(no subject)

What's the origin of your username? If you could change it to anything else, would you, and what would it be?

<input ... > View 1795 Answers

Surprisingly not a reference to Totenkopf caps, Skull Bearers are the Nazgul-equivalent in Terry Brook's excretable Lord of the Rings rip off 'The Sword of Shannara' (I was stuck on holiday and didn't having anything else, ok? And it was Tunisia). I just liked the name, it was snappy and creepy and sort of neat if you're 17 (which I was).

Now... I still like it, which is good because it's become so much me that changing it would be difficult. It can be a bit awkward in Holocaust settings because of the Totenkopf thing though (I decided on the username in the ye olde dark ages before I really liked history).

(no subject)

What's the origin of your username? If you could change it to anything else, would you, and what would it be?

<input ... > View 1795 Answers

Surprisingly not a reference to Totenkopf caps, Skull Bearers are the Nazgul-equivalent in Terry Brook's excretable Lord of the Rings rip off 'The Sword of Shannara' (I was stuck on holiday and didn't having anything else, ok? And it was Tunisia). I just liked the name, it was snappy and creepy and sort of neat if you're 17 (which I was).

Now... I still like it, which is good because it's become so much me that changing it would be difficult. It can be a bit awkward in Holocaust settings because of the Totenkopf thing though (I decided on the username in the ye olde dark ages before I really liked history).

Hitler's Willing Executioners, a recap

Note to you know who you are, there is a perfectly good discussion thread going, and we're not going to be rehashing things here. I hope to never ban comments on this thing, but unless you have something appropriate to add, please continue the discussion in the appropriate place kthnx.

I think my reaction is pretty much like most historians, with the caveat that I reads Goldhagen's book after reading a great many later and vastly better books. I appriciate that it sparked off a discussion that led to many good works being produced on the subject on the German people during Nazi Germany, and I completely agree with the majority of historians that Goldhagen's book was 'flawed'.  Actually, as this isn't a peer-reviewed journal, I'll go as far as to say it was a worthless rag which while it occasionally coughed up the odd good point, swamped it in so much bad research, cherry-picking sources and outrightly misrepresentation that would make a creationist proud.

The points that were brought up were often completely refuted a second later (if Germany was seething with anti-semitism, then why was Kristallnatch looked in with such revulsion? Why were the police battalions protrayed as psychologically okay when I know for a fact that the better trained, more heavily motivated and greatly brainwashed Einzatsgruppen were having nervous breakdowns? If Germany so welcomed anti-semitic diatribes, then why did Hitler greatly downplay that aspect of his speeches when he reached national stage? And above all, congrats Goldhagen on ignoring the impact of propaganda. It is a fail worthy of a macro).

More problems: Why were the Germans so easily conditioned out of an anti-semistism that Goldhagen claims was ever-present and all-pervasive? What the hell happened to the Social Democrats and their philo-semitic stance? Where was Canaris? Hell, where was most of Europe? I've already had the argument that he wasn't focusing on European anti-semitism as a whole, but my point is that if you want to prove something is unique, you have to provide comparisons. Otherwise all we've got is your word for it, and grief, does Goldhagen rely on his word. Pity I've not been given a reason to do the same.

Oh, and this might be petty, but his German sucks. Even I know that Nussknacken means nutcracker rather than skull cracker. I have no idea what the context of this was because he doesn't provide one. I had to learn from Finkelstein's rather good critique here  (first half) that it refered to an anti-semitic poem (I know Finkelstein is a pretty problematic author as well, but I agree with almost all of his critique until we get to the end and he goes off on a pet tangent against Israel. I mean, I might be giving Goldhagen a bit too much credit, but I think he's more of a hack than a tool. The second critique is much better.)

The main problems with Goldhagen's thesis is the same as with creationist arguments. He concentrates entirely on disproving others' arguments, and devotes very little time to his own. Admittedly he's better at the disproving, but in the end the alternative he offers is no more believable (and in fact even less believable after seeing the pig's ear he made of the research). More to the point, it's constructively useless. It doesn't really expand our knowledge of the Holocaust, it doesn't add anything, and I'll go as far as to lean with other historians who think it actually detracts from it. No wonder it was so well received by the public, it offers easy answers to complex questions, and those are always well received *cough*. We don't need to worry about the Holocaust, it was unique (or maybe not, Goldhagen is noticably confused about this) and the Germans only did this because it was deeply ingrained in them to be anti-semitic. So now the Germans have magically learned better, it can't possibly happen again.

I said it before, and I'll say it now, this book not only completely ignored the poor, brutalised 'Never Again', it kicked it in the face. While Goldhagen's thesis caused many excellent works to be written on the same subject, I think it's the authors of these works who deserve the praise, not this over represented hack.

Hitler's Willing Executioners, a recap

Note to you know who you are, there is a perfectly good discussion thread going, and we're not going to be rehashing things here. I hope to never ban comments on this thing, but unless you have something appropriate to add, please continue the discussion in the appropriate place kthnx.

I think my reaction is pretty much like most historians, with the caveat that I reads Goldhagen's book after reading a great many later and vastly better books. I appriciate that it sparked off a discussion that led to many good works being produced on the subject on the German people during Nazi Germany, and I completely agree with the majority of historians that Goldhagen's book was 'flawed'.  Actually, as this isn't a peer-reviewed journal, I'll go as far as to say it was a worthless rag which while it occasionally coughed up the odd good point, swamped it in so much bad research, cherry-picking sources and outrightly misrepresentation that would make a creationist proud.

The points that were brought up were often completely refuted a second later (if Germany was seething with anti-semitism, then why was Kristallnatch looked in with such revulsion? Why were the police battalions protrayed as psychologically okay when I know for a fact that the better trained, more heavily motivated and greatly brainwashed Einzatsgruppen were having nervous breakdowns? If Germany so welcomed anti-semitic diatribes, then why did Hitler greatly downplay that aspect of his speeches when he reached national stage? And above all, congrats Goldhagen on ignoring the impact of propaganda. It is a fail worthy of a macro).

More problems: Why were the Germans so easily conditioned out of an anti-semistism that Goldhagen claims was ever-present and all-pervasive? What the hell happened to the Social Democrats and their philo-semitic stance? Where was Canaris? Hell, where was most of Europe? I've already had the argument that he wasn't focusing on European anti-semitism as a whole, but my point is that if you want to prove something is unique, you have to provide comparisons. Otherwise all we've got is your word for it, and grief, does Goldhagen rely on his word. Pity I've not been given a reason to do the same.

Oh, and this might be petty, but his German sucks. Even I know that Nussknacken means nutcracker rather than skull cracker. I have no idea what the context of this was because he doesn't provide one. I had to learn from Finkelstein's rather good critique here  (first half) that it refered to an anti-semitic poem (I know Finkelstein is a pretty problematic author as well, but I agree with almost all of his critique until we get to the end and he goes off on a pet tangent against Israel. I mean, I might be giving Goldhagen a bit too much credit, but I think he's more of a hack than a tool. The second critique is much better.)

The main problems with Goldhagen's thesis is the same as with creationist arguments. He concentrates entirely on disproving others' arguments, and devotes very little time to his own. Admittedly he's better at the disproving, but in the end the alternative he offers is no more believable (and in fact even less believable after seeing the pig's ear he made of the research). More to the point, it's constructively useless. It doesn't really expand our knowledge of the Holocaust, it doesn't add anything, and I'll go as far as to lean with other historians who think it actually detracts from it. No wonder it was so well received by the public, it offers easy answers to complex questions, and those are always well received *cough*. We don't need to worry about the Holocaust, it was unique (or maybe not, Goldhagen is noticably confused about this) and the Germans only did this because it was deeply ingrained in them to be anti-semitic. So now the Germans have magically learned better, it can't possibly happen again.

I said it before, and I'll say it now, this book not only completely ignored the poor, brutalised 'Never Again', it kicked it in the face. While Goldhagen's thesis caused many excellent works to be written on the same subject, I think it's the authors of these works who deserve the praise, not this over represented hack.