nazi Regime (which in Goldhagen's
view he would have done) he went home and hid in is own home. He was found by Soviet men
in his home and taken to Siberia, because he was too young, in their point of view, to
not be a member of the Nazi party. This is a man that Goldhagen cannot say is a fanatic
anti-Semite and because of his own story to me I cannot deem the entire German population
to be Goldhagen's 'ordinary Germans'.
It is not an easy debate and will probably never be one but I would hope that someone
could see that we cannot say something about an entire population. We would have to look
at each member individually and then I am sure that we would find that some were those
'ordinary men', that Browning believed and some were the 'ordinary Germans' that
Goldhagen believed in.
Bibliography
Browning, Christopher R., Ordinary Men. Harper Perennial,New York, 1993
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Random House, Inc. New York, 1996