Goldhagen and Browning: How the Holocaust Could Have HappenedThe Jewish Holocaust has inspired countless theories on how such an atrocity could take place in a seemingly humane and otherwise "normal" society, as Germany was in the 20th century. In other words, it was not really any different from any other society or culture in the modern era -- and yet understanding how the Holocaust could have happened, how human beings of the modern era could take part in such a mass killing, has been the debate of historians. This paper will compare and contrast the arguments of Daniel J. Goldhagen and Christopher R. Browning -- both of whom give a distinct take on how such an atrocity could happen.

The main substance of Goldhagen's argument is that Germans were able to take part in the killings of the Jews because under Hitler and the National Socialist German Worker's Party, the idea that Jews were responsible for all of Germany's ills was promoted heavily.[footnoteRef:1] Thus, it was not an issue of ordinary Germans becoming or acting like monsters but rather them following through on what they perceived to be the just deserts of the Jew for his role in humiliating and dragging down Germany. The Holocaust, in other words, is described by Goldhagen as being a natural outcome of anti-Semitism, which Germany embraced following WWI and the disastrous Treaty of Versailles. The "ordinary Germans" were literally "animated by anti-Semitism" of the popular political machine at the time.[footnoteRef:2] [1: Daniel J. Goldhagen, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed., Donald L. Niewyk, ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2011), 91.] [2: Daniel J. Goldhagen, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed., Donald L. Niewyk, ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2011), 92.]

The essence of the argument made by Browning, on the other hand, is that ordinary German soldiers were basically pressured into committing these atrocities: the all-consuming, overwhelming, militaristic triumph of the Reich's propaganda machine masterfully bent the wills of Germans and made them afraid to dare step out of line, break ranks, or go against the will of the Fuhrer and the other leaders within the Reich. According to Browning, it is purely psychosocial affair: "a peer group exerts tremendous pressures on behavior and sets moral norms."[footnoteRef:3] A culture of fear, in other words, drove the Germans to persecute the Jews -- to not do so would have meant that they themselves would be subject to persecution. It was, therefore, a "better you than me" mentality that allowed it to happen, so Browning's argument goes. [3: Christopher R. Browning, "Ordinary Men," in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed., Donald L. Niewyk, ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2011), 90.]

The problem with both arguments, as Doris Bergen points out, is that each is somewhat simplistic in its overall view of what was going on at the time.[footnoteRef:4] In fact, there is no one reason that can be applied universally or in a blanket way to the issue of how the Holocaust could have happened. Any number of conditions, variables, psychological factors, cultural or ideological beliefs, social pressures, or other human, social, political, economical and/or religious elements may have a played a part. Thus, it is not fair to dismiss either Goldhagen or...

Each one highlights an aspect of the underlying tensions in Germany at the time; however, as Bergen argues, it is important to remember that history is never easily or simply construed. Indeed, Browning himself argues that human behavior is "a very complex phenomenon" and that the historian who attempts to explain indulges in a degree of "arrogance."[footnoteRef:5] This is good point to keep in mind, as Bergen stresses. [4: Doris Bergin, War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust (UK: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009), 32.] [5: Christopher R. Browning, "Ordinary Men," in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed., Donald L. Niewyk, ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2011), 90.]
For this reason, the arguments of both Goldhagen and Browning can be compared and contrasted in a healthy way that helps to shed light on the possible motives that could explain how the Holocaust may have happened. Goldhagen's analysis is particularly useful because it grounds the subject in a stark reality of the time, which was that Jews were indeed viewed by Hitler and the National Socialist German Worker's Party as being responsible for undermining Germany's vitality.[footnoteRef:6] This concept was based on the fact that Germany had not wanted to sign the Treaty of Versailles, and that it had basically been starved into submission thanks to a blockade. The Kaiser had been pressured into abdicating and Jews in the economic sector were identified as being responsible for Germany's hyperinflation. Moreover, foreigners (i.e., Jews) were viewed as supporting the decadent culture taking over Berlin in the German nightlife and cabaret world spreading throughout the country. Hitler saw a world of difference between German Christian citizens and Jews -- and he and many others viewed the differences as irreconcilable. Jews were viewed as agitators and destroyers of Western/Christian virtues, of national identity, of German character/principles, and of economic, political and social stability.[footnoteRef:7] Hitler's 25 points made all of this very clear. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to accept Goldhagen's argument that Germans could have committed the horrors of the Holocaust based on their hatred of Jews. [6: Daniel J. Goldhagen, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed., Donald L. Niewyk, ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2011), 92.] [7: Daniel J. Goldhagen, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," in The Holocaust: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 4th ed., Donald L. Niewyk, ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2011), 100.]

However, such an aversion for Jews may not be able to explain the systematic way in which the Holocaust is said to have happened. In the way the Holocaust narrative is told, at places such as Auschwitz for example, the picture that emerges is one of inhuman yet intimate contact between soldiers and Jews: the gas chambers themselves are a brutal instrument that would have had to have been run around the clock in order to liquidate so many Jews in so short a time. The idea that Germans could oversee such a project without ever flinching may be best explained by Browning's highlighting of the way in which the Reich stamped its image, its goals, its mind on average Germans for years -- via military displays, banners, propaganda, speeches, and more. Browning argues that the…