Issues in Dispute and Implications of the Debate between "Ordinary Men" and "The Evil of Banality"

The two books Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning and The Evil of Banality by Daniel Goldhagen are centered on the events that occurred during the holocaust. This is the period that was characterized by mass killing of Jews in the Nazi Germany. It occurred around the World War II. The killings were orchestrated under the leadership of Adolf Hitler during the Nazi regime. The two authors give their personal accounts of the circumstances under which the brutal killings were conducted. The matter of great interest is what actually motivated members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 to execute innocent Jews. Browning observes that the Order Police participated in Jews’ mass atrocities. He states that the orders to execute Jews and all who were perceived to be anti-Germany were received from the top of the German government. The origin of the orders is not disputed by Goldhagen and Browning. However, the contested issues in the books include the motivational factors that made the killers perform the act.

Browning’s arguments about the circumstances surrounding the execution of innocent Jews are based on situational aspects. He reasons that the killers’ choices and acts were determined by the environment they lived in. To him, the situation presented an unbearable pressure to members of the Police Battalion 101 to execute the murder. To justify his statement, Browning points out that the Police Battalion 101 members participated in the mass killings because their professions would be under a threat if they declined to participate. The decision was all about the socio-psychological conditions and the desire to conform. Browning feels that the killers were afraid of being held contempt by their comrades. Based on these arguments, he posits that any normal human being would succumb to the pressure that the Police Battalion 101 members were subjected to, hence would be a part of the killing mission. It is this argument that is the root cause of the debate, as Goldhagen presents an intensified criticism to Browning’s arguments.

Goldhagen states that the perpetrators of the mass killings had a tendency of distancing themselves from their acts (50). He argues that the perpetrators made false claims that they were not involved in the killings or that they did not pull the trigger. In case they failed to prove their innocence by using the claims, they would show determination to justify their innocence by claiming that they killed under pressure. The criticism that Goldhagen raises against Browning is based on the perception that the latter does not circumspect the perpetrators’ claims about the circumstances under which they acted.

According to Goldhagen, Browning’s assertion that some men in the Reserve Police Battalion 101 opted out of the killing missions lacks solid evidence (50). He argues that members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 used denial tactic to plead innocent. For instance, Goldhagen states that the perpetrators that excused themselves from the first killing operation took part in next killings voluntarily (51). To Goldhagen, Browning is wrong to argue that the killers acted under pressure because those that initially excused themselves from the first killing operation did not act out of their opposition to the act, but were simply scared by the scene. To illustrate this notion, Goldhagen refers to a conversation between two killers after an operation in which a 12 year old child was brutally murdered. The conversation reveals the mood of the killers, as they executed innocent Jews. The perpetrators conducted the executions with great relish; they were happy and enjoyed every killing operation, as it is evident from the conversation (Goldhagen 50).

Goldhagen is also against Browning’s words’ choice (51). He criticizes the reference that Browning makes to the killers as ‘shooters’. According to him, Browning should have used an appropriate term, ‘killers’ to show the magnitude of the crime. He states that using the term ‘shooters’ downplays the gravity of the evil, as it reduces the mass killing act to a mechanical and blind execution that is conditioned by the need to adhere to orders. It is opposed to the actual emotional and cognitively involved act of killing (Goldhagen 51).

Goldhagen criticizes Browning’s assertion that the killers’ acts were situational. He does that by making reference to Browning’s use of the term “Jew hunts”. According to him, the term signalizes the executor’s approval of the killing operations. He states that the ‘hunters’ in this case must have been delighted, while killing innocent Jews. If the killers did not approve of such an act, they would not participate in it because they had an option to excuse themselves.

As opposed to Browning’s claim that the perpetrators were ashamed of their acts, Goldhagen argues that if that was the case, they would show the shame through a conscious feeling of guilt, resulting from a violation of morality. Besides, he is against the idea that the killers were compelled to act violently against the Jews in locations, where the Jews outnumbered them. To correct this notion, Goldhagen states that violent roundup and killing of the Jews were also witnessed in locations like Jozefow (51).

The game of ‘tossing apples’ also shows that the killers enjoyed the executions.  Members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 were tossing liquor bottles across the heads of the affected Jew’s. The victims were being beaten thoroughly amid high pitched laughers. It indicates that the executions were a source of delight to those who were killing, as opposed to Browning’s reasoning that they acted because they were pressurized by the situation.

In Goldhagen’s statement, the murderers did not appear as reluctant shooters but as two-legged beasts that were full of bloodthirstiness (Goldhagen 52). On the same note, he opposes the idea that the perpetrators were not expected to torture the Jews by suggesting that cruelty and violence towards the Jews was more of a rule than an exception. Goldhagen states that Browning did not consider the perpetrators’ perception of the Jews and their attitude towards the mass murder as a solution to the notion of the Jews’ problem.

In his concluding remarks, Goldhagen states that members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 had an option to excuse themselves from killing the Jews if they were inwardly opposed to the act (52). He reasons that the moral obligation to preserve life did not seem valuable to the killers, as they executed the Jews with dedication and zeal. It makes earlier hesitations by a section of the killers, as pointed out by Browning, null as it confirms that the murderers believed in the justice of murder of the Jews (Goldhagen 52).

Goldhagen accepts the idea presented by Browning that the killers were ordinary men. However, he suggests that those who were executing the killing could only be said to be ordinary when considered in their own universe. According to him, the killers were ordinary members of the Nazi political culture; a culture that was extraordinary due to its focus on the hallucinatory dangerous opinion of the Jews (Goldhagen 52).

In conclusion, this debate gives a reflection of the uncertainty about the factors that promoted the holocaust. It disputes the notion that members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 acted under pressure. Instead, the debate shows that the execution of the innocent Jews was a matter of choice and that the killers participated voluntarily. As such, it results to a painful reflection of the executions that, in light of Goldhagen’s reasoning, were unjustified. After reading and examining the basis upon which the two authors grounded their arguments critically, one is likely to conclude that members of the Reserve Police Battalion 101 were fully motivated to conduct the executions. However, the authors fail to disclose the reasons behind the killers’ motivation satisfactory.