I find the message on human nature in the work Ordinary Men incredibly frightening. Browning’s work blurs the line between cold-blooded mass murders and ordinary men. He seems to suggest human beings are readily capable to partake in the horrific actions of Police Battalion 101.
He makes an important, and interesting, distinction between the two types of human brutality. One type stems from uncontrollable hate, often during war, in which soldiers react to the violence around them and lash out in revenge. This differs from the second type in an important way: “such atrocities [represent] a breakdown in discipline”; they are sudden and uncalculated (161). Contrast examples of this first type—such as rampage through Manila by the Japanese or the slaughter of prisoners in many Pacific islands by Americans—with the planned brutality that is part of wartime policy—the firebombing of Dresden or the mass murderings of Police Battalion 101. One can try to excuse atrocities of the first type by saying that they are a product of uncontrollable human nature, that when humans are pushed to an emotional breaking point, they are capable of tremendous violence.
Although I find this thought disturbing, it pales in comparison to the implications of the other type. The second type of atrocity suggests that this capacity for extreme violence extends beyond sudden outbursts, that such violence can be carried out by men who have not been pushed to this emotional breaking point. Consider this haunting passage from Ordinary Men:
“…wartime brutalization through prior combat was not an immediate experience directly influencing the policemen’s behavior at Józefów. Once the killing began, however, the men became increasingly brutalized. As in combat, the horrors of the initial encounter eventually became more routine, and the killing became progressively easier. In this sense, brutalization was not the cause but the effect of these men’s behavior.” (161)
What then were the causes of the Police Battalion 101’s brutality? The answers Brown offers don’t seem particularly convincing to me. In my mind, wartime brutalization, racism, special selection of the perpetrators, careerism, obedience to orders, deference to authority, ideological indoctrination, and authority all fail to fully explain Police Battalion 101’s actions. I am left unconvinced because each cause, or even all of them considered together, seems so wholly ordinary and mundane relative to mass murdering. Or perhaps I need to reconsider to what extent mass murdering is unordinary and extreme. As Browning asks, “If the men of Police Battalion 101 could become killers under such circumstances, what group of men cannot?” (189).
The idea of the men in Browning’s novel Ordinary Men were mass murders because of their obedience and willingness to listen to authority compared to emotional hate for the Jews does not make sense to me. Don’t get me wrong killing in any fashion is disgusting and horrific, but the fact that most of these men were just to scared to say no is what bothers me the most.
ReplyDeleteThe question that was posed at the end of the response, “If the men of Police Battalion 101 could become killers under such circumstances, what group of men cannot?” (189) is very interesting to me. I think that these men were a product of their surroundings; they were put into positions where they had a gun in their hand and were told to shoot innocent people. The need to conform and feel apart of a group was an extremely important factor for these men. If they were to leave the group or stop shooting they could be called a coward or would look weak. I agree with Browning, in the same circumstance this could happen anywhere.
When looking at History, you can see this similar atrocity happening at different time periods throughout the world. One man or one government does not commit genocide. It involves the collaboration of a group of people who partake in these types of killings. To say that one man is completely capable of mass murder while another man isn’t seems like a statement that can only be tested if the two men were put in the same circumstances.
ReplyDelete