Review: "Ordinary Germans" before Hitler: A Critique of the Goldhagen ThesisAuthor(s): Gustav JahodaSource: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Summer, 1998), pp. 69-88Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/205975Accessed: 07/11/2010 01:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofInterdisciplinary History.

http://www.jstor.org

Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xxIx:I (Summer, 1998), 69-88.

Gustav Jahoda

"Ordinary Germans" before Hitler: A Critique of the Goldhagen Thesis

Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. By Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (New York, Knopf, 1996) 622 pp. $30.00 cloth; (New York, Vintage, 1997) 634 pp. $16.00 paper

In the words of Le Bon, "Ce n'est nullement par l'evident, l'immediat, le clair et le simple que s'expliquent les phenomenes de l'histoire." This notion fully applies to Goldhagen's claim that he is the first to uncover the necessary and sufficient cause of the Holocaust. According to him, it was an "eliminationist antisemitism" not confined to Nazi activists but shared by practically all "ordinary" Germans. His book propounds an oversimplified explanation of a complex historical phenomenon-one that has been studied extensively by other historians, whose views Goldhagen dismisses. Under these circumstances, it is remarkable that the book should have become a bestseller, extravagantly praised by many reviewers. Two major reasons spring to mind. First, although Goldhagen states that he was concerned primarily with explanation and the- ory, much of the work consists of what he calls "case studies." These detailed descriptions of frightful atrocities are apt to evoke what one commentator called "la jouissance de l'horreur," which may well account for the book's popular appeal.'

Gustav Jahoda is Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of Strathclyde. He is the author of Psychology and Anthropology (London, 1982); Crossroads between Culture and Mind (Cam- bridge, Mass., I993).

The author is indebted to Bernd Krewer, Universitat des Saarlandes, for original material and helpful comments on an earlier draft, and to Andrea Jack for tracking down graphics. Thanks are also due to the J. A. Bart Verlag and to the German Bundesarchiv for permission to reproduce figures I and 3, respectively.

? 1998 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the editors of The Journal of Interdisciplinary History.

I Gustave Le Bon, La Psychologie politique et la Defence sociale (Paris, I9IO), 353. The translation is, "Historical phenomena can never be explained in terms of the obvious, the immediate, the clear, and the simple." All page references to Goldhagen's book are from the

Vintage paperback edition and appear parenthetically in the text. Liliane Kandel, "La lettre volee de Daniel J. Goldhagen," Les Temps Modernes, LII (I997), 38-54. 4I.

70 GUSTAV JAHODA

Second, reviewers, among them historians, were probably impressed by Goldhagen's display of a seemingly formidable ap- paratus of scholarship, together with his frequent use of high- sounding (and often misapplied) social-science jargon. By contrast, most historians with specialized knowledge of the Nazi period were highly critical. The most devastating review was by Birn (whom Goldhagen had acknowledged in the book), who stated, "[Goldhagen] uses material as an underpinning for his pre-con- ceived theory."2

Given the existence of several critical assessments-in par- ticular, Birn's masterly exposition of the work's numerous flaws- what justifies yet another critique, this time by a psychologist who is a mere amateur historian? There is empirical evidence that not only contradicts some of Goldhagen's crucial claims about "ordi- nary Germans"; it also suggests an alternative interpretation of the reasons for the appeal of Nazi propaganda.

THE QUESTIONABLE VALIDITY OF KEY ARGUMENTS Numerous scholars from several disciplines have sought to throw light on the origins of the Holocaust. Goldhagen purports to show that what he calls the "conventional" explanations are wrong. If he had said "insufficient," one might well agree with him. He is right to claim that explanations based on universalist principles-such as those put forward by the authors of The Authoritarian Personality, or by Milgram-fail to take account of the specific historical context, but that is no reason to dismiss them out of hand. Seeking to explain genocide in terms of"eliminationist antisemitism" is a little like saying that alcoholism is due to an excessive taste for alcohol. Psychological factors, as well as historical setting, need to be considered, as Bohleber did in an illuminating essay about the determinants of antisemitism in Germany.3

Goldhagen frequently uses psychological terminology. For instance, he calls eliminationist antisemitism the motive for geno- cide. Yet, he fails to ascertain anything of substance about the

2 Ruth Bettina Birn, "Revising the Holocaust," Historical ournal, XL (1997), 195-215, 209.

3 Theodor W. Adomo, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York, 1950); Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority (New York, 1974); Werner Bohleber, "Die Konstruktion imaginarer Gemeinschaften und das Bild von den Juden-unbewusste Determinanten des Antisemitismus in Deutschland," Psyche, LI (I997), 570-605.

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER j 71

motivations of individuals beyond an occasional anecdote. In "A Note on Method," he states that he concentrated on institutions, which were "intended to do double analytical duty. They should permit the motivations of the perpetrators in those particular institutions to be uncovered, and also allow for generalizing both to the perpetrators as a group and to the second target group of this study, the German people" (468).

This is an astounding claim. Corporate entities can hardly be said to have "motives"; the term refers to the psychological processes of individuals. True, it is often used figuratively in a collective sense-for example, "American reluctance to reduce pol- lution is motivated by greed"-but the absurdity of inferring from this statement that all Americans are motivated by greed is obvi- ous. Yet, that is at least roughly what Goldhagen has done. Admitting that "no robust knowledge" about individuals can be attained (470), he nevertheless resorts to wide-ranging generalizations.

This observation applies particularly to the "ubiquity" (Gold- hagen's favorite term) of eliminationist antisemitism that Gold- hagen detects in Nazi Germany, and projects backward into pre-Nazi history, as a central plank of his argument. In that regard, the loaded qualifier, "eliminationist," becomes tendentious, espe- cially when applied to the whole German people. Goldhagen is determined to tar all of them, from the early nineteenth century until the end of the Nazi period, with the same brush. Thus, the liberals who opposed the avowedly antisemitic parties during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are dubbed by him "antisemites in sheep's clothing" (58).

Throughout the book, Goldhagen stresses that antisemitism was endemic and ubiquitous in German society before the advent of the Nazis (for example, 31, 79, 84, II6, 442, 444). Yet, in a rare admission, he writes,

It needs to be emphasized that the analysis here cannot be definite. The proper data simply do not exist. The data are especially deficient because the purpose here is not to trace the character of antisemitism merely among the political and cultural elites, but to gauge its nature and scope among the broad reaches of German society. Even run-of-the-mill opinion polls, for all their shortcom- ings, would be an illuminating, luxurious addition to the existing record. (47)

72 GUSTAV JAHODA

As it happens, relevant data do exist. Goldhagen either missed them or ignored them because the findings are not in conformity with his allegations. Although the data are not extensive, their strength is that they were not collected primarily to assess an- tisemitism. Hence, they are not open to the objection that the formulation of the questions could have led to bias, as is sometimes the case with public opinion surveys.

THE SALIENCY OF ANTISEMITISM AMONG "ORDINARY GERMANS"

Excluding three points not relevant to the issue at hand, Gold- hagen's summary of the situation in Germany prior to 1933 proceeds as follows, in condensed form:

I. Antisemitism was ubiquitous in Germany. 2. The preoccupation with Jews had an obsessive quality. 3. Jews were symbolic of everything that was deemed awry

in German society. 4. The central image of the Jews held them to be malevolent,

powerful, and dangerous. (77)

If this were an accurate picture, Germany would have been an extremely unpleasant country for Jews to inhabit, even before the advent of Adolf Hitler, and Goldhagen might have been expected to offer testimonies to this effect. That, for all intents and purposes, he did not is significant-like the dog in the Sherlock Holmes story that failed to bark. There are indications that Goldhagen's picture of a Germany wholly inimical to Jews is false. Rubinstein, who interviewed surviving German-Jewish refugees, found that they were often reluctant to leave what they felt to have been their homeland. Some thought that the virulent Nazi antisemitism might be only a temporary phase; no one anticipated genocide.4

As for the prevalence and saliency of antisemitism, in 1934, Theodore Abel, a professor of sociology at Columbia University, organized an essay competition for pre-I933 Nazi party (NSDAP)

members. Cash prizes were offered for personal life histories describing the experiences and ideas that led them to become adherents. Interestingly, the party hierarchy encouraged members to take part, the announcement being displayed at NSDAP offices

4 William Rubinstein, The Myth of Rescue (London, 1997).

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER | 73

and in the party press. The resulting mass of material, with individual responses ranging from one to eighty pages, was not

fully exploited until forty years later, when Merkl carried out an intensive analysis, two parts of which are particularly relevant in the present context. The first is an attempt to identify dominant

ideological concerns:

Ranked by the chief object of their hostility, Abel's early Nazis by two-thirds turned out to be anti-Marxists. . . . Only with one- eighth was antisemitism the most salient concern, as compared to one-seventh who vented their spleen most on liberals, capitalists, reactionaries and Catholics. This is not to say that shadings of antisemitism . . . were not pervasive among as many as two-thirds of the biographies.5

Although, as one would have expected from a sample of early Nazis, antisemitism was well represented, Jews were not in general the primary object of hostility. Merkl's book contains a table with a more detailed numerical breakdown. It is reproduced in a

slightly abbreviated version as Table I. The Judenkoller, or virulent antisemitism, manifested in these

cases appears to have been the result of the German defeat in

I918, attributed to the Jews, or the result of a personal trauma.

According to Merkl, those who contributed their anecdotes were not extreme in their views. It is noteworthy that one-third of the

Table 1 Shadings of Antisemitism

NUMBER PERCENTAGE

No evidence of prejudice 146 33

Mild verbal projections, or party cliches 63 14 Sudden Judenkoller from cultural shock 122 28 (19I8)/economic crisis

Alleged negative episode with Jews 52 12

Preoccupation with "Jewish conspiracy" 57 13 Totals 440 I00

SOURCE Peter H. Merkl, Political Violence under the Swastika: 581 Early Nazis (Princeton, I975), 499.

5 Peter H. Merkl, Political Violence under the Swastika: 581 Early Nazis (Princeton, I975), 33.

74 GUSTAV JAHODA

respondents gave no evidence of any antisemitism. They might have concealed it, but even if they did, the overall picture does not suggest a uniformly fanatical antisemitism or a belief in "the Jewish conspiracy." Since there is no reason to suppose that the views expressed by Nazis-in a contest that had the support of their party-were totally unrepresentative, it seems legitimate to infer that antisemitism among the German population in general must have been considerably less pronounced.

Support for this conclusion is provided by a study conducted by Fromm just prior to the Nazi takeover. Like Abel's, it was not published until about half a century later. This study focused on the working class, finding that about four-fifth of the sample supported left-wing parties. Since Goldhagen affirms that Com- munists (IOI) and Social Democrats (o16) shared the common antisemitism, this affiliation has no bearing on the present purpose. Among the questions asked were, Who, in your opinion, is responsible for inflation, and Who, in your opinion, has the real power in the state today? Note that these questions were framed in a general and neutral way. If the idea of Jewish power or conspiracy had been as paramount among ordinary Germans as Goldhagen contends, surely a high proportion of respondents would have referred to it. In fact, however, only 2 percent of the respondents mentioned Jews in connection with inflation, and only 3 percent thought that Jews (either alone or with Freemasons and Jesuits) had the "real power. "6

Although only seventeen National Socialists were included in the sample, their responses are of special interest. Only about one-quarter of them held Jews responsible for inflation, and about half believed that they dominated the state. Although these are much higher proportions than those of the non-Nazi respondents, they still fall far short of the quasi-unanimity postulated by Gold- hagen. It is important to note that the response with the highest frequency to both questions was "capitalism" or "capitalists."

"ORDINARY" GERMAN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS According to Goldhagen's constantly reiterated statements, the "ubiquity and intensity" of anti-Jewish feeling in Germany (84) constituted a

6 Erich Fromm (ed. Wolfgang Bonss), The Working Class in Weimar Germany (Leamington Spa, I984), Table 3.I, 84; Table 3.6, 97.

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER 75

"cultural model" (for example, 126, I69, 151, 448)-for many, "like mother's milk, part of the Durkheimian collective conscious- ness" (89). This type of cultural model is transmitted within the family during socialization through the generations (4I, 46), "reflected in a person's mind as it matures" (34).

If indeed antisemitism had become more threatening from the 1920s until the Nazi takeover than "during any other time since the dawn of modernity" (79), the presence of this "cultural model" ought to have been evident among young Germans who grew up during that period. As it happens, an excellent study was carried out at that time. Although it dealt with the issue of moral development, not with antisemitism as such, it provided ample opportunity for antisemitism to manifest itself Conducted by Schneckenburger and entitled (in translation), "The Development of Socioethical Understanding on the Part of the Proletarian Child as a Function of the Social Milieu," it was published just one year before Hitler became chancellor, presumably based on research carried out a year or two earlier. Because the two parts of the report extend to approximately o00 pages, only an abbreviated account of the contents is possible.7

The introductory section is a theoretical review of the so- cioenvironmental factors that influence moral development. The emphasis is on the differences between "proletarians" (hereinafter Ps) and "non-proletarians" (hereinafter NPs), according to the then-current usage of the terms. Scheckenburger's general aim was to determine the effects of community norms and values on children by age. In deference to previous studies in this sphere, which advocated the advantages of a pictorial method, he in- structed an artist to produce three stimulus pictures depicting "brutal acts" (Roheitsakten), according to his instructions, repre- senting, respectively, child-child, child-adult, and adult-adult in- teractions (see Figure I). The pictures were designed to evoke strong feelings. Schneckenburger anticipated possible adverse re- action to this approach by writing,

7 Hans Schneckenburger, "Die Altersentwicklung und Milieubedingtheit des sozialethischen Verstandnisses beim proletarischen Kind," Part I, Zeitschrift far angewandte Psychologie, XLII

(1932), 369-447; Part II, ibid., XLIII (1932), 55-82. All page references hereinafter appear parenthetically in text.

bp C S i

;25

,4 I))

f/aI-?sf i "IJ?',).

?? ?7; kt

?i-T

I s

/ s %

`57: .i

-57/ A; \\ \\ \P P --IT;\CF,,?s-" jii

gj r i-=9 r `tSBA 1

-cS

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER | 77

Fig. 1 Pictures I-3

We should like to meet objections that might be raised against the contents by pointing out that children these days are seldom spared the sight of similar brutal delinquencies, and pictorial repre- sentations of a similarly realistic character reach every child these days. (Part I, 393)

The subjects of the study were two groups of boys and girls-one from Berlin's "proletarian" schools and the other from the "most genteel" section of the city-divided into three age cohorts (6-8, 9-II, and I2-I4), each numbering about fifty. The

only major exceptions in the size of the divisions occurred as a result of displeasure among the non-proletarians concerning the third picture, which reduced the number of them who partici- pated in its administration to about thirty in the two lower-age brackets, and to nil in the oldest.

78 GUSTAV JAHODA

Schneckenburger rejected the direct-question method em- ployed by most of his predecessors. He administered the three pictures separately at two-day intervals, on each occasion showing the children a large picture and asking them to write about what was happening in it. He also asked the children to provide such personal details as their father's date of birth and occupation, but not their names. The study was sophisticated, carefully designed and competently executed. Its chief weakness was common to its time-the absence of statistical analysis.

Judgments about the actions portrayed in the pictures were categorized as "disapproval," "approval," "excuses" (which oc- curred only in response to picture 3), and "no relevant comment." Frequencies and percentages of each type, for PS and NPs, respec- tively, were presented in three tables, one for each scene. They are so densely packed that it is not easy to gain a clear overall picture. The variable of gender was not included, though one finds occasional mention of gender differences, girls being more moralistic than boys.8

The reasons given for the judgments were tabulated and illustrated with ample quotations. Schneckenburger noted that the action in picture I evoked more disapproval than that in picture 2,

apparently because the latter was sometimes seen as a mere harm- less jest. The "approval" response, which Schneckenburger con- sidered to be an important indicator of developmental level, decreased with age except for picture 3, to which it remained constant. Correspondingly, he noted that the frequency of disap- provals, "in accordance with ethical maturation," increased with

age, though he was only partially correct. All of the children, Schneckenburger maintained, knew about law and the existence of "socioethical" demands. With regard to the older children, he

reported, "The development towards becoming a morally matured human being has now been completed. They possess the capacity to resolve in certain cases the conflict between their own interests and those of others in favour of the others (Part 2, 63)."

The children's responses were also said to have been guided by a strong sense of justice, entailing the ideas of retaliation and

punishment. Generally, Schneckenburger took the positive view

8 The categories of"approval" and "disapproval" each had a "conditional" sub-division, but numbers were so small that they have here been grouped with the main category.

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER | 79

that his study documented steady moral progress, albeit taking somewhat different forms according to the social milieu. His main intention was to arrive at generalizations about the course of children's moral development within certain social contexts.

WHAT RESPONSES TO PICTURE 3 REVEALED Schneckenburger was fully aware that picture 3, depicting a man being attacked, was distinct from the other two in the reactions that it elicited, especially in those from the P children. Their compassion was generally reserved for the attacker. Even if they did not approve of the deed, many made excuses for him. Significantly, Schneck- enburger discussed these issues most extensively under the head- ing, "The Achievement of Socioethical Understanding as Conditioned by the Milieu." One of his key statements about the "decidedly political position" of the P children, and the hatred that picture 3 elicited from them about the rich man, runs as follows:

Economic distress and the social inferiority of the proletarian, for which the child makes the rich responsible, is enough reason to approve of the deed. The critical viewers also perceive the advan- tages and privileges of the rich as a diminution of their own person. . . . disadvantage becomes for the proletarian child a strong root of his demand for justice. His feeling for justice also manifests itself in the frequent experiencing of a sense of retribution, of envy, and of punishment. (Part 2, 77)

Schneckenburger explained the rarity of pity for the poor man among the NP children by their not having been adequately taught at home about the misery of the masses. His sympathies were plainly on the side of the have-nots, leading him mistakenly to interpret even overt expressions of support for violence and aggression positively, as proof of the existence of a sense of justice.

Another of Schneckenburger's misinterpretations concerns the numerical data relating to picture 3. Either his political mo- tivation, his manner of organizing the numerical data in the table, or some combination of the two, seems to have prevented him from appreciating the direction and extent of the age changes. Analysis of the percentages of "disapprovals"-graphically dis- played in Figure 2-in relation to the three pictures illustrates the point.

80 | GUSTAV JAHODA

sSQ _- r.r oUltLlldll LIsIIu11

O 55-

------ "Non-proletarian" Children D 45-

40-

35 -

30 -

25 - Picture 3

20 -

15~

10-

5-

0- I I I 6-8 yrs 9-ilyrs 12-14yrs

Age Groups

Fig. 2 Percentages of Children Expressing Disapproval of the Actions Portrayed in Each of the Pictures

The NP children's differences in the rates of disapproval be- tween the three pictures are not significant, though it is not possible to tell what effect, if any, the missing data for the oldest age group about picture 3 might have had. The P responses, however, yielded sharp contrasts: for picture I, a highly significant trend for an increase of "disapproval" responses with increasing age (X2 = I5.6o; df= 2; P < .001; t = .21; z = 3.98; and P <

.ooI); for picture 2, no significant trend; and for picture 3, a highly significant trend for a decrease of disapproval responses with age (X2 = 31.48; df= 2; P < .OOI; T = -.30; z = 5.50; and P < .ooI). Hence, the proportion of"proletarian" children willing to condemn outright an act of overt physical aggression decreased dramatically with age. By the onset of adolescence, only about 20

percent were prepared to do so.

PERCEPTIONS AND FEELINGS In many of the cases cited by Schneckensburger, the very mode of referring to the characters in picture 3 revealed the attitude taken toward them, and often toward the behavior. The following pairs of terms were most commonly employed: by NPS, "man" or "gentleman" versus criminal" or "robber"; by P, "rich man" or "capitalist" versus

"poor man" or "worker."

- Dltrin hlrn

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER I 8

Some representative disapproval responses were,

The man is quite carefree on his walk. He enjoys his leisure hour and smokes his good cigar comfortably. He will have had a busy day. Therefore it is abominable that the thief attacks the unsuspect- ing man from behind. (NP, girl, Part I, 419)

This deed is shameful. He should think of it that one is not allowed to do something like that. It is strictly forbidden. (P, girl, Part I, 427)

The well-dressed man is a capitalist. He is just on his way to the bank. A worker follows him and wants to rob him. Probably he wants to grab the briefcase and flee with it. One is not allowed to do that. I think the worker does something that is wrong. (P, boy, Part I, 409).

Categorical disapprovals among P children seem to have been confined largely to girls; the boy's condemnation seems half- hearted.

Only P children made excuses, which followed much the same lines:

Probably the criminal is out of work. But if he tries hard enough he will get some and will not need to earn his money in this way. Naturally it is also the fault of the rich one, for if he paid the worker more, he would not be robbed. (P, girl, Part I, 439)

The capitalist with his diamond rings is being robbed by the

poor man. He does it out of despair. He brings the money to his wife, who can then again buy something to eat for the children. It is just that the worker must also be able to feed his children. (p, girl, Part I, 440)

It is the rich people who should give the workers better wages. Also everyone should have work and somewhere to live.... the

poor people . . . don't even have a roof over their head. .... Now when such people get into bad ways, one imprisons them to get peace from them. But the powers that be [die Herren] do not understand that things only get worse with that. For the family does not want to die of starvation, and so they are forced to steal

again and again. (P, boy, Part I, 440)

82 GUSTAV JAHODA

This last argument is sophisticated, likely to have been in- spired by contemporary political views. Even so, it would be a mistake to ignore the fact that hardship was widespread in Ger- many during that era.

The approval responses of p boys bristled with resentment and hatred:

The man wanted money from the other to buy himself something. But he didn't give him any. Now he takes his revenge. It serves him right, for he could surely have given him a little. (Part I, 443)

The rich snob does as if he were a president, and the other nothing at all. The rich give nothing to the poor but only exploit them. It serves the fat fellow right if he gets a good knock. He has everything in abundance, while the other has no money to buy even the barest essentials. (Part I, 445-446)

The poor man knocks the rich fat-belly over the head, so that he cracks up. His top hat is then smashed, his glasses broken, and his money bag rolls around the ground. That's as it should be. (Part I, 443)

Although pictures provided these boys a means of acting out their

strong feelings in fantasy, they were aware at the time that the authorities condemned such behavior. A few years later, such

proscription was no longer necessarily the case. It is intriguing to note that the rich man in picture 3 has

stereotypically semitic features, of the kind constantly caricatured in Nazi antisemitic propaganda sheets. Yet, since not a single respondent, at least among the large number cited, referred to the caricature as a Jew, this characteristic would not appear to have been salient for working-class children and teenagers at that time. Hence, Goldhagen's sweeping assertions about the "ubiqui- tousness" of antisemitism as "a cultural cognitive model" transmit- ted to the young before the Hitler regime are not supported. In

light of the empirical evidence, including that relating to adults, Niewyk's judgment is clearly more justified:

This selected survey of attitudes toward the Jews on the part of

representative German political, educational, administrative, and other groups during the Weimar years reveals that there was a good

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER j 83

bit of anti-Semitism, but that it was very unevenly distributed and rarely of the extremist variety sometimes advocated by the Nazis.9

ANTISEMITISM AND ANTICAPITALISM The evidence provided by the Schneckenburger study is particularly valuable, since his aim was to show, purely scientifically, that differences in children's moral judgments are a combined function of age and social milieu. However, although he sought to maintain the required objectiv- ity, it is clear that his own political sympathies colored his report. The research was conducted in a social and political setting that influenced his choice of material and, together with his political opinions, prevented him from appreciating the profound and disturbing implications of his findings. The rich man in pic- ture 3-fat, and bedecked with top hat, cigar, briefcase, and jewelry-was the prototypical image of the "capitalist."10

In Germany, there has long been a close link between anti- capitalism and antisemitism. In fact, Pulzer has described anti- capitalism as "one of the oldest and most natural forms of antisemitism," making reference to the traditional Jewish concen- tration in commercial and financial activities (their "usury"), when few other occupations were open to them. The story of this link in Germany from the nineteenth century onward is complex. Anti- capitalism was often confounded with a more general antimoder- nity that can only be outlined here. Although the connection between anticapitalism and antisemitism was not altogether con- fined to night-wing politics, it was much more salient in that arena.1

Anticapitalism in its modern form began with Johann Gott- lieb Fichte's revolutionary patriotism during the Napoleonic in- vasions, coupled among his followers with the strident antisemitism that prevailed between 800o and 1848. During the same period, radical writers of Jewish origin-notably Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine-wanted to promote emancipation and freedom, not only for themselves but for Germany and Europe at large. In the course of propagating their ideals, they also made a point of criticizing what they viewed as the Jewish

9 Donald L. Niewyk, TheJews in Weimar Germany (Manchester, 1980), 79. Io The fact that the rich man was also portrayed with a semitic physiognomy probably reflects the conception of the artist rather than of Schneckenburger, who had leftist sympathies and who frequently cited well-known Jewish psychologists like William Stern. 11 Peter Pulzer, The Rise of Political Antisemitism in Germany and Austria (London, 1988), 42.

84 GUSTAV JAHODA

preoccupation with mammon, thereby paradoxically "cement[ing] the foundations of one of the most powerful elements of revolu- tionary antisemitism, namely, the image of the Jew as the em- bodiment of capitalism. "12

The mid-century upsurge in liberalism and the gradual eman- cipation of Jews, contemporary with Prince Otto van Bismarck's unification of Germany, provided the Jews with opportunities for upward social mobility in an era of rapid industrialization. They were able to take so prominent a part in these economic changes that they were later accused of monopolizing business, banking, the stock exchange, and some of the more lucrative professions.

The radical socioeconomic changes that took place were far from universally welcome. A significant section of the population, especially the traditional artisanat discussed by Volkov, saw the advent of modern capitalism as a serious threat to both their livelihood and their ideals of"Germanity" (Deutschtum). Nostalgia harked back to the medieval guild system, coupled with the romantic notion of a Volk attached to the land and characterized by ancient German virtues, notably the honest thrift and toil of peasants and craftsmen. This creative (schaffendes) mode was con- trasted with the grasping (raffendes) operation ofJewish-dominated capitalism. Such a theme was later fully exploited by the Nazis in their racial mythology, as illustrated by the slogan Blut und Boden (blood and soil) from which true "Germanity" was said to spring.13

The strength of liberal opinion, which had protected Jews, declined after an agricultural depression in the mid-I87os and the collapse of the Vienna Stock Exchange. Numerous articles in the press, books, and pamphlets attributed all of the country's eco- nomic troubles to Jewish capitalists. They were accused of under- mining the very fabric of German society. Thereafter, whenever economic downturns occurred, the chorus of blame against "Jew-

12 Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany: From Kant to Wagner (Prince- ton, I990), I8.

I3 Shulamit Volkov, The Rise of Popular Antimodernism in Germany: The Urban Master Artisans, 1873-1896 (Princeton, I978). Goldhagen asserts in the foreword to the German edition of his book that antisemitism and the mythology of race have all but vanished from

contemporary democratic Germany. But he does not explain how what he perceived to be a central cultural feature transmitted over many generations could be eliminated so radically. Goldhagen notwithstanding, some of the symbolism of"Germanity" and "blood" still survives. As Uli Kinke shows, it attaches not only to extreme neo-Nazis but, in milder versions, to certain public figures ("Gendered Difference, Violent Imagination: Blood, Race, Nation," American Anthropologist, XCIX [I997], 559-573, 56I).

"ORDINARY GERMANS" BEFORE HITLER l 85

ish capitalists" would swell again. This prototypical image was not confined to vulgar journalism or crude propaganda. In a book originally published in 1911, Sombart, the prominent sociologist, also identified what he regarded as disreputable capitalism with Jews.14

In its broad lines, the analysis presented above is neither recent nor novel. As early as the end of the nineteenth century, the following was argued at a meeting of the German Social Democratic Party,

Anti-semitism stems from the unease of certain middle-class strata, who find themselves disadvantaged by capitalist develop- ment, and who in part are destined to economic extinction by this development. Yet in misunderstanding the actual cause of their situation, they direct their fight not against the capitalist economic system, but against a phenomenon arising from that system, which becomes uncomfortable for them in the competitive struggle: namely, against jewish exploitation.15

Despite a certain overlap between the ideas of the left and the right, the differences were more important. The anticapitalist workers' movement had Jews among its leaders. It created the concept of the capitalist as the Klassenfeind (class enemy), which was still used by the East German Communist Party into the Ig80s.

Although there does not seem to be any research specifically concerned with how the concept of the "capitalist" evolved in

pictorial representations, the stereotyped image of the "capitalist" may have crystallized from the sharp illustrations of social and economic inequalities created by the left-wing graphic artists of the Weimar era-especially during the Great Depression-such as George Grosz. Because the symbolic power of the image was

probably at its peak during that period, it is not surprising that school children would acquire the notion of the capitalist as a

14 The stock exchange was the symbolic epitome of both capitalism and Jews. In a book

by Wilhelm Busch-the immensely popular author of Max und Moritz (Munich, I858)-ap- pears an illustrated humorous piece about a Jew, described as deeply flawed and soulless, with a crooked nose, "creeping" toward the stock exchange (Diefromme Helene [Heidelberg, 1872]). Werner Sombart, TheJews and Modern Capitalism (New York, I95I). 15 August Bebel, "Die Sozialdemokratische Partei und der Antisemitismus," in Protokoll uber die Verhandlungen des Parteitages der Sozialdemokratischen Partei Deutschlands, Koln 22-29. Okt.

1893 (Berlin, 1893), 224-unpub. records of a party meeting, quoted in Karlheinz Dedeke, Reich und Republik Deutschland 1817-1933 (Stuttgart, I984), I 4.

86 | GUSTAV JAHODA

manipulator who grows rich at the expense of the impoverished masses.

Both the Communists and the Nazis used this portrait of the "evil capitalist exploiter" extensively. As documented by Mason, from their early days, the National Socialist Party recognized the need to stress an anticapitalist message as to attract the working class. Hence, the symbolism of working-class enslavement was common to both left and right extremes, the difference being that, in the Nazi case, the capitalist displayed the Star of David (see Figure 3). The widespread conviction was that the problems of Germany were the fault of capitalism and capitalists. Capitalists were most commonly blamed for inflation and for abuses of power.

16

The economic depression of the period greatly contributed to political instability. Street fights between adherents of the left and right were frequent; violence was part of the everyday expe- rience of working-class children. Yet what children gradually absorbed was not antisemitism, as Goldhagen claimed, but anti- capitalism. Moreover, they did not merely believe that capitalists were responsible for their misery; they also developed intense resentment, even hatred, for these symbolic figures-so much so that they came to regard the transgression of the law as justified in this particular context, though not others. Thus was a vast reservoir of bitterness ready to be exploited. All that the Nazis had to do was to persuade the young that Jewish capitalists were to blame, and that no measure was too harsh to punish them.

Although the membership of the Hitler Youth was still small before Hitler's seizure of power, more than two-thirds of it came from the working class, many of whom were unemployed. After I933, according to Klonne, membership rocketed by a factor of Ioo within a single year. Chances are that the kinds of youngsters studied by Schneckenburger would have been enrolled. By 1938, the year of the pogrom known as the Krystallnacht, many are likely to have been in the Sturmabteilung (Stormtroopers) and taken part in it.17

i6 Timothy W. Mason, Sozialpolitik im Dritten Reich. Arbeiterklasse und Volksgemeinschaft (Opladen, I977). 17 Arno Kl6nne, Jugend im Dritten Reich (Koln, 1984).

/ '1 iA

/J

Fig. 3a Propaganda of the Weimer Era: National Socialist Party Poster

I

^^SQ^^^^.,~~~~~~~~

x

88 | GUSTAV JAHODA

fl.

Uns aus dem Elend zu erlosen

kbnnen wir nur selber fun- KPD Fig. 3b Propaganda of the Weimar Era: Communist Party Poster

The bedrock of Goldhagen's argument, namely that "elimination- ist antisemitism" was a ubiquitous cultural norm in Germany even before Nazi rule, is not supported by the evidence. Unlike Niewyk, Goldhagen seems to have scanned the literature for antisemitic writings and utterances in order to bolster his prior thesis, ignoring contrary indications. Nonetheless, the Nazis were able to exploit the intense antagonism toward "capitalists" and redirect it toward what Goldhagen rightly characterized as a grossly distorted image ofJews. This development, however, was only one element in an intricate web of causation. By no means does it supply proof of Goldhagen's thesis about the antisemitism of "ordinary Germans."