Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:43:03.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Holocaust Views: The Goldhagen Controversy in Retrospect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

István Deák
István Deák
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Holocaust literature is one of the richest devoted to a single event; it is also one of the newest. In the 1950s and '60s one could count on one's fingers the monographs that dealt with the destruction of the Jews. Then came a surge of interest in the 1970s, perhaps due to the arrival on the scene of a European generation innocent of this heinous crime. Since then, the production of books, articles, and films on the subject has continued unabated; in fact, it is growing. Yet the thousands of books and the tens of thousands of articles, many of them not only accurate and scholarly but also beautifully written, have not achieved their purpose. They may have persuaded other scholars but not the public. For when Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust was published, in 1996, with new claims, it was as if the previous literature had never existed.

Type
Review Article
Information
Central European History , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 1997 , pp. 295 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am indebted to my friend and fellow-historian Dr. Valur Ingimundarson for his assistance in preparing this review article.

1. The New York Times, 27 March, 2, 14, 25 April 1996.

2. Wiesel, Elie, “Little Hitlers,” The Observer, 31 03 1996;Google ScholarMarkovits, Andrei S., “Störfall im Endlager der Geschichte,” in Ein Volk von Mördern?: Die Dokumentation zur Goldhagen Kontroverse und die Rolle der Deutschen im Holocaust, ed. Schoeps, Julius H. (Hamburg, 1996), 228–40.Google ScholarBernstein, Richard and Rosenthal, A. M. wrote very positive reviews in The New York Times, 27 03 and, respectively, 2 April 1996.Google Scholar

3. Bartov, Omer, “Ordinary Monsters,” The New Republic, 29 04 1996, pp. 32–38.Google Scholar

4. Stern, Fritz, “The Goldhagen Controversy: One Nation, One People, One Theory?” Foreign Affairs 75, No. 6 (11/12 1996): 128–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5. See Wehler, Hans-Ulrich, “The Goldhagen Controversy: Agonizing Problems, Scholarly Failure, and the Political Dimension,” German History 15, No. 1 (1997): 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This is an expanded version of an article that appeared in Die Zeit, 24 May 1996.

6. Pohl, Dieter, “Die Holocaust-Forschung und Goldhagens Thesen,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 45, No. 1 (01 1997): 1–48.Google Scholar

7. Browning, Christopher, “Dämonisierung erklärt nichts,” Die Zeit, 19 04 1996.Google Scholar

8. Jäckel, Eberhard, “Einfach ein schlechtes Buch,” Die Zeit, 17 05 1996.Google Scholar

9. Schoenbaum, David, “Ordinary People”? National Review, 1 07 1996.Google Scholar

10. See German Studies Review 19, No. 3 (10 1996): 578–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Monroe, Kristen R., American Political Science Review 19, No. 1 (1997): 212–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Birn, Ruth Bettina, “Historiographical Review: Revising the Holocaust,” The Historical Journal 40, No. 1 (1997): 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Frei, Norbert “Ein Volk von ‘Endlösern’? Daniel Goldhagen beschreibt die Deutschen als ‘Hitlers willige Vollstrecker,’” Süddeutsche Zeitung, 13 04 1996.Google Scholar

14. See Craig's, Gordon review in The New York Review of Books, 18 04 1996.Google Scholar

15. Berghahn, Volker, “The Road to Extermination,” The New York Times, 14 04, 1996.Google Scholar

16. Johnson, Paul, “An Epidemic of Hatred,” The Washington Post, 24 03 1996.Google Scholar

17. Joffe, Josef, “Goldhagen in Germany,” The New York Review of Books, 28 11 1996.Google Scholar

18. Ibid.,

19. See, for example, Ullrich, Volker, “Ein Buch provoziert einen neuen Historikerstreit: Waren die Deutschen doch alle schuldig”? Die Zeit, 12 04 1996.Google Scholar

20. Der Spiegel, 15 April 1996.

21. Jäckel, “Einfach ein schlechtes Buch.”

22. That was Hans-Ulrich Wehler's characterization. See Josef Joffe, “Goldhagen in Germany.”

23. Goldhagen, Daniel, “Das Versagen der Kritiker,” Die Zeit, 2 08 1996.Google Scholar

24. Goldhagen, , Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York, 1996), chap. 15, n. 38, on 582.Google Scholar

25. Schoeps, Julius H., ed., Ein Volk von Mördern? Die Dokumentation zur Goldhagen Kontroverse und die Rolle der Deutschen im Holocaust (Hamburg, 1996).Google Scholar

26. See Goldhagen's, comments in The New York Times, 27 03 1996.Google Scholar

27. Wehler, “The Goldhagen Controversy,” 81–83.

28. Browning, Christopher R., Ordinary Men: Reserve Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (New York, 1992).Google Scholar

29. Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, 428.

30. Ibid., 392.

31. Ibid., 390.

32. Ibid., 402.

33. Ibid., 56.

34. Ibid., 85.

35. Ibid., 75.

36. Engelmann, Bern, In Hitler's Germany: Daily Life in the Third Reich, trans. Winston, Krishna (New York, 1986), 138–39, 223ff.Google Scholar The Goldhagen quote is on page 101 of Hitlers Willing Executioners.

37. See particularly, Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, “Motives, Causes, Alibis,” The New Republic, 23 12 1996, 37–45.Google Scholar

38. Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, 425.

39. Goldhagen, “Motives, Causes, Alibis,” 37.

40. Pohl, Dieter, Nationalsozialistische Judenverfolgung in Ostgalizien, 19417–1944: Organisation und Durchführung eines staatlichen Massenverbrechens (Munich, 1996).Google Scholar

41. Pohl, “Die Holocaust-Forschung und Goldhagens Thesen,” 1–48.

42. Ibid., 15.

43. Ibid., 16–21.

44. See Friedlander's, Henry review of Hitler's Willing Executioners in German Studies Review, 19, No. 3 (10 1996): 580.Google Scholar

45. Pohl, “Die Holocaust-Forschung und Goldhagens Thesen,” 16–21.

46. Karsai, László, “Történészek, gyilkosok, áldozatok” [Historians, murderers, victims], Beszélö (Budapest, 06 1997): 34–59.Google Scholar The quotation is on page 53 of the manuscript.

47. Birn, Ruth Bettina, Die höheren SS- und Polizeiführer: Hitlers Vertreter im Reich und in den besetzten Gebieten (Düsseldorf, 1986).Google Scholar

48. Birn, Ruth Bettina, “Historiographical Review: Revising the Holocaust,” The Historical Journal 40, No. 1 (1997): 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Ibid., 198–99.

50. Ibid., 200.

51. Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners, 587.

52. Sereny, Gitta, “The Complexities of Complicity,” The Times of London, 28 03 1996.Google Scholar