Evaluate Browning's thesis in light of class discussions and the Goldhagen readings. Does it hold water? Could ordinary people like you or I be turned into killers? Is it LIKELY that in a similar situation we would follow the same path of the men of OPB 101? Do any of Goldhagen's criticism undermine Browning? Discuss, citing examples from all three required readings.
Due Friday 5/13
62 comments:
In Browning’s Ordinary Men, he investigates the reasons for seemingly ordinary Germans who came from different backgrounds, could take up tremendous roles in the killings of millions of Jews. Through his investigations from documents of members of Battalion 101 during their conviction many years later, Browning ultimately concludes that even though these ordinary German soldiers committed grotesque crimes, anyone put in their situation would do the same. Browning argues that ultimately, the pressure to conform, as well as many other pressures that people face under extreme conditions, would cause any one of us to do exactly what the men in Battalion 101 did. This thesis is a blunt possibility; in psychology projects, it was shown that people were able to give near-fatal shocks to others when under the command to do so. It was originally thought that the most sadistic would give the full 300 W shock to the receiving end. However, through experiment, it was shown that most people tested were willing to comply to shocking the other person, even if they disagreed with what was going on. This psychology result shows that humans tend to yield to commands given to them, and that they tend more often to conform and follow orders, than to walk away. Such was the case when Battalion 101 was first given the orders to kill Jews. General Trapp, on the first mission of the murder of Jews, offered his men to back down if they chose to do so. In the beginning, some men chose to leave, whereas others chose to stick it out and follow orders. Trapp himself even felt disgusted after the act. However, just a couple of months later, the men in Battalion 101 became killing machines, unaware of any empathy. Browning discusses how the norm in German society changed, and thus the men, hoping to conform, became less reluctant in killing. Though Browning incites an interesting thesis, there are flaws in his work, as discussed by Goldhagen. Goldhagen specifically mentions how, though Browning’s sources were primary, just how unreliable his sources were. Goldhagen tells how the men who served in Battalion 101 could have easily just lied about their significance in the acts of murder, or could have just easily forgotten details, since the information was documented years after WWII. Goldhagen is also displeased with the fact that, though Browning discussed the fact that he interpreted the sources, he failed to tell his readers just how he evaluated his sources, and how he came up with the conclusions he made in Ordinary Men. Goldhagen also discusses how Browning seems to ignore whole sections of information that would be valuable for a more complete overview of the topic. Though such claims show weaknesses in Browning’s argument, all in all, Goldhagen agrees with his overall thesis.
Browning makes it clear throughout ordinary men that his stance on society and in particular Reserve Police Battalion 101 is as follows: anyone in any society or defining aspects is willing to kill given the correct situation and as such multiple reasons for their actions. Goldhagen on the other hand believes that, Nazi level antisemitic sentiment was prevalent and even widely accepted by the majority of the German populous and according to the Evil of Banality, “that not once in the history of the Holocaust was a German killed, sent to a concentration camp, or punished in any serious way for refusing to kill Jews” and suggests that is was because they were conditioned in some way to easily transition to becoming killers. In that same text Goldhagen continues to explain that even after Josefow, the OPB 101, despite being shaken, continued to commit these personal murders and deportations. This shows that he believe that antisemitic sentiments were used to condition killers however in the afterward of Ordinary men Browning points out that Goldhagen has nothing much to say about Pols other than they were easy to kill alongside Jews. I certainly think in light of the discussion we had in class about who thinks they would kill given the right circumstances and the weakness of Goldhagen’s idea that all Germans were conditioned to hate Jews yet were shaken when killing them supports Browning’s argument. I think that is is highly likely that we could follow the same path as OPB 101 given the correct circumstances, I mean in Ordinary Men Browning points out that many men killed because they did not want the shame of letting down their comrades and this happens ever single day in the high school! I strongly believe that I wouldn’t be a killer in most situations but everyone has their reason and I think that Browing is correct in thinking that those reasons are more than just antisemitism and hatred.
Christopher R. Browning, in his book Ordinary Men, makes a significant thesis about men from the Reserve Police Battalion 101 who were involved in mass killings during the holocaust. This thesis stated that these men were completely ordinary, and reacted to their situation in a way anyone else would have reacted. He supports his argument with well known psychological experiments, more specifically, Zimbardo and Milgram’s study on how people would behave in regards to authority. Zimbardo and Milgram both found that people tended to conform even if they did not agree with what had to be done. In Zimbardo’s experiment, prisoner guards became harsher as time progressed, while in Milgram’s experiment, people administered shocks that grew stronger in obedience to the presented authority. Rather than walking away, they followed orders. This was indeed portrayed in Ordinary Men, when Major Trapp, the commander of the battalion, gave a chance for hesitant men to step out. Most men chose to stay and participate in the disgusting and horrifying task. As the men in the battalion began to kill, they soon became conditioned to the gruesome brutality. Could the compliance of these men apply to any group of men? Goldhagen made valid points that found loopholes in Browning’s thesis. Goldhagen questioned the reliability of the accounts Browning wrote about, and how they might have been misinterpreted, exaggerated, or downplayed. He made two extremely compelling discussions, one being that Browning’s thesis simply reduced the violent and anti-Semitic slaughter of Jews into a “psychological phenomenon”. He also talked about the meaning of “ordinary.” Normality is something that differs greatly among many cultures and religions. It can not be defined when so many factors affect the context of the situation. Nonetheless, Browning’s point can be understood when one sees the psychological affect conformity can have on humans, and even though we may not like to be seen like such creatures, Zimbardo and Milgram’s studies only go to support this psychological view. However, Goldhagen presents strong reasoning that is skeptical but perhaps true because “ordinary” can have various meanings to many different societies.
After reading Ordinary Men, I still had a lot of questions as to whether or not Browning's theory was completely sound. I did not doubt his assertion that the psychological circumstances that the men of RPB101 had to endure in Poland contributed to their transformation into killers, but it seemed as though Browning had left parts of the puzzle out, and my feelings were validated upon reading Goldhagen's critique of Browning's novel. Goldhagen too agreed that Browning's psychological insights were primarily correct, but he also pointed to the gaps in Browning's research that all historians are capable of making. While Browning's theory holds very well if compared with Millgram's experiments or Zimbardo's prison, and the occurrences at Abu Grahib also seem to prove that anyone can be turned into a killer if placed into the right situation, Goldhagen points out that Browning's conclusions were often overreaching. Throughout Ordinary Men, it is assumed that the majority of the men of RPB101 did not want to kill Jews because of the shame and moral implications, and Browining has carefully selected passages that support this claim, but Goldhagen highlights that often there was no shame involved, rather a fear and disgust with the gruesome scenes of killing. Goldhagen also brought up another aspect of the book that troubled me, the accounts used by Browning. Browning relies heavily on the stroies of men on trial: men who want to distance themselves from a crime and convince a jury that they did not truly want to participate in the killing of innocent people.
Goldhagen (and Gellately) largely base their explanations of the actions of "ordinary men" during the Holocaust and the Second World War in German culture. Goldhagen specifically credits the uniquely German anti-semitism and language and mindset as playing large roles in the ability of a society to kill. Browning places a lot of emphasis on situation, the conditions of the Holocaust were exactly right for the psychological spiral of the men of RPB101, and he is correct in this, but he forgets a large part of situation that Goldhagen concentrates on, and that is the culture and customs of the society and the individual before an atrocity occurs. Germany as a nation must be considered in an evaluation of why so many Germs were able to transform into killers, just as the American military must be evaluated when examine the horrors of Abu Grahib. It is not solely the individual that is responsible for this transformation. All of this being said, I also think that Goldhagen should be under fire for his own overreaching assumptions, such as the claim that all Germans were anti-Semitic in the same way, or basing his examinations on SS police, which made up only 5% of the Nazi military.
Ultimately, I do believe that in the right conditions and circumstances, anyone can be a killer. Of course there are these that will refrain from killing, but like Browning and even Goldhagen assert, the majority of people will kill. Both Goldhagen and Browning try to analyze what occurred in Nazi Germany according to a pattern, but I honestly think that some aspects of the Holocuast are simply unexplainable atrocities.
Browning in his book Ordinary Men unequivocally states in no uncertain terms states that in their situation, any one of us could have committed the same heinous atrocities as the ones committed by the members in the OPB 101. I believe that based on the experiments that have been done in the academic world as well as how I feel that Browning’s thesis does indeed hold water. Under the given social and political environment at the time, had I or anyone else been placed in the OPB, we would most likely have committed the same wrongs. It is more than likely, it is almost certain. The Germans who did this were, as Browning says, effectively ordinary men. Who are we to believe that we’re any better than them? There is an inherent psychological bias that humans have that tends to make us criticize others while refusing to acknowledge the same flaws in ourselves. This is a very good example of that. Although almost all humans contain the capacity to kill, as seen in the OPB 101, people tend to deny these facts. People from Milgram’s experiments in electric shock were distraught when they had found out they were shocking people to the brink of death for no other reason than because a higher authority had told them to do so. From Browning’s own evidence, coupled with the well documented scientific experiments conducted it seems reasonable to assume that anyone has the capability of doing things that we would normally find fundamentally wrong, such as murder.
Browning’s thesis has been heavily controversial in the field of WWII history and heavily debated by many scholars such as Goldhagen, a university professor at Harvard. Goldhagen makes several valid points in disputing Browning’s thesis. One of the most damning arguments that Goldhagen makes against Browning is the shaky foundation upon which most of Browning novel is based upon. The testimony of the men was necessarily, for their own sake, not entirely truthful. Out of hundreds of men, only two admitted to having killing people, when that was clealry not the case. Also, as Goldhagen points out, the shame that Browning describes has totally been inferred and the soldiers did not feel horribly wrong for killing all of the people. There is no direct evidence such shame exists claims Goldhagen. He also points out that the searches for Jews were called, “Jew Hunts”. Hunts have a very positive connotation, where fun and the thrill of the hunt is implied. The men seemed to enjoy publicly shaming the Jews and hurting them with abandon says Goldhagen. To an extent, read by itself, Goldhagen does manage to undermine many of Browning points. His refutation is relatively successful within the confines of his own article. However, when re-examined, it becomes that Goldhagen has made faulty conclusions of his own, as the Political Science Reviewer points out. For example, Goldhagen has grouped all the by-standers as supporters of the “Final Solution” when that could simply not be concluded. Perhaps most eye-opening was a poll conducted among 1944 German POW’s. 33% agreed that Anti-Semitism was good, but a startling 44% thought that it was harmful. Clearly, each side’s reasoning has its own flaws, but I feel that Browning’s thesis is fundamentally correct.
I feel that Chris Browning’s thesis does hold true, and that most people, under the circumstances of OPB 101, could be pushed into committing similar crimes. Goldhagen attempts to refute this, by claiming that conditions in Germany were completely unique, and that due to the rampant anti-Semitism of the area, due to the effectiveness of Hitler’s propaganda and his brain washing of the German people, that the people of Germany were formed into the perfect killing machine. This, however, was largely refuted, in turn, by Alexander Groth, who explained that propaganda more so induced fear in the German population than it did rally them to a cause, and that the Gestapo were an incredibly effective force in frightening the people into obedience. Further, he stressed that anti-Semitism in Germany had been exaggerated by history, and that it existed mostly in a rather casual and certainly non-tumultuous way among the greater population. I agree with Browning, therefore, that most ordinary people could be brought to these same conditions. I feel this partly because of his arguments, that killing could become habitual given enough “practice”, the attitude of the command towards the killing could affect performance, and that influence of alcohol, dehumanization, and a fear of disappointing the group could all contribute to a development of a killer mindset. I think the greatest factor, though, was a fear of not obeying orders. Although Trapp did often excuse men without punishment, I could see from Groth’s article that Hitler’s regime had a terrifying effect on most of the German population, and that fear of disobedience was deep-rooted. Therefore, even though they were offered a choice, they had sufficient establishment in fear of disobedience that contradicting such orders, especially when sent from higher command, was sufficient to persuade many men to kill. Habituality also played a strong part, and certainly the desire to support the group as a whole. I feel these are the strongest contributing factors to the actions of OPB 101, and that if certain ordinary people, under duress form authority and in a large group situation, and given enough practice, could become effective killers.
Browning’s thesis is very troubling to the average “ordinary” man. It states that under the right circumstances one would commit the crimes that many of the Order Police of the Nazi Regime did. He states that even if one is not a born killer one could concoct reasons in which they complete the most gruesome of tasks. In his book Ordinary Men he explains the reasons behind why ordinary men of the Order Police would massacre thousands of Jews on multiple occasions. However much scrutiny, put up by Goldhagen, Browning’s argument still proves many points. He mentions experiments like the ones performed by Zambardo and Milgram. These cases help to back up his argument that ordinary people could do the most brutal of acts. His argument is greatly supported.
Goldhagen however, also puts up a great argument for his thesis. He argued that the Holocaust could only appear in Germany because of the predefined structure of society in Germany. He claimed that there was an underline anti-Semitic attitude within Germany, and all Hitler had to do was tap into that energy to unleash the havoc. His arguments also hold some ground. He does use many scholarly sources to prove the German attitude towards Jews. His argument against Browning did show a difference in interpretation of the meaning of certain passages from Order Police Battalion 101. The attacks on Goldhagen’s thesis in Demonizing the Germans: Goldhagen and Gellately on Nazism were unclear and did not soundly disprove much of Goldhagen’s arguments. The author almost seems like he is using ad hominine attacks on Goldhagen in an effort to disprove his thesis. His claim that lumping all the German people into a singular group shows a flaw withing Goldhagen’s argument, however during the course of Goldhagen’s book he explains why that is such the case. So Goldhagen’s arguments do potentially contribute to the reason why the Nazis were able to implement the Holocaust.
It is obvious that Goldhagen finds many flaws the Browning’s work but does appreciate it as a good source when it comes to understanding ordinary men who became Nazi murderers. While Goldhagen feels that Browning should have expanded his research to incorporate the larger German community “the larger population as a whole”, rather than those just belonging to the military, he does qualify the book as a source for comprehending the Nazis. I believe that when people are exposed to a certain environment, they adapt in order to maintain a certain balance. If the environment drastically changes, so does the person. This is why I believe that ordinary men can become murders. If they were exposed to brutality and bloodshed on a daily basis, it would soon become their way of life. They would not know anything but war and violence, and so they will soon feel nothing and participate in the murders. This is what happened to members of Police Battalion 101 as they were constantly exposed to turmoil. In a similar situation, we would probably follow the people in the reserve police battalion. With however much hesitation, we would eventually come around to the notion of killing. Whether it is through peer pressure or a need to adapt to the situation, Browning makes it clear that we all have it in us to do terrible things. Goldhagen does undermine Browning because his critiques make one question what information Browning failed to include. He mentions how some of the men who Browning said hesitated at the start of 101’s first missions, volunteered for other missions. This would basically undermine Browning’s whole thesis because it shows that there was something already inside these men that was causing them to kill. Browning’s whole book relies on the fact that there must be a proper psychosocial situation for any person to become a killer, but if a person did not experience this and started killing from the onset, as Goldhagen states, then Browning’s work would be very questionable.
I believe that regular people could be turned into killers. For the most part, everyone is psychologically susceptible to this. Goldhagen argues that this “ordinary” group of men who became killers were specific to the situation and time in Germany alone. He also expresses that the orders of the Nazi’s were simply a representation of the desires of the entire German people. However, as pointed out in “Demonizing the Germans”, less than five percent of Germans took part in the extermination of the Jews. Also, the Nazi party never publicized the actuality of their exterminations to the German people, and simply said they were relocating the Jews to Eastern Europe. For these reasons, I do not feel that Goldhagen’s criticism of Browning undermines Browning’s thesis, because this criticism is ill-supported. People turning to savagery is always a possibility and it is narrow-minded of Goldhagen to present the theory that the Germans were so conditioned to hate the Jews that they thought it natural to kill them, and that this makes them anything but ordinary. People resorting to their bestial habits is even seen in modern day, such as with what happened at Abu Graihb. The ordinary military men and women there resorted to humiliating inmates and severe violence that seems completely unnecessary and out of character. Yet this is exactly was happened to the men of Battalion 101. They were put in the situation where they were being told to kill. The ones who at first resisted ended up caving in and participating in the acts as well. Browning supported his thesis by showing that the men exterminating Jews were not members of the SS, and had no prior reason to harbor great hatred towards the Jewish people. Goldhagen says that Browning is misrepresenting history by analyzing this select group, when in fact Goldhagen’s argument is full of misrepresentations. I stand by Browning’s thesis, as there is sound evidence in his text, from psychological studies, and from modern events.
Personally, I am much more inclined to believe Browning's assertions on the nature of German executioners than Goldhagen's; given the situation, I think almost every one of us could be brought to extreme measures, even to the point of killing another human being. The effects of “peer pressure” are undoubtedly apparent in the actions of Order Police Battalion 101. The fear of alienating oneself from a group of men whom is a.) relatively unfamiliar to you and b.) upon whom your life may very well depend is a harrowing ordeal, and many men instead chose the option to kill the civilians demonized in their eyes by such statements as Trapp's “remember the women and children being killed in Hamburg.” In truth, I highly doubt that any of us today could fathom the psychological complexity of their situation. The Order Police were, as the Evil of Banality states, “cast into the thick of the genocidal enterprise,” without any time to accept or analyze the situation at hand. While some of the men acted immediately on instinct, either in avoiding the violence or embracing a moment of sadistic authority, others went along for the ride, at least for a time. Although appalled or ashamed of what they did, many men would rather drown their memories in alcohol than risk becoming a pariah within what is supposed to be a tightly-knit band of policemen. From merely observing myself and others in everyday life, I believe that most of us are entirely capable of following this course of action, given a comparable situation. There would of course be some who out and out refuse to participate, but, many would go ahead and follow the crowd, rather than risk being different. Whether influenced by a sense of power, a dehumanization of the “enemy,” or a fear of deviation from the majority, good people can be turned into monsters. All in all, people are sheep, and always will be at heart.
As for addressing Goldhagen's point of view, I agree that “Hitler's Willing Executioners” were to a degree acting on a natural desire to exert control. However, I see this as more of a general human element, rather that a regional one; I have trouble believing that it is an inborn trait of the German people to hate Jews, and I agree with the reading's statement that this assumption borders on profiling and fails to address the culpability of other nations, even in failing to act where they could against anti-Semitism. As mentioned in the afterword of Ordinary Men, anti-Semitism varied in reason and strength across Germany, and the frenzied height that it reached was in large part due to the Nazi's complete control of media and government, as well as the fact that the higher echelons of the party opened the doors for more radical anti-Semites to take action. This buildup of hatred actually mirrors the post-war vilification of Nazism and re-education of the German people in many ways, helping to prove that anti-Semitism is not some “genetic” trait, but rather a philosophy ingrained on ordinary people by a relentless barrage of propaganda. For this, I have to conclude that Browning's thesis, although somewhat lacking in its analysis of the background of the OPB 101 and at times only mentioning what is immediately agreeable to its standpoint, is relatively unscathed by Goldhagen's assertions.
In his book Ordinary Men Christopher Browning examines the German Police Batallion 101 during World War II. He wanted to make an attempt to understand why these “ordinary men” performed such horrible actions. Browning examines the testimonies of these men and understands that many of the men did lie. Browning understands that he cannot fully rely on what the men said. However, through careful analysis Browning concluded that, given a similar situation, many of us would act the same way that the men of Battalion 101 did. He stated that these men performed brutal actions for multiple reasons: the fear of being branded as a coward, the pressure of conforming, and the presence of an authority figure; they were “just following orders.” Goldhagen picks out the flaws in Browning’s analysis. He states that the accounts of the soldiers are not entirely accurate because many lied or had forgotten some things that happened. Also, Goldhagen questions Browning’s approach stating that he left out some crucial information. Specifically, when men stated that they originally stepped out of the first acts of murder but some later when on to participate in more events. Goldhagen also states, “The men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 Were not ordinary "men," but ordinary members of an extraordinary political culture, the culture of Nazi Germany, which was possessed Of a hallucinatory, lethal view of the Jews.” Goldhagen stresses the importance that the men on the Nazi Party were in a different situation with already warped views of the Jewish population.
Browning’s thesis seems accurate. Society has seen itself in the predicament of genocide throughout history. Every time one group of people tries to eradicate another the volatile individuals in the society are able to boss and persuade the more logical members to aid them in their goals. The holocaust was no different. Radical members of the Nazi party led more reserved German people through a series of violent acts. Experiments and more current situations such as that at the Abu Ghraid prison show us when a “normal” or average individual is placed in a stressed situation they will adapt differently and with harsh leadership psychologically devolve pursuing more violent less rational thoughts. Goldhagen proposed “if they were called upon to kill Jews, my guess is that, just as in other such units, most of the policeman would have done so.” Goldhagen’s ideas are similar to Browning’s when the ordinary men were put into the position of administering executions most acted with apathy though they did not relish the executions they performed them anyway some however a smaller percent did relish the murder and death this sadistic side of the force was a minority however. However Goldhagen contributes more of the ability to kill to the brain washing anti-Semitism such as Nazi propaganda and society beliefs. Browning believed more in a slow process of slowly manipulating German mind set. Many find today’s individuals who have more understanding of what happens and what has happened to be less affected by the whims of madness such as those seen by members of the party participating in the holocaust. Would an everyday American commit these atrocities? The Milgram experiment provided some insight into an everyday educated previously uninflected individuals participation in hurting another random person. The individuals were found to shock the “victims” with minimal prompting. Although this is a far cry from killing it shows even individuals from advanced societies could harm others. Psychologically individuals are more likely to go with society then go against it. Like follow the leader it is likely individuals followed suite in the atrocities. However I believe a slow development is more likely then a rapid progression. Therefore I believe in both their thesis just for different reasons. In the end it can be agreed by both these men ordinary men can be transformed into the monsters seen in the holocaust. I myself believe it happened then and is more that capable of happening again, just less likely to happen now with a world so well connected it could stop anymore serious genocides such as that the Nazis participated in. Current genocides are not really the same. They are more civil wars in which we and other countries are unable to influence the outcome their for they in my eyes do not qualify as actual genocides or attacks against one people because the people all to often attack themselves, self destructive societies are not the same as those that commit genocide.
In his book, Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning analyzes the role of Reserve Police Battalion 101 in the killing process of Jews during World War II. From the primary source material of the battalion's members, he concluded that, under the right conditions, anyone could become a cold blooded killer with the capability of inflicting harm on defenseless individuals. Browning supports this idea by pointing out how the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 were just ordinary men From the lower classes of German society who were unfit for the elite SS and even the regular army. With this in mind, Browning summarizes the entire role of Reserve Police Battalion 101 from beginning to end. At Jozefow, their first killing assignment, the men were left quite shaken since the killing was new to them and they "got to know their Jews on a personal level." They were reluctant and disgusted with the atrocities that they were committing, so some simply refused to participate and many more dodged their responsibilities. However, overtime, the men become hardened killers, conditioned to their role in the final solution. Browning describes several techniques such as dehumanizing the Jews, placing the majority of killing on the shoulders of the drunken Hiwis, making their role more indirect (round up for concentration camps), or promise of a future in the police business. But, using the works if Milgram and Zumbardo, Browning argues that the biggest driving factor for the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 was the desire to conform and not let ones fellow soldiers down (appearing cowardly or weak in front of them).
However, an author by the name of Daniel Goldhagen, presents opposition to the ideas Browning presents in his work, The Evil of Banality. For example, he dismisses the testimonies of the police men as inconsistent and contradictory, since they often changed their accounts of killing Jews to distance themselves from the matter. He down plays Browning's claim that the men were ashamed of what they were doing. When the battalion was in Jozefow, he claims that the reason for avoiding duty was not they were ashamed of the actions they performed, but rather they were disgusted by the actual appearance of blood, brain matter, etc. involved in the execution process. Moreover, he claims that the majority of the men found delight in what they were doing. In one of many accounts, he discusses one police man's "boyish joy" after splattering the brains of a twelve year old Jew. He also talks about hunts for the Jews in the country side which were completely voluntary, so the men had to have some delight in partaking. He even states that some of the men who had refused in the initial killings later volunteered to participate. In the end, Goldhagen states that "the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 Were not ordinary "men, but ordinary members of an extraordinary political culture..." that was strongly anti-Semitic. He does concede to the importance of psychological influences, but he denies Browning's claim that ordinary men can become killers. The definition of the "ordinary man" differs from nation to nation. In Nazi Germany, the "ordinary man" was a member of a strongly anti-Semitic culture and was conditioned with anti-Semitic ideals. In contrast, the "ordinary man" of America is an honest, hard working man born on the beliefs of justice and equality. Therefore, Goldhagen may believe that if an "ordinary" American man was assigned the task to kill Jews, he would not react the same way as an "ordinary" German man since they were not conditioned in the same way.
Browning wrote Ordinary Men with the conviction that anyone, given the right circumstances, can become a killer. Goldhagen disagreed vehemently, attributing the murders uniquely to the Germans. Nevertheless, I agree with Browning. Goldhagen’s outlook was too narrow to encompass all that occurred in Germany prior to and during World War II.
In “The Evil of Banality,” Goldhagen justly challenges some aspects of Ordinary Men, such as misleading quotations and unreliable testimonies. He includes as an example the quote, “‘We have the task to shoot Jews, but not to beat or torture them,’” which Browning attributed to Trapp himself, but was actually quoted in the testimony of one of the battalion members. Moreover, Browning left out the first sentence of the original quote, which actually placed the statement after the action as a mourning of the cruelty displayed, instead of prior to the action as a preventative warning. Thus, Goldhagen accuses Browning of manipulating the connotation of the quotation.
Nevertheless, his own perspective was too biased against the Germans. A political science reviewer criticized Goldhagen’s writing for being too subjective, “Goldhagen’s characterization of German anti-Semitism is almost racist in its sweeping and exclusivist character” (“Demonizing the Germans: Goldhagen and Gellately on Nazism”). Most of his assumptions about the German people are faulty: the people who voted for Hitler were not automatically voting for anti-Semitism, for most either did not read Mein Kampf or did not take it seriously; Hitler was not generally beloved but rather people obeyed his rule because they feared the negative consequences of going against him. As the political science reviewer says, “The most effective was the system of terror,” for they had to consider not only themselves but also their family members and friends. Therefore, it was too risky for most to help Jews. However, that in no way means that all Germans were anti-Semitic people.
The criticisms made by Goldhagen undermine Browning as a historian adhering to veracity, but they do not mar his thesis. Even if some of the supporting details were incorrect, Browning’s general thesis “holds water.” It is possible we (a universal we meant to include everyone) would respond just as the men in OPB 101 did in a similar situation. For example, even when Major Trapp offered the men to avoid the shooting in Jozefow, only a few dared to step out. The rest remained, out of shock at the task or from their desire to fit in with their fellow soldiers. Today, peer pressure is just as powerful. It can drive people to become bystanders or even participants to bullying, theft, and a myriad of other bad actions. As the soldier who acted violently against Iraqis in Abu Ghraib admonished, we can’t judge his actions without being in the situation he was in. After Jozefow, the men of OPB 101 could only cope by drinking, but one man was still so haunted that he shot the ceiling in his sleep. Without understanding the situations that those men were put through (which would require us to be placed in the same plights), we cannot make accurate assumptions of our actions in times of duress.
I would like to think that people would consider the ethics of taking away someone’s life and feel empathy for the victims. However, I also acknowledge that there are some things people would potentially kill for to protect, such as their families, friends, or even pride. Thus, I believe Browning’s thesis has merit.
Any person put in the exact place of the police battalion 101 would have done the same thing. However, I agree with Goldhagen’s belief that Browning overlooked key factors. The police were ordinary men. However, they were ordinary men in a Nazi society. A society where Jews were dehumanized and killing them could have been regarded as sport. The reality is that Browning’s thesis would have been undermined if he conceded some of the atrocities of the police battalion. I found the passage Goldhagen revealed with the splattered brains especially disturbing. Such awful acts seem to be beyond a result of society and the situation. This makes the police battalion seem more sadistic than Browning implies. This seems to be an exception to Browning’s “ordinary” men. I also think it depends on how you define ordinary. Most ordinary Nazis might kill thousands of Jews. However, if you took people with different values (for example a unbiased third party raised with American values) I hardly think they’d kill as willingly. Therefore it was as much the Nazi society as the situation that led to such murderers. I think ordinary people like you or I could be turned into killers. But it would largely depend on the victims and the attitude of our society. If we were told to kill random people because we were told they were a threat I’m not sure we could follow through. However, if we were pushed by propaganda and banded against a certain group, I’m sure we could kill. The second reading does bring up a good point though. Goldhagen asserts that almost all Germans were anti-Semites when this certainly wasn’t the case. However, I still believe that societal pressure of antisemitism largely contributed to the killings. If it weren’t for such pressure I don’t think any of us would be able to kill.
"If the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 could become killers under such circumstances, what group of men cannot?" (Browning 189). To answer Mr. Browning's question, I would like to say that I would not. However, unfortunately that would most likely be a fallacy. I'm sure the men involved in this terror era didn't tell their mommys when they were younger that they wanted to be killers when they grew up. It's just not plausible that there was just a whole population born with this capacity of evil. There's really nothing different about them than anyone else in this world except the social atmosphere that they lived in. Thus, Browning's thesis is most likely very accurate. As much as it kills me to say, everyone in Cheshire High School has already displayed signs that they have the capacity to carry out such tasks that the men in police battalion 101 had to. How many times have you walked by someone in the hallway getting bullied? How many times have you laughed at a disparaging comment to someone? How many times have you done something just because everyone else was doing it? I know I have. These situations are really just the Holocaust on a lower scale. High school can be seen as a mini Germany. There are the people who think they're better than everyone else, there are the bystanders who don't speak out against wrong doings, and then there are the targets of bullying. If high schoolers display this nature everyday, then why wouldn't we be able to raise it to a larger scale when a whole nation is doing it? It's a little thing called peer pressure. In the Evil of Banality Goldhagen states, "The social psychological conditions, the objective and keenly felt pressures of the group, the fear of being held in contempt by one's comrades: these were what turned these men into killers, in Browning's view, and kept them at it." Browning clearly creates a respectable view on the matter that Goldhagen tries to refute. He characterizes all of Germany as an anti-semitic nation, and I don't believe he got real deep into the psychological analysis of the events. "...Goldhagen's characterization of German anti-semitism is almost racist in its sweeping and exclusivist character" (Demonizing the Germans 119). This article goes on to say that Goldhagen basically lets the rest of the world "off the hook". I strongly believe Browning has a superior stance on the situation than Goldhagen. Goldhagen tries to attack his arguments but he just doesn't follow through effectively.
Examples in history have provided examples supporting Browning's thesis and ultimately supporting the theory that any Cheshire civilian, including me, can carry out such horrors that the men of RPB 101 committed.
I find that ordinary people are easily swayed and convinced into doing things they normally would not if someone in command of them tells them to do it. I like to think of it in simpler terms a normal person would not buy name brand products if they knew about generic brands of prescription drugs that were just as good as a name brand but a commercial on T.V. which is now seen as an authority figure by most Americans. These types of commercials claim that their product is the best and the most effective at something when there is an exact, cheaper version of it right next to it. But the drug with the name has authority behind it, it has a commercial telling you that it is the best thing out there and that nothing else will work, so we listen. It is a similar occurrence in situations like with what happened to the men of opb 101 they were told that doing this was in the best interest of the country, of themselves, of their families and so they went along with what the man said and did it. This is because given a situation a person will adapt in a way that they see as the best way but is usually just the easiest way. What is the easiest way? The way that is put out in front of you? Or the way that you have to think about? Well you don’t usually think that fast under pressure so you will usually do what someone has instructed you to do because it seems like the best choice, because someone told you to. On the other hand Goldhagen says that things like the holocaust happened because the people agreed with what Hitler was killing off millions of Jews with the help of his supporters but I would again point to the fact that many of them were put into a place where they could easily be sold the idea to kill these people who they were told where the cause of the debt crisis and were murderers. These points may not seem to hold any water with people now but they lived in a fascist state they were fed this kind of information on a daily basis they had no other option but to listen to what the authorities said. Goldhagen also said that it was the fault of the many people who were not killing the Jews that so many of the Jewish people died this in his opinion was because they did nothing to stop it. This is a silly argument in my opinion because many of the German people did not know about the mass killings and many of the people were too scared to do anything about it lest they be taken and killed or put into one of the camps by the Gestopo. So personally I find Goldhagen to be a moronic writer, who much like some politicians and political analysts of today, pulls most of his information out of his ass.
I feel that Browning brings up many logical points in “Ordinary Men.” He describes situations when members apart of the OPB 101 are forced to conform to the norm of killing people. There have been many experiments performed that have proven Browning’s thesis to be correct including Zimbardo’s Prison Experiment discussed in class. Browning felt that when put in a situation when everyone around them is killing people, they would take part in the murder. This seems to be a valid point although many say they would not do anything like that. It would be extremely difficult to try and avoid killing, yet the majority would take part. Within “Ordinary Men,” Browning discusses how higher up officers of the Police Battalion gave their officers the chance to step away from the horrors of murder but very few did. Many, when put into the situation, would try to get away but only some would actually do so because of that influence of others. Ordinary people could be turned into killers if the situation came up because as shown in this book, many people are taking part in the killings, and few would be able to step away. Therefore, many people, if put in the same situation, would follow the same path as the men of OPB 101. On the other hand, Goldhagen’s criticisms do undermine some of Browning’s ideas. Goldhagen, as is told in his article, “The Evil of Banality,” tells how Browning does not tell why the men who stepped away from the killing did so. Hence, it is not known for sure that there was persuasion from others to take part in the killings or not. Yet, Goldhagen does have a ridiculous thesis, blaming the whole German population. In the article “Demonizing the Germans,” it describes how Goldhagen said that all of Germany was evil, even though very few Germans actually participated in the killings. In the end, Browning has much more merit in his arguments versus Goldhagen because Browning’s ideas make sense and have been proven to work, versus the outrageous thought that Goldhagen explained, telling that all of Germany is bad.
I believe that Browning’s thesis that any ordinary man is capable of doing horrific acts of mutilation and murder are completely sound. The idea that, based on the situation that a person is in, they will be willing to perform acts which they would not do in a “normal” environment. Browning supports this with the given situations of having to obey orders or conforming with one’s contemporaries. It has already been shown through psychological tests that under an authoritative figure, a person will do as told without objection even when the mandates become extreme and the person knows the moral implications of their actions. That though a subject may openly reject to do such an action they will feel uncomfortable being singled out as the only one not going with the group and may eventually break and conform. And after this conformity may come a sense of culture or ideology of these specific actions as being justified or no longer morally incorrect due to the numbing of regularity. And through this repetition they will become believers of these crimes and become true sadists as stated by Goldhagen. Yet as scary as these psychological analyses are, I remain positive in the idea that people can still be generally good or even heroes. Because just as humans have potential to do unbelievably cruel things, humans have potential to do unbelievably virtuous acts. It only seems that doing bad is easier because we always associate the good as the one thing we always aspire to be yet cannot become because good is associated with perfection. But in actuality people generally do nice things to others everyday without knowing it.
Browning’s thesis that ordinary people will do things that contradict their moral beliefs if other people around them are doing such things or if an authority instructs them to does hold water even against Goldhagen’s thesis that the Holocaust was caused by the anti-Semitism of the entire German population. According to Browning’s thesis, ordinary people could be turned into killers like the men in Reserve Police Battalion 101 if these people were instructed by an authority to commit the acts of murder and were promised by the authority that they would not be held responsible for the murders. Goldhagen proposed that the German people’s anti-Semitism contributed most significantly to starting the Holocaust and that the Nazi regime merely portrayed the general will of the German people. This interpretation is flawed because it is very unlikely that the entire German population hates Jews. The soldiers who committed the killings were ordered to by their superior officers. They were also promised that the officers would take responsibility for the killings. Goldhagen’s criticism does not undermine Browning’s thesis. Multiple experiments and real-world examples also support Browning’s thesis. The teachers in the Milgram experiment knew that what they were doing was hurting the learners but they continued after being reassured by the authority. The experiment showed that people tend to follow the orders of an authority even if the orders are against the person’s moral beliefs. The Abu Ghraid case also supports the conclusions formed by the Milgram experiment. The prison guards were American soldiers who thought they were going to be fighting on the front lines. Instead they were assigned to duty as prison guards and they treated the prisoners very brutally. Despite some soldiers’ objections to their orders the majority of the soldiers executed their orders because they felt they had a responsibility to do so as soldiers. This further supports the idea that ordinary people can become killers if they were put in a situation that forced them to kill.
Browning’s thesis still holds approximately 3 quarts of water in light of Goldhagen’s opinion. Goldhagen does criticize Browning for incomplete research and leaving things out, but I still agree with Browning; if put into their position most people would do the same thing. To suggest that others would do different and that the Germans were more susceptible is just racist. In the Vietnam War 79% of troops were able to shoot to kill on their first engagement. This is a drastic jump from the mere 15%-20% that would be able to kill their first time in WWI and WWII. People can get very good at making others kill. Even something like the Milgram experiment shows that when subjected to an authoritative figure who tells a person to do something they normally would not, they will. To conclude if we were put in the position of the Order Police Battalion 101, we would have done the same.
To be honest, I am on the edge about Christopher Browning’s thesis for “Ordinary Men.” Browning used many court records, investigations, and testimonies to support his thesis. The question comes down to whether he was biased or not in choosing sources. I feel as if he only used the ones that supported his claims and there are documents that showed why some members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 had different opinions then others. Millgram’s experiment and Zimbardo’s prison shows that anyone can turn into a killer but it really depends on the situation. Goldhagen’s reading showed that during World War II what made some German soldiers opt out of killing the Jews was not shame or what they believed was right but they feared the gruesome scenes that would be involved in killing. This is something Browning did not mention in his book. He picked out the sources carefully so they supported his thesis.
I believe that ordinary people could be turned into killers. I could be turned into a killer depending on the situation. If you put me in a situation such as the Abu Ghraib prison, then yes, I would be following the orders of my commanders. In the documentary, one of the soldiers made it clear that he was scared that he would die. Their enemies would come from the city next to Abu Ghraib and fire on their base. When I am placed in that situation, then I don’t know what would stop me from picking up my gun and starting to kill my enemies. But if I am given the option to backout or not to participate, I don’t know what I would have done. I think that everyone defines “ordinary” differently. According to dictionary.reference.com, the word ‘ordinary’ means ‘customary, usual, normal.’ If we apply this definition to the soldier in Abu Ghraib and Reserve Police Battalion 101, then I believe that we would follow the same path as them. At the same time, I might be wrong. It would take a lot of courage for someone to say, “No, this is wrong. I can’t do this.” People who have this mindset would not be willing to compromise their morals. It really comes down to the courage the person has. I consider it courage for a person to say no in a situation like Abu Ghraib or RPB 101. It is not cowardice.
Browning focuses on the situation a person is faced with while Goldhagen focuses on the culture of the society. Goldhagen says that anti-Semitism played a major role in the killing of the Jews by the Germans. Browning says that it depends on the situation a person is in. In this case, I would disagree with Goldhagen but side with Browning. Not all Germans were anti-semitic. What determines whether you will be a killer or not is the situation you are faced with.
Browning, Goldhagen, and Groth present different views on the psychology of the German people at the time of the Holocaust, which are revealing in juxtaposition with more contemporary psychological advances. Browning argues in his book, aptly named “Ordinary Men,” that most Germans at the time were . . . ordinary men. They were not sadistic or evil, but rather normal people that felt forced to follow orders, through military hierarchy and peer pressure. While this at first seems dubious – for surely no amount of external pressure could so drastically change a person’s nature – Browning’s thesis finds support with two contemporary psychological experiments. The Milgram experiment tested ordinary people’s capacity to inflict pain upon others, with startling results. The vast majority of participants were willing to inflict great amounts of pain on others when they were ordered to. In hand with that, the Prison Experiment was conducted on other normal people. Those given extreme authority as guards abused it against the prisoners, even when they were allowed to exit the experiment at any time and after a shift resumed their normal lives. These two experiments reveal a darker side of any ordinary people in their capacity to inflict pain on others. Browning’s thesis holds ground in the light of these recent experiments, and helps explain the alarming behavior of many Germans during the “Final Solution.”
Goldhagen rants passionately against Browning and all things German in his rebuttal. He claims gross anti-Semitism among the contemporary Germans, accusing Browning of misrepresenting, ignoring, or extrapolating evidence of the Reserve Police Battalion 101. Goldhagen cites examples of German cruelty as evidence of the people’s racism and hate, and vehemently opposes Browning’s opinion that anyone might conform in such situations. Groth goes on to rebut Goldhagen’s views, citing intense propaganda and national misinformation as reasons for the lack of action against the Holocaust. Fear and ignorance, he claims, were responsible for the apparent support or ambiguity among the Germans regarding the Holocaust. Groth’s observations, psychologists’ experiments, and Browning’s arguments seem to support the idea that the Germans of the Third Reich were ordinary men, simply stuck in an extraordinary and unfortunate circumstance.
I think that Browning’s thesis does hold considerable merit. The idea of any group of men or women being able to become willing or numbed killers is certainly a chilling one, but a conclusion that is reached through a lot of meticulous examples and details. One of the most powerful examples of this is the Jozefow massacre. In describing the reactions of the men, he is quick to point out that none of them seemed to be entirely comfortable with the shooting. Many of them had to be excused mid-shooting because they mentally or physically felt too revolted to continue, and the night after they all drank in excess and were silent, preferring to avoid discussion of the events altogether. These people were not natural killers. In the first direct face-to-face murders they had to commit, the men react with disgust in the way that many of us would. This helps strongly reinforce the idea that these men weren’t predisposed to killing at all. Goldhagen says in his work that it was their strong anti-Semitism prevalent in the German culture that made the Germans killers and that it wouldn’t happen with another group of people. However, these men were clearly shaken up by their ordeal. They didn’t react in a way that implied they were pleased to have killed Jewish people, or that they were satisfied in doing so. General Trapp was even described as crying like a young child. Despite what Goldhagen implies, it could not have been pure hatred of Jewish people that made the Germans act the way they did, if their reactions were of disgust the way many would react today. Goldhagen does a good job of bringing up points about the anti-Semitism predisposed to Germans and how they supposedly supported Hitler by using their understaffed forces as evidence, but it’s refuted in Demonizing the Germans, where the author argues that it was still the component of fear and ignorance that motivated most of their actions instead of acceptance and accordance.
Human nature has proven time and time again that men and women are capable of committing acts that are unimaginable in the contexts of daily human life. The acts done by the Reserve Police Battalion 101 were committed not by “ordinary men” from the lower classes, but from “the occupational profile of German society (Goldhagen).” In his article, Goldhagen poses an important doubt on Browning’s recount of the battalions operations. Browning views the accounts by the soldiers as truth and writes about them in a trusting manner. However, there are small sections in the book when Browning recognizes that the stories may have been warped due to the circumstances surrounding the men at the end of the war. Reserve Police Battalion 101 was first given less extreme tasks such as resettling the people living “in the recently evacuated farms and apartments of the expelled Poles (Browning 39).” The belief that Nazi Germany was all powerful and in control of Central Europe was hammered in to their minds by such actions. The fact that the German army was able to reorganize the entire populations of cities and towns for the purification of Europe may have given the men of 101 a feeling of utilitarianism. The impact of tasks that were later given to the battalion may have also been lessened. The executions of the Jews were still continued within the battalion. Browning chooses to focus on specific soldiers of the group and showed empathy and pity for the Jews. He crafts a story that shows the battalion as being one of the few that showed these kinds of emotions to the “enemy.” Dr. Alexander J. Goth mentions in his article, “Demonizing the Germans: Goldhagen and Gellately on Nazism,” that not only was anti-Semitism initiated in the warzones, but within the German nation as well. Those who participated in the betrayal, beatings and socially segregate of Jews were equally at fault. These acts occur in everyday life; the acts can also be simply called “bullying.” The heinous deeds committed by the German citizens and soldiers were indeed done by people who seemed ordinary. It is only in certain circumstances that the true behaviors of human beings appear.
I completely support Browning’s thesis; there is no doubt in my mind that if put under the same conditions that the members of the Reverse Police Battalion 101 were under, that we would act exactly as they did. Granted, there would be some people who would not participate, but there were some members of the Battalion that refused to perform their duties. Therefore, the majority of people have the ability to be transformed into effective killers just as the members of the RPB. Browning supports his thesis with several primary documents, including letters and testimonies from actual members of the RPB. These testimonies primarily serve to aid Browning’s thesis; normal and sane people can detach themselves from their conscious and morals and kill without shame. Browning found that most men of the RPB even tried to justify their horrible actions, further proving their ability to be transformed into effective killers. Goldhagen, on the other hand, believes that the only reason these ‘ordinary men’ could be transformed into such effective killers was because of the German society and culture at the time. He interprets the mass killing of Jews as something that stemmed solely from the German society and mind set at the time. Although, I believe, this helped aid in the transforming of men into systematic killers, it was not the only driving point behind such a horrific event. For instance, only about 5% of Germans took part in the mass murder of the Jewish population, according to “Demonizing the Germans”. Therefore, the ability to transform people into killers could not have been solely based on the German culture at the time, because the majority of the culture was not involved. For this reason, it is impossible for the RPB to have been “natural killers” of the Jews as a result of their culture, as Goldhagen claims. In actuality, this kind of transformation can take place virtually anywhere at anytime. As proven from Zimabardo and Milgram’s experiements, people will adapt to the circumstances they are in, most often time by complying with the situation, which is exactly what the RPB did. Regardless of how sane or ‘ordinary’ the people involved in the various experiments were, they were easily swayed into complying with their situation as a result of either the urge to conform or because of an authority figure. Both of these psychological pressures were present among the RPB and other Nazi party members, and were, as Browning claims, enough to push an ordinary person to their limits and commit mass murder. Finally, one of the most devastating examples of this kind of transformation from perfectly normal to “killer” was the Abu Graihb incident in which American soldiers were pushed into torturing and even killing innocent prisoners overseas. This shows that people will act according to their situations they are put in and therefore have the ability to kill, regardless of the culture or society they are in. The American society was in no way similar to the German society during World War II, but yet, our soldiers were able to commit acts similar to those in the Reverse Police Battalion 101. Overall, I fully support Browning’s thesis and do not agree with Goldhagen’s attempt to undermine them.
Christopher Browning’s thesis that ordinary men can be turned into senseless killers does in fact hold water. His book is based around the fact that regular men, that weren’t really interested in the Nazi Party or in becoming life-long police officers, were turned into killers by the circumstances that they had to grow accustomed to during the war. At first none of the men in the battalion wanted to murder the innocent Jews when the reluctant Major Trapp read them the orders, and by their third massacre men were killing the Jewish people almost without remorse. Of course there were a few people, who never killed, or they hid from their duties, but the overwhelming majority followed orders and became senseless killers. It is plausible that this could happen because over time, the men started to believe that it was much easier to just follow orders then refute them and possibly face harsh punishments. It is plausible that in a similar situation we could follow in the same path as the Reserve Police Battalion 101. As much as we would like to believe that we or others we know could never turn into killers, if it could happen to those normal men, it could happen to us.
Goldhagen’s criticisms do in fact undermine much of Browning’s thesis. One of Browning’s main points was that the men involved in the battalion were ordinary, and Goldhagen believed that all the men involved were Nazi’s who hated the Jews just like Hitler. Goldhagen also claimed that Browning made up his evidence and said that his book was of no scholarly value, so he wrote Hitler’s Willing Executioners to refute his book. Whoever is right, it would be much easier for people to believe that extreme Nazi’s were the only ones capable of such horrendous acts, but it seems plausible that Browning was right and that they were in fact, Ordinary Men.
Browning's thesis on ordinary man I believe is substantial and is right. Browning believes that human nature makes people do certain things that you would not think you would do when your not put in the situation. After class discussions including videos that showed experiments done on people that prove Browning's thesis really left me with the strong belief that any ordinary men put in certain situations will do bad things. As a result of the many experiments and actual occurrences Browning's thesis should hold water. Ordinary people such as myself could be turned into killers. As shown in Goldhagen's text the people were made afraid of he gestapo because they could act as every part of the judicial system, judge, jury, jailer, and executor. Some parts of Goldhagen's differed from Browning's thesis because Goldhagen thought that the men of the 101 were afraid and that is why they killed but Browning thought that the men had the choice to kill and weren't afraid if they didn't do it. Although I would like to think I wouldn't follow the same path as the men of OPB 101 unfortunately I strongly believe that I would. As shown in The Evil of Banality "the Jews had been dehumanized by the pervasive anti-Semitism of Nazi Germany. Some of the men had professional ambitions that they believed might have been harmed had they refused to kill." The Nazis turned the Jews into animals in the eyes of the men in the OPB 101 and killing an animal in their eyes isn't bad, and I would definitely kill something I thought it was a animal.
Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men theorizes that everyday people can turn into killers, as seen by the Police Battalion 101. His theory was very well supported, not only from testimonies of the men themselves, but also a psychological analysis that convinces me of his thesis. The psychological experiments that proceeded after WWII, such as the Milgram and Zimbardo’s prison experiments, further consolidates Browning’s thesis. Both experiments had unexpected and shocking results. In the Milgram experiment, the number of subjects that delivered a high shock was way more than professional psychologists had predicted. The prison experiment also shows how normal people can completely change by taking on different roles. These two experiments somewhat void Goldhagen’s idea that the killing during WWII was a one-time event. Goldhagen’s arguments about the anti-Semitism in Germany are, to me, a bit weak. In Ordinary Men, the people in Battalion 101 weren’t too anti-Semitic and it was clear that they didn’t want to kill the Jews. After all, not everyone in Battalion 101 was anti-Semitic. Browning’s analysis of why some of the people committed to the massacres was very sound and stable. He said that the men thought that the Jews had to be killed anyways, so it was the same whether they did it or their comrades did it. In Goldhagen’s paper, he said that a few number of Germans actually partook in the shootings. However, he doesn’t take into account of the number of bystanders that simply let it happen, who take a just as important role. Pressure, particularly in the environment that Battalion 101 was in (a large number of men who wanted to be more closely tied together) could easily cause normal people to commit horrible atrocities. This can also be seen in the experiment from the video we watched in class, where the subject would consciously choose the wrong answer in order to conform to the other subjects (who were actually part of the experiment). Overall, I think that Browning’s thesis still holds true, simply because his proposals are more solid and analytical than those of Goldhagen.
It is evident that although Goldhagen and Browning agree on a lot of points, their theories have some key differences. Goldhagen does show some support for Browning’s work, saying it’s analysis of the people was groundbreaking. He specifically praises Browning for repeating the fact that the men could have stopped killing at any time with no repercussions, and that it wasn’t just hardcore Nazis and SS members that killed, but ordinary groups of men helped with the killing as well. However, he points out a lot “errors” in Browning’s work as well. He says that the testimonies Goldhagen used were untrustworthy because the people who gave them were lying about their involvement to make themselves seem less guilty. As Goldhagen puts it, Browning “presents self exculpating assertions as fact.” Oddly enough, Goldhagen had also admitted that these testimonies had value because of the information they contained and that he also got a lot of his information from these testimonies in the same article. Goldhagen also claims that major documents are missing from Browning’s work, such as one testimony in which a soldier describes another who was enjoying the killing at Jozefow. I personally don’t feel that a few document s that break the mold affect Browning’s work too much, as he was trying to analyze major trends. A third thing that Goldhagen criticizes is Browning’s analysis of how the Germans felt during the killings. For example, Browning writes that when a woman was brought out to the killings, the men felt ashamed of what they were doing. Goldhagen analyses the same document sand asserts that they show the men’s anger that a woman, who is by nature frail, was brought to see the killings. Guessing at how the people felt is always going to be a subjective analysis, and Goldhagen can’t really prove that he is right. Only the people themselves know how they truly felt.To me it seemed like Goldhagen was just picking unimportant details of Browining’s work, and was perhaps trying to shake the reader’s confidence in him.The base difference in the two arguments is that Goldhagen claims that if the men really wanted to stop killing they had ample opportunities to do so, and thus must have been in agreement with Hitler’s plan, whereas Browning says that the men really did want to stop killing, but could not because of the pressure of the situation and the need to conform. I personally agree with Browning’s assessments, especially in light of the second document. Goldhagen makes the mistake of lumping all of the German people into one group, and then stating that they were all in favor of Hitler’s plans. This is almost certainly false. In fact, it was noted in the second document that Hitler received only 44 percent of Germany’s vote, even with the help of intimidation from Himmler and the SS. Given that not all the men were in agreement with Hitler, it is surprising that so many of them went along with the killings. It was also written that Goldhagen receives a lot of his support from people who “want to be let off of the hook” and don’t want to think of themselves as potential killers. To me, whether the Nazis agreed with Hitler or not is a moot point. Just being on board with a plan doesn’t give a person the conviction to kill another human being. Regardless of how they felt, something happened to these men that allowed them to become killers. In light of this, I feel that Browning’s assertions are more logical.
I believe that Browning’s thesis does make some amount of sense. In the class discussions, we brought up the point that according to Browning only a small percentage of the people would refrain from joining in the killing. It seemed as though everyone in class believed that they were a part of this small percentage. I certainly think that it is possible that ordinary people could be turned into killers. If there’s one thing that has given humans a natural advantage, it’s being able to mentally adapt to a situation. Taking part in the act of mass murder is something that nobody thinks about as pleasant, as shown by the fact that the entire class believes that they would abstain. Because the men in OPB 101 were forced into this unpleasant situation, they had to adapt to it. I’m no psychologist, but knowing what I know about myself, I feel like they would have two choices. I can’t step on a bug without feeling bad for it, and can’t imagine the thought of being forced to kill hundreds of other humans. Were I in their situation, I could either go mad from all the murder and get some sort of severe shell shock, or I could mentally justify it and assume the role of a killer. If my brain were trying to adapt and survive to the situation, I would have a better chance of surviving with moderate sanity by joining in the murder. I don’t know if I could say that it would be likely that we could follow the same path as the men of OPB 101, especially because of all the factors building up to their situation. For example, like Goldhagen claims, there may have been an attitude of anti-Semitism in OPB 101. Whether or not that was the reason the men took part in the killing, it may have been used as justification once the killing had begun. There were other situational factors as well, such as perhaps the men justifying their actions as a necessity in order to provide for their families. The state Germany was in at the time probably contributed significantly to their situation. Because of all these situational factors, I don’t know if I can say that it would be likely to happen again, but it sounds as though it would indeed be possible. I don’t think Goldhagen’s claims of a building sentiment of anti-Semitism undermines Browning’s thesis. One key point in Browning’s argument is that the men were particularly ordinary at the outset of their killing. Goldhagen argues that they hated to Jews. However, if they did in fact want to personally kill the Jews, they would not have been hesitant in the beginning. The first few massacres caused the men extreme unrest, which would not have occurred if they had wanted to kill Jews from the beginning. For this reason, I believe that Browning’s thesis does hold up against Goldhagen’s.
After reading "Ordinary Men" and having the class discussions that we did, I feel that it is completely possible that normal citizens can be transformed into killers. It is definitely more than likely, especially according to the study conducted by Milgram where he found that 2/3 of the subjects continued the shocking experiment until the highest voltage possible. Browning does a phenomenal job portraying the German soldiers as your average person, which gives depth to the story and makes it come alive that much more. Goldhagen states that Browning discusses "the voluntarism...but fails to give it adequate attention," and continues to compare them to people who "eat meat but do not have the stomach to work the slaughterhouse." I understand where he's coming from but disagree with this. These people didn't have a "motivation" of any kind, I really think they were opposed to the killings. Just because one man refused once then participated another time doesn't mean that Goldhagen can group other men into the same category.
I dislike how he undermines Browning's work, because there obviously is validity to it despite some of the "flaws" he found. I don't think it matters that the killers were German, and it doesn't hold true that all of them were anti-sematic. There were Americans who were simply being watched by an authoritative figure in the experiment where they were asked to shock people; they knew nothing about the people they were "harming" on the other side. Furthermore, I agree with Browning's thesis and unfortunately have to say that any person can basically become a killer.
I do believe that people in extreme situations could be turned into killers. It is hard for anybody to visualize themselves capable of killing another human being. This is because we have been taught for years upon years that there is nothing more precious than life itself, and to rob someone else of life would be a horrible act. But, there is no way to predict how natural instinct will affect your actions when placed into an unfavorable situation. The electroshock experiment displayed this when a majority of people went right up to the lethal shock when told to do so by an authoritative figure. While they may have resisted it at times, they inevitably gave in and gave the fake shock. This displays that authority for most people is very hard to resist. And if put in a similar position as to the men in the order police, many of us would do the exact same thing. The primal instinct of man is kill or be killed. And if there is any shadow of doubt in your mind that failure to follow through will orders, may result in severe punishment, many people would do the unthinkable. Also, to the OPB the Jews had been almost completely dehumanized making it easier for them to take the lives, considering it’s easier to end some-thing's life that is not human than it is to end a human life. As Dr. Zimbardo has stated in his theory the Lucifer Effect, in the right situation and condition, it is completely probable for an individuals inner evil to come out in the worst ways.
Goldenhagen is directly opposed to Browning’s thesis that just any ordinary men can become killers. From the “Goldenhagen and Gellately on Nazism” I found that in Goldenhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners he speaks of how Hitler was simply an “enabler” to what the Germans had wanted to do all along, liquidate the Jews. He says how the German culture cultivated this anti-Semitism and it had already been in existence for a long time before Hitler’s reign, and so it was predictable that something such as the Holocaust would occur. However, this is untrue because in the beginning of the nineteenth century Germany was ahead of other nations in granting full citizenship to Jews, so this assumption seems a bit rash on Goldenhagen’s part. He claims that the anti-Semitic obsession of Germany is what initiated the Holocaust; Hitler was not the cause but the one who allowed for the attempt at genocide. He also claimed “Had ordinary Germans not shared their leaderships eliminationist ideals, then they would have reacted to the ever-increasing assault on their Jewish countrymen and brethren with at least as much opposition and noncooperation as they did to their government’s attacks on Christianity and to the so called Euthanasia program.” In this he meant that the German Christians were also anti-Semitic because they remained passive and did not stand up for the Jew. However Goldenhagen is incorrect in this I feel- just because they did not take a stand for the Jews does not mean that they hated them, only that they perhaps cared less about them. Therefore Goldenhagen disagrees with Browning in that an ordinary man can become a killer, but an ordinary German given their background of fervent anti-Semitism can become a killer (he claims “Ordinariness is culturally and socially variable” his article the “Evil of Banality”). In the “Evil of Banality” reading Goldenhagen speaks directly of Browning’s Ordinary Men, and points out that Browning does touch upon things that many historians miss, however, he was also missing many important things and had a sort of “distorted” view of the events of the Holocaust. He claims Browning’s evidence was lacking, in that he didn’t provide the battalions overall SS membership rate, which was low, and that his testimonies from people were untrustworthy because they were likely to lie about what they had done. In his Ordinary Men Browning argues that any ordinary man can become a killer because of the pressure to conform; as also supported by many of the Zombardi studies that show people tend to conform. Browning shows how these men were pulled from the ordinary middle-lower class ranks of German society and forced into these genocidal jobs, which they felt wrong in refusing to complete or in stepping out on an order because it was viewed as a weakness and sign of disrespect of comradeship to one’s battalion, which that man would be singled out for. Many men found comfort in conforming to the rest of the battalion and the anti-Semitic movement sweeping over the entirety of Germany at the time, so they would not be singled out as the Jew was.
I think that it is plausible for something like this to occur and that we would follow a path similar to battalion 101 given the right circumstances, the theory which Goldenhagen supports, because what is considered an ordinary man varies from time to time and place to place as cultures are constantly changing and adapting to new world views. This new culture, if it is one that encourages aggression and racism, alongside the dangerous desire of men to conform (supported by Browning), could possibly be a foreground for another event like the Holocaust to occur.
Browning’s thesis is valid. Ordinary men can turn into killers, as can be seen in Nazi Germany and many experiments, such as the experiments done by Milgram. I do not think Goldhagen’s thesis is as thorough as Browning, and contains more bias. In my opinion, the most convincing argument in favor of Browning’s thesis is that the men were given the choice to leave if their assignment was too gruesome, but almost none left the unit. This shows that something as simple as peer pressure or the desire to not disappoint your peers is enough to cause someone to do something that they otherwise would not. Anybody could be pressured into doing something that they don’t really want to do; it’s just that what the Germans did was a step above what we normally encounter.
I do not believe that something similar could happen to use, simply because America is not, and probably will never be, in the situation that Germany was in post WWI. Although some individuals may kill others when under the direction of authority, I do not believe that the same results would translate when tried upon the American mass society.
Goldhagen’s criticisms do not undermine Browning’s thesis. Goldhagen’s claim that Germans were bred into anti-Semites from generations of anti-Semitism is invalid. Although it is true that anti-Semitism had long roots in German history, Germans also killed millions of non-Jews. Hitler was an Austrian, and idealized many non-Germans, further undermining Goldhagen’s thesis, not Browning’s. I think Goldhagen wrote his book because he was raging at the fact that normal Germans may not have wanted to kill millions of Jews, but rather because they were intimidated by peer pressure and authority figures, and therefore he made a terrible thesis that he could not defend, further supported the thesis of Browning’s book.
In general, I believe that any ordinary person can be turned into a killer under certain circumstances. For this reason, I do conclude that Browning’s thesis on ordinary men becoming senseless killers is in fact true. Browning’s piece is centered on the 101 Police Battalion, a group of regular men thrown into the extreme Nazi party during the war. Many of these men began their service incapable of cold-blooded murder. Men refused to kill innocent minority groups, and none of them were punished. However, after participating in the war, killing became second nature to many of these ordinary men. The circumstances they were put in changed their overall character, and made them capable of killing. Many of us personally believe we could not kill, but in certain circumstances it becomes realistic. For example, for the safety of those we love, murder becomes more and more acceptable. Goldhagen completely refutes the thesis of Christopher Browning on ordinary men. Mainly, Goldhagen claims that Browning’s work is based off of no credible and reliable source, so he creates Hitler’s Willing Executioners to oppose the work of Browning. In his novel, he claims that all men participating in the war were strong believers of the Nazi party, natural born soldiers. Each and every man, in his eyes, hated the Jews. That is why they fought on the behalf of the Nazi party. Browning clearly argues that these men were ordinary men thrown into an unfamiliar situation, where they adapted to survive. After reviewing these differing materials, I still find it hard not to side with Christopher Browning. I do indeed believe that men can become capable of anything depending on their situation.
So much evidence points to the validity of Browning’s thesis, that under the right circumstances anyone could become a killer. Milgrem’s experiments, Abu Ghraib, OPB 101, all of these extreme situations caused the majority of the seemingly normal people involved to become violent torturers or killers. The citizens of Germany did live in an environment that may have caused them to be more likely to kill under circumstances such as these, but the college kids involved in Milgrem’s experiments were not raised in a Nazi Germany-like place. Nor were the American soldiers who tortured and killed the unarmed at Abu Ghraib. And the members of OPB 101 were pretty normal citizens. They were too old to fight in the army, held normal jobs, and were more often than not, not members of the Socialist Party. And, at the beginning many were scared or disguised to kill. But as time went on, they became a well oiled killing machine. They did not want to disobey orders, or let down their fellow PB members, even though there were NO consequences. So they could have said no, like the electrocuters and guards in the experiments, or the soldiers at Abu Ghraib. But, they didn’t. The majority of the people in all three situations continued to act “wrongly”, even though they did not have to and would have to serve no real punishment for it. This is the point of Browning’s work. He is correct in saying that under extreme circumstances, anyone could become a killer, and there is not enough evidence to undermine this.
karl is really sarah meakin
I feel that Browning’s thesis hold’s true, and that under similar circumstances, most people would behave like OPB 101. Goldhagen tries to refute Browning’s thesis, claiming that it was Hitler’s propaganda campaign, among other things that turned ordinary German’s into killers. Goldhagen also says that anti-Semitism was already present in Germany. These claims have, in turn, been refuted. Hitler’s propaganda campaign instilled fear more that enthusiastic support for the cause. The anti-Semitism present in Germany has also been greatly exaggerated by history. I feel that Browning’s thesis is far stronger than Goldhagen’s refute. Browning describes the many factors that caused ordinary Germans to become Hitler’s executioners. These included the dehumanization of the Jews, the soldiers’ fear of disappointing their comrades, and the desire to obey an authority figure. Milgram’s experiment shows just how willing ordinary people are to obey an authority figure. These men were given orders, and even though they were given an opportunity to be excused from the mission, the majority carried out the orders. It is human nature to want to conform to the group, especially in a situation such as this. These men are soldiers, and one of their greatest fears is letting down a fellow soldier. They did not want to show cowardice in front of the group. When the executions began, there were several men who couldn’t bring themselves to shoot. The majority carried out the orders, however. Over time, they almost became desensitized to their duties. A prolific amount of alcohol didn’t hurt, either. In any case, these men became the brutally efficient killers that we associate with the Holocaust. In class, we discussed whether we would be able to kill in a certain situation. Almost everybody admitted that given the right circumstances they would be able to shoot someone. When discussing the actions of OPB 101, most people agreed that in the same situation most people would act in a similar manner. Most people also thought that they would be one of the ones who would refuse to shoot the Jews. We would like to believe that we wouldn’t shoot, that we are incapable of killing another human. But given the right circumstances, anyone can become a killer.
In essence, Browning’s thesis is anyone ordinary person in the correct situation under the right circumstances can turn into a killer. On the contrary, Goldhagen, believed that it was German nature to hate Jews.
I believe that Browning’s thesis holds water and that Goldhagen’s is a crock of sorts. Browning supports his thesis with psychological experiments that clearly show the reactions people have to pressure situations under authority. Based on Millgram’s and Zimbardo’s experiments and Abu Grahib, I find that his theory does indeed show promise. I also think that in Ordinary Men Browning thoroughly supports his thesis when he describes that despite the moral feelings the men of Battalion 101 had in the moments they had to kill, they did it anyway, and when given the option to bow out they stayed.
Goldhagen does point out that Browning is generalizing to an extent and proves this, but to assume that to hate and kill Jews was woven into the German DNA is absurd. To assume that just because anti-Semitism was so rampant makes every German a brainwashed killer is out of line and does not hold water.
I do believe that in a similar situation, this could happen to us. When in a threatening situation and stressful conditions and it is our lives or theirs, I think we too could become killers. Even looking at WWII with hindsight, this is undeniable. I know personally, when people of high authority tell me to do something, I do it, without question. The intimidation factor also makes me believe in Browning’s thesis
I think that Browning's thesis most certainly holds water. Anyone can be made into a killer with the right circumstances. Conformity is a big part of society, so if the first few shot when ordered to, the next man is also likely to shoot. Unlike what the hypothesis for Milgram thought; that only sadists would use the last shocks, most people did when told to. Though they may not have liked doing it, the pressure was too much and they just did it. Although I agree with Browning, Goldhagen has some good points. The sources that Browning uses may be primary, but how reliable is a man who committed these crimes? They aren't going to want to look even worse and may have simply put walls around certain memories to terrible to remember. Lying is a problem. He also points out holes in Brownings research and how Browning evaluated his sources. Even with Goldhagen's criticisms I still believe that Browning's findings were most certainly correct.
Could anyone become a killer? Although Browning, Stanley Milgram, and Philip Zimbardo seem to believe so I find it highly improbable. Browning argues that a number of factors contributed to their willingness to kill in the Police Battalion 101: the Jews had been dehumanized by Nazi Germany, some men feared if they refused to kill then heir professional ambitions would be at stake, during a race war it is easy to turn a entire race into the enemy, peer pressure, and the desire to conform. He believes that men who are not eager to kill and are unlikely to kill would if placed under the proper social psychological setting. And the rest of the people who have some prejudices would also become killers because of the pressures to conform.
Goldhagen agrees with Browning that social psychological pressures eased the Germans into becoming mass murders. However, pressures can not be the only thing to be blamed or taken into consideration. Goldhagen takes into consideration that, “even of those who killed with indisputable zeal, to insist that they opposed the killing.” These claims need to be treated with great caution and considered. Yet Browning does not do so, rather he presents them as facts and does not let the reader know they can question it. He fails to present the cases of the men that made all sorts of claims that minimized their fault that are either false or conflicts with claims made by other members of the battalion. It is evident that their accounts can not be trusted. These men could have removed themselves from the killing of Jews if they had been really inwardly opposed to it and yet a few showed that they did. Rather, they volunteered for killing operations and killed with dedication and zeal. This Goldhagen believes suggests that they did not have initial disgust or hesitations as Browning believes because they were believers in the justice of murdering Jews. Another thing Goldhagen believes needs to bee taen ino consideration that these were not “ordinary men.” What “ordinary men” are is complex and problematic because whatever the ordinary man is today it is not the same in Nazi Germany. Ordinariness changes within cultures and societies.
Therefore, I agree with Goldhagen that these men were not “ordinary men” and that Browning failed to take other important information into consideration. Thus, anyone can not become a killer placed under the right circumstances.
I agree with Browning's thesis which stated that ordinary people, such as the men who comprised OPB 101, can be turned into killers under the correct circumstances. Goldhagen attempted to refute this by stating that the situation in Germany was a unique one due to a combination of many factors, including a pre-existing history of anti-semitism and Hitler's effective propaganda, and that is why ordinary German people became such ruthless killing machines. In the final reading, Alexander Groth largely refuted most of Goldhagen's claims, saying that anti-semitism in Germany was greatly over exaggerated in Germany by history, and was actually a more casual component of society rather than the driving force behind many peoples actions. Groth also explained that the Hitler's propaganda served more to instill fear into the minds of the public rather than to rally them to a cause, and that the Gestapo furthered the atmosphere of fear and scared people into obedience.
I agree with Browning in that ordinary men can become killers when put into the right situation. The dehumanization of Jews, the influence of alcohol, and the fear of letting down peers and going against the crowd all played a part in turning the ordinary people into systematic killers. I think the latter two were the greatest factors in the process. As proved by Milgram and Zimbardo, it is human nature to "go with the flow" and obey orders, and throughout history, this pattern has been followed. Many of the soldiers may have been so afraid of being different that they went ahead with the killings. Doing this repeatedly and then using alcohol to numb the pain would only increase the willingness of the men to commit murder. This being said, it is impossible to deny that the factors discussed by Goldhagen and Groth did not play a part in the process, but in general, under the right situation, anyone can commit murder.
In Ordinary Men, Browning proposes a theory with a healthy dose of shock value: that, given the right (same?) set of circumstances, any human would have behaved the same way as Hitler's executioners. Images of the Holocaust and World War II carry a powerful connotation in our culture today; some may even go so far as to present them as our common conception of "evil." Those who worked in the death camps, gassed the innocent Jews, and killed American soldiers have been vilified and demonized since before we were born.
Brown asks, essentially, whether our condemnation is fully warranted. Were the Order Police and other divisions under pain of death to perform their duties, we may have held more sympathy for them. But because they had some latitude to react- essentially because they never DID react- we condemn them as Hitler fanatics and anti-semites. Yet as it was put forward, likewise in the article Demonizing the Germans, most of them actually looked upon Hitler's racism with disfavor. The killing and looting of Jewish people and their property destabilized their economy, and showed an indirect threat to their rights. The key component however, as it seems to have been agreed on by all sides, was indifference. The people did not protest, but neither did they celebrate. As the Jews were taken from under their noses and killed, they turned a blind eye.
It is possible misinformation, or propaganda may have had a role in this. Though the justification of murder is always difficult to impress upon the general public, it is hardly unprecedented. Even we still have the death penalty in our judicial system, even if its sloppiness is bringing it into an unfavorable light. Perhaps even greater, however, was a simple lack of information. The fact that many Jews under German control remained in denial until their capture suggests that the general public likely knew no better. Their "indifference" was a lack of awareness.
Browning's thesis, however, deals more closely with the Order Police battalion as humans aware of the acts they were committing. As such, the question we posed in class was, "If you were told to kill, would you do it?" No person within our culture can answer that question without flashing at least momentarily into doubt. Many more by far squirm, as if wrestling with their own morals. The question they ask is not "would I," but "what would it take to get me to that point?" Yet the German police could hardly have predicted their situation, and likewise we would be in their place with just as little forethought. The instinct of self-preservation is engrained strongly in our DNA; there's a reason we as a race have survived for thousands of years.
As such, I would say Browning's theory carries a considerable amount of water. I always hold that there would be some minority group who would be too nervous to kill effectively, given the order. I believe the large majority, however, would. Given not even the "right" set of circumstances, or rather a set from many, we would find ourselves behaving like Ordinary Men.
Browning in his book Ordinary Men unequivocally states in no uncertain terms states that in their situation, any one of us could have committed the same heinous atrocities as the ones committed by the members in the OPB 101. I believe that based on the experiments that have been done in the academic world as well as how I feel that Browning’s thesis does indeed hold water. Under the given social and political environment at the time, had I or anyone else been placed in the OPB, we would most likely have committed the same wrongs. It is more than likely, it is almost certain. The Germans who did this were, as Browning says, effectively ordinary men. Who are we to believe that we’re any better than them? There is an inherent psychological bias that humans have that tends to make us criticize others while refusing to acknowledge the same flaws in ourselves. This is a very good example of that. Although almost all humans contain the capacity to kill, as seen in the OPB 101, people tend to deny these facts. People from Milgram’s experiments in electric shock were distraught when they had found out they were shocking people to the brink of death for no other reason than because a higher authority had told them to do so. From Browning’s own evidence, coupled with the well documented scientific experiments conducted it seems reasonable to assume that anyone has the capability of doing things that we would normally find fundamentally wrong, such as murder.
Browning’s thesis has been heavily controversial in the field of WWII history and heavily debated by many scholars such as Goldhagen, a university professor at Harvard. Goldhagen makes several valid points in disputing Browning’s thesis. One of the most damning arguments that Goldhagen makes against Browning is the shaky foundation upon which most of Browning novel is based upon. The testimony of the men was necessarily, for their own sake, not entirely truthful. Out of hundreds of men, only two admitted to having killing people, when that was clealry not the case. Also, as Goldhagen points out, the shame that Browning describes has totally been inferred and the soldiers did not feel horribly wrong for killing all of the people. There is no direct evidence such shame exists claims Goldhagen. He also points out that the searches for Jews were called, “Jew Hunts”. Hunts have a very positive connotation, where fun and the thrill of the hunt is implied. The men seemed to enjoy publicly shaming the Jews and hurting them with abandon says Goldhagen. To an extent, read by itself, Goldhagen does manage to undermine many of Browning points. His refutation is relatively successful within the confines of his own article. However, when re-examined, it becomes that Goldhagen has made faulty conclusions of his own, as the Political Science Reviewer points out. For example, Goldhagen has grouped all the by-standers as supporters of the “Final Solution” when that could simply not be concluded. Perhaps most eye-opening was a poll conducted among 1944 German POW’s. 33% agreed that Anti-Semitism was good, but a startling 44% thought that it was harmful. Clearly, each side’s reasoning has its own flaws, but I feel that Browning’s thesis is fundamentally correct.
Browning’s thesis, that most normal people from random backgrounds can be turned into cold blooded killers, definitely holds water, especially when seen alongside the Milgram Experiment and the Stamford Prison Experiment. Browning definitely supports his thesis using the 101st Reserve Police Battalion, and shows that these normal people did become killers. Furthermore Milgram showed that most people would deliver almost certainly lethal shocks to a person if told to do so by an authority figure. So in light of this information, I would say that most average people most certainly could become the stone cold killers that the 101 PB became. Goldhagen’s arguments do have some validity to them though, because Goldhagen is right that any of the information Browning used could have been falsified, and Browning does fail to tell the reader exactly how he interpreted the information that he used. I still feel however, that with the support of some of the psychological experiments done after WWII, that Browning’s thesis is still quite valid.
Both Browning and Goldhagen write legitement arguments on why and how the people of Germany would willingly allow the cruel execution of a bajillion Jews during what was known as the Holocaust. But, while they offer ideas on the same topic, they are on opposite spheres as to the reasoning behind such actions. Browning’s thesis follows with the research of Milgrim, and how people’s actions are effected by society and their roles. Browning specifically states that the men who were in the Order Police, Gestapo, SS, and etc were not there because they were known Jew-haters. In fact, he points out that many of them within Police Battalian 101 came from Hamburg, one of the least anti-semitic regions. He says cites examples from journals and documents showing how these men were not heart-less, mind-less killers. He says that their reasons for carrying out orders was for honor, or personal goals of moving up in rank, or just from peer pressure. He does not point to anyone to blame for their cruel actions except maybe Hitler himself. However, his argument differs drastically from Goldhagen’s and Goldhagen picks out flaws in his work in “The Evil of Banality.” Goldhagen points out that many parts of the primary source journals that Browning uses were omitted, and that often later entries undo arguments supported by the earlier ones. There was no way regular people would have willingly committed deeds like those of the police battalions. He also says that personal accounts may not be accurate because “Many were Hiding their crimes.” Goldhagen’s apparent distrust of these documents become a big part of the criticism of his work, “Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in “Demonizing the Germans”. Goldhagen’s theory puts the blame of the Holocaust on every German. He says that everyone in the population who either participated in the executions, or just stood by and let things happen contributed and were therefore at fault for causing the heinous crime. The criticism of his work points to his lack of evidence of this however, including how anti-semitism could suddenly develope for the Holocaust and then dissapate after the fall of Hitler (No programs had existed before which, if Goldhagen’s theory that the whole German population were Jew-haters, should have occured before Hitler’s rise in 1933. Goldhagen also failed to consult the writings of major anti-semitics like Sarah Gordan and William Allen. Comparing the works of both Goldhagen and Browning, I find Browning’s theories to be more reasonable. Perhaps its because I was able to gauge his writing directly, but I found his reasoning much more believable. I think that people are unconsciously affected by their situations and especially the people around them. I think this was well illustrated by the initial reactions when Trapp gave his men permission to back from their jobs to execute and no one stepped up immediately. It wasn’t until one man stood up than did the rest of the 11 or 12 follow suit. I think that anyone placed in the roles of the men of OPB 101 would find it more difficult than they would think to say no. Although Goldhagen’s criticism does take away somewhat from Browning’s thesis his theory still comes out as the one that is preferred by me because it allows us to continue to view mankind as innocent. Perhaps the real answer is one traveling a middle road between these two author’s theories. There were naturally cruel leaders and men who lead the Holocaust but the majority consisted of bewildered soldiers who knew only to do what they were told.
I find that Christopher Browning’s thesis in Ordinary Men is very relevant and persuasive, and through the information that he presented in the book, I think that it does hold water in the field of the psychological process of the Holocaust. I think that the thing that gives Browning’s thesis the largest foundation in which to fall back upon is the experiments conducted by Zimbardo and Milgram. Both experiments demonstrated that an ordinary person is willing to follow orders, even knowing that it could cause pain for others. Milgram’s experiment displayed this perfectly, as even when the subject found the shocks they were being forced to administer morally wrong, the “command” came for them to shock, and they would. In Ordinary Men, the men may not have wanted to conduct mass killings of Jews, as there was few SS or major party believers in Reserve Police Battalion 101, yet they followed out their orders. In refute of Browning’s work, Daniel Goldhagen said that years of Anti-Semitism in German led to the German people willingly participating in the executions and shooting throughout Europe. He says that Browning only read partially into the evidence to support his own theory and did not consider the whole importance of the evidence to determine a true psychological profile on the hundreds of faceless killers. I find that what Goldhagen is saying makes a lot of sense, how a deep, ingrained anti-Semitism could allow for the German police to separate themselves from the act, but I still think that the pressure to conform and blind obedience to orders led to the real reasoning behind the killings. I think that if my situation was like that of the soldiers of RPB101, I would end up following the orders; no matter how morally disgusting I found them. No matter how much I hope that I would never become a cold blooded serial killer, the psychological evidence from experiments says that, if ordered, I would. I seriously doubt that in this day and age, any of us would come to a situation like that, but as Browning asks, if it happened to the Men of the RPB101, could it happen to anyone?
Christopher Brownings thesis on whether ordinary people could be turned into killers is a very interesting one to say the least. In my personal opinion i think that we would kill if we were faced with a similar situation. If we do not participate then we die however if we do participate then we kill other people which is a big dilemma which is portrayed in this book. FOr example it says that, "there was a constant tendency to assign the actual shooting duties to these units in order to shift the psychological burden from the german police to their collaboraters." This quote exemplifies exactly what i was saying before because the german police do not want to kill the innocent people which is shown by having their inferiors do their dirty work. So when out in that situation many people would have to kill in order to save themselves and their loved ones. One of Goldhagen's criticism does undermine brownings thesis because Goldhagen talks about voluntarism by stating, " voluntarism--which was in fact so frequently exhibited in the battalion--but fails to give it adequate attention. For example, one of the killers who excused himself while the first killing operation was under way admits to having later volunteered for subsequent ones. "(evil of banality). He talks about what motives this soldier may have had to excuse himself then go kill later. To sum up I believe that all people will kill if put in the right circumstance like to save your life or the lives of your families,
Browning’s thesis has many points that I agree with completely, but also some that I believe do not stand much ground in the long run. I believe that much of Browning’s thesis was situational, and that people need the right situation to be turned into killers. This is one of the primary reasons for atrocities such as the Holocaust and other mass genocides, all the things need to create killers aligned. Browning’s thesis gains even more support from things such as Zimbardo’s prison experiment, of Millgram’s experiment. In both of these situations, ordinary people were given a situation in which they had power over another person of whom they did not know, and often abused that power. However, on many points I agree with Goldhagen and his critique on Browning’s thesis. I feel that in some cases, Browning over exaggerated some of his conclusions in order to support his thesis greater. Also, agree with Goldhagen that many pieces of evidence could have been left out to also help develop his thesis. For example, Browning leaves out much of the information on the culture and mindset of the German population leading up to the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. This could be an additional reason for the killings that Browning leaves out because it does not support his thesis as much.
Both authors look at different aspects that could contribute to the willingness to kill of many of the German population. Browning gives much more credit to the condition that many of the men were in before and the situation they were in during the conflict as a reason for the killing. Goldhagen, on the other hand, looks more to the culture of Germany itself, with its rampant anti Semitism and dehumanization of the Jews to the German population. Both authors look at different reasons of how a majority of a population could commit such horrible acts but both leave out key information in the process.
Overall, I do believe that given the right situation and circumstances, many ordinary people could be turned into killers. However, many things need to fall into place for that to happen. A population must have a growing hate towards a singular group of people so much that they dehumanize them, so that they feel superior. I strongly believe that if I were in Germany during this time period, I would have followed in the footsteps of men very similar to OPB 101. All it takes is the right circumstances and any person could be turned into a killer.
Browning’s thesis that ordinary people can become cold-blooded killers is completely situational. He believes that under the circumstances that the RPB101 was put in; anyone would conform and complete the task they were given, no matter what that task was. And I think to an extent, he is right. Their motivation for killing was more a want to not upset authority than a strong desire to kill. We were asked numerous times if we would follow the same path that the men of the RPB101 followed, and the truth is that no one can really answer that question accurately unless put in that situation. I would like to believe that if I was put in that situation I would chose to not kill, and exempt myself from those tasks, but then I would risk being ostracized from the group and I might be looked on upon the group as a weak emotional link and not respected. While Browning did mention that those who chose to sit out were not punished, nobody knew that at the time, and everyone realized that it would be so much easier to fall into the peer pressure than to stand up against it. So like the RPB101, I think realistically most people would go along with it. In Evil of Banality, they talk about how important it is to know that most of the Germans that performed all these killing were ordinary men, with no knowledge or training of killing. However, it mentions that they were not ordinary compared to the German population as a whole. None were from the lower ranks of society and they all were drafted to perform normal policing duties in Germany. Golghagen’s theory is contradictory to Browning’s though. He believed that the motivation of the RPB101 was similar to all soldiers in the war and most German civilians too. It wasn’t a pressure to perform as much as a natural inclination of hatred to Jews. Golhagen argues against Browning by saying that all through Germany there was a building wave of anti-Semitism and that’s what enabled RPB101 to execute all those Jews. Their actions were based on those intense emotions and that’s how they were able to become cold-blooded killer.
As you know very well, in Ordinary Men Browning bases his thesis on the theory that all men, under certain circumstances, can become killers. He takes his sources in light of the situations they were placed in throughout their travels in the war and how, with proper commanders and orders, the men in Battalion 101 did decimate entire towns of Jewish people. It is hard to believe that such people could become cold-blooded murderers, but I personally agree with parts of Browning's beliefs in this book. As he explained in his book, the men were driven to do these terrible deeds because of a main fear of facing disapproval in their comrade's eyes. They grew to dehumanize the Jewish people they rounded up and make their task all the more bearable. Browning makes a few other valid points in his book as well, but upon reading the opinions presented in the Goldhagen readings, the strength of Browning's argument lost some of its valor. Goldhagen managed to point out some overlooked points in Ordinary Men, such as how he made very general assumtions about the nature of the men involved in RPB 101. Though many men were ashamed to perform what was asked of them in the war, there are still many others that would not feel such shame as "ordinary men", but would rather be turned off by the scene of the killing. His argument takes a turn when he begins to discuss how culture may also affect decisions about whether a soldier would kill or not, with propaganda and the chilling brainwashing Hilter had managed to spread across the country turning a vast amount of people anti-Semitic. When playing in these additional thoughts alongside Browning's thesis, it can be confidently said that most men would follow the same path as those in RPB 101. It is too hard to stay true to individual viewpoints in lieu of a criticizing group, but an additional cultural influence may be of aid as well.
Although it is impossible I think for one to say exactly what they would do if they were in a situation such as these men, I do agree with the second reading “DEMONIZING THE GERMAN. . .” in that most people would likely fall into one of the five categories proposed. These three categories were: “those who could not care less about the killing of the Jew; those who rejoiced in Hitler’s policies; those who were appalled by these policies but feared the risks of speaking out; those who doubted Hitler’s treatment of the Jews but weren't willing to jeopardize their lives to voice them; and finally those who were confused by the propaganda and information controls.” I think it is a safe assumption to say that the vast majority of all humans would fall into these categories as proved by the various prison experiments that we have been watching.
Some of Goldhagen’s criticisms did indeed undermine Browning saying that the men in the battalion were not “ordinary” in our sense of normal people but ordinary in the sense of a messed up German society that was different from any other society that we have experienced. Although this undermines the title, I think that Browning was talking about the German society anyways so all in all it possibly helped Browning’s agreement
I do not entirely agree with Browning’s theory that any group of people could become mass murderers like the men in Order Police Battalion 101in Nazi Germany.
First of all, I strongly feel that it would require a very specific set of circumstances for anything like the Holocaust to ever happen, then and now. I think it would be unlikely for another Holocaust to occur simply because of this aforementioned belief. I feel that the development of the Holocaust involved a very specific recipe, with every ingredient falling into place just right; it was a mixture of things that allowed the Holocaust to occur, and this mixture includes time, place, economy, media, the people at the forefront of the Nazi idea (Hitler), and everything in Hitler’s life that led up to that point. The Holocaust did not just simply happen because of the people affected by it, they came after the fact; they were somewhat victims of circumstance. The way I see it, every little detail in the lives of Hitler’s ancestors, his parents’ meeting, every event in their lives, contributed to the making of this dark age in history. If one simple detail, one tiny moment of one of his predecessor’s lives had turned out differently, it could have affected the outcome of everything to follow, including whether Hitler would even have been born or not, whether his mother had been born, whether his parents would have met, etc. With this belief stated, I do not feel that this affliction could be repeated upon any group of individuals and yield the same results. Perhaps it could have initially been afflicted upon a different group of people and yielded the same results, but had that happened, we would still be asking this same question, because this group of people in question would have been the first and only affected group, just as the group of people who were actually affected in history are now.
There are some points in Goldhagen’s theory that I do not necessarily agree with either. One of these instances, discussed in the reading, “Demonizing the Germans” is where Goldhagen states that the whole situation of the Holocaust was uniquely German and would not have happened had it took hold in another place, concerning another people. This I do not see as true. I believe that, had the “ingredients” been “perfect” for this recipe in another country, with another people, the same thing might have happened, but it would have had to have been a country in desperate economic turmoil like Germany, and possessed all the other qualities that Germany held that made it possible for the Holocaust to take hold. However, I do agree with Goldhagen when he said, “Browning is undoubtedly right that social psychological pressures eased the Germans' transformation into mass murderers. And he is right that such pressures are powerful. But such pressures cannot begin to account for the Germans' behavior in all its facets” in “The Evil of Banality”.
(Continued on next post)......
According to Browning’s thesis, any person in the world, when placed under similar circumstances as the men of PB 101, would act similarly. I do not think this true, because I do not believe that the exact circumstances that allowed for the Holocaust would ever occur again to concoct another “Holocaust” (in quotations to reference the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, and not to bring into play any other genocide situations that may be similar, as I view those as entirely different events than the Holocaust of Nazi Germany, and I believe that those events too, could not be recreated). I do realize that so far, I have taken a very detail-oriented view on this whole debate, so I will do my best to make my judgments based on a more general analysis everything from now on. In general, I cannot see an army of “ordinary” American citizens coming together against an innocent people, simply because a charismatic politician tells us we must. Some people may make an argument against this statement, saying that that is exactly what happened at Abu Ghraib, however I would disagree. My reasoning behind my disagreement is the same point that was made in the reading titled “Demonizing the Germans”, “By any reasonable reckoning, the portion of the German population tangibly involved in the execution of the Final Solution…was relatively small. Out of about 80 million inhabitants in Hitler’s 1940 Reich, it probably could not have been close to even 5% of that total”. After watching the video on Abu Ghraib, I am personally assuming that the number of Americans involved in that scandal was far less than the 5% of Germans directly involved in the Holocaust. Also, it is obvious in the Dateline video on Abu Ghraib that public opinion greatly disapproved of the actions taken there, further supporting my belief that a “cause” like Hitler’s would not gain enough support from society to thrive in today’s world, at least not in a developed, mostly educated country.
Somewhat contradictory to what I just said, if you were to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, you may find yourself doubting whether you would have acted differently. This is not to say that if you were faced with a similar situation at a different time, under different, no matter how “similar”, circumstances, you will act in the same way. The truth is, you can’t say how you will act until you are actually faced with that situation.
In Christopher Browning’s book, Ordinary Men, he analyzed the actions of German Reserve Police Battalion 101, and their specific involvement in the Final Solution. Browning’s thesis, centered on the belief that given certain conditions, any person could become a cold-blooded killer, was supported by primary documents as well as interviews with members of the battalion. The RPB 101 is a perfect example of this concept, considering the men were not extraordinary in any way, shape, or form, and cam from humble beginnings in a modest town. Browning also supported his ideas with the experiments of Zimbardo and Milgram. In Milgram’s shock test, he would take regular, willing, participants, and have them receive orders to shock another person, by increasing voltages. The results of the experiment showed that a majority of the subjects were willing to administer a fatal-level of shock, simply because an authoritative figure commanded them to. In my opinion, I believe and agree with Browning’s thesis, and the psychological experiments undertaken by the two scientists. The pressure for conformity and to “take the easy way out” is almost a staple of the general psyche of a population, and I would imagine this notion has and probably always will hold true. On the other hand, Goldhagen believed that Browning was on the wrong foot with his argument. He stated that present and accepted anti-semetic beliefs were one of the largest contributors to turning these men into killers, and not the pressure for conformity. Goldhagen also attacked Browning;s credibility, arguing that he relies too often on interpreting primary documents, which can be done incorrectly, and basing his belief off of the testimony of men decades after they served. While Goldhagen provides a legitimate amount of evidence, I am more inclined to believe Browning and his beliefs.
Chris Browning's thesis on whether "ordinary" men could perform terrible actions that would make anyone else cringe in terror is very similar to the Goldhagen readings. In Browning's thesis, he states that under certain circumstances, an average man of good moral character will be forced to commit the crimes and punishments that many of the Nazi police carried out. It does not matter whether they are an assassin or just a factory worker; their past actions can sometimes fail to change their current actions. Anyone can create reasons and excuses so that they can carry out the task at hand, such as genocide or even killing. In Ordinary Men, Browning discusses that the men of the Order Police are put into this same situation, and that some of their actions, such as massacring thousands of Jews, would be performed by anyone in their position. However, in the Goldhagen readings, Goldhagen argues whether this situation that occurred could really happen again. Though Browning cites examples such as the prison experiment by Zambardo, Goldhagen argues that the Holocaust was unique. Due to the predefined structure of hierarchy in Germany, the people with the highest social structure believed that they should control all of the power and that the "lesser" people should be molded to their image. Another factor that occurred that kept it "unique" was the anti-Semitic attitude of most Germans. Hitler realized this, and so all he did was play with these people's emotions. Compared to Browning's arguments, Goldhagen is well-supported as well. He uses scholarly and important sources that proves this German state of mind. He took passages from the Order Police Battalion 101 and made it into a different interpretation that Browning did. Gellately's attacks on Goldhagen, however, are not as refutable as either of the first two authors. Gellately does not believe in Goldhagen's idea about demonizing the Germans; he thinks that Goldhagen made a mistake lumping all of the Germans into one single social group. Goldhagen backs up this point, however, and so Gellately's validity can be questioned. Overall all three authors contribute different viewpoints on the morality of man and whether we can all be "ordinary."
It is a proven fact that when placed in a situation such as the “ordinary men” of OPB 101, the subjects of Milgram’s experiments, or the prison guards at Stanford University, personal morals disappear and are replaced with an unbreakable obedience of authority. This holds true even if the authority orders the murders of other people. To this end, Browning’s thesis makes sense and is supported by psychological experiments that show similar results in controlled laboratory environments.
Goldhagen, on the other hand, posits that it is not an inherent psychological weakness in all humans that result in atrocities such as the Holocaust; rather it was a result of an inherently anti-Semetic culture. This hypothesis makes sense as it is completely true that anti-Semitism was rampant in Germany. However, I don’t believe it is correct because Goldhagen overlooked the fact that anti-Semitism was not exclusive to Germany. It was rampant across Europe and even North America. There was nothing especially different about the anti-Semitism in Germany. Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, numerous psychological studies prove that ordinary people can kill strangers indiscriminately, without a previous bias towards them on the basis of race, ethnicity, etc.
I believe, in light of class discussions and the Goldhagen readings, that Browning’s thesis is true on a psychological standpoint, but likewise is not well supported in his novel Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101and the Final Solution in Poland. Though, in further attempts at psychological experimentation like Milgram and Zimbardo, I do believe Browning’s thesis is legitimate. Events such as Abu Ghraib also further support Browning’s view on human nature.
When observing Milgram and Zimbardo’s experimentation, the thought that ordinary men and women could become killers is extremely evident. In Milgram’s experimentations dealing with strangers supposedly “shocking patients”, the statistics of killer’s vs. evaders was completely off from what the scientists expected. Despite the scientist’s hypothesis of only a small percentage of strangers going beyond a “painful shock,” scientists discovered that more than 2/3 of the strangers shocked the patients beyond the “almost lethal” amount of electrical shock. The film also mentioned that not one individual questioned the scientists as to whether they could help the patient in any way. The film concerning Abu Ghraib was also extremely concerning, seeing how American soldiers tortured and killed several prisoners residing in an overcrowded “terrorist” prison. Photographs and videos portray the horror depicted from the depths of the Abu Ghraib prison. Ordinary soldiers who were never trained to watch over prisoners acted cruel and terrible to these unarmed, weak civilians, whom large percentages were innocent. From these examples, I comprehend that human nature allows any individual to become a ruthless killer when put into a specific situation.
After reading Goldhagen and Gellately’s critiques of Browning’s work, I believe that Browning was not completely valid in his arguments. Although the information Browning included throughout the book Ordinary Men, it seems as though he picked and chose what he thought would support his individual thesis, rather than including the entire scheme of the situation. One significant detail Goldhagen presents is the reasons for the soldiers excusing themselves from the killings. Browning throughout the literature fails to mention this crucial piece of information, and adds the fact that several men whom excused themselves from killing initially confess to killing days later on several different occasions. Goldhagen thus brings to conclusion that most German soldiers did not excuse themselves from killing merely from moral opposition, but because they could not stomach the scenes of dead civilians. This is one of many holes evident throughout Browning’s work, which subsequently questions the validity of Browning’s thesis. But Gellately also brings up a crucial point that of the entire German populous, only 5 % were actively murdering Jewish civilians in camps. The other 95% were passive citizens choosing to ignore the Anti-Semitism rather than to fight out against the cause. Not every individual was a killer, but the question is who is worse: the individuals ordered to physically murder the thousands of Jews, or the German Citizens who are passive to the situation, regardless of their view points.
All in all, I do believe that Browning’s thesis was legitimate and that under the correct circumstances, ordinary men and women could become killers. Though Ordinary Men was not necessarily a completely accurate narrative of OPB 101, I do believe Browning created a convincing account.
Post a Comment