In forty pages this research paper examines how ordinary German soldiers participated in the Holocaust and the reasons for this participation. Nineteen sources are cited in the bibliography.
Name of Research Paper File: D0_khordgem.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
behind this genocidal behavior (Berger, 1993). Consequently, historians have developed a perspective that sees the Holocaust in terms of its relationship to the evolution of German nationalism, comparing the Nazi
with other fascist and totalitarian regimes, and the "final solution" with other genocidal efforts in history (Berger, 1993; Friedlander, 1989; Katz, 1989;Mayer, 1989). Traditionally, historians have pursued two schools of
thought relative to the overall structure of the Holocaust (Friedlander, 1989). Those historians who are in the "intentionalist" camp see Hitler as the sole strategist," whose plans for mass murder
evolved directly form those he outlined two decades previously in Mein Kampf (Marrius, 1987, p. 35). Contrasting this position is the "functionalist" camp, whose historians who see Hitler as less
involved in the genocide. These historians focus on the "bureaucratic functionaries" who frequently improvised and competed with one another to devise the most effective and efficient methods for ridding the
Third Reich of its Jewish population (Berger, 1993). This second approach is the one adopted by both Browning (1992) and Goldhagen (1996) who both address the role that the
ordinary German citizen played in the extermination of European Jewry. In addressing this aspect of the Holocaust, Berger (1993) refers to the "banality of evil" (p. 597). Quoting
Schmitt, Berger defines this as a major paradox of the Holocaust that "evil was accomplished by ordinary persons (acting) in ordinary contexts" (1993, p. 597). Berger goes on to insist
that the "banality of evil" should be comprehended as a social process (1993). This is precisely the approach instituted by Browning (1992), who sees the individual actions of German soldiers
and citizenry within the context of group expectations -- social forces that could affect "group think" --under the right circumstances -- of any culture.. Goldhagen (1996), on the other hand,