Before beginning this discussion make sure you have read the Module Notes Presentation (https://sway.office.com/wHbSR2OPrbhp0rCY?ref=Link.) and chapters 1-2, 7-9, 14-18 of Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men. Then, in 250-400 words, consider the following questions as jumping-off points for your post (you do not need to address each one individually). Your post should include specific examples and references from the assigned readings. What do you see as the ethical implications of Browning’s arguments in Ordinary Men? What does Browning’s work suggest about human nature, evil, and the underlying causes of violent atrocities like the Holocaust? What problems, if any, do you see with Browning’s approach and arguments? Do you think the criticisms of Browning’s work (summarized above and in the module notes) are justified? Graduate students should draw on the additional readings from Goldhagen and Browning when answering this question. How do you think historians and other scholars should approach a morally-charged subject like the Holocaust? To what extent should they engage in moral condemnation vs. “neutral” historical explanation? Is it possible to balance these two approaches?