Analysis of Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust

American author Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s 1996 work Hitler’s Willing Executioners is one of the most controversial history books of modern times. While most historians have sought to explain the horror of the Holocaust by focusing on Nazi leaders and their ideologies, Goldhagen set out to investigate whether ordinary Germans enthusiastically embraced their goals. His conclusion: “eliminationist anti-Semitism”—a genocidal hatred of Jews unique to Germany—caused the Holocaust.Hitler’s Willing Executioners topped bestseller lists in Britain, Germany, and America, and won prestigious awards. But historians almost universally disagreed with Goldhagen’s arguments, which ran counter to those of Christopher Browning in his 1992 book Ordinary Men. Browning examined members of a police unit who carried out acts of genocide and found that regular people acted out of fear and as a result of peer pressure. A ferocious historical dispute raged between partisans of the two authors. This “Goldhagen Controversy,” as it became known, proved to be one of the most significant debates of the 1990s.
Before Browning's 1992 book, most Holocaust scholarship focused either on the experience of the victims or on the Nazi political ideology driving the slaughter. He in stead investigates the men who carried out acts of extreme violence. Who were they? How could they end up committing such unspeakable acts?
Daniel Goldhagen's study of the Holocaust offers conclusions that run directly counter to those reached by Christopher Browning, whose book Ordinary Men is also the subject of a Macat analysis. As such, the two analyses make possible some interesting critical thinking exercises focused on evaluation of the evidence used by the two historians. For Goldhagen, a chief reason for German actions was not the mundane good comradeship stressed by Browning, but a longstanding hatred of Jews and Judaism specific to Germany that dated back well into the previous century. Debating which historian is right, which has made better use of the available evidence, which has most successfully written objectively – and which advances the most secure interpretation of contested documents – forces students to think critically about one of the most important and (on the surface at least) incomprehensible events of the past century.