Willing Executors of Hitler's Will? The Goldhagen Controversy, Political Analysis and the Holocaust

Abstract

Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996) has won its author a succession of accolades, from the American Political Science Association's prestigious Gabriel A. Almond Prize in comparative politics in 1994 to the even more prestigious Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik's Democracy Prize (awarded last in 1990). It has also occasioned an unprecedented and intense controversy on both sides of the Atlantic. In this article I consider the attribution of responsibility for the Holocaust in the Goldhagen thesis and the controversy this has spawned. I argue that despite Goldhagen's efforts to restore the conscious human subject to the perpetration of the Holocaust, the logic of his thesis in fact serves largely to absolve German subjects of culpability for an act of barbarism he regards as at least latent in an ‘exceptional’ and ‘eliminationist’ anti-Semitism that predates the rise of fascism. I take issue with Goldhagen's identification of Hitler's willing executioners as ‘Germans’, arguing that if human subjects are to be restored to the analysis of the Holocaust (as, indeed, they should be), it is imperative that we acknowledge the distinctly unexceptional character of ‘Ordinary Germans’ and, consequently re-examine our own culpability in this most modern of atrocities.