The Significance Of Inter-Character Conflict In Alan Bennett's 'The History Boys'

in this paper i argue the opposing views of Daniel Goldhagen 's book Hitler 's Willing Executioners and Christopher Browning 's book ordinary Men. These books deal with the question of whether or not the average German soldiers and civilians were responsible for the holocaust. My research paper argues in favor of Goldhagen 's book, the average German was responsible for the participation of he holocaust. At the end of world war ll the Jewish community and the the rest of the world were crying for justice because of the devastation of there homes. The crimes committed by the Germans were cruel and someone had to pay. Several Nazi leaders were held accountable for the actions of the Germans. Were the Nazi leaders the ones responsible for

The first chapter of Lying About Hitler examines the challenges to objectivity that surfaces in the court case between David Irving and Debra Lipstadt. Evans was requested to participate due to his objectivity, however, impartiality within the field of History comes under scrutiny. Evans examines what it means to history and its importance to the court case. The trial transforms into a study of whether the Holocaust had been depicted truthfully or had objectivity created our modern notion. Irving’s belief of preconceived notions and opinions corrupting studies in the field, if true, would discredit many historians’ works. Lipstadt believes that Irving’s anti-Semite sentiments are the cause of him misrepresenting and falsifying sources. Evans

“Was German ‘Eliminationist Anti-Semitism” Responsible for the Holocaust?” is a fascinating and somewhat discouraging debate that explores the question of whether German anti-Semitism, instilled within citizens outside of the Nazi Party, played a vast role in the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust . Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, author of “The Paradigm Challenged,” believes that it did; and argues quite convincingly that ordinary German citizens were duplicitous either by their actions or inactions due to the deep-seeded nature of anti-Semitic sentiment in the country. On the other hand, Christopher R. Browning, who has extensively researched the Holocaust, argues that the arguments of Goldhagen leaves out significant dynamics which were prevalent throughout most of Western and Eastern Europe during this period of history.

The events which have become to be known as The Holocaust have caused much debate and dispute among historians. Central to this varied dispute is the intentions and motives of the perpetrators, with a wide range of theories as to why such horrific events took place. The publication of Jonah Goldhagen’s controversial but bestselling book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust” in many ways saw the reigniting of the debate and a flurry of scholarly and public interest. Central to Goldhagen’s disputed argument is the presentation of the perpetrators of the Holocaust as ordinary Germans who largely, willingly took part in the atrocities because of deeply held and violently strong anti-Semitic beliefs. This in many

As a result, the audience becomes sentimental and are more susceptible to be observant of the reason that triggered this event. The Jewish boy is a prime example of the destructive power indifference has towards humanity as it leaves the feeling of desolation in its wake.

In the last few years, some publications have appeared that treats one group or another, yet the state of our knowledge about the perpetrators remains incomplete. We know little about many of the institutions of killing, little about many aspects of the perpetration of the genocide, and still less about the perpetrators themselves. As a consequence, popular and scholarly myths and misconceptions about the perpetrators abound, including the following. It is commonly believed that the Germans slaughtered Jews by and large in the gas chambers, and that without gas chambers, modern means of transportation, and efficient bureaucracies, the Germans would have been unable to kill millions of Jews. The belief persists that somehow only technology made horror on this scale possible. It is generally believed that gas chambers, because of their efficiency, were a necessary instrument for the genocidal slaughter, and that the Germans chose to construct the gas chambers in the first place because they needed more efficient means of killing the Jews. It has been generally believed that the perpetrators were primarily, overwhelmingly SS men, the most devoted and brutal Nazis. It has been held that had a German refused to kill Jews, then he himself would have been killed, sent to a concentration camp, or severely punished. All of these views, views that fundamentally shape people's understanding of the Holocaust, have been believed as though they were

How do the authors characterize the American response to the Holocaust, and what explanation(s) do they give for that conduct?

Although the world continues to face tragedy, little compares to that of the horrors millions of innocent Jews like Elie Wiesel faced, as they were deported from their homes, separated from their families and pushed around into different concentration camps where they were brutally tortured, killed, and discarded of by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany Army beginning in 1941. It wasn’t until April of 1945 that Elie along with the limited number of other survivors were finally liberated. This mid 20th century atrocity has come to be known as the Holocaust, a tragic part of history that will never be forgotten. It was because of that experience, that Elie Wiesel extensively depicted the events he faced through written and verbal accounts including the speech he gave entitled “The Perils of Indifference” on April 12, 1999. The speech was given at the 7th Millennium Evening at the White House, with an intent to create a kairotic moment with the public including the audiences it was broadcasted to, as an opportunity to explain a darker side of history, while also hopefully enlightening them for the future.

Examining any issue pertaining to the Holocaust is accompanied with complexity and the possibility of controversy. This is especially true in dealing with the topic of Jewish resistance to the Holocaust. Historians are often divided on this complex issue, debating issues such as how “resistance” is defined and, in accordance with that definition, how much resistance occurred. According to Michael Marrus, “the very term Jewish resistance suggests a point of view.” Many factors, both internal such as differences in opinion on when or what resistance was appropriate, as well as external, such as the lack of arms with which to revolt, contributed to making resistance, particularly armed resistance, extremely difficult. When considering acts

The Holocaust was a time of great suffering and inhumanity. The novel Night, which took place during this time, was written by Elie Wiesel and talks about his teen self-experiencing the concentration camps of Auschwitz. This is related to the movie The Boy in the Striped Pajamas which is the story of a young German boy named Bruno who befriends a Jewish boy in a concentration camp. The many similarities and differences between the movie The Boy in the Striped Pajamas and the novel Night include their many themes of “inhumanity” and “guilt and inaction”, and the two also share and differ in the loss of innocence of the characters and how they develop in each medium.

Deborah Lipstadt’s authority on the subject of Jewish history showcases the persuasive strategy of Ethos because she is presented as a trustworthy messenger. She was an assistant professor of Near Eastern Studies at UCLA from 1979 to 1985 before becoming an associate professor of religion and later Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta. In 1994, President Clinton appointed Lipstadt to the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Already a published author and columnist for The Jewish Spectator (Moore), Lipstadt talked in her TED Talk about being approached by two respected historians of the Holocaust who asked her to work on a project that included researching Holocaust deniers (Lipstadt 2:28). This research resulted in the book Denying the Holocaust: the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, which was published in 1993 and received the National Jewish Book Honor Award in 1994 (Moore). In the book, Lipstadt exposes David Irving as being “one of the most prominent Holocaust deniers,” prompting Irving to sue her

The Holocaust is widely known as one of the most horrendous and disturbing events in history that the world has seen; over six million lives were lost, in fact the total number of deceased during the Holocaust has never been determined. The footage of concentration camps and gas chambers left the world in utter shock, but photos and retellings of the events cannot compare to being a victim of the Holocaust and living through the horror that the rest of the world regarded in the safety of their homes. Elie Wiesel recognized the indifference that the

The Holocaust becomes the center of this. Whether it be at his Hebrew school, where Jewish history shaped not only the curriculum they learn. But, also as a collective identity shared by a new and contemporary Jewish generation. While still being connected to the past. This is a struggle for Mark, who does not even identify himself as Jewish for most of the story, He is continuously challenged with where to place himself in this new world, as a second-generation immigrant to Toronto. For Mark, being a young Latvian Jew is not easy.

“Germany's Holocaust Memorial Problem-and Mine” is an article that analyzes the complexities of creating a memorial that will represent a great amount of Jewish people that perished in the hands of the Nazi Germany during the 1930's and early 1940's. James E. Young author of this article, was part of a five member committee that would agree whether or not to build a memorial and the process was very difficult because they had to make sure that the jewish community accepted the memorial and the Germans would not feel offended or targeted. What made things awkward in a way was that Young was Jewish so he would be responsible of the criticism for either accepting or denying a memorial option. What was significant in the article was that the topic

As Hajime Tokuno describes it, “Deniers have subjugated science, in this case historical science, to a political agenda, creating a pseudoscience called Holocaust Denial” (Tokuno 2).