The displacement of history by family mythology
Hoyer’s approach relies on a straightforward but powerful
shift: instead of asking, “What class forces enabled fascism?” the subject is
prompted to ask, “Was my grandfather a Nazi?” This transforms the historical
disaster into a personal story. Political issues become psychological concerns,
and social problems are viewed through a personal lens.
This example illustrates modern attitudes toward remembering
German history. As the WSWS highlighted during the controversy over the
Wehrmacht exhibition, even important documentation of Nazi atrocities tends to
be presented without linking it to the broader class struggles in Germany and
Europe, as if there was no opposition to the Nazis’ rise and their military
ambitions. Hoyer’s article exemplifies this issue on a smaller scale, creating
a story in which the grandfather becomes the central figure of history, the
family serves as a space for reflection, and the working class is entirely
overlooked. This approach does not depict true history but promotes a liberal
myth.
The erasure of the
working class and its betrayal
Any thorough analysis of fascism must start with the betrayal of the German working class by the SPD, KPD, and trade unions in 1933. These groups represented millions of workers. Their surrender enabled Hitler’s rise to power. The SPD clung to bourgeois legality as the state fell apart. The KPD, following Stalin, called the SPD "social fascists,” undermining a united front. The trade unions encouraged workers to take part in Nazi May Day celebrations.
Hoyer’s narrative cannot admit this, as it would mean confronting the ongoing class interests that connect the capitalist systems of 1933, 1945, and today. Instead, she shifts focus to family history, asking whether ‘my grandfather was good or bad,’ rather than examining what political forces weakened the working class and facilitated fascism. This amounts to a form of historical falsification.
Goldhagen in miniature: national character disguised as family psychology
At first glance, Katja Hoyer and Daniel Goldhagen seem to
embody different facets of modern German memory culture. However, they may
actually reflect two sides of the same ideological spectrum. Goldhagen's tone
is polemical, broad, and accusatory, while Hoyer adopts a therapeutic,
intimate, and psychologically nuanced approach. Goldhagen criticises the German
nation as a whole, whereas Hoyer focuses on examining the German family.
Goldhagen discusses "eliminationist anti-Semitism," whereas Hoyer
explores “family myths” and the process of "reckoning.”
However, despite these stylistic variations, they serve a
common ideological purpose: to depoliticise fascism, eliminate class conflict,
and reframe the atrocities of the Third Reich as issues of psychology, culture,
and personal identity. Both authors function within the same liberal
perspective that downplays “the greatest
crimes in human history to a matter of individual family shame and personal
conscience. Goldhagen nationalises guilt. Hoyer privatises guilt. Both protect
capitalism.
Goldhagen: National
character as historical explanation
Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners (1996)
argued that the Holocaust was the product of a uniquely German, centuries-old
“eliminationist anti-Semitism.” The book was a publishing sensation precisely
because it offered a morally satisfying yet historically bankrupt explanation:
Germans killed Jews because they wanted to.
Goldhagen’s thesis has three key flaws: it deletes class
relations by ignoring the bourgeoisie, the working class, and capitalism; it
reduces the Holocaust to a cultural issue; and it dismisses political struggle,
especially neglecting figures like Marx, Engels, Bebel, and Liebknecht, thus
turning history into nationalist rhetoric. Moreover, it overlooks the betrayal
of the working class, as Goldhagen cannot explain the surrender of the SPD,
KPD, and trade unions in 1933, or why the working class— the only group capable
of resisting fascism—was politically disarmed. His thesis is a dead end because
it views fascism as a moral failing rather than a class-based phenomenon.
Hoyer: The
privatisation of guilt
Katja Hoyer’s “family secrets” narrative mirrors Goldhagen’s
approach on a smaller scale. While Goldhagen criticises the entire nation,
Hoyer focuses on the household. Goldhagen discusses “German culture,” whereas
Hoyer examines “family mythology.” Goldhagen universalises guilt, but Hoyer
personalises it. The core argument is similar: fascism is explained through
psychology rather than politics, history is viewed through identity instead of
class, and the working class is completely omitted. The question becomes ‘was
my grandfather a good or bad person?’ rather than ‘what class forces and
political betrayals made fascism possible?
Hoyer’s narrative is more than just incomplete; it is
essential on ideological grounds. It guarantees that the digitised Nazi Party
files serve for therapeutic self-reflection rather than for historical study.
The shared erasure of
the working class
Both Hoyer and Goldhagen consistently overlook a critical
historical fact: fascism's rise was facilitated by the betrayal of their own
base by German working-class organisations. As the state disintegrated, the SPD
maintained bourgeois legality, while the KPD, following Stalin's directives,
sabotaged the unity front. The Trade union leaders collaborated with the Nazi
propaganda event on May 1, 1933. This orchestrated spectacle was intended to
lull German trade unions into complacency just a day before their complete
suppression on May 2, 1933, when SA, SS, and NSBO units raided union offices,
detained leaders, and seized assets. All these organisations... passively
capitulated to Hitler.”
Goldhagen cannot acknowledge this because it would weaken
his claim about national pathology. Likewise, Hoyer cannot accept it as it
would contradict her narrative of personal self-reflection. Consequently, both
authors depict a version of history that omits class struggle, suggesting
fascism emerges from cultural, identity, or family factors rather than from the
crisis of capitalism.
Trotsky’s method: The
Marxist demolition of both narratives
Leon Trotsky’s critique of fascism reveals flaws in Hoyer's
and Goldhagen's perspectives. Trotsky argued that fascism is not merely a
cultural issue but a tool used by a class: "Fascism is a particular method
of rallying and organising the petty bourgeoisie to serve finance capital.”
This single sentence challenges the entire ideological
foundation of Hoyer and Goldhagen. Trotsky’s perspective shows that Fascism
stems from the capitalist crisis, not from national character. It is propelled
by the political betrayal of workers rather than family myths. Additionally,
Fascism is fundamentally a class issue, not a psychological one. Goldhagen’s
argument falters because it ignores why the bourgeoisie supported Hitler.
Similarly, Hoyer’s argument is incomplete because it overlooks why the working
class was disarmed. Trotsky reestablishes the comprehensive social relations
that both authors overlook.
The political
function of Hoyer and Goldhagen
The ideological significance of both writers becomes evident
when viewed in the context of modern German politics. Germany is rearming, the
Bundeswehr is active internationally, and historical revisionism is on the
rise. The political leaders openly discuss “normalising” Germany's military
strength. In this environment, Hoyer and Goldhagen serve crucial ideological
functions: They shift fascism from a class-based issue to a psychological one,
promote guilt without fostering political awareness, hide the role of German
capitalism in funding Hitler, and prevent the working class from developing
revolutionary insights. “One can feel personal shame about one’s grandfather
while supporting the deployment of German troops. The class question is never
posed.”⁷ Both writers use their political role to prevent past crimes from
endangering current interests.
The political utility
of individualised guilt
The German elite prefers to shift historical accountability
onto individual and psychological levels. As the WSWS observed in their review
of the 2011 “Hitler and the Germans” exhibition, the official narrative usually
attributes blame to the German populace while hiding the role of German
capitalism in the rise of Hitler.”
Hoyer’s article aligns well with this pattern. It prompts
Germans to feel shame about their grandparents while ignoring the banks that
funded Hitler, the companies that benefited from slave labour, and the state
institutions that remained unchanged after 1945. This is why the “family
secrets” genre is so politically effective: it fosters guilt without involving
politics, memory without addressing class, and reckoning without calling for
revolution.
The Marxist view contrasts with Hoyer’s
liberal-psychological explanation, which holds that fascism emerges from
capitalism in crisis. Its rise is due to the working class's betrayal.
Fascism’s crimes are best understood by examining its class roots, not
genealogy or psychology. The digitised Nazi files are useful primarily for
revealing fascism’s class nature.
The working class needs to reject the entire ideology of
individual guilt. Fascism's crimes were not caused by flawed personalities or
national traits but stemmed from a social system—capitalism—driven into
barbarism by crises and betrayal. The only force that can stop another descent
into disaster is an organised, conscious working class, equipped with a
revolutionary socialist agenda.
Notes
WSWS, “The Goldhagen Debate,” 1996.
Leon Trotsky, The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany (New York: Pathfinder, 1971), 7.
WSWS, “Hitler and the Germans Exhibition,” 2011.
