Customer Reviews

A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Life need not be an experience shrouded in mystery and confusion. If something appears to be out of synch or puzzling, one has only to examine the details more closely. This idea could also be applied to the cloak of uniqueness which has been draped around the holocaust. It seems Goldhagen's book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" only adds to the murkiness. "A Nation on Trial" illuminates the scene by pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies in Goldhagen's arguments, and citing accounts from post-war documents which show that Jews were certainly not the only victims to suffer. As "A Nation on Trial" reveals, the holocaust is not the only atrocity in the world to occur against groups of people. The ability to research and investigate without distortion should be traits of any individual in an institution of higher learning, especially when the character and reputation of an entire nation is at stake. It's a good thing that Finkelstein and Birn have written this book because it affirms that the truth really does matter.

Two means are primary in infuriating a critic: (1) stating facts that the critic doesn't want to admit and (2) a style that feels like salt in a wound even if the facts comply with the critic's need. Unfortunately--though sometimes amusingly too--Professor Finkelstein practices both.

The book is a response to Goldhagen's Harvard dissertation--which certainly challenges Harvard's academic credibility in my book--which asserts that the "ordinary Germans," a phrase frequently used by Goldhagen, though not defined by him, knew of and actively endorsed the mass slaughter of particularly Jews throughout the Third Reich. It consists of two separate essays, the first by Finkelstein and the second by Birn, the former the son of concentration camp survivors and the latter a professional in investigating crimes against humanity.

Both authors challenge Goldhagen's use of evidence. Finkelstein offers more "commentary," some essentially calling Goldhagen silly and inept. Finkelstein himself offers reams of contradictory evidence to the meager claims suggested as proof of Goldhagen's thesis. Many even of the Nazi officers were perfect bureaucrats more than they were ideologues. Anyone who has worked in a partisan political environment knows the tendency of many a staffer to do that. It's how promotions are allocated more than on the basis of competence or capability! So, because such and such an officer did what the Fuehrer said, didn't make him an inherent anti-Semitic, mass murderer.

And both authors criticize Goldhagen's contention that the "Holocaust" was unique in human history, and particularly suited to German brutality. Both offer several examples of similar activities undertaken throughout history.

As for the average German, there is more evidence of their helping out victims of the Reich than of their active complicity in the slaughter. Of course, these are petty items Goldhagen didn't use because they would have contradicted his angle.

Finkelstein has had a bone to pick with Goldhagen, and to some other hyper-Zionists for some time. His "The Holocaust Industry" showed something he reiterates more briefly in this text that "The Holocaust," while of less major political note before then became a veritable industry after the 1967 war. At that point to challenge anything about the Israeli state or about Judaism in general--even by Jews!--was proclaimed to have an anti-Semitic motive. Finkelstein, offering countless examples of that by "writers" such as Elie Wiesel, accuses Goldhagen of capitalizing off that sentiment and blatantly political motive.

Birn's is a very sober analysis of Goldhagen's selective use of evidence--pieces chosen simply because they fit his thesis. She even credited an earlier critique of Goldhagen of her work in which Goldhagen disputed her statements; apparently the quotation marks weren't in the right places. Her fine summary comments on the "trivialization" of the holocaust, which seems to be happening now that the number of actual survivors of that catastrophe dwindles.

I have a weakness for Finkelstein's matter-of-fact style. But if I were to be in a privileged enough position to have my work criticized by either Finkelstein or Birn, I would prefer Birn's criticism. My ego would be less bruised.

This book is important for those who have read Goldhagen's book and wonder about Goldhagen's--or Harvard's--integrity. It is important for those interested in the critical thinking process, and how someone of ostensible credibility, an Ivy League doctoral student, can make some awfully weak arguments in defense of his claims. And it is very important for those who want to keep contemporary politico-Zionism in context. Read it. But don't expect any soft pedaling by Finkelstein.

By the way, I would not have granted Goldhagen his Ph.D. for the sloppy, ideological work in his book. As Birn points out, his thesis is fit for those who want a simple answer to a more complex situation. I add that it resembles hate literature, that "those Germans" were like that. It is, therefore, a mirror image of what Goldhagen claims to despise: propaganda. I would not enroll in a course he teaches, or spend a minute reading anything he'd written.

Arguing that much of the Holocaust literature contains gross misinformation and sheer lies, Finkelstein provides an important insight into Goldhagen's insidious attempt to distort historical facts. According to Finkelstein, Goldhagen's book is characterized by numerous contradictions, exaggerations and serious misrepresentation of the facts. For example, Goldhagen asserts in his book that all Germans were belligerent anti-semitists who when given the chance tortured every Jew they could come across. This of course is a gross overgeneralization given that the majority of serious historians agree that many Germans did not commit any enormities against Jewish people. Having said that, Finkelstein does not claim that they were not anti-semitists. On the contrary, many Germans were anti-semitists but they still chose not to take part in the extermination of Jews. Goldhagen however asserts that being a passive observer automatically makes you a perpetrator who is as guilty as the person committing the actual atrocities. If this is the case, then most people are perpetrators because we all sometimes witness heinous crimes and gross injustices not being able to stop them. Goldhagen further holds that the Holocaust was a unique event. Note that a unique event must contain unique victims. Thus, according to Goldhagen, Jews were unique victims. What about the gypsies who were murdered during the Holocaust? Why aren't they the unique victims? Why aren't they included in the history books? Distorting the history in this cynical way as Goldhagen does is morally reprehensible. Not all Germans actively participated in the Holocaust. Blaiming the entire nation is preposterous and indicative of spurious scholarship.

The "Holocaust" engenders such emotional responses as seen in the denunciatory reviews of this book by some others that one fears to enter the arena. My own view: Goldhagen's book is already on the ash-heap of history. When scholarly Jews like Finkelstein and Birn recognize the unscholarly nature of the book, it's done. I'm surprised that they didn't mention the attempt to "buy" Goldhagen a prestigious chair at Harvard (rejected, thank goodness!) on the basis of publicity about the book!

Finkelstein expresses surprise at the popularity of Goldstein's racist polemic. Doesn't he notice the prevailing intellectual reign of terror which censors all but the standard version of "the Holocaust"? It exists. I look forward to his next book. I found Birn's part of the book less useful, somewhat pedantic, nitpicking and confused (probably because she is torn between academic honesty about Golhagen's raving prejudices and a desire to support "Holocaust Maxima").

As a non-historian, I found Goldhagen's book interesting and sometimes convincing, but I also sensed that something was not quite right about his argument. Those vague misgivings were made clear to me in Finkelstein's and Birn's essays. Although Finkelstein's glee in demolishing Goldhagen's thesis is un-called-for and unprofessional, I think that anyone who read "Hitler's Willing Executioners" needs to take an unbiased look at "A Nation on Trial" in order to have an informed opinion on this controversial matter.

This is the perfect companion piece to read with Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners. Norman Finkelstein is a brilliant writer and an eminently decent man, he is also a far superior intellect to Goldhagen. The match is similar to a heavyweight vs. a featherweight, and Prof. Finkelstein is the heavyweight. Buy this book!

Finkelstein's book a "A Nation On Trial" is an excellent book. It's not only a great book, it's a revolution. Finkelstein, jewish himself, dares to challenge the "Holcaust Industry". How amazing and brave this step was, can not be underestimated. It's quite obvious in his book to see that Finkelstein is concerned about historical truth and what we make of it. One of his main arguments is that less than a per cent of all Germans were actually involved in the destruction of the European Jewry. He asks his readers how someone can possibly accuse all Germans? Well, Goldhagen tried just that and failed. Finkelstein easily disproves Goldhagen in his interestingly written book. It's a must read for everyone who is interested in the truth.

Among the academically politically correct, a particularly noxious notion has been revised in the work of Daniel Goldhagen in his book _Hitler's Willing Executioners_. This is the racist idea of the "barbaric Hun", popular among the British and Allied forces in the "Great War". Like such precursors as Theodor Kaufman, writer of the notorious tract _Germany Must Perish!_, Goldhagen has revised the idea that the entire German nation was to blame for Hitler, all Germans being possessed of a crazed anti-Semitism. According to Goldhagen, it is the ordinary Germans who were the most bestial in their brutality towards the Jews (and of course Goldhagen focuses conveniently only on the Jews, arguing that the Holocaust of the Jews was a unique historical event without precedent, indeed outside of time). But, then according to Goldhagen, this mass madness was magically to disappear with the end of the war and the defeat of Hitler; indeed, the modern Germans are the very champions of liberty courtesy of the reconstitution of their nation with the help of the Allied forces. Fortunately, many of those who are not blinded by political correctness can see through the absurdity of this farce presented as historical thesis. In this book, two essays are presented which attempt to refute Goldhagen's thesis. The first is by Norman Finkelstein, himself a Jew and descended from survivors of the Holocaust. The second is by Ruth Bittina Birn, another expert on the historical tragedy which subsisted in the Third Reich. Both essays attempt to show through actually examining the historical record the house of cards which the Goldhagen thesis proves to be. Upon closer examination it becomes apparent that many of the German officers were not possessed by madness but indeed looked upon their activities as part of a disgusting, albeit necessary, part of the war bureaucracy. In addition, like most who focus on the Holocaust, the role of other social groups persecuted by Hitler and later by the communists who were to seize control of half of Germany after the war is totally ignored by Goldhagen. Finkelstein brings out some interesting points in comparing various historical tragedies including many which exist in modern America and within the modern world with those that occurred during World War II. Indeed, so much has been made of the horrendous events which occurred during this war that it has become difficult to discern the truth, from the haze. Goldhagen represents an unfortunate turn in revisionist scholarship, attempting to swamp the American public with yet more horrendous tales of Holocaust attrocities. Yet, while this occurs the attrocities of the communists (particularly under Stalin, far greater than those of Hitler and his regime) are entirely ignored by academic scholarship (if not outright denied). Why is this? Perhaps it is just a further indication of the kind of rabid political correctness that exists among the revisionist left which holds such sway in academia. While both Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bittina Birn are both leftists of a different sort, their essays do make some valuable points about the need for historical truth. Unfortunately, they both seem to be under the spell that Hitler's Reich was a "right wing regime", even though such a regime did contain many leftist/collectivist elements. This is unfortunate; however, it remains a minor criticism in an otherwise well written refutation.

Norman G. Finkelstein (a jew)made this great book.This book is an antidote, against the ridiculous book by (another jew) Goldhagen.
To exemple, had Jim Crow's laws, be good for colored amaricans?
No.Then, why to demonize germans?
Germany exterminated some millions of jews, but what the soviet jews made massive genocides to ucranians, russians,etc.
Do somebody calls the jews, as devils?No.
The US's governement wiped out millions of indians in US's territory.Are the americans devils because of this?No.
This book is great, about this subject.

This is a splendid critique of Daniel Goldhagen's much-hyped book, Hitler's willing executioners. Goldhagen blamed the Holocaust on Germany's uniquely `extraordinary, lethal political culture'.

Goldhagen absurdly claimed that even the smallest manifestation of anti-Semitism, even philo-Semitism, `tends strongly towards a genocidal `solution'.'

Goldhagen asserted that anti-Semitism `has been a more or less permanent feature of the western world', which is untrue. It also contradicts his main thesis, that Germany was uniquely anti-Semitic. It is odd that he did not accuse the rest of the world of anti-Semitism too, though perhaps by now he is asserting that the whole eastern world is also innately, ineradicably, anti-Semitic.

Germany did not have a single, unchanging monolithic culture. Goldhagen admitted that in the late 19th century German Jews experienced a `meteoric rise from pariah status'. How could they, if Germany was always fanatically committed to anti-Semitism? Nor did all Germans think the same way at any point. Other, more objective, historians have noted that the Social-Democratic party in the 1920s was `a committed opponent of organized anti-Semitism' (Peter Pulzer) and that `all Social Democrats' proved `consistent' in their `advocacy of the civil rights of German and East European Jews' (Donna Harsch).

By demonizing the German people, Goldhagen was promoting the Zionist lie that Jews are only safe in Israel, that they can never be safe in Germany, or by extension in Europe, or even in the whole Western world. Of course, the truth is that nowhere are Jews less safe than in Israel.

He wrote that the Nazis ruled `without massive coercion and violence' and that their regime `was on the whole, consensual'. This is to falsify the historical record and prettify Nazism.

Finkelstein writes, "by proposing a transhistorical explanation for the Nazi holocaust, Goldhagen effectively detaches the most extreme manifestation of anti-Semitism from its historical context. Anti-Semitism becomes a chronic mental aberration `divorced from actual Jews' and it follows that at all times and for no reason, Gentiles harbor homicidal anti-Jewish animus, while Jews always enjoy a priori moral impunity. That ahistorical conception is of evident utility to those who maintain that all critiques of Zionism are simply disguised forms of anti-Semitism. The Jewish state is accordingly immunized from legitimate censure of its policies: all criticism is and must be motivated by fanatical anti-Semitism. Intent as Gentiles always are on murdering Jews, Jews have every right to protect themselves however they see fit; whatever expedient Jews might resort to, even aggression and torture, constitutes legitimate self-defense."

Finkelstein sums up, "Replete with gross misrepresentations of the secondary literature and internal contradictions, Goldhagen's book is worthless as scholarship." Simon Schama proved that he was no expert on German history by foolishly writing of Goldhagen's `phenomenal scholarship and absolute integrity'. Ian Kershaw, a fine historian of Germany and of Nazism, praised Finkelstein and Birn's `devastating critique of Daniel Goldhagen's simplistic and misleading interpretation of the Holocaust'.