I’ve read a lot of books about WWII looking for the answer to one question – why did the German people ever allow the Nazis to attempt to exterminate Jews? This book finally gave me the answer. This is a very in-depth look at the German culture before and during the war. I learned that since the 1800s Germans had been blaming the Jewish people for the problems of their country and that this blame became even stronger after World War I. Most Germans considered Jews to be parasites and not even human. They felt that if there were no more Jews in Germany, than there would be more of everything for them. When they started invading other nations, they would kill or imprison every Jew they found – men, women and children. And they did it happily because it was for the good of their country. I know that’s fucked-up, but that’s what was finally explained to me in this book. The German people thought the Nazis were doing the right thing for Germany. Of course, they also thought Slavs being put into workhouses and being their slaves was the right thing, too. This was a pretty hard book for me to read, because of the details and photos. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a great book. It was. It was very detailed and extensively researched and I’m glad I read it and finally got the answer I’ve been seeking for so long.

It's not that some of Goldhagen's ideas are wrong. He makes a valuable contribution by recognizing the history of anti-Semitism in Germany history prior to WWII and the Holocaust. However, this ideological goal blinds him to any other rational to the causes of the Holocaust. In his effort to prove the exceptional nature of German hatred and bigotry, he ignores the wealth of evidence from a variety of social scientists pointing out the general cruelty and inhumanity of humanity in general. In doing this Goldhagen makes breathtaking generalities and grossly misinterprets a lot of evidence that would help disprove his idea of German exceptionalism. Also, his focus on German crimes during the Holocaust blinds him to the genocide perpetrates in other European countries by other European nationals. The crimes of the French, Poles, Lithuanians, etc... are all forgotten in this book. While Goldhagen's outrage is natural, (especially given that he is the son of Holocaust survivors) his scholarship is poor and his methodological work is sloppy at best.

A milestone book to me personally, that taught my fourteen year old self just because it’s got a medal embossed on the cover and accolades from papers of record above the blurb doesn’t mean it won’t have flaws a 14 year old could point have. I told myself I just “wasn’t getting it” until I broke about halfway through and went to see if anyone else online shared my thoughts and lo and behold I’m in the same boat as some of the world’s premier Holocaust scholars! Even read a debate between the author and some of them.

How flawed was this book? The only serious nonfiction I’d read before it was Anne Applebaum’s Area 51 and Peter Gay’s Modernism.

The author doesn’t botch the history so much per say as cherrypick anecdotes, use them to make sweeping generalizations, misconstrue his own preconceived conclusions as an actual historical force by anthropomorphizing the previously introduced concept, using cherrypicked anecdotes to prove the behavior that fits under the umbrella of this abstract concept was a thing therefore proving this abstract concept was a thing, and interpreting cherrypicked anecdotes through his own painfully forced theoretical framework. It’s like a post ergo propter hoc moebius strip.

If anything, it’s a fascinating study in how a scholar can get wrapped around in their own head, a how-not-to-write-history.

The problem is that Goldhagen makes a caricature of the thesis he is drawing his ideas from that is, the Sonderwerg -the idea according to which Nazism could have only occurred in Germany due to very particular historical circumstances coupled, most importantly, with a whole frame of mind where demonological anti-Semitism and biological racism went hand in hand with the idea of the Volk relying on the notions of race and blood.

Let's get this straight right now: not only to take extreme and isolated cases and events during a war on the eastern front (the behaviours of the Police Battalion) so as to illustrate the attitude of a whole nation of civilians in Germany is bad enough but, to be unreliable when it comes to acknowledged facts (for instance, the brutal discipline that was maintained within the army and that, the author purposefully denies or minimizes) so as to serve an already very controversial argument is even worst. Academically, I must admit it's quite bad.

However, having said that, I still recommend such a book as it clearly shows that, there's no such thing as benign racism or xenophobia. Indeed, even stupid clichés can, cleverly exploited ideologically, serve more destructive enterprises.

An annoying read for all its simplistic arguments but, none-the-less necessary.

There are problems with the book, for those who know a lot about the Holocaust. These are relatively few, though, and are dealt with nicely in Brownings scholarly work, "Ordinary Men." Overall, this book is a scholarly work. Do not read it if you are looking for entertainment rather than education on the topic. Brownings book is much easier to read for the lay person of Holocaust studies. It strikes me, though, looking through the various reviews left by other readers, that those who rated Goldhagen's book with a 1 or a 2 were most likely those who either do not have the scholarly background to appreciate this work or who simply skimmed through it and never really read it for biased reasons.

I was tempted to catalog this book as fiction, but perhaps it's more appropriate as an op-ed. Daniel Goldhagen tries to provide an answer to why and how the Holocaust could have happened... how so-called "ordinary Germans" could have perpetrated such a terrible crime. While this is a common question for Holocaust scholars, and a question with complicated and complex answers, Goldhagen attempts to answer it with very poor scholarship.

This book was an international best seller, but has been roundly panned by historians because of its poor research, poor argumentation, and clear biases. Throughout much of the book, Goldhagen seeks to specifically attack Christopher Browning and his book "Ordinary Men" as both Browning and Goldhagen use many of the same sources (regarding reserve police battalion 101). Unfortunately, Goldhagen cites only evidence that supports his thesis and ignores or dismisses those items that challenge his position or that poke holes on his weak arguments. Throughout the entire work, Goldhagen makes sweeping generalizations and commits about every logical fallacy in argument that first year graduate students are taught to recognize and avoid. It should also be mentioned that Goldhagen's father is a Holocaust survivor, which may explain some of the reason behind his refusal objectively weigh evidence that runs counter to his preconceived arguments.

In the end, this book is just plain bad scholarship. I believe that it is important for scholars to read this book, however. Since it was widely read by the public in the mid 1990s, scholars need to be prepared to counter the misconceptions that still reside in the public consciousness because of the popularity of this book. Outside of Holocaust scholars though, this book should not be read by anyone... it's that bad.

A warning: this is not a pleasant book to read; it can be absolutely demoralizing.

The author posits that the Holocaust was driven by motivated people who wanted to do this, i.e. kill Jews – meaning men, women, children, and babies. And not only to kill, but torture and humiliate. They were not automatons, not banal, not just “following orders”, not coerced – they did it because they wanted to – in order to preserve and perpetuate the race – the Volk (the German people – roughly translated).

The author begins by giving us a history of antisemitism in Germany. Both churches – Protestant and Catholic, had always been antisemitic. Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, was rabidly antisemitic.

Page 37 (my book)

The conception of Jews in medieval Christianity was one which held the Jews to violate the moral order of the world.


Antisemitism was always evolving. During the 19th century, as German society became more secular, antisemitism became race oriented. The Germans put their concept of Volk before all else. There grew to be a fear of contamination from the “Jewish race” which they saw as ever-threatening from all sides. Jewish capitalists were taking over the world and a dire threat to German business, Jewish communists were also perceived as taking over the world – threatening German religion and family. The Volk needed to be protected from the Jews.

The growth of German nationalism in the 19th century expanded the meaning of antisemitism.

Page 55

Whether conceived of as a religion, nation, political group, or race, the Jew was always… an alien body within Germany.

Page 66

Modern German antisemitism [through race theory] had transformed the Jew from being an agent of the Devil to being the Devil himself.

All this was promoted in German newspapers and even in schools – and the Church was also in unison with it. All absorbed the concept of Volk.

Page 72

By the end of the nineteenth century, the view that Jews posed extreme danger to Germany and that the source of their perniciousness was immutable, namely their race, and the consequential belief that the Jews had to be eliminated from Germany were extremely widespread in German society.

Until the 1930s the only institution that was not onboard with antisemitism was the government. That all changed when the Nazis and Hitler took power. Here was a government that channeled and promoted the innermost feelings of the German people.

Page 32 Ian Kershaw

“to be an antisemite in Hitler’s Germany was so commonplace as to go practically unnoticed’.

Page 110

The religious leaders of Germany were men of God second and Germans first – so powerful was the antisemitic model.

With the advent of a Nazi Government the persecution could begin and made legal. Laws ostracizing Jews from German society were passed (Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor – page 98). Boycotts of Jewish stores were supported by the government. Violence to Jews (like Kristallnacht) was not only overlooked, but encouraged.

When war broke out in 1939 eliminationist antisemitism was put in place.

The author gives many examples of how death squads operated – where the executioners were volunteers, and those who did not wish to participate in these gruesome acts could withdraw with no repercussions. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed in towns, city ghettoes, and rural areas in Eastern Europe. This was done face-to-face, after which the bodies were thrown into ditches. This work was photographed (some photos were sent home as souvenirs) and some had their wives with them. They wrote letters home showing no remorse. There were search missions where Jews were hunted down. They bragged about their accomplishments to fellow members of their battalions. None of this was forced.

Page 247

Photographs taken … remind us to question the prevailing views that hold these Germans to have been frightened, coerced, unwilling, disapproving, or horrified killers.

They were on a crusade (much like the Middle Ages), but this was to annihilate Jews and preserve the German race.

Page 396

The overwhelming impression of those who ever witnessed a German ghetto clearing was that they were observing not men who were brought to their tasks reluctantly, but men driven by the passion, determination, tirelessness, and enthusiasm of religious zealots on a holy, redemptive mission.

The author makes an extremely good point that there was opposition to the Nazi euthanasia to kill (by gassing) of the mentally handicapped. This had to be stopped by protests from ordinary Germans and the Church. No one was arrested or even reprimanded for this. But ordinary Germans participated willingly in the killing of Jews.

Page 171

Within Germany itself, within sight of the German people, the regime created an enormous network of camps that saturated the country… a criminal infrastructure of suffering… it did not serve to delegitimize the regime.

German society was permeated by the concept of race – and their superiority. Slavic lands – Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union were meant to be occupied by German colonists and the Slavic people (considered subhuman) were to be enslaved. For Jews – even though there was a war on with an extreme shortage of labour – they were to be eliminated.

The author uses the term “demonological antisemitism”. It is as if Nazism and Germany were possessed by a cult – a cult that had been building up for decades – in schools, churches, the press – the entire society. The Nazis and Hitler were the trigger point.

Page 441

No alternative, institutionally supported public image of the Jews, portraying them as human beings, was available on which Germans could have drawn.

Page 442 Einsatzkommando executioner

“it was hammered into us, during years of propaganda, again and again, that the Jews were the ruin of the Volk in the midst of which they appear, and that peace would reign in Europe only then, when the Jewish race is exterminated.”

This book is most interesting and provocative on German society not only during the war years, but on the many years of prelude to it.

Heinrich Heine wrote a century before Hitler’s ascension to power:

“German thunder is truly German; it takes its time. But it will come, and when it crashes it will crash as nothing in history crashed before. The hour will come… A drama will be performed which will make the French Revolution seem like a pretty idyll… Never doubt it; the hour will come.”

The only aspect of this book that exasperated me was the author’s tendency to repeat himself. This book needed editing and shortening.

This book is written to support the thesis that the Germans are bad and mean, all of them, and to support this hypothesis we have a framed version of the holocaust. Every psychology can explain you better than me why framing whatever is important and the behavior of Germans before and during the WWII can be explained in many different ways, but choosing this way is misleading people to sell more copies of this book. I have been living in Berlin in the last 7 years and I don't love my fellow citizen at all, mostly Berliner IMHO are rude and unsympathisch, but even if this book, in a way support what I think, even I wouldn't be so stupid to believe this generalization. So now I know that I will be called antisemite. Just a question: is there a word for a Jew who hates every other person who is not Hebrew?

Questo libro é stato scritto per supportare la tesi che tra gli anni compresi tra il 1920 e il 1945 tutti i tedeschi fossero cattivi, tutti, e per giustificare questa tesi l'autore inquadra l'olocausto in un contesto ben preciso. Qualsiasi psicologo che si rispetti puó spiegare le varie e tante ragioni per cui inquadrare una cosa in una specifica cornice puó cambiare il modo di vedere la cosa stessa, che rimane per lo piú la stessa. La spiegazioni che mi sono data io per questo comportamento é che Goldhagen avesse come scopo il vendere piú copie possibile di questo volume, e ci é riuscito visto che 20 anni dopo ancora se ne parla anche se storiograficamente parlando questo tomo non vale niente. Vivo a Berlino da 7 anni e non amo affatto i miei concittadini, li trovo per lo piú grezzi e maleducati, ma non é che posso apprezzare questo libro solo perché mi fa comodo né tanto meno considerare come plausibile la mia tanto facile quanto stupida generalizzazione. Ora sono pronta a farmi dare dell'antisemita, giusto una domanda: c'é per caso una parola che sta ad indicare una persona di religione ebraica che odia tutti quelli che invece non lo sono?

Goldhagen is a pop historian who makes exaggerated claims for the novelty. A lot of this book has been disproven by several critics- including Richard J. Evans. Don't bother!

Despite many of the books, movies and testimonials of the Holocaust, there has never been a plausible reason for why the Holocaust was able to play out over so many years with so many German people pleading ignorance as to what was going on. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen presents copious amounts of testimonials from survivors, letters and pictures send home from German soldiers, and data from German records to not only document the cruelty from following orders but also the voluntary acts of cruelty, acceptance of anti-semitic laws, willingness of Germans to report Jewish neighbours to the SS, appropriate Jewish belongings, listen to the screams, drive the trains, employ the emaciated workers in factories, smell the crematoriums and accept the ashes from them as something to be tolerated. I accept that Hitler's anti-semitism was already clearly articulated in the early 20's and it was supported in Germany. I agree that the enduring eliminationist anti-semitic policy required the complicity of German people to be applied to widely. What doesn't make sense is that Jewish people were also treated as they were sub-human not only by some of the Jewish prisoners put in charge within the camps, the people referred to as Campos by Viktor Frankl (Man's Search for Meaning - 1959). It seems that there was something at play that was bigger than cultural differences or beliefs. Absolute power did corrupt many people to be weak, cruel, and immoral but it didn't corrupt everyone. Why were some people willing to stand up from their principles and display kindness?
Definitely worth the read if you can stomach the haunting details. I feel like there is still more questions that have not yet been answered about human moral development.

As a historian I know one absolute - there are no absolutes! Within the first few pages Goldhagen declares that "all Germans were raving anti-Semities". How can he say "all"?!?! Poor, poor writing and implies and obvious bias. For the real deal read Ordinary Men by Christopher R. Browning.

A very difficult book to read. I found my mind wondering more then often to fairies, chocolates and thing below the belt. Alot of repeating (not only twice, sometimes up to five times).

And South Africa never had a Minister for Economics and Defence...