I n Moral Philosophy and t he Holocaust ,
edit ed by Eve Garrard and Geoffrey Scarre, Ashgat e, 2003)
Perpet rat or Mot ivat ion:
Som e Reflect ions on t he Browning/ Goldhagen Debat e
Nick Zangw ill
PART 1: The I ssue
§1.1 What m ot ivat ed t he perpet rat ors of t he holocaust ? Christ opher
Browning and Daniel Goldhagen differ in t heir analysis of Reserve Police
Bat t alion 101 ( Browning 1992, Goldhagen 1996) . The bat t alion consist ed of
around 500 ‘ordinary’ Germ ans who, during t he period 1942- 44, killed
around 40,000 Jew s and who deport ed as m any t o t he deat h cam ps.
Browning and Goldhagen differ over t he m ot ivat ion w it h which t he m en
killed. I w ant t o com m ent on a cent ral aspect of t his debat e.
There is m uch t hat I shall not com m ent on. I shall avoid issues about
whet her t here w as som et hing special about t he Germ ans, which led t hem , as
a nat ion, t o t he killings t hey did, on t he scale t hey did, t o t he people t hey
did. That debat e has generat ed t he m ost cont roversy. But in fact it is not t he
only issue, or even t he m ost int erest ing issue, t hat t hese t wo hist orians
raise. So far as possible, I shall focus on why t hese part icular ‘ordinary’
Germ an m en did what t hey did.
For t he m ost part , I shall exam ine and assess t he argum ent s deployed
by Browning and Goldhagen over t his part icular bat t alion. But I also w ant t o
show how, or perhaps m ore m odest ly, t ell a st ory according t o which, t he
difference bet ween t hese t wo hist orians over Bat t alion 101 is an inst ance of a
broader difference over t he explanat ion and j ust ificat ion of hum an act ion.
I ndeed, t he difference m ay be deep enough t hat it reveals a difference over
hum an nat ure it self. However, t he focus w ill be prim arily on t he part icular
hist orical case, even t hough t he broader issues are never far aw ay.
The issue seem s t o be one of em pirical psychology: what m ot ivat ed
t he m en? So what int erest m ight a philosopher have in t he issue? Why not
leave it t o t hose who have t he relevant em pirical expert ise? However,
em pirical psychological quest ions about m ot ivat ion are not cat egorically
dist inct from philosophical quest ions about t he nat ure and explanat ion of
act ion. And part icularly cont roversial cases m ay reveal t hese differences. One
of t he good t hings about t he w rit ings of t hese t wo hist orians is t he w ay t hey
bring t his out , and do so explicit ly at t im es. They do not superficially drop t he
nam es of philosophers or vague philosophical ism s; rat her recognizably
philosophical issues are t ransparent ly and honest ly aired. Theirs is no m ere
post m odern post uring or pret ent ious wordiness but a serious and honest
at t em pt t o explain a part icular hist orical event in t he light of m ore general
considerat ions, and at t he sam e t im e t o t hink about t he m ore general
considerat ion in t he light of t he part icular hist orical event .
1
I would like t o m ent ion t hat I adm ire t he work of bot h t hese hist orians.
The issue has becom e rat her part isan, so t hat it is assum ed t hat one m ust be
cheering for one and booing t he ot her. But if I am right t hat t here are rat her
large concept ions of hum an act ion and hum an nat ure underlying t he debat e,
t hen I t hink we should becom e m ore appreciat ive of t he fact t hat bot h have
view s t hat have considerable plausibilit y. And even if we t hink one of t hem
w rong, t hen we should do t hem t he credit of t hinking t hem w rong in an
int erest ing w ay, a w ay t hat springs from a deep and at t ract ive, if ult im at ely
m isguided, view of t he springs of hum an act ion.
§1.2 The t arget quest ion is: what w ere t he m ot ives of t he perpet rat ors of
Bat t alion 101? These perpet rat ors were alm ost all Germ ans and t heir vict im s
w ere alm ost all Jews. Many perpet rat ors of t hese kinds of killings of Jews
w ere not Germ an, and m any ot her vict im s of sim ilar Germ an Bat t alions w ere
not Jew s. But in t his case, for t he m ost part , perpet rat ors w ere Germ ans and
vict im s Jew s.
However, bot h Browning and Goldhagen do at t im es appeal t o nonGerm an perpet rat ors and t o non- Jew ish vict im s as evidence for t heir view s
about t he Germ an killing of Jew ish vict im s. This is one w ay in which, in t he
course of t he debat e, t he focus get s w idened and t hen narrowed again.
Our quest ion is also rest rict ed in t im e. The quest ion is: what w ere t he
m ot ives of t he m en at t he point of act ion? Hist orians m ay appeal t o ant iSem it ism in Germ any in t he pre- w ar Nazi period or in t he pre- Nazi period as
evidence for a view about t he w art im e m ot ivat ions of t he m en. Goldhagen
and Browning differ on t his quest ion. For exam ple, Browning queries
Goldhagen’s assessm ent of t he ext ent of ‘elim inat ivist ’ ant i- Sem it ism during
t he Nazi and pre- Nazi period in Germ any ( Browning 1998, pp. 194- 200) . And
since t he m en were a represent at ive cross- sect ion of Germ an societ y,
Browning infers t hat ant i- Sem it ism played less of a role in t he m ind of t he
m en of Bat t alion 101 t han does Goldhagen. Sim ilarly, t he t wo hist orians
som et im es appeal t o what t he m en said under int errogat ion aft er t he w ar.
But t he hope is t o locat e t he ult im at e m ot ivat ion as t hey killed. This is
anot her w ay t hat t he focus get s w idened and t hen narrow ed again.
§1.3 Broadly speaking, t he m ain issue t hat separat es Brow ning and
Goldhagen, is t he ext ent t o which ant i- Sem it ism w as a m ot ivat ing fact or in
bringing t hese Germ an conscript s t o kill Jew s. Roughly, Goldhagen t hinks
t hat it w as, w hereas Browning t hinks t hat it w asn’t . But , since it is im port ant
t hat ant i- Sem it ism com es in different form s, t he m ore precise claim at issue
is whet her t he killers w ere m ot ivat ed by ‘elim inat ionist ’ ant i- Sem it ism , where
t hat am ount s t o t hinking t hat Jew s should be got rid of. This m ight eit her be
by expulsion ( ‘reset t lem ent ’) or by genocide. ‘Genocidal’ ant i- Sem it ism is one
kind of ‘elim inat ionist ’ ant i- Sem it ism , which is, in t urn, a species of t he
broader genus of ant i- Sem it ism . Bot h Browning and Goldhagen cit e evidence
in t heir favor, and I shall not at t em pt t o adj udicat e. Goldhagen t hinks t hat
m ost Germ ans in Nazi Germ any endorsed elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ism , and
also t hat t he m aj orit y of t he m en of Bat t alion 101 did so t oo, and killed for
t hat reason. Browning disagrees w it h Goldhagen over whet her t he m aj orit y
2
of Germ ans in pre- Nazi and Nazi Germ any endorsed elim inat ionist ant iSem it ism , and he disagrees over t he m en of Bat t alion 101 ( Browning 1998,
p. 215) . Browning t hinks t hat m ost Germ ans held a m ilder kind of ant iSem it ism , which m eant t hat t hey w ere passive and did not resist t he act ions
of a m inorit y who held t he m ore virulent form . He w rit es:
Wit h a few except ions t he whole quest ion of ant i- Sem it ism is m arked
by silence … I t would seem t hat even if t he m en of Reserve Police
Bat t alion 101 had not accept ed t he ant i- Sem it ic doct rines of t he
regim e, t hey had at least accept ed t he assim ilat ion of t he Jew s int o
t he im age of t he enem y. ( Browning 1992, p. 73.)
I nfluenced and condit ioned in a general w ay, im bued in part icular w it h
a sense of t heir own superiorit y and racial kinship as well as Jew ish
inferiorit y and ot herness, m any of t hem undoubt edly w ere; explicit ly
prepared for t he t ask of killing Jews t hey m ost cert ainly w ere not .
( Browning 1992, p. 184.)
By cont rast , for Goldhagen
… t he perpet rat ors, ‘ordinary Germ ans’, w ere anim at ed by
ant isem it ism , by a part icular t ype of ant isem it ism t hat led t hem t o
conclude t hat t he Jews ought t o die. ( Goldhagen 1996, p. 14)
For Browning, it is sufficient t o explain t he killings t hat ( 1) a m aj orit y of t he
m en had a far less virulent form of ant i- Sem it ism , ( 2) t hat a m inorit y had t he
m ore virulent elim inat ionist form , plus ( 3) crucial ‘sit uat ional’ fact ors —
preem inent ly, peer- pressure and aut horit y m echanism s — t hat operat ed on
t he m aj orit y of t he m en ( Browning 1992, pp. 184- 86; see also Browning
2000, p. 169) . I shall say t hat Browning’s explanat ion is ‘sit uat ional’ and t hat
Goldhagen’s is ‘evaluat ional’. Of course, t he sit uat ion w as not black and
whit e. Many com plex fact ors bore on t he m en. There is obviously som e t rut h
in bot h Browning’s and Goldhagen’s hypot heses. The quest ion is how m uch
w eight t o give t o sit uat ionist and evaluat ionist fact ors.
§1.4 Bot h Browning and Goldhagen are fascinat ed by t he opport unit y for
opt ing out of t he killing, which Maj or Trapp provided, which w as by and large
ignored by t he m en ( Browning 1992, p. 2; Goldhagen 1996, pp. 213- 14) .
Bot h seek t o explain t his absence. Goldhagen’s t hought is: w it hout t he
m ot ive of ant i- Sem it ism , surely t he m en would not have obeyed a weak
order, t he disobeying of which carried no sanct ion, unless one m orally
endorsed it and w as m ot ivat ionally inclined t o do it . That cert ainly seem s
plausible. Nevert heless, it is also possible t hat m any of t he m en w ere not
sufficient ly m ot ivat ed t o kill in virt ue of t heir less virulent ant i- Sem it ism , but
ot her fact ors led t hem t o it . That , I presum e, is Browning’s posit ion. Hence
ot her fact ors are brought int o play and given explanat ory salience besides
elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ism .
3
So — t o conscript Kant ’s language — for Browning, t he m en m erely
act ed in accordance wit h ant i- Sem it ism but not out of respect for ant iSem it ism , whereas for Goldhagen t he m en act ed in accordance wit h ant iSem it ism because t hey act ed out of respect for ant i- Sem it ism . Goldhagen’s
explanat ion is Kant ian in t hat it put s t he m en’s m oral concept ion of t heir own
act ions at cent re st age. Browning’s explanat ion is m ore Hum ean in t hat it
seeks t o explain t heir act ions by appeal t o various causal fact ors, which
include int ernal m ent al disposit ions and ext ernal ‘sit uat ional’ fact ors, and
which m ay or m ay not include a self- direct ed m oral evaluat ion. Perhaps a
Hum ean can explain how m oral evaluat ion is possible on t he basis of
at t it udes and desires ( Blackburn 1998) . But for a Hum ean, act ion explanat ion
can proceed w it hout m oral evaluat ion.
§1.5 Com pare a case where Goldhagen’s t hesis is clearly correct and where
Browning would obviously be w rong — as I am sure he would adm it . Every
one of t he leading Nazis execut ed aft er t he Nurem berg t rials went t o t heir
deat hs w it h a clear conscience. They say as m uch. They all believed t hat t hey
had done t he right t hing. For exam ple, at t he Nurem berg Trials, Göring said:
“ I w ill absolut ely and gladly t ake responsibilit y for even t he m ost serious
t hings which I have done…” ( Trial of t he Maj or War Crim inals before t he
I nt ernat ional Milit ary Tribunal, vol I X, p. 564) . And again, Göring: “ The only
m ot ive which guided m e w as m y ardent love for m y people, it s happiness, it s
freedom , and it s life” ( Trial of t he Maj or War Crim inals before t he
I nt ernat ional Milit ary Tribunal, vol. XXI I , p. 368) . Obviously, Göring w as no
am oralist ! At one point , Göring spoke of his “ sense of j ust ice” ( Trial of t he
Maj or War Crim inals before t he I nt ernat ional Milit ary Tribunal, 1947- 1949,
vol I X, p. 564) . ( Trial of t he Maj or War Crim inals before t he I nt ernat ional
Milit ary Tribunal, 1947- 1949, vol I X.) There is no plausibilit y in t he idea t hat
Göring w as som eone who w as at t ract ed t o evil qua evil, as Berel Lang
suggest ed t hat m any Nazis w ere ( Lang 1990; I argue t hat t he Nazis had
m oral view s t hat w ere false but perfect ly coherent in Zangw ill 2000) .
The leading Nazis believed t hat t hey had all put Germ any first , in a
cert ain w ay of conceiving of what ‘Germ any’ m eans. Germ an Jew s, of course,
did not count as ‘Germ an’ in t his special concept ion — indeed t hey w ere
conceived t o be t he very ant it hesis of Germ ans. There should be no doubt s
as t o t he m ot ivat ions w it h which leading t op Nazis act ed. They did not suffer
from w eak w ill of any sort . They were not subj ect t o overriding sit uat ional
pressures. I t is clear t hat t hey believed in what t hey did, and t hey act ed
accordingly. Those hanged at Nurem berg went t o t heir deat hs believing t hat
t hey had done t he right t hing. The word “ Germ any” w as on all t heir lips. To
deny t his would be t o deny t he evidence of what t hey t hem selves said, and
m uch else besides. I t ake it t hat it is not cont roversial t o claim t hat t he t op
Nazis w ere m ot ivat ed by ant i- Sem it ism . Of course, even t hey were not all
alike. Ant i- Sem it ism was a priorit y for Him m ler in a w ay it w as not for m any
ot her of t he leading Nazis. Nevert heless, t he ot hers clearly had st rong and
m ot ivat ionally significant elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ic views and at t it udes,
which flow ed at least in part from t heir part icular brand of Germ an
nat ionalism .
4
Our quest ion is whet her som et hing sim ilar is t rue of t he m ore
‘ordinary’ m en of Bat t alion 101. Browning dist inguishes bet ween t he m ore
fanat ical Nazi leaders and t he general public ( Browning 1998, p. 201) . But ,
by it self, t his doesn’t m eet Goldhagen’s point . For even if t here is such a
dist inct ion, t he quest ion is what t he less fanat ical form of ant i- Sem it ism
consist ed in. For it m ay have been fanat ical enough t o be t he kind of
reflect ively endorsed elim inat ionist m ot ivat ion t hat Goldhagen t hinks t he
killers had. 1
§1.6 The quest ion is: what w as going on in t he m inds of t he m en as t hey
killed? Goldhagen, in som ewhat Hegelian st yle, t hinks t hat ideology drove at
least t his segm ent of hist ory ( Goldhagen 1996, p. 455) ; Browning, in
som ewhat Marxist st yle, t hinks t hat ideology did not drive at least t his
segm ent of hist ory.
A sim ilar kind of issue is played out in m any areas in t he hum anit ies.
For exam ple t here is an issue about t he kind of explanat ion supplied in t he
sociology of art , part icularly in it s st andard Marxist and fem inist form s
( Bourdieu 1984, Eaglet on 1984, Wolff 1984) . I nsofar as it is definit ive of t he
sociology of art t o abst ract aw ay from t he conscious m ent al st at es of t he
producers and consum ers of art , t here is a good case for saying t hat t he
whole subj ect is predicat ed on an error. For no purely ‘st ruct ural’ or
‘funct ionalist ’ explanat ion can m at ch t he pow er of a m ent alist explanat ion
according t o which people’s m ot ivat ions in m aking and consum ing art are, t o
a significant ext ent , t ransparent t o t hem . We need t o probe people’s
concept ion of t heir own act ions, which t hey see as flow ing from t heir own
desires and evaluat ions. Moreover, t he hist ory of art cannot be underst ood
w it hout t aking t hat perspect ive on board, and it cannot be underst ood if it
confines it self m erely t o exam ining abst ract social st ruct ures, and t he like. ( I
pursue an argum ent along t hese lines in Zangw ill 2002.) The debat e over t he
holocaust is sim ilar in m any w ays.
Not e t hat t he issue we are addressing is rat her indirect ly relat ed t o a
st andard issue about t he holocaust , according t o which t here are
‘int ent ionalist ’ or ‘funct ionalist ’ explanat ions of it . For t he 'funct ionalist '
school, t he ideological cont ent s of t he killers’ heads did not m at t er. What ever
m ot ives or ideology t hey had would not have m ade any difference, for it w as
t he social st ruct ures t hat det erm ined t he occurrence of t he holocaust . On t his
view, ideology w as epiphenom enal, as it is for m any Marxist s. For t he
‘int ent ionalist ’ school, t he virulent ant i- Sem it ism of t he Nazis t hem selves and
t heir narrow circle drove hist ory. But , as w it h t he funct ionalist school, t he
t hought s of t he m en in t he killing fields — t he perpet rat ors — were
epiphenom enal. But for Goldhagen, bot h t hese view s are w rong. He is, as it
w ere, a dem ocrat ic Hegelian: t he ideology of t he m asses drove hist ory, at
least in t his case. Goldhagen is nearer t he int ent ionalist school t han t he
1
My gr andfat her hear d Hit ler on a st r eet cor ner in Ger m any in t he 1920s, long
befor e he cam e t o pow er , shout ing ‘Deat h t o t he Jews’. Sur ely ver y few in Ger m any
could have been in t w o m inds about w het her Hit ler and his follow er s had genocidal
wishes. Nev er t heless, as Br owning r em inds us, only 37% of Ger m ans vot ed for Hit ler
at t heir last fr ee elect ion befor e t he war ( Br owning 1998, p. 197) .
5
funct ionalist school, for unlike t he funct ionalist s, he t hinks t hat ideology w as
efficacious, but Goldhagen also t hinks t hat t he efficacious ideology w as not
rest rict ed t o t he Nazis and t heir im m ediat e circle, but w as em braced by t he
m aj orit y of Germ ans, and in part icular by t hose who carried out t he killings.
Goldhagen goes as far as t o assert t he count erfact ual t hat if t he m en in t he
Bat t alion had lacked t he ideology, t he killings would not have happened.
§1.7 Goldhagen’s explanat ion is not ‘m onocausal’ as m any of his cruder
crit ics carelessly and unfairly alleged. ( See som e of t he essays in Shandley
1998.) Goldhagen allows t hat m any fact ors t oget her led t o t he holocaust . But
Goldhagen does t hink t hat ant i- Sem it ism was t he only relevant m ot ivat ional
fact or in leading t he m en t o kill. Goldhagen recognizes t hat ot her fact ors
w ere necessary for t he killings, but he insist s t hat elim inat ionist ant iSem it ism , as a real psychological fact or in t he m ind of t he m aj orit y of t he
killers, w as also an im port ant necessary condit ion ( Goldhagen 1998, pp. 14041) . He t hinks, t hat is, t hat it is a condit ion w it hout which t he killings would
not have t aken place. For Goldhagen, t he ot her necessary but nonm ot ivat ional fact ors w ere t hat st at e power w as in t he hands of t hose
com m it t ed t o ext rem e ant i- Sem it ic policies, and t he w ar m eant t hat t here
w as t he m ilit ary power and circum st ances in which t o execut e t hose policies.
But t he elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ic m ot ivat ion w as necessary as a fact or in
t he m inds of m ost of t he m en. Browning denies t his. I shall end up agreeing
w it h Goldhagen about t his m ot ivat ional necessary condit ion, but I also t hink
t hat ot her m ot ivat ions w ere necessary. These ot her m ot ivat ions are
suggest ed by Browning’s work, even t hough Browning did not put his
conclusions in m ot ivat ional t erm s. Hence t he elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ic
m ot ivat ions of t he m en are not m ot ivat ionally sufficient t o explain t he
killings.
PART 2: Som e I nconclusive Argum ent s
§2.1 Goldhagen argues t hat t he fact t hat t he m en of Bat t alion 101 were
proud is evidence against Browning’s peer- pressure hypot hesis. I f Goldhagen
is right t hat t he m en w ere indeed proud, it would be significant . For pride is a
m oral em ot ion. I f t he m en w ere proud, t hen t hey m orally endorsed t heir
act ions. But why should we t hink t hat t hey w ere proud?
Goldhagen adduces t he phot ographs t aken by m em bers of t he
Bat t alion as evidence for t heir pride ( Goldhagen 1996, pp. 245- 47, pp. 40506) . The phot ographs, Goldhagen m aint ains, show t hat t hey felt pride, not
sham e, in t heir work. The m en cert ainly look cheerful and proud in t he
phot ographs, and so t he phot ographs seem t o suggest t hat t he m en w ere
proud of t heir work and t herefore did not act out of peer pressure. I f t hey
w ere proud, t hen t hey m ust have j udged t hat t heir work w as wort hwhile.
I t is not cont roversial t hat t he phot ographs present t heir soldiers as
apparent ly cheerful and proud of what t hey are doing. However, inferences
from t hat are cont roversial. One only has t o be a lit t le caut ious t o t hink t hat
reading real pride int o t he m en in t he phot ographs is at least not
6
st raight forw ard and at m ost speculat ive and risky. First ly, w e can easily
im agine a skept ical Browning asking: are t hese phot ographs a represent at ive
sam ple of t he phot ographs available? And are t he m en depict ed in t he
phot ographs a represent at ive sam ple or j ust t he ext rem e m inorit y of t he
m en t hat Browning concedes w ere elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it es? And secondly,
even if t he phot ographs do show a represent at ive sam ple of t he m en, posed
phot ographs of t his sort are t ypically t he upshot of a deliberat e proj ect of
const ruct ing hist ory. When one poses for a phot o, one oft en present s t he
appearance one w ant s t o be ‘rem em bered’. One is fabricat ing ‘m em ory’ as
one would like it or as ot hers would like it . Even unposed phot ographs do not
sim ply ‘present ’ realit y in a st raight forw ard w ay. But in posed phot ographs
t he sit uat ion is far m ore com plex. For t he people who pose are part icipant s in
creat ing t he result ing phot ograph. The idea t hat t here is t he phot ographer,
on t he one hand, and t he posing people, on t he ot her, who are m erely
recorded in t he phot ograph, is surely an illusion. The posing people are
collaborat ors in t he overall phot ographic ent erprise. 2
This point harm s Goldhagen’s case, because we cannot t ake t he
phot ograph as reliably recording pride. The m en are likely t o have been
adopt ing t he em ot ional guise t hat t hey t hought w as deem ed appropriat e in
t hat cont ext . I t does not follow t hat t hey really felt t hat em ot ion. There is
lit t le reason t o believe t hat , on t his basis. For t hese reasons, and perhaps for
ot hers, t he apparent pride in t hese phot ographs of t hese soldiers, does not
lend m uch support t o Goldhagen’s hypot hesis. Perhaps it is w eak evidence.
But by it self, it is not sufficient t o j ust ify Goldhagen’s evaluat ional view . The
phot ographs m ight weakly confirm som et hing w e already had evidence for,
but t hey are not enough t o found a cont roversial doct rine on.
§2. 2 Goldhagen appeals t o t he cruelt y of t he perpet rat ors. Here Goldhagen
appeals t o vict im t est im ony rat her t han perpet rat or t est im ony. Goldhagen
appeals t o t he Jew ish vict im s who report t hat t he perpet rat ors killed w it h j oy
and hat red ( Goldhagen 1998, p. 135) . This evidence from vict im s is st ronger
t han t hat from phot ographs since t he m en clearly did not care what t heir
Jew ish vict im s t hought , whereas t hey did care what would be t hought by
t hose t hey t hought would see t he phot ographs. The m en apparent ly enj oyed
t he killing. The cruelt y of t he killings does seem t o speak against Browning’s
obedience or sit uat ional view s and for Goldhagen’s evaluat ional view.
Goldhagen's t hought is: why would one cruelly and ent husiast ically obey
orders t o kill if one disapproved of t he orders or even were evaluat ively
2
W.G. Sebald discusses a phot ogr aph of Kafka and t w o com panions in w hich
t hey ar e posed behind a com ic set t hat r eveals only t heir faces and giv es t he
appear ance t hat t he people in t he phot ogr aph ar e doing som et hing unlik ely ( Sebald
2000) . I n t he phot ogr aph Kafk a and his fr iends appear t o be passenger s on an
aer oplane phot ogr aphed fr om out side. Accor ding t o Sebald, t her e is good r eason t o
t hink Kafka was par t icular ly unhappy on t he day of t he phot ogr aph, par t icular ly wit h
his com panions, but in t he phot ogr aph, he is sm iling br oadly, in accor d w it h t he
conv ent ions of posing for such phot ogr aphs. Ther e is also good r eason t o t hink t hat
t he com panions w er e having a r at her m er r y t im e t hat day, but t hey look ver y glum
in t he phot ogr aph.
7
neut ral about t hem ? This cruelt y, t hen, seem s t o support Goldhagen’s
evaluat ional explanat ion. I n Goldhagen’s words: “… ordinary Germ ans w ere
m ot ivat ed by a virulent form of ant i- Sem it ism t hat led t hem t o believe t hat
t he ext erm inat ion of t he Jew s w as necessary and j ust ” ( Goldhagen 1998, p.
137) .
The debat e over cruelt y oft en involves argum ent by com parison.
Goldhagen argues t hat non- Jew ish vict im s of t he holocaust w ere t reat ed
different ly in t his respect . Browning replied by disput ing t his. Browning
claim s t hat t he Germ ans w ere also cruel t o non- Jew ish vict im s. He gives t he
exam ple of t he group in charge of killing t he m ent ally handicapped, who held
a part y t o celebrat e killing 10,000 people ( Browning 1998, p. 208) . This
seem s t o show cruelt y and pride in t heir work of t he sam e sort t hat
Goldhagen em phasizes in t he case of t he killing of Jew s. But t his part icular
reply of Browning’s is ineffect ive, for m any reasons. For one t hing, t his w as
not t he work of Bat t alion 101. But , put t ing t hat t o one side, t he m en of
Bat t alion 101 m ight have had all sort s of ot her m urderous am bit ions t owards
ot her groups, which t hey w ere not able t o fulfill. Whet her or not t hey also
had ot her such m urderous am bit ions, t hey w ere able t o fulfill t heir am bit ions
w it h respect t o t he Jew s. That t hey were elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it es does not
m ean t hat t hey were perfect angels in ot her respect s! Furt herm ore, t hat nonGerm ans also killed Jews cruelly is sim ply irrelevant . I t does not m ake t he
Germ an killers less cruel. There is also a difficult y w it h t he part icular exam ple
t hat Browning uses. That t he killing of t he m ent ally handicapped w as
celebrat ed show s callousness, not necessarily cruelt y, which is som et hing
different . They w ere celebrat ing a j ob w ell done. They clearly did not care
about t hose t hey killed. But a cruel act is one in which one does care,
negat ively, about one’s vict im . However, t here m ay be bet t er exam ples,
which Browning could draw on. Perhaps t hey t reat ed Soviet prisoners of w ar
as t hey did t he Jew s. But even if t his were so, it would not help Browning.
For it j ust shows t hat t he m en w ere generously cat holic w it h t heir cruelt y.
Ant i- Sem it ism can and does coexist perfect ly com fort ably w it h all kinds of
ot her negat ive m ot ivat ions and evaluat ions concerning ot her groups.
Given t hat t he Jew s were not j ust killed but killed cruelly, Goldhagen’s
explanat ion cert ainly seem s t o have t he edge over Browning’s m ore
sit uat ional explanat ion. This w as not m erely effect ive killing, as it w as when
t hey killed t he m ent ally ill.
However, t he bad new s for Goldhagen is t hat even if he is right about
t he dist inct ive cruelt y w it h which t he m en of Bat t alion 101 killed Jews, it is
far from clear t hat t his support s his evaluat ional t hesis. There is a
fundam ent al obj ect ion t o Goldhagen’s whole argum ent on t his point . There is
a fam iliar and hallow ed cont rast bet w een pleasure and dut y. This cont rast
has been a feat ure of t he int ellect ual landscape at least since Plat o. The t wo
can be in t ension. St ern dut y can point us in one direct ion, while seduct ive
pleasure t em pt s us elsewhere. Hum an weakness m ay m ake one pursue
pleasurable t hings t hat w e believe are not right . I n part icular, t hat one
enj oys one's work does not m ean t hat one t hinks it right . Goldhagen asks us
t o respect t he vict im s'evidence, which seem s sensible, but if t he vict im s
m erely report t hat t he perpet rat ors enj oyed t he killing, w e cannot m ake any
8
evaluat ional inference from t hat . For t he perpet rat ors m ay have been
m ot ivat ed by pleasure, not dut y. ( Joanna Bourke docum ent s m any cases in
which m en enj oy killing in w ar ( Bourke 1999) .)
There could in principle be vict im evidence, which som ehow point ed t o
a specific t ype of pleasure or cruelt y, which m ore obviously spoke of an
evaluat ion or a self- reflect ive endorsem ent of t he killings. But so far as I
know ( and I m ay be w rong about t his) , neit her Goldhagen nor anyone else
has offered specific evidence along t hese lines. ( I should say t hat I t hink t hat
such an argum ent would be very int erest ing, and m ight have a good chance
of succeeding in support ing t he evaluat ional hypot hesis.)
The cont rast bet w een dut y and pleasure can also be t aken t he ot her
w ay. One can t hink som et hing right but t ake no pleasure in it . One m ight
t hink one’s j ob a wort hy one, but not enj oy it . For exam ple, a rat - cat cher
m ight feel t his w ay. The above obj ect ion t o Goldhagen is t he flip side of an
obj ect ion t o Browning. Browning oft en appeals t o t he displeasure of t he m en
in killing Jews, as evidence against Goldhagen’s evaluat ional view ( E.g.
Browning 1998, p. 211- 15) . Browning says t hat t he m en were “angry,
sickened, depressed and shaken” ( Browning 1998, p. 212) . Let us assum e
t hat Browning is right t hat t hat t he m en felt t hese em ot ions at t he t im e. Let
us t ake t heir word for it — despit e am ple reasons for t hinking t hat t hey had
reasons t o play down t heir w art im e act ivit ies and t heir endorsem ent of t he
‘work’ t hat t hey w ere engaged in. Perhaps t hey really had t hese em ot ions
and desires. However, Kant , right ly, in m y view, dist inguished t hese kinds of
m ot ives from t he m ot ive of dut y ( Kant 1998) . Goldhagen’s claim is, or ought
t o be, t hat t hey act ed, at least in part , out of t he m ot ive of dut y. One m ight
t hink t hat it is one’s dut y t o kill rat s or ant s but be “angry, sickened,
depressed and shaken” at t he unpleasant nat ure of t he work one m ust do.
One m ight t hink t hat t he work is a pressing dut y but not w ant t o do it
oneself, like a gory but essent ial m edical operat ion. One m ight find it
dist ast eful, disgust ing and so on, but t hink t hat it ought t o be done. Or one
m ight t hink t hat t he cockroaches in one’s kit chen deserve t o die, but one
m ight not at all relish t reading on t hem . One m ight find killing t hem
repulsive, despit e one’s posit ive evaluat ion of one’s act ion. Sim ilarly, t hat
som e of t he m en of Bat t alion 101 did not enj oy killing Jew s, does not show
t hat t hey were not part ly driven t o do it by t he t hought t hat it w as t heir dut y
t o kill t hem .
The crucial issue is: did t he m en t hink t hat t hey w ere doing t he right
t hing? Not : did t hey enj oy it ? I ndeed t here is an ad hom inem point against
bot h aut hors here. I f Goldhagen is prepared t o dism iss som e of t he m en’s
reluct ance t o kill as st em m ing from m ere squeam ishness as opposed t o
m oral disapproval, t hen he should also be prepared t o grant Browning t hat
som e of t he pleasure t he m en felt in killing m erely shows a kind of visceral
blood- lust pleasure, rat her t han m oral approval. And it is no less t rue t hat if
Browning w ant s t o appeal t o visceral blood- lust , he should allow Goldhagen
t he appeal t o squeam ishness. Kant ’s im port ant dist inct ion bet ween
‘inclinat ion’ and ‘t he m ot ive of dut y’ m eans t hat t he pleasure t he Germ ans
t ook in killing Jew s, or equally t he displeasure t hat led som e t o refrain from
9
killing, does not est ablish t hat t hey w ere act ing or refraining from act ing out
of dut y — t hat t hey j udged what t hey did or did not do t o be right .
§2.3 At one point , in support of his non- evaluat ional view, Browning quot es
t he policem an who said aft er w ar: “Trut hfully, I m ust say t hat at t he t im e w e
did not reflect about it at all” ( Browning 1992, p. 72) . But t hat is quit e
consist ent w it h Goldhagen’s evaluat ional view. For perhaps t hey “did not
reflect ” because it w as obvious t o t hem t hat it w as right . Browning
unw arrant edly proj ect s a non- evaluat ional int erpret at ion ont o t hese words
where t here is also a rival evaluat ional int erpret at ion as well. Cont rast t he
words of t he m urderous policem an wit h t he words of a Polish ‘right eous
gent ile’ called St efan Raczynski, who said “I t w as t he nat ural t hing t o do …
when t he Jew s st art ed com ing from t he forest and t hey w ere hungry, w e
gave t hem food and didn’t t hink anyt hing of it . ” Som ewhat sim ilarly, a Dut ch
‘right eous gent ile’ called Arie van Mansun said “There w as not hing special
about what I did. I did what everyone should have done.” ( Bot h quot ed in a
display in t he Unit ed St at ed Holocaust Mem orial Museum in Washingt on.) A
m oral j udgem ent can inform one’s behaviour in a fundam ent al w ay, even
t hough it is not at t he forefront of one’s consciousness.
PART 3: Aut horit y
§3.1 Let us now t urn t o t he issue of aut horit y and of obedience t o t he orders
of aut horit y.
Bot h Browning and Goldhagen are im pressed by t he fact t hat no
Germ an w as ever punished for refusing t o follow orders t o kill Jew s. Before
t he killing began Maj or Trapp, who w as in charge of t he ent ire Bat t alion, t old
t he m en t hat t hey did not have t o kill – t hey could opt out w it h no sanct ion.
And a few m en w ere known t o have t aken up t his offer and indeed suffered
no sanct ion. Goldhagen infers t hat aut horit y m echanism s ( alone) cannot
explain com pliance w it h t he order t o kill. This argum ent ( and it is not
Goldhagen’s only argum ent , as we shall see in a m om ent ) m akes t wo
quest ionable assum pt ions. The first is t hat an aut horit y m echanism needs t o
be backed by sanct ions t o work. The second is t hat t he m en eit her approved
or disapproved of t heir act ions. Bot h of t hese assum pt ions are quest ionable.
On t he first point , an aut horit y m echanism m ight work even if not backed by
sanct ions. I t is enough t hat it supplies a pressure t o conform ; posit ive
feedback can work in t he absence of negat ive feedback. On t he second, t he
m en m ight have m ade no j udgem ent at all, rat her t han a negat ive
j udgem ent . Hence t he aut horit y m echanism m ight be effect ive even t hough
no sanct ion w as applied, and even t hough t he m en did not t hink t hat t heir
act ions were right .
§3.2 However, t here is anot her argum ent of Goldhagen’s concerning
aut horit y t hat I t hink is effect ive. I t hink it is his best card. This is his appeal
t o t he fact t hat Jew s w ere killed even in t he face of orders t o keep Jew s alive.
Here orders w ere being broken and aut horit y flout ed. This seem s t o show
10
t hat killing Jew s w as t aken t o be a good t hing, and killing t hem had lit t le t o
do w it h aut horit y st ruct ures ( Goldhagen 1996, pp. 382- 83) . My j udgem ent is
t hat t his argum ent is a very prom ising one. The argum ent does, it m ust be
adm it t ed, m ake cert ain assum pt ions: t hat disobedience w as not m erely t he
act ivit y of an ext rem e m inorit y; t hat disobedience w as not m ot ivat ed by t he
pleasure of killing as opposed t o a m oral j udgem ent about t he act ion; and
t hat t he disobedience did not st em from t he obedience of earlier orders which
ret ained a kind of m om ent um , so t hat newer orders were overridden.
However, I get t he im pression t hat t hese assum pt ions are plausible, t hough
it would cert ainly be good t o see furt her explicit discussion of t hem .
Browning replied t o t his argum ent from disobedience by saying t hat
t he m en also disobeyed orders and killed non- Jews, such as Soviet prisoners
( Browning 1998, pp. 204- 09) . But t his does not show t hat t hose killings w ere
not evaluat ionally driven as w ell. Perhaps t he killers had elim inat ionist ant iSem it ic m ot ivat ions plus sim ilar m ot ivat ions direct ed t o Soviet prisoners or
ot her groups.
What happened when m en of Bat t alion 101 disobeyed orders w as t he
very opposit e of what Browning should predict if he is draw ing on St anley
Milgram ’s work on obedience t o aut horit y ( Milgram 1969) . Milgram describes
a variat ion on his fam ous elect ric shock experim ent where t here are t wo
aut horit ies who disagree ( Milgram 1969, p. 105- 112) . One aut horit y orders
t he cont inuat ion of t he experim ent w it h higher shocks while t he ot her orders
a cessat ion of shocks. Milgram com m ent s:
I t is clear t hat disagreem ent bet ween t he aut horit ies com plet ely
paralyzed act ion. Not a single subj ect 'took advant age'of t he
inst ruct ions t o go on; in no inst ance did individual aggressive m ot ives
lat ch on t o t he aut horit at ive sanct ion provided by t he m alevolent
aut horit y. Rat her act ion w as st opped dead in it s t racks. ( Milgram
1969, p. 107.)
But how different t he holocaust ! There, t here w as an aut horit y who forbade
act ion, and furt herm ore t here w as a sanct ion for disobedience, unlike t he
variat ion on t he Milgram experim ent . Yet act ion w as not “st opped dead in it s
t racks”, but persist ed despit e orders. This support s Goldhagen's conj ect ure.
Browning would have us ext rapolat e from t he Milgram experim ent s t o t he
Nazi killing fields. Well, it seem s t hat if we do so, w e w ill have t o have
recourse t o elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ic ideology — t o a posit ive m oral
evaluat ion of t he killings. Ot herw ise, why were aut horit at ive orders flout ed?
§3.3 On t he issue of aut horit y, it is ironic, given t he sort of crit icism which
Goldhagen’s book aroused out side Germ any, t hat it is Browning not
Goldhagen who appeals t o t he Germ an nat ional charact er! Browning t alks of
“The Germ an propensit y t o follow orders” ( Browning 1998, p. 217; cont rast
Goldhagen 1998, pp. 142- 43) . Goldhagen cont est s t his by appeal t o t he
revolt against t he Weim ar Republic ( Goldhagen 1996, 381- 382) . There
Germ ans t ook t o t he st reet s against aut horit y. But Browning replied, wit h
considerable plausibilit y, t hat t his is t he except ion t hat proves t he rule, since
11
people were revolt ing in order t o rest ore an aut horit arian undem ocrat ic
Germ an t radit ion. On t his point , I t hink t hat Browning is probably right t o
insist on t he im port ance of specifically Germ an aut horit arianism as a fact or
leading t o t he holocaust . How ever, on Goldhagen’s side ( cont ra Browning
1998, pp. 217- 218) , t his point has not hing t o do w it h ‘sit uat ional’ fact ors and
Milgram experim ent s, as Browning assum es. Such sit uat ional explanat ions
appeal t o fact ors out side of people’s cognit ion. ( Browning says t hat social
science int roduces “fact ors beyond t he cognit ion of t he perpet rat ors”
( Browning 1992, p. 220) .) But t he Germ an aut horit arian cult ure w as
som et hing consciously and reflect ively endorsed, not a non- m ent alist ic fact or
m anipulat ing people like puppet s. The Germ an people w ere m ore like willing
vict im s of a Milgram experim ent . As w it h ant i- Sem it ism , people t hought t hat
t hey w ere obeying orders t hat w ere right and proper. That w as t heir
reflect ively endorsed polit ical cult ure, not a m ere behavioral regularit y.
§3.4 Browning m ay have been led ast ray by one aspect of Milgram ’s w rit ing.
Milgram t ends t o describe conform it y t o aut horit y in overly behaviourist ic
fashion:
There m ust be a … drive, t endency, or inhibit ion t hat precludes
act ivat ion of t he disobedience response. The st rengt h of t he inhibit ing
fact or m ust be of great er m agnit ude t han t he st ress experiences, or
else t he t erm inat ing act would occur. ( Milgram 1969, p. 43.)
But t his seem s t o be a very odd descript ion of t he sit uat ion. I t would be
im plausible t o t hink t hat t here is no m ent alist ic com ponent t o conform ing t o
aut horit y. Rat her t he subj ect ’s beliefs about aut horit y are surely crucial.
Milgram ’s own research suggest s t his. He found t hat a scruffily dressed
'aut horit y'receives less obedience. As Milgram w rit es
.. t he decisive fact or is t he response t o aut horit y, rat her t han t he
response t o t he part icular order t o adm inist er shocks. Orders
originat ing out side of aut horit y lose all force. … I t is not what t he
subj ect s do but for whom t hey are doing it t hat count . ( Milgram 1969,
p. 31.)
But if t hat is so, Milgram should not be describing his ent ire proj ect as
underm ining t he com m on- sense idea t hat
A person act s in a part icular w ay because he has decided t o do so.
Act ion t akes place in a physical- social set t ing, but t his is m erely t he
st age for it s occurrence. The behavior it self flows from an inner core
of t he person… ( Milgram 1969, p. 31.)
12
For if a person is different ially responsive t o different aut horit ies, t he
response t o aut horit y m ust st em from a decision, which in t urn st em m ed
from a desire or evaluat ion of t he person.
So when Browning says t hat social science int roduces “fact ors beyond
t he cognit ion of t he perpet rat ors”, he is follow ing one aspect of Milgram in
accept ing a som ewhat behaviourist concept ion of obedience t o aut horit y.
Browning cit es Him m ler’s speech t o t he SS m en in which, according t o
Browning, he said t hat “exalt ing obedience is one of t he key virt ues of all SS
m en” ( Browning 1992, p. 74) . But t his is a value t hat t he SS m en w ere
supposed t o share and int ernalize. I t w as t o be a consciously endorsed value,
not a m ere m echanism . 3
What is quest ionable here, at bot t om , is t he general idea t hat obeying
orders is cont ent neut ral — t hat it is t he sheer obedience which count s, not
what is ordered. What is t rue is t hat once one has accept ed an aut horit y, it
m ight be t rue t hat one obeys part icular orders w it hout consciously endorsing
t hem when one act s, j ust as one drives a car — deliberat ely — wit hout
t hinking consciously about what one is doing. But one’s general accept ance
of t hat aut horit y, in adult s, is not independent of an est im at ion of t he
right ness of what t he aut horit y orders.
My view is t hat t here needs t o be m ore invest igat ion of t he w ay t he
different values of t he agent s int eract ed. Aut horit arian and ant i- Sem it ic
m ot ivat ions and values could in principle conflict w it h one anot her, and
Goldhagen cit es som e unusual cases where t hey did. But in t he case of
Bat t alion 101, by and large t hey did not . Aut horit y w as a m ot ive and a value,
not j ust a m echanism . And t he sam e is t rue of ant i- Sem it ism . For t he m ost
part , aut horit arian and ant i- Sem it ic m ot ives and values neat ly com plem ent ed
each ot her.
§Coda
The quest ion we have been looking at , in Kant ’s t erm s is: what w as t he deep
and basic m axim of t he act ions of t he m en as t hey killed ( O’Neill 1985) . Well,
t here were lot s of m en in t he Bat t alion, and a lot of different act ions over t he
years, and t he answer w ill not be exact ly t he sam e for all of t hem . St ill, t he
relevant quest ion is: for m ost m en, and for m ost killings, what was t he
predom inant efficacious m axim ? Was it “I m ust kill Jews” or “I m ust obey
orders” or “I m ust not let m y colleagues down”? Or w as it a t ie?
The indirect and com parat ive evidence point s in bot h direct ions. Looking
back at polit ical cult ure in pre- Nazi and Nazi period seem s indecisive. And
looking at non- Jew ish vict im s and non- Germ an perpet rat ors does not help.
Cruelt y does not favour Goldhagen, for t he cruelt y m ay st em from a nonevaluat ive pleasure and not from a value j udgem ent .
Browning seem s t o be right , as against Goldhagen, t hat aut horit arianism
w as as cent ral a fact or as ant i- Sem it ism in Germ any ( Browning 1998, p.
3
Br ow ning wr it es t hat “soldier s can obey or der s wit h w hich t hey do not
ident ify” ( Br owning 1998, p. 219) . Cer t ainly t her e is such a phenom enon, in som e
cases. But t her e is no r eason t o believe t hat t he 101 killer s w er e like t his in m or e
t han a m inor it y of cases.
13
218) . Yet against Browning and for Goldhagen, I suggest t hat
aut horit arianism and ant i- Sem it ism w ere not rival fact ors but t wo neat ly
m ut ually fit t ing com plem ent ary m ot ives. Hence I side w it h Goldhagen on t he
quest ion of whet her elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ic m ot ivat ion w as a necessary
causal fact or. The m en did not act m erely in accordance w it h ant i- Sem it ism
but also out of respect for ant i- Sem it ism . But I don’t agree t hat it is t he only
relevant m ot ivat ional fact or in play. The virt ue of Browning’s work is t o bring
at t ent ion t o t he role of aut horit y in t he killings. But Browning should not have
followed t he social psychologist s in t hinking of aut horit y as an im personal
‘m echanism ’, a m ere feat ure of t he ‘sit uat ion’. I nst ead t he com m it m ent t o
aut horit y w as it self part of ideology, and an evaluat ional m at t er, and as such
part of t he t acit or explicit polit ical out look of t he m en of Bat t alion 101. The
fact t hat aut horit y st ood for t he right t hings, of which ant i- Sem it ism w as one
am ong m any, conferred legit im acy on t he aut horit y. And t he fact t hat t he
elim inat ionist ant i- Sem it ic policies t hey w ere execut ing were ordered by a
legit im at e aut horit y conferred legit im acy on t he policy. These t wo m ot ives
and values were m ut ually reinforcing. Bot h sort s of m ot ivat ions and
evaluat ions are indispensable t o explaining t he holocaust , at least as enact ed
by t he m en of Bat t alion 101. 4
4
Many t hanks t o Eve Garrard for reading and com m ent ing on draft s of
t his paper, and t o Jonat han Friday, Daniel Goldhagen, Raphael Gross and
Bernard Reginst er for discussion of t he issues.
14
References
Sim on Blackburn ( 1998) : Ruling Passions, Oxford: Oxford Universit y
Press.
Pierre Bourdieu ( 1984) : Dist inct ion, London: Rout ledge and Kegan Paul.
Joanna Bourke ( 1999) : An I nt im at e Hist ory of Killing, London: Grant a.
Christ opher Browning ( 1992) : Ordinary Men, New York: HarperCollins.
Christ opher Browning ( 1998) : "Aft erword" , in t he second edit ion of
Ordinary Men.
Christ opher Browning ( 2000) : “Germ an Killers”, in his Nazi Policy, Jewish
Workers, Germ an Killers, Cam bridge Cam bridge: Universit y Press.
Terry Eaglet on ( 1984) : The I deology of t he Aest het ic, Blackwell: Oxford.
Daniel Goldhagen ( 1996) , Hit ler’s Willing Execut ioners, London: Abacus.
Daniel Goldhagen ( 1998) : “A Reply t o m y Crit ics”, in Robert Shandley, ed.
( 1998) ; originally published in New Republic, Decem ber 1996.
I nt ernat ional Milit ary Tribunal ( 1947- 49) : Trial of t he Maj or War Crim inals
before t he I nt ernat ional Milit ary Tribunal, Nurem berg.
I m m anuel Kant ( 1998) : Groundwork of t he Met aphysics of Morals,
Cam bridge Cam bridge: Universit y Press.
Berel Lang ( 1990) : Act and I dea in t he Nazi Genocide, Chicago: Chicago
Universit y Press
St anley Milgram ( 1969) : Obedience t o Aut horit y, New York: Harper
Torchbacks.
Onora O’Neill ( 1985) : “Consist ency in Act ion”, in her Const ruct ions of
Reason, Cam bridge Cam bridge: Universit y Press.
W.G. Sebald ( 2000) : Vert igo, New York: New Direct ions.
Robert Shandley, ed. ( 1998) : Willing Germ ans? The Goldhagen Debat e,
Minnesot a, Universit y of Minnesot a Press.
Janet Wolff ( 1984) : The Social Product ion of Art , London: Met huen.
Nick Zangw ill ( 2000) : “Against Analyt ic Moral Funct ionalism ”, Rat io, XI I I
( 275- 286) .
Nick Zangw ill ( 2002) : “Against t he Sociology of Art ”, Philosophy of Social
Sciences, 32 ( 206- 218) .
15