‘To what extent were the German people ‘willing executioners’ of the Jews in the period 1941-1945?’
Goldhagen’s debate as to whether German civilians were ‘willing executioners’, partaking in the violence of
the holocaust and allowing the genocide to take place, has been discussed extensively when attempting to
understand how the tragedy could take place. While some historians place blame on the involvement
civilians, others look towards the actions of Hitler himself or the culture and structure of the Nazi regime
and apparatus. In this essay I will debate each side and disagree with the view of the question, concluding
instead that a structuralist approach is more plausible, and that ordinary Germans cannot take on the
responsibility for a crime of this magnitude.
Using a revisionist of structuralist approach, Goldhagen argues that eliminationist antisemitism was the
cornerstone of a German national identity, unique only to Germany, and because of it-ordinary Germans
took part in the acts committed against the Jews, not just of their own volition- but enjoying doing so,
killing Jews willingly. He sees the virulent ideology stretching back through centuries of German history.
Under its influence, the vast majority of Germans wanted to eliminate Jews from German society, and the
perpetrators of the Holocaust did what they did because they thought it was "right and necessary."
Goldhagen evidences this by suggesting German people were more anti-Semitic than any other race, going
back centuries as part of their mind-set. This is accurate as throughout German history Jews have been the
subject of persecution and hate. With pogroms taking place throughout the years and little to no
assimilation. The scapegoating of Jews that was historically common was elevated by wartime conditions,
and the struggles that Germans went through during the years of depression before and after the golden
years. It increased the messages of Jewish bolshevism, November criminals, and reputation as ‘enemies of
the state’ by the propaganda messaging whispered, ‘throughout generations’, illustrating how violence
against Jews was common and normalised, with German people seeing them as sub-human’ without
political incentives or the threat of violence. Goldhagen argues that the ferocity of German "eliminationist
antisemitism" meant that Germany had been "pregnant with murder" regarding the Jews since the mid-
19th century and that Hitlers role was merely to unleash the deeply rooted "eliminationist antisemitism"
that had been brooding within the German people. He focused on the behaviour of ordinary Germans who
killed Jews, especially men in Police Reserve Battalion 101 in 1942. The 450 men were mostly middle-aged,
working-class men from Hamburg who showed little interest in National Socialism and who had no special
training to prepare them for genocide, yet due to Germanys background of anti-Semitism- they were
willing to carry out mass murder. This has been analysed by historians who attest further that the de-
Nazification programmes failure is further evidence that German people’s views were deep rooted in
Semitism.
However, some historians criticise this view, Kershaw coined the term “The road to Auschwitz was not
built by hate but paved with indifference.” He suggests instead of being driven by distaste; the German
people did not stop what was happening to the Jews because they saw these events as something which
didn't concern them. He said that the Nazis who planned and took part in the Holocaust did so because
they hated the Jews, but that ordinary Germans were not anti-Semitic and only let this happen because
they were indifferent. The notion of indifference can also be attested to by the creation of mass apathy
that was fostered in the totalitarian one-party state that the Nazis oversaw. The total control of all media
outlets means that many individuals were either fearful of the regime, blinded by adoration through
indoctrination or detached from reality.
On the other hand, internationalist historians see Hitler as the key to understanding Final Solution. Hitler
created the basis of a racial ideology where Jews were at the opposite end with his manifesto and
speeches fostering a culture of hate. His ability to play on traditional fears of communism and the
hardships faced by Germans meant his theories of Dolchstoss or Jewish bolshevism were able to take full
effect. The links between social Darwinism- an accepted view at the time- and his promise of lebensraum
and a volksgemeinshaft saw Germans imagine a ‘better world’ without the threat of the ‘monster’. Hitler’s
obsession with the ‘biological struggle’ between different races fitted with his view of the Jews- and this in
itself legitimised the final solution. To ‘purify’ the stronger races by eliminating the ‘germs’ that threatened
Goldhagen’s debate as to whether German civilians were ‘willing executioners’, partaking in the violence of
the holocaust and allowing the genocide to take place, has been discussed extensively when attempting to
understand how the tragedy could take place. While some historians place blame on the involvement
civilians, others look towards the actions of Hitler himself or the culture and structure of the Nazi regime
and apparatus. In this essay I will debate each side and disagree with the view of the question, concluding
instead that a structuralist approach is more plausible, and that ordinary Germans cannot take on the
responsibility for a crime of this magnitude.
Using a revisionist of structuralist approach, Goldhagen argues that eliminationist antisemitism was the
cornerstone of a German national identity, unique only to Germany, and because of it-ordinary Germans
took part in the acts committed against the Jews, not just of their own volition- but enjoying doing so,
killing Jews willingly. He sees the virulent ideology stretching back through centuries of German history.
Under its influence, the vast majority of Germans wanted to eliminate Jews from German society, and the
perpetrators of the Holocaust did what they did because they thought it was "right and necessary."
Goldhagen evidences this by suggesting German people were more anti-Semitic than any other race, going
back centuries as part of their mind-set. This is accurate as throughout German history Jews have been the
subject of persecution and hate. With pogroms taking place throughout the years and little to no
assimilation. The scapegoating of Jews that was historically common was elevated by wartime conditions,
and the struggles that Germans went through during the years of depression before and after the golden
years. It increased the messages of Jewish bolshevism, November criminals, and reputation as ‘enemies of
the state’ by the propaganda messaging whispered, ‘throughout generations’, illustrating how violence
against Jews was common and normalised, with German people seeing them as sub-human’ without
political incentives or the threat of violence. Goldhagen argues that the ferocity of German "eliminationist
antisemitism" meant that Germany had been "pregnant with murder" regarding the Jews since the mid-
19th century and that Hitlers role was merely to unleash the deeply rooted "eliminationist antisemitism"
that had been brooding within the German people. He focused on the behaviour of ordinary Germans who
killed Jews, especially men in Police Reserve Battalion 101 in 1942. The 450 men were mostly middle-aged,
working-class men from Hamburg who showed little interest in National Socialism and who had no special
training to prepare them for genocide, yet due to Germanys background of anti-Semitism- they were
willing to carry out mass murder. This has been analysed by historians who attest further that the de-
Nazification programmes failure is further evidence that German people’s views were deep rooted in
Semitism.
However, some historians criticise this view, Kershaw coined the term “The road to Auschwitz was not
built by hate but paved with indifference.” He suggests instead of being driven by distaste; the German
people did not stop what was happening to the Jews because they saw these events as something which
didn't concern them. He said that the Nazis who planned and took part in the Holocaust did so because
they hated the Jews, but that ordinary Germans were not anti-Semitic and only let this happen because
they were indifferent. The notion of indifference can also be attested to by the creation of mass apathy
that was fostered in the totalitarian one-party state that the Nazis oversaw. The total control of all media
outlets means that many individuals were either fearful of the regime, blinded by adoration through
indoctrination or detached from reality.
On the other hand, internationalist historians see Hitler as the key to understanding Final Solution. Hitler
created the basis of a racial ideology where Jews were at the opposite end with his manifesto and
speeches fostering a culture of hate. His ability to play on traditional fears of communism and the
hardships faced by Germans meant his theories of Dolchstoss or Jewish bolshevism were able to take full
effect. The links between social Darwinism- an accepted view at the time- and his promise of lebensraum
and a volksgemeinshaft saw Germans imagine a ‘better world’ without the threat of the ‘monster’. Hitler’s
obsession with the ‘biological struggle’ between different races fitted with his view of the Jews- and this in
itself legitimised the final solution. To ‘purify’ the stronger races by eliminating the ‘germs’ that threatened
