Hitler's Willing Executioners, p230

[skull_bearer]

Yes I am going to keep making these posts. They make me feel better, ok?

Somewhat calmer now, and if nothing else reading this rubbish this is a good exercise. Like a spot the difference game, only it's 'spot all the abysmal so-called research' game. It's slightly better now, as I've gotten into the bulk of his book which is mostly loving described atrocities which run along in any order and make the book come across as anti-german propaganda more than anything (why was this book so popular in Germany? It's like Der Sturmer being popular in Israel). There's not much evidence, but then there's not much of a point being made. Did note how Goldhagen skimmed hurridly over the Ukrainian killing squads, and hasn't as yet mentioned the happy enthusiasm of the various occupied communities in handing their Jewish neighbours over to the Germans. Some decents points being made here and there, but they're swamped by the bull and torture-porn padding, and I've seen them done better elsewhere.

There's also one thing which sticks in my mind. I saw a post-war cartoon some time ago, it showed a well dressed man (I think he was supposed to be English) reading a newspaper about the liberation of Belsen. The man is saying "This is disgraceful! These Germans ought to be shot!" and across from him is a starved camp survivor, who's saying "Some of us are German, friend."

And I think this is what I most hate about this book. It buys into the very ideals it claims to denounce. Goldhagen's constant use of the term 'German' to describe those committing the atrocities (not SS, Nazi, or anything else) actually justifies the very exclusion of Jewish people from Germany which he is arguing against. The nazis said 'You are Jews, you cannot be Germans' that this sod is agreeing with them! Okay, he's doing it from the exact opposite direction, but again he describes the Jewish population of Germany in the exact same way as the Nazis: as Jews first, and Germans second (if at all).

One of the very first things the Nazis did was forbid the Jewish people from being considered as German, and Goldhagen agrees.

Comments

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

What I was pointing out was that you seemed to be implying that the locals were somehow forced into their participation,

Which is what Goldhagen was implaying in the book, and why I saw it as untrustworthy.

Then why did they? Why did this happen in this country at this time, and to the extent that it did?

It was due to a lot of factors, some of them I freely admit Goldhagen does write about. But there are so many other factors, particularly the constant anti-Jewish propaganda, that had an equal if not greater impact on the minds of the German people, which made it possible for them to take part, even enthusiastically, in the Holocaust. No one is trying to exonerate the German people! A great part of studying the Holocaust is understanding why it happened so it doesn't happen again, and Goldhagen's 'well it was just part of German culture as a whole', is not only limited but outright dangerous as a mindset because it exonerates everyone else. We don't have to worry, because the Holocaust was something so utterly German that we (non-Germans) couldn't possibly do it.

On the contrary, a good part of the second chapter of the book is devoted solely to the historical development of antisemitism in Europe.

Only in the sense of religious anti-semitism, which is not the focus of the book at all. He makes no mention that racial anti-semitism was common throughout Europe at the time.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And that it was racial Jew-hatred that made Hitler kill a lot of people who considered themselves assimilated Christians and patriots of their various countries but had had one Jews grandparent. The religious kind would have been satisfied by things like what that one bishop in Russia did, mass baptisms thinking the Nazis *were* Christianity-motivated Jew-haters. All that got him was a bullet in the head and the Jews he'd tried to save died all the same.

And before Deborakhla objects to use of the term Jew-hatred, antisemitism was a term created to get around the fact that Jews were always the targets of that mentality. I don't feel any obligation to honor that intention of the word and prefer to get to the point.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Only in the sense of religious anti-semitism, which is not the focus of the book at all. He makes no mention that racial anti-semitism was common throughout Europe at the time.
He does so because all antisemitism has its roots in religion, and there is no Jewish race. There is no semitic race, either. There are semitic peoples - and they include Arabs and other middle-eastern peoples. But there are also blonde, blue-eyed Jews (and Muslims, for that matter), who are not semitic in any way, shape or form. There are also negroid Jews and Muslims. So to consider antisemitism a racial prejudice is to support a lie. The roots of antisemitism have always been in religion, and to examine it in any other way is to support the lie that there is a Jewish "race." This is something we Jews fight against all the time. We are not a race, so antisemitism is not a racial prejudice, no matter what some people may believe. Goldhagen is entirely justified in examining antisemitism as religion-based, because it was. Antisemitism does extend beyond religion to encompass ethnic background and culture, but that is not the same as a racial distinction. It wasn't until the term antisemitism was developed in late 19th century Germany that it took on a racial connotation.

Yes, the term antisemitism comes from late 19th Century Germany, where it was coined to serve as a more "scientifically-based" term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred). The term originated in Germany and was developed to place anti-semitism into an anthropologically racial context, whereas up until that time it was purely based on religion, ethnic background and culture. So it's entirely justified to say that antisemitism originated in Germany, because it did. The very term and the concept of antisemitism as a racial connotation began in Germany.

That said, it's also entirely justified to examine what in German culture and society would have led the Germans to give that prejudice a racial connotation after 1,870 years. No else ever had in the past. To really find this out involves examining everything from ancient German folklore to Martin Luther and the influence of the Lutheran church and the tremendous impact Wagner had on German culture. I'm sorry, but antisemitism in and of itself was indeed a German invention.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I think that Ethiopian and Indian Jews would be interested in this assertion that race does not matter in Judaism. And bullshit that nobody ever had in the past, this same mentality was what led to the Alhambra Decree. But again this goes right back to the "rest of Europe loved the Jews and it was big bad Germany alone who hated them." It's like the Tsarist Pogroms and the Dreyfus incident never happened.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

What is your major malfunction? I never said race didn't matter in Judaism or elsewwhere. Go back and read my post. What I said was that Jews are not a race, they are a religion, so antisemitism cannot be rightly considered a racial prejudice. I never said that race didn't matter. Believe me, I know plenty of dark-skinned Jews who are well aware that they exist under a double-whammy of prejudice, both racial and religious.

You're a complete idiot if you think the Alhambra Decree had nothing to do with religion. The decree was issued by the joint CATHOLIC monarchs of Spain. I know this because my ancestors were among the Jews driven out at that time. They were driven out for religious and ethnic reasons, not because they were believed to be a race. Prior to the ascension of Catholic rule, Spain was governed by Muslim moors, where Jews were given special status, and they thrived under Muslim rule. It wasn't until the CATHOLICS took over that the Jews were expelled. They were expelled for religious reasons, NOT racial reasons.

And you can deny it all you want, but the fact remains: the GERMANS coined the term antisemitism because they wanted a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass (Jew-hatred). he term originated in Germany and was developed to place anti-semitism into an anthropologically racial context, whereas up until that time it was purely based on religion, ethnic background and culture. So it's entirely justified to say that antisemitism originated in Germany, because it did. The very term and the concept of antisemitism as a racial connotation BEGAN IN GERMANY.

Once again, it's entirely justified to examine what in German culture and society would have led the Germans to give that prejudice a racial connotation after roughly 1,870 years. No else ever had in the past, including the CATHOLIC monarchs who issued the Alhambra Decree. This is a fact. Antisemitism in and of itself was indeed a German invention.

Unless you post another completely stupid comment that demonstrates that you clearly haven't read my post, I'm no longer going to respond to your comments, because you obviously have some huge need to come to the defense of the Germans while insulting the Jews.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Again, tell that to the Ashkenazim who run Israel, particularly the Ultra-Orthodox. I'll be waiting.

If that were the only reason for it, the Spanish would have just done a pogrom aimed at converting Jews, gotten enough converts, and that would be that. The Alhambra Decree was aimed at Conversos. The ones who were supposedly Christian but were really "Jewish." Just like a good deal of Hitler's victims would not meet the Halachic definition of Jew advocated by Israel's ultra-orthodox.

Congratulations. You said something I already know. *slow clap.*

And I'm saying "bullshit" because nobody would have expelled the Conversos if that was a religious decree. Only the practicing Jews would have been targeted, when in fact the entire focus was on Conversos, a category often determined by what were proto-racial categorizations.

I don't want to defend Hitler's incompetent war that went from one bumbling to another and put half of Europe under Stalinism. If Hitler had stopped a machine gun bullet on the Western Front....some other dipshit would have taken his place and we'dve had this conversation griping about that other person and wishing *he'd* been shot. And frankly I'm not insulting the Jews. The ones who resisted were true heroes, especially in Birkenau and Sobibor. I am, however, pointing out that it could easily have been that Birkenau and Sobibor were run by Baron Ungern-Sternberg's Black Hundreds instead of Hitler's National Socialists.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Tell what to the Ashkenazin? Now you're not even making sense.

Once again you've proved my point, because you're dead wrong about the Alhambra Decree. The Alhambra Decree was NOT aimed solely at Conversos, because the Conversos were Jews who converted to Christianity in an attempt to avoid being expelled by the decree. They were NOT the only ones expelled, believe me. My ancestors never converted to Christianity and they were expelled. It was always a religious issue, and the Halachic definition played only a very minor part in terms of determining the origins of the Conversos. The entire focus was NOT just on the Conversos but on ALL the Jews of Spain. Both practicing and non-practicing Jews were targeted and expelled.

Birkenau and Sobibor could have been run by Baron Ungern-Sternberg's Black Hundreds instead of Hitler's National Socialists? Please. That's utter, utter bullshit. The motivations of the actions of each man were so profoundly, fundamentally different that there's no authentic comparison to be made. You're really drawing at straws now, aren't you?

That's it. I'm not wasting any more time on you, since you continue to make one incorrect assertion after another, and I simply don't have the time to continue correcting you. I have much more important and worthwhile things to do. This conversation is at an end, NOW.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That Falasha are just as much Jews as they are, even though they're dark-skinned and don't have the Talmud, that's what. Try doing that and most of them will sound like Southern whites talking about blacks.

Obviously you've never studied *why* they passed the decree. They knew the practicing Jews were there. They bothered them less than the possibility of Jews who didn't act like Jews, just like segregationists worried more about blacks who could pass than ones who could not.

And if you didn't know which side in the Russian Civil War killed more Jews (it wasn't the Bolsheviks) then frankly there is no point to this discussion. Because you believe alone of Europe's peoples the Germans have hated Jews above all others and there was never a Kielce Pogrom and that the Jews of Kaunas were not exterminated by Lithuanians before the Wehrmacht even got there. It was all big, bad, evil Sauron-Hitler I mean who manipulated them all into it. Hitler made a science of it, but he was the conclusion of what Alexander III had begun.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

Yet at the same time Germany was one of the most Jew-riedly countries in Europe. In fact, I've seen it stated over and over again, that if before Hitler's rise to power there was a list done of the European countries most likely to commit genocide against the Jewish people, Germany would have come rather low, and the most common choice would have been France.

I'm not sure why you started alking about how the Jews are not a race.We know that, thanks. The point still stands that wherever it originated, anti-semitism as a racil construct (true or false) was prevalent throughout Europe and America, and if anything less prevalent in Germany than other places.

The simple point is, as Goldhagen completely fails to mention, that you could have looked at the histories of almost every European country and decided they were capable of committing the Holocaust. What set Germany off in particular? Nothing in Goldhagen's thesis even approaches this. Goldhagen simply offers the easy answers, that it was something unique to Germany, and now the Germans have gotten over it, we have nothign to worry about. It's a boot to the face to 'Never Again'.

[deborahkla.livejournal.com]

Oops, I forgot to respond to the following:
"What I was pointing out was that you seemed to be implying that the locals were somehow forced into their participation,"

Which is what Goldhagen was implying in the book, and why I saw it as untrustworthy.

Let’s look once again at what you said originally: “where Goldhagen does mention other nationalities acting against the Jews it is either a) skimmed over, or b) tagged with a caveat that they were 'pushed to it' by the Germans.”

I responded to your statement by saying, “I don't see Goldhagen claiming that the Germans "pushed" other nationalities into participating in the Holocaust.”

To this you replied, “p256 ‘... when the Hiwis, obviously influenced by the Germans' own brutality...’ p387 ‘They incited displaced Poles to loot Jewish homes.’"

I then correctly pointed out the following: “Being ‘influenced’ or ‘incited’ is not the same as being ‘pushed’, as you stated, which implies force.”

Here is the definition of influence, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

influence(in·flu·ence)
Pronunciation:/ˈinflo͝oəns, ˈɪnflʊəns/
noun

the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself:
the influence of television violence
I was still under the influence of my parents
their friends are having a bad influence on them

verb
[with object]

have an influence on:
social forces influencing criminal behavior


incite(in·cite)
Pronunciation:/inˈsīt, ɪnˈsaɪt/

verb
[with object]

encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior):
the offense of inciting racial hatred
urge or persuade (someone) to act in a violent or unlawful way:
he incited loyal subjects to rebellion

As you can see, to influence or incite someone is in no way the same thing as “pushing” or “forcing” them, as you accuse Goldhagen of implying.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

A very good critique: http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books_added2009-4/nationontrial.pdf If you can find any good essays defending Goldhagen I'd like to read them (please, scholarly only, not a review by the local paper of arse-end-on-sea).