Goldhagen Versus Fritz Stern
1)
Fritz stern criticizes the work Goldhagen in the former finds Goldhagen’s s book to be one-sided; thus, he narrowly bases his focus when writing the book. Besides, Stern argues that Goldhagen’s book is inflammatory. That is, the work of Daniel Jonah intends to arouse or incite violent feelings. Also, the work of Goldhagen according to Stern does not study anti-Semitism in the broader areas of Australia; thus, becoming selective and could not be considered a conclusive study. Daniel Jonah does not note the overwhelming number of non -Germans who willingly executed people. Despite this, the latter (non-Germans) according to Fritz Stern were motivated auxiliaries to the holocaust; thus, they are not accounted for by Goldhagen. Considering that the holocaust took place in the past, Fritz views Goldhagen’s book to be unhistorical since it only uses selective sources, excluding some nations. In fact, Stern concludes his criticism by agreeing that insubstantial as it only relies on very slender points; thus, it should be neglected.
2)
The book by Goldhagen although being considered to be narrow, it focuses on the bottom of Nazi Germany hierarchy; hence, analyzing the actions of people. In fact, Goldhagen intends to look into the incentives and mindset of actual killers. Stern agrees that, Goldhagen ‘s book has impacted, although it is a revision of that which had already been written. Therefore, Daniel Jonah tries to narrow down to the primary aspects of the holocaust. However, through the selectiveness of the book, Goldhagen elaborates on how the holocaust emerged and the reason for its occurrence. Hence, Stern supports the review of Goldhagen on the perpetrators, German society nature as well as anti-Semitism in German. Although Goldhagen concentrates German murderers, Fritz would agree that book accounts for worst actions committed in the holocaust. That is work camps, death marches, and police battalions included.