Interesting but flawed - Rated 
His point of view is interesting and will give you new perspective, but the book is hard going and you might need a dictionary to read it. It shouldn't be taken as absolute truth either, it was generally received with criticism by other historians.
The anti-christ of history - Rated 
I once had to write a 5000 word piece for my history degree and this utter tosh was mentioned several times. The topic I was researching was West German memory in the post-war period, looking at how the German public aligned itself with its Nazi past. As part of this I looked at different historians views on how involved "ordinary" Germans actualy were.
Goldhagen's problem is he does not understand the German soceity of the time, it's different groups, attitudes and responsibilities within the regime. The result is he groups "Germans" as one united regime with one opinion and role within the war; much like a fouteen year old would.
Goldhagen thus groups the nation as all involved in the Hollocaust in some way, and thus responsible for it, and should feel guilt within the post-war period.
"Goldhagen implied that the whole nation was involved; phrases such as `the Germans' slaughter of Jews; were left uncontextualised." Taken from Bill Viven's 'Facing The Nazi Past' (p129), which is well worth a read.
This is worth reading if you need an example of how not to be a historian. Otherwise it is misleading and almost racist in its conclusions. If you would like a true insight into the period, then this is a miss. Read the book I have mentioned.
Ironically the German public, perhaps trying to distance itself from its past, liked the book!
The truth will out! - Rated
This book should be avoided at all costs, especially by the discerning reader interested in enhancing their understanding of the past via works of serious history. Gladly, I do not have to write too much about the book itself, as Finkelstein and Birn have already conducted a thorough study refuting its validity Nation on Trial: the Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth. Please bear in mind that, while Finkelstein and Birn did not receive any prizes for a work of non-fiction for their very necessary and important endeavour, one of the key observations to arise about Goldhagen's book (and they don't get any more important for a serious historian) is the selective use of historical testimony on the author's part. To put it bluntly, Goldhagen's 'phenomenal scholarship' (Schama) amounted to simply citing only the few hundred sources that supported the central thesis of his book, while he conveniently ignored many thousands of examples which demonstrated a contrary point of view, and which might easily have led, therefore, to a radically opposed set of conclusions. It may seem ironic to some readers, but I, for one, think the views expressed by Professor Eric Hobsbawm when reviewing Finkelstein and Birn's study demonstrate most clearly the importance of their book and why you should read it rather than Goldhagen's unbalanced and misleading exercise in charlatanism: "All reader's of Goldhagen's controversial book should take note of these much-needed studies, which, in line with serious historians, convincingly and authoritatively dismantle its arguments." For that matter, anyone seriously interested in getting to grips with serious studies of atrocity and the collapse of civilization in wartime Europe might wish to consider reading Bacque's seminal account of 'the mass deaths of disarmed German soldiers and civilians under General Eisenhower's Command' in French and American-controlled concentration camps during the years immediately following the end of the Second World War Other Losses: An Investigation Into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans After World War II. It certainly constitutes 'astonishing, disturbing, and riveting' reading.
I couldn't even get past the first 20 pages... - Rated
I haven't really got anything to say on the arguments contained within this book, simply as i can't read it! I can't bear ploughing through books written by someone who takes 2 pages to describe what could be more concisely put into a single paragraph. Is it really necessary to constantly use overly long words just for the sake of it, as Goldhagen does? To sound clever and garner the respect of the academic community?
I don't know, maybe i'm a bit thicker than i gave myself credit for. I studied Nazi Germany at A-Level and have read numerous books on the subject and usually struggle to put them down. This is the first one that fixed my Insomnia!
A psychological tour de force. - Rated 
This book is truly exceptional. An original. Just read it and digest this man's irresitable logic. Goldhagen is a genius. He has married the science of history to those of psychoanalysis and psychiatry. What is clever about this book is how he makes the reader start thinking about the subject afresh from an analytical view point. Those without some background in psychiatry will have difficulty in accepting Goldhagen's descriptions of the delusions that underlay the actions of Germans and other Jew haters. The very concept of delusion is one that most people are ignorant of or if they are aware of will only ascribe to the obviously mentally ill. Goldhagen's argument is that Germans and others did the things they did willingly because they believed certain things about Jews. Jew hatred is still with us and this book will go a long way to explaining modern forms as well, particularly in the Arab world today. Superb. I wish Amazon would allow more than five stars.
|
