The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/goldhagen.daniel.jonah/neusner-review

From: (Halsey)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish.holocaust
Subject: Goldhagen revisited
Date: 11 Feb 1998 05:03:22 GMT
Organization: All USENET --
Lines: 549
Message-ID: <6brbeq$cti$>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 13234@
Xref: soc.culture.jewish.holocaust:2286

	It is interesting to discover the scholarly critique of Goldhagen's book
parallels so much of the criticism of it expressed in this newsgroup.  

This article can be found on the Jewish Communication Network

and I invite you to do so!  Greetings  Ruth

Hype, Hysteria, and Hate the Hun

The latest pseudo-scholarship from Harvard

Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners. 

Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. 

N.Y., 1996: Knopf.  622 pp. $30.

By Jacob Neusner

A revised doctoral dissertation accepted for the Ph. D. at 
Harvard University in the field of Political Science, this 
hysterical book, full of pseudo-scholarship and bad arguments, 
calls into question the scholarly integrity of Harvard's 
doctorate.  For the three named Doktorvater, Stanley Hoffmann, 
Peter Hall, and Sidney Verba, have accepted as a contribution to 
learning what in fact adds up to little more than a rehash of 
familiar anti-German prejudices, dressed up with a year of 
archival research on some special cases and problems.  The work 
makes a classic error, by treating examples as proof of something 
beyond themselves.  Goldhagen has once more documented the 
well-known fact that Nazism was wildly popular in National 
Socialist Germany.  Who has doubted it for the last five decades?  
But then he has asked the world to conclude that Germany as a 
nation, through the whole of its history, practiced 
crypto-Nazism; Germany is singled out as uniquely anti-Semitic 
and possessed of an "eliminationist," "exterminationist" culture 
through all eternity.  So Goldhagen's cases now are represented 
as probative of the character of German culture, as though 
conduct in the National Socialist period flowed naturally and 
inexorably out of a long history, to which Nazism wrote a mere 

Lest readers suppose I exaggerate the intellectual vulgarity, the 
sheer bigotry, of the matter, let me turn to specifics.  
Goldhagen's thesis is: "In the middle ages and the early modern 
period, without question until the Enlightenment, German society 
was thoroughly anti-Semitic," and, consequently, the Holocaust 
testifies not to the work of a single generation but to the worth 
of an entire country.  Goldhagen never asks whether or not the 
same statement applies, too, to Russia, Poland, Ukraine, Rumania, 
Hungary, Austria, and numerous other territories in Europe.  But 
everyone knows that it does. 

That is why, formulated in terms of a particular country as 
sinful beyond all others, such a statement about a particular 
"race" on the face of it is racist: the condemnation of an entire 
culture, people, and nation must be treated no differently.  Let 
us not mince words: this is a book nourished by, and meant to 
provoke, hatred of Germany.  Were its topic the Jewish people, 
its method--give a few cases, in a special situation, to 
characterize the whole in all times and places--would qualify for 
out-of-hand rejection as naked anti-Semitism of a gross and 
repulsive, intellectually contemptible, order.  In my view, 
anti-Germanism differs in no important way. 

Right after the war the German message came through loud and 
clear: "We knew nothing, we saw nothing, we heard nothing, it was 
all done in secret." Nobody today entertains that proposition, 
which was self-serving and deceitful.  No one claims that Germany 
before Hitler knew no anti-Semitism with the rest of Europe, 
important elements in German society--the clergy, the army, the 
universities for example, among many--maintained 
bitterly-anti-Semitic attitudes and adopted anti-Semitism as a 
philosophy and a program.  But the same attitudes flourished 
everywhere else, and Goldhagen does not even pretend to undertake 
the work of comparison and contrast that would have rendered his 
thesis plausible.  I have heard survivors of concentration camps 
debate with greater rationality and reason on whether Auschwitz 
was "worse" than Treblinka, or Buchenwald than Dachau.

What Goldhagen asks us to believe is that Germany was uniquely 
anti-Semitic.  Then, to prove his point, he simply ignores that 
anti-Semitism was an international political phenomenon, on the 
one side, and insists that what happened in the National 
Socialist period can be explained only in continuity with 
pre-Hitler Germany.  That is a considerable claim, and one that, 
in my view, Goldhagen not only does not, but cannot, 
substantiate.  For the work of comparison and contrast--German 
anti-Semitism in the National Socialist period compared with that 
prevalent it prior periods in German history, and, more 
important, German anti-Semitism contrasted with the anti-Semitism 
of other countries--simply is not done.  But without comparison 
and contrast, all of Goldhagen's fulminations against German 
culture--a distinctively-German mode of Jew-hatred--lose all 
purchase on reality. 

That is why I find astonishing that so shoddy and poorly-argued a 
dissertation should have won for its writer the doctoral degree 
at Harvard University, a reputable center of learning, where, we 
surely have reason to expect, rigorous and critical learning, 
objective argument, above all the recognition that a case or an 
example on its own proves nothing, supposedly prevail.  
Essentially what we have is a set of allegations, with episodic 
evidence to illustrate them.  But to allege is not to 
demonstrate.  Only rigorous argument, resting on the formulation 
also of a counter-argument in a null-hypothesis, can serve. 

A single example suffices to show the quality of argument 
characteristic of the Goldhagen dissertation.  I shall now prove, 
in his way, that Germany was and is less anti-Semitic than 
Poland, then and now.  [1] When I was student-assistant to 
Abraham Joshua Heschel, the great theologian of Judaism, he told 
me that when, in the later 1930s, he took the train from Warsaw 
to Berlin, he always felt a sense of relief upon crossing the 
border from Poland into Germany.  Poland, he said, pursued its 
anti-Semitic attitudes and policies far more bitterly and nastily 
than anything he experienced in National Socialist Germany, until 
he was expelled as a foreign national.  And [2] if that does not 
prove the point, my own experience, wearing a skull cap in an 
international Roman Catholic religious processional in Warsaw in 
1989 does: I found myself jeered, and, unless the bystanders were 
jeering Cardinal Glemp, walking beside me, I am sure it was 
because I was marked as a Jew (and a Rabbi!).  In many visits to 
Germany, I never encountered such a thing.  Not only so, but [3] 
in 1971 the Israeli ambassador to Austria told me that, in the 
National Socialist period, Austria was much more uniformly 
anti-Semitic than Germany.  His words echo in my ear even now: 
"In every city in Germany, Jews survived, somewhere, somehow, 
with Christian help.  But in Vienna, so far, we have

are three stories that prove--in the manner of Goldhagen's 
interminable, but hardly probative, massing of evidence--that 
Poland was and is more anti-Semitic than Germany, and so was 

To accept such proof based on examples and random episodes, 
readers have, of course, to suspend not their critical capacities 
but their very power of reasoned judgment: to take two anecdotes 
as ample evidence.  Those who wish to believe will believe.  And 
so too with Goldhagen, who in a long and much-footnoted 
dissertation appeals to nothing more than the will to accept as 
scholarship was is nothing other than an indictment of an entire 
country and nearly the whole of its population.  Nothing in the 
evidence or argument of this work proves commensurate to its 

But much in the work suggests that we have 
hate-the-Hun-propaganda masquerading as serious scholarship 
(including some rather murky writing that invokes commonplaces 
phrased in impenetrable social scientific jargon).  Ordinarily a 
dissertation is supposed to tell us something we did not know.  
But Goldhagen's Harvard dissertation alleges as new the 
proposition, "ordinary Germans were animated by antisemitism, by 
a particular type of antisemitism that led them to conclude that 
the Jews ought to die a most significant...source of the 
perpetrators' actions." But who can find surprising such a 
commonplace, and from what history of anti-Semitism in this 
century is that observation omitted?  Everyone knows that Germany 
harbored a long history of anti-Semitism.  But so did France and 
England, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Poland, Russia, and 

It is a commonplace that German troops were welcomed by East 
European Jews as friends and liberators from the much more 
virulent and dangerous anti-Semitism of the collapsing Czarist 
regime (not to mention that which was to come under the 
Communists!).  Everybody knows that German Jews fought and gave 
their lives for Germany; the pictures of German troops observing 
the Day of Atonement during the siege of Strassburg in the 
Franco-Prussian War in 1870 are widely circulated (among many).  
While German Jews' love of German culture may have been 
unrequited, it also calls into question the notion that that 
culture at its foundations was pervasively and incurably and 
blatantly anti-Semitic.  Matters were simply more complicated.  
But here German culture is represented as uniquely and 
incorrigibly and inexorably anti-Semitic.  Does Goldhagen deny 
that all of Europe at the same time competed for honors in the 
Olympics of Jew-hatred. On which page?  Germany is further 
alleged to have been characterized only or mainly by 
anti-Semitism, which is a gross misrepresentation of a complex 
and rich political culture. 

Let me (as a Harvard alumnus, class of 1954) show what I think 
takes place in this book by giving another case of the same mode 
of argument by appeal to a handful of examples--but now having to 
do with the standards of excellence demanded at Harvard for a 
doctoral dissertation.  Ought we not to argue that the very 
corrupt character of intellectual life at Harvard University 
defines the precondition for the acceptance of such remarkably 
overblown rhetoric for a doctoral degree?  Should we not 
speculate--with a suitable array of episodic examples to prove 
our case--that an institution full of ambitious, bitter, 
prestige-hungry, headline-hunting careerist, academic 
entrepreneurs alone can account for such a travesty of learning? 
Here is a Harvard professor and the Harvard-educated son of a 
Harvard professor--the very chosen, the elect, the prince of the 
realm: does he not reveal the quality of the entire aristocracy 
of scholarship that Harvard tells us it supplies to the USA?  No, 
I do not think any reasonable person can agree that he does.  But 
were we to mount such an argument and conduct such a speculation, 
then we should replicate the mode of argumentation that fills and 
disgraces the pages of this work.  That is, lots of cases, but no 
comparison with the quality of work in Political Science at 
Chicago or Berkeley or Cologne or Frankfurt!  So much for bad 

But when we come to logic, Goldhagen's case proves still worse.  
For he maintains that, since the Germans in the National 
Socialist period perpetrated such monstrous deeds, as Goldhagen 
says, "its [the Holocaust's] commission was possible...because 
Germans had already been changed."  Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!  
Because one event follows another, the earlier has caused the 
later.  Goldhagen's very formulation ought to have embarrassed 
his teachers in elementary logic (if they still teach logic at 
Harvard). For surely his recapitulation of the simple logical 
fallacy described in the words, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, 
should have alerted his teachers. Everyone knows that causation 
is more complex and that explanation demands more nuanced and 
searching analysis.  

Raising an objection on the spot, some august dignitary ought to 
have asked, "Mr. Goldhagen, would you not agree with me that your 
argument consists of little more than the discredited, post hoc, 
ergo propter hoc!" That small but telling objection might have 
served to protect Harvard from the disgrace involved in its 
bestowing a doctorate on work of such pretension and violent 
emotion, a work lacking rigorous argument altogether.  But then 
Goldhagen's one-sided and simple-minded characterization of 
German culture, not in the National Socialist period in 
particular, but over all time in general, must be set aside as 
simply lacking in all logical rigor.  A generation ago the 
brilliant historian, Stephen Hackett Fisher wrote the classic, 
Historians' Fallacies, spelling out the stupidities of poor 
argument that make a laughing stock of historical scholarship.  
He owes us now a sequel, on political science.

To exculpate Goldhagen's Harvard teachers, we must suppose that 
the three Doktorvater must have been sleeping on a long summer 
afternoon, when their young doctoral candidate (perhaps to wake 
them up, more likely just to impress them) insisted, "We must 
substantially rethink important aspects of German history," since 
no serious professor can expect a newcomer to the life of 
learning, however brazen, to establish himself with his first 
book as the revolutionary genius to reinvent a field of learning.  
And, as a matter of fact, the consensus now has established, 
Harvard's Dr. Goldhagen cannot take his place among the major 
historians of Germany, with his extreme and impressionistic 
judgment of pre-National Socialist Germany. For, unless at 
Harvard (where they exact deference for the opinions of the great 
professors and their sons) merely making an allegation serves as 
adequate proof for what is alleged, we must wonder why the 
responsible professors did not demand systematic and informed 
evidence and argument for that allegation.  The book should 
contain numerous chapters of analysis of existing data on 
Pre-Nationalist Socialist German history and social life, notjust 
a shallow potted resume of standard textbook knowledge. 

Further, we must ask, where is the argument to the contrary, the 
null-hypothesis to test the hypothesis against contrary data, 
that any serious social scientist will require as part of the 
presentation of a solemn dissertation?  And enough said to remove 
the work from the shelves of reputable social science, which 
prefers testing a hypothesis to merely shouting it long and loud 
enough to prevail.

Yet another massive failure in a work claiming to describe German 
culture awaits attention.  If as Goldhagen insists, Germany was 
permanently poisoned by an indelible heritage of anti-Semitism, 
then how do account for the Germany that from 1945 has taken its 
place as a major power in world culture?  Everyone knows that of 
all the countries that were party to the Holocaust, those most 
guilty, the Germans, also have most thoroughly addressed the 
Holocaust, repaired such damage as could be remedied, and 
undertaken to build for themselves a political culture as free of 
racism and anti-Semitism as exists in the world today.  No 
country has done more to learn the lessons of the Holocaust, and 
none makes a more systematic effort to educate new generations in 
those lessons. 

France has yet to address the complicity of its own government in 
the Holocaust; its police, not German ones, rounded up the Jews.  
The Netherlands produced out of its population a higher 
proportion of Nazi Party members than any country in Europe.  
Everyone knows that the USSR denied the Jews even the manifest 
right to claim they had been singled out for special handling.  
Austria happily calls itself Hitler's first victim, as though no 
one saw the movies of the wild reception Vienna gave him in the 
Anschluss.  In all of Europe, as Judith Miller showed in her One 
by One by One, only Germany has frankly examined its past, 
expiated its built through acts of genuine atonement, and 
acknowledged its enduring shame, much as we Americans acknowledge 
the enduring shame of slavery  That is why the new Germany also 
has built upon granite foundations uncovered in the hidden 
heritage of the old, a heritage that survived the National 
Socialist period.  After all, Adenauer was a German, but Hitler, 
an Austrian (once more to argue from a single case!).  True, the 
damage done by the National Socialist period to the enduring 
institutions of the country required long decades for 
reconstruction; in my experience at Tuebingen, Frankfurt, and 
Goettingen I learned that the universities have not fully 
recovered.  But Germany in a half-century overall has 
accomplished that reconstruction.  It has acknowledged its 
heritage of shame, but it has removed from its shoulders the 
burden of guilt for deeds that the current generation did not do 
and would not repeat and has repudiated in every possible way.

Now how are we to explain that fact--which even Goldhagen 
acknowledges, if grudgingly, in a sentence or so?  For if Germany 
were as Goldhagen wishes us to think it was, irremediably, 
irrevocably tainted at the very roots of its culture and 
politics, then whence the sources for regeneration and renewal 
that, manifestly, have found ample nourishment in the country and 
its culture from 1945?  I do not think we can explain Germany 
from 1945 onward without uncovering in pre-National Socialist 
Germany--whether in 1848, whether in Weimar--alongside the 
abundant sources of murderous political culture.  The consensus 
of learning has concluded that National Socialism competed with 
other political traditions, vanquished them, and ruined Germany.  
That seems to me a much more plausible picture than Goldhagen's, 
which, if adopted, leaves us unable to make sense of today's 

Here too, then, a reputable university doctoral committee would 
expect to read Goldhagen's well-researched, 
carefully-reflected-upon discussion of the competing political 
traditions of a complex society; they would want to press the 
candidate to account for National Socialist success in other 
ways, besides the way he has taken, which is to indict a country 
and its culture in such a manner as to leave inexplicable its 
entire history beyond the war.  If Germany were the reprobate, 
retrograde culture that Goldhagen says it is, then how are we to 
explain the character of German youth today? I miss the chapters 
on that problem in his long discourse.  If this were a 
dissertation in political science, then the problems of analysis 
of continuity and change would have replaced the (truly 
depressing) narratives of cases and episodes.  Goldhagen appears 
to have presented his dissertation to the wrong department.  But 
why the department secretary did not send him to the right 
building no one knows.

That is why it is not enough for Goldhagen to present chapters on 
pre-National Socialist anti-Semitism.  As I said, he has also to 
tell us about the same anti-Semitism elsewhere and about the 
Germany that, while characteristically anti-Semitic, won the 
loyalty of its Jewish citizens and saw them reach the highest 
levels of society, whether Bleichroeder with Bismarck, or Warburg 
and Rathenau in Weimar.  Goldhagen has taken a complex country 
and represented it in a simple and one-sided way.  That is why he 
cannot explain what happened before and after National Socialist 
times and why to make his case he must ignore what was happening 
in that same period in other countries. 

In 1920 few predicted what would happen two decades later, and 
those who did--the visionary Zionist, Jabotinsky, for 
instance,--warned of mass murders not in Germany but in Poland.  
The country he wanted to evacuate first was not Germany but 
Poland.  National Socialism drew upon one deep source of European 
culture; anti-Semitism was general and international, not 
particular to Germany.  The success of National Socialism--so 
historians except Goldhagen concur--marked a special situation 
and not the inevitable outcome of the general traits of German, 
and only German, culture.  And that special situation was indeed 
brought about by a particular concatenation of events and 
personalities that brought the Nazis to power in Germany.  Then 
they did turn the entire enterprise of the country to their 
purposes, staining the future history of the country--but only in 
that measure that future generations would affirm and continue 
Nazism.  But they have condemned and outlawed it.

To treat Germany as the sole venue for "eliminationist 
anti-Semitism" requires us to ignore the rest of Europe, on the 
one side, and to dismiss as an important basis for explaining 
what happened the actualities of the National Socialists and 
their history from World War I onward: a special case, to be 
explained within the framework of its time and place, not a

remote times. In this context, we must wonder, what of the 
systematic destruction of Judaism by the Communists in exactly 
the same time?  For while they preserved the Orthodox Church to 
serve their purposes, they rooted out the practice of Judaism in 
the USSR as thoroughly as Germany would hunt down and kill Jews.  
How does anti-Judaism fit into the picture? In my view, it 
complicates matters, and so is best omitted to make the case 
Goldhagen wishes to make.

Rehearsing dreadful, but familiar cases of brutality beyond all 
rational purpose, Goldhagen sets forth as his thesis that 
"eliminationist antisemitic German political culture...was the 
prime mover of both the Nazi leadership and ordinary Germans in 
the persecution and extermination of the Jews and therefore was 
the Holocaust's principal cause."  Framed in that way, the thesis 
emerges as both unexceptionable and also unexceptional; no one 
can find it surprising.  For two generations, now, the argument, 
"we heard nothing, we knew nothing, we saw nothing," which I 
heard in Frankfurt in 1953 as a young Oxford student come to see 
with my own eyes the people who had done such things.  Today's 
Germans know better.

What goes wrong, then, is that, along the way, the thesis of 
Germans' broad and enthusiastic complicity in mass murder extends 
its reach and turns into an indictment of an entire country and 
its history and culture, as though National Socialism were the 
inevitable outcome instead of a special situation.  It is to that 
incubus, taking over what is otherwise a perfectly ordinary 
historical narrative, that I strenuously object.  My objection is 
because the dissertation proves much less than it alleges.  It 
demonstrates that Nazism penetrated into the deepest layers of 
German life, that many Germans, at some points surely a majority, 
supported the National Socialists, and that Germany in that time 
united in support of its leader's program.  But the dissertation 
then does not prove what it sets out to demonstrate, which is the 
inevitability of the Holocaust in Germany and no where else, the 
peculiar traits of German life and culture rendering Germany the 
unique and sole venue for such an event.  As I said, a 
dissertation meant to prove that point would have included long 
and thorough studies aimed at the international comparison of 
anti-Semitism, in theory and in practice, in culture and in 
politics, in all of the countries that adopted that philosophy as 
a principal medium for social organization and expression, not 
just Germany. 

Why then has so obviously meretricious and shoddy a piece of 
research gotten for its author not only a Harvard doctorate but 
also a huge audience?  For we have to explain not only the work 
but also its remarkable reception.  Part of the answer derives 
from the sheer genius of Knopf as a mass-marketer, its power 
through heavy advertising to secure prominent reviews in 
prominent bastions of opinion-mongering.  But the book gains its 
notoriety not so much from its medium as from its message.  To 
frame that message, let me cite a saying I heard from my 
grandmother, who came to the USA at the end of the nineteenth 
century from Volhynia Province in Belarus. In her homely Jewish 
language, she would say, "Oifn yenems tuchus iz gut zu 
schmeisen," that is, it is a pleasure to beat up on someone 
else's behind.  And whose better than Germany's!

The market for this book is comprised by those many people, who 
simple answers to complex questions, who would rather blame 
Germany than explain an entire civilization poisoned by 
Jew-hatred; who would rather explain the Holocaust away as a mere 
chapter in German culture than explain it in such a way as to 
account for its unique qualities within the history of humanity.  
The counterpart, in the USA, represents the South as uniquely 
racist, when, in fact, racism against blacks marks every region, 
while the South, for its part, like Germany in its context, today 
forthrightly confronts and deals with its special heritage of 
black chattel-slavery, segregation, and economic subordination. 

This is a let's-be-beastly-to-the-Boche book, and that explains 
its commercial success.  Without the emotionalism, the sweeping 
anger, the righteous indignation at the deeds of dreadful people 
(then, and who knows about now?), this book would have sold its 
allotted 5,000 copies and gone into oblivion.  For it changes no 
accepted views and establishes no new ones.  It lays no claim to 
art or elegance of expression.  Its passion derives from the 
simple, natural emotions of horror and empathy with the suffering 
of poor victims.  These are then not elevated and deepened but 
preserved in the form of contempt for such awful, hateful people.  
But that is not the people who did the deeds and approved them 
but for the German people--past, present, and then who knows?  
That forms the book's subtext on those pages on which it is not 
explicit in the text itself.

Contempt for the Huns, like Jew-hatred, is endemic, if not 
epidemic, and a work that validates prejudice against an entire 
culture by the apparatus of scholarship, that appeals to bigotry 
against a whole people through all of its history by inflammatory 
language, above all that makes life simple and easy by explaining 
complicated facts in simple and easy ways--such a work, whether 
directed against Germany or against the Jewish people will find 
its audience.  Indeed, if so august a body as the American 
Political Science Association conferred upon a dissertation so 
riddled with bad arguments and dubious demonstrations of 
undemonstrable propositions, we must find the reason not in a 
rational assessment of the quality of work but elsewhere.

And where might that be?  Just now, when Britain found itself 
unhappy with the European Community's handling of the crisis 
afflicting its cattle industry, the old hate-Jerry prejudice 
gushed upward, and the Germans once more became "the Boche" and 
"the Huns," and Prime Minister John Major could claim for 
himself, if not the mantel of Churchill, then at least the dress 
of Thatcher.  That is why, also, the thoroughly legitimate and 
honorable project of memorializing the Holocaust and recording 
what happened in it in works like this shades over into a 
condemnation not of National Socialist Germany then but of 
Germany before, then, and always.  The Holocaust then finds its 
explanation in the irrationality that that is, anyhow, how the 
Germans are.  That bigoted judgment once more makes the 
explanation of radical evil simpler than it ought to be.  How 
satisfying to feel such self-satisfaction--to give thanks that I 
have not been made like him.

When, on Easter, the Passion Narratives resound in the Churches, 
with "the Jews" identified as the evil actors in the condemnation 
and murder of Jesus, Christians over the centuries have found 
difficult the distinction that sets apart for condemnation those 
people in that generation, then and there, but that treats as 
unblemished by the ancient deed all later generations of Israel, 
the Jewish people.  That is how, nurtured every day for 2,000 
years, anti-Semitism transformed into a massive, mythic construct 
the calamitous deeds of a handful of people in a specific place 
at a determinate time.  Anti-Germanism differs in no important 
way, when the Holocaust is used as a weapon to discredit Germany 
through all time, instead of the Germany at that time and in that 
place.  That is why, in my view, if the methods and modes of 
argument that define Goldhagen's book were to produce a 
comparably-argued and equivalently-documented book about the Jews 
or about Harvard University the work would not win either the 
audience Goldhagen has gotten for himself--let alone acceptance 
in fulfillment of the requirement of a doctoral degree and even a 
dissertation prize.


A specialist in the history of Judaism, Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner 
is Distinguished Research Professor of Religious Studies at the 
University of South Florida, Tampa, and Professor of Religious 
Studies at Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York.  Among 
research institutes, he is also Member of the Institute for 
Advanced Study, Princeton, and Life Member of Clare Hall, 
Cambridge University.  He holds six honorary doctorates, from the 
Universities of Cologne and Bologna in Europe, Chicago, 
Rochester, Tulane, and St. Louis in the USA, and a dozen academic 
medals, including those of Columbia University, Ebo Akademi in 
Finland, and College de France.  He was Buber Professor at the 
University of Frankfurt in 1991 and Von Humboldt Research 
Professor at the University of Goettingen in 1995.  In 1977 he 
delivered lectures in honor of Tuebingen University's 500th 
anniversary and received the medal commemorating that occasion.

All rights reserved to Rabbi Dr. Jacob Neusner 1997 This article 
can be found on the Jewish Communication Network

Goldhagen revisited

---- is the home for soc.culture.jewish.holocaust, the
only moderated Usenet newsgroup for scholarly and informative discussions
about the Holocaust.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.