POLL: The Holocaust - Responsibility

Remove all ads!

And as we all know, in a democracy, when representatives have to take a stand on a major issue, they usually ignore the views of their constituents.

Oh, wait, that's not right.

 

Hitler and all of those who willingly assisted in the killings. They're not all one group. Some German citizens enjoyed ratting on their neighbors for being Jews to settle personal vendettas. Others assisted the Nazis out of fear. Some didn't get involved at all.

 

Is this an admission of ignorance or are you merely trying to be offensive? If you wish to discuss matters with me you will have to opt for a more decent tone, AMaster.

Otherwise stay away from me.

 

I am interested in the Holocaust because, with all due respect to its victems, despite its macarb subject matter it is an important part of our history. We can only go forward in the future if we understand and embrace the past, otherwise we will keep repeating our mistakes until we do.

Anyway, long post from this point, but hopefully it will be interesting\educational.

Someone asked how the Jews can be asked to bear some of the responsibility for their own fate, and I will answer, although I will point out that the vote was not mine and the following is fact\argument not nessecarily my own opinion.

The main debate in this argument is over the 'Judenrat' or Jewish Councils. After the implimentation of Ghettoisation from 1940 onwards the Judenrat were put in place by Nazi officials, basically made up of middle-class professional Jews and the Elders of Jewish communities they were tasked by the Nazi's to, compile lists of numbers of people in the ghettos, recuit forced labour workers both for in the ghettos and for the concentration camps and to provide peope for "re-settlement", indeed from July 1942, the Warsaw ghetto had to provide 10,000 jews a day.

These councils ruled the Ghetto's, exemplified by Chaim Rumkovski's almost dictatoral rule of the Lodz ghetto, currency was even issued with his signature and all Judenrats overwhelmingly complied with Nazi demands.

One of the most influential historians who argues the case for Jewish responsibility over their own fate is Hannah Arendt, whoes main arguments are that,

1) The Judenrat maintained order in the Ghettos by advocating co0operation with the Nazi's, stressing that resistance would make the situation worse.
2) Made up deportation lists
3) Informed the Nazi's of resistance Groups
4) Articulated and enforced German Demands,

Thus, without the Judenrat's complience there would have certainly been misery and murder however there would not have been death on such an amazing scale. However, it is extreamly easy to be overly critical in hindsight and I believe these arguments are overly simplistic. It is hard to believe that the Jewish Elders would sacrifice their co-religionists for personal perks, though it would fit the traditional and racist Jewish stereotype, it is unlikely.

Certainly the Judenrat's tactics can be called into question but I believe their motives cannot. They were doing what they thought was right. Resistance brought further torment and death, and so they assumed compliance would bring reprive, which to a certain extent, in the short term it did, however overall the result was the same.

Futhermore, the vote could have been in regard to the international Jewish communities reponses to the Nazi persecution. The American Zionist movement was again, perhaps wrongly, putting the majority of its energies into the soverignty of Palastine rather than the rescue of Jews from the Concentration Camps while the isolationist trend of American politics made lobbying for such difficult.

Nevertheless, the 500,000 Jews in Palestain did nothing to help the plight of their Eurpean brothers, instead concentrating on their own statehood, while Palestinian Jews could even be acused of "betraying" the Slovakian and Hungarian Jews by not providing the ransom money for Jews demanded by the Nazis, desprate to fund their war machine. However, as said before, there was little they could really do to save their co-religionists, the Nazi's couldn't really be trusted with bargining while only 3.6% of the American population were Jewish so their lobbying power was limited.


As to the question of Allied\ocupied nations responsibility, well the only action taken by any of the allied nations was in 1938 when Roosevelt withdrew the US ambassador to Germany in protest over Kristallnacht. A bit pathetic really. Whereas Allied actions which perhaps helped the holocaust are many. Forinstance, Roosevelt did not allow any German Jews into the US, an opinion poll revealed that 4/5 of all Americans opposed the admittance of any more German Jews, suggesting that the American people as a whole were not overly concerned about their plight, even after the 1939 Evian confrence with the French, the quota of 30,000 migrants remained unchanged.

Why did Roosevelt act this way? Well to describe him as Anti-semitic would be wrong, but isolationism overrode any influence that the Jewish American community might have had on US policty, and Roosevelt was more concerned with Re-election and thus couldn't openly oppose popular opinion. (Democratic politiking 1 - 0 Human rights).

Don't think that I am bashing America over the issue though, as my own country, Britain also had an appauling track record over the incident, something they dont tell you on BBC2. Anti-semitism was widespread among the British Upper-classes, Lord Halifax (Foreign secretary 1938-40) admited to being "mildly Anti-semitic", such prejudices would hinder any inclination to assist the Jews when news of the holocause first reached London. Governement Anti-Semitism was futher emphasised by the sacking of Leslie Hore-Belisha (A Jew) who was sacked from war minister in Jan 1940 despite being an effective and capable minister.

The British Public were no more enthusiastic either, the news of the Jewish liquidation was broadcast by the BBC on June 2nd 1942. However unlike the American's it can be said that both the British Government and the British public had slighty more to worry about. Although, at least the British government made the information public, on the 10th of August 1942 the American Government recived information about the Holocaust throught the Reigner Telegram (Despite delays from Antony Eden) yet this news was not broadcast to the American Public until Novemeber 1942, by which time millions of Jews were already dead.

Again I am running out of time, but I will finish on an ocupied contry, perhaps the worse example, France. When the Nazi's defeated France in 1940, a government was set up in Southern France, in a town called Vichy. This government was entirely french and activly co-operated with the Nazis. It can be argued that this appointment gave French anti-Semites a long await opportunity to act against the french jews. This was supported by the introduction of a slew of Anti-Jewish laws within 3 months of the Vichy goverenment being established, totaly independant of the Nazi's who at this time had no involvement or interest in southern france. Indeed, Vichy even set up its own concentration camps and the assets of wealthy jews were seized.

Although, perhaps one country was worse than France, Romania. Ruled by the dictator Ion Antonesu he encouraged the mass killing of Jews. No other country was involved to such an extent, over 100,000 jews were killed by Romanian forces in Bukovina and Bessarabia while many died under forced march and in ghettos in Transnistria. Indeed, perhaps most gauling of the Romanians actions in the war was Romania's successful claim for concessions against war crimes by claming that they had infact saved 300,000 Romanian born Jews.

And now my times run out, although before I leave, I find it interesting that double the number of people here are intentionalists than functionalists, that is twice as many people think it was Hitlers plan from the start to murder all jews, than those who think the drive wasnt from hitler or that the Nazi's "stumbled into a holocaust". Interesting.

And to the people whom the poll is not satisfactory, I agree, its very crude, but please post your opinions.

[ May 01, 2005, 19:55: Message edited by: Mr Writer ]

 

Both, actually.

I genuinely want to see you expand on that sentence I cited. Not to discuss, necessarily, but to see what your thoughts on it are.

 

Mmmm, I had the allies down as patly responsible over their actions at the end of the first world war. The sanctions and reparations forced on the Germans left the country in debt and poverty, which led (History lessons were a long time ago now) to astronomical inflation. This fostered the prevalent atmosphere of hate that allowed Hitler and the Nazi's to take power.
The German people of the time must take some responsibility for allowing Hitler to come to power, but I doubt they did it knowing the consequences. (Wizards First Rule!)
Finally, and most importantly, Hitler, anthe other leaders o the Nazi's, who knew exactly what they were doing. They take the responsibility and all of the blame as far as I am concerned.

 

Both?! Who would have guessed. I will comply anyway.

The main thing I had in mind was this:
Around 10.000 German refugees – mostly children – were starved to death in prison camps (far be it from me to call them by another name) in Denmark after the war. They were denied food and medicine, left to rot.
A catastrophe defended by Danish historians. With the exception of one who recently compared Denmark to Rwanda because of this, calling it ethnic cleansing, agitating the Danes. My gratitude to that bold woman.
Perhaps others here knew of it. For me it was news I learned a couple of days before this thread was opened.

Knowing people, they prefer focussing on the crimes of others to dealing with their own bloodied history. ‘Lets just keep a vivid memory of and everyone’s attention on what the Nazis did, so no one will have an undue interest in what was done by us. Oh, and our actions will be that much easier to explain, too – particularly to ourselves.’

 

There is no answer as to the cause of the Holocaust and other Genocide, Fratricide, Patricide and Matricide events in human history...than to lay the blame on humankind as a whole. While we argue and bicker over which Nation or ethic group bears the greater responsibility, we miss the basic truth that hate can only flourish in a world where there is no basic value and respect for human life.

Root cause.

 

I read part of an excellent book entitled "Hitler's willing executioners" that made a pretty good argument that the German population as a whole was not unknowing about the fate of their neighbours. He also argued that the assertion that soldiers carried out orders unwillingly was not as strong as some believe; disobeying or refusing orders happened with regards to other issues.

This is certainly relevant today, as we have boatloads of people clamoring to enter the Western world, and many are turned back to face horrid consequences. It's easy to say that the West is coldhearted and cruel, but that does not take all factors into consideration. I agree to a point with Joaqin that the first step is dehumanizing a group of people; then the real horrors can occur.

 

That book is by Goldhagen, and has been roundly denounced as overly simplistic by almost every respected Historian on the issue. He fails to see the massive, and horrid irony in his work. See the other thread on Genocide for more information.

 

Most remarkable point about Goldhagen is his response to angry and highly critical historians devastatingly shredding his dillettantic and incompetent research: "Well, I'm a political science scholar, not a historian!"

... ...

... and never mind the facts when you do research, after all you have a book to sell and a name to make ...

 

I have never read the book, but I viewed a lecture given by the author. In the lecture, he tried to make the point that Germans were inherently anti-Semitic. At the end of the lecture a little guy got up and asked him to explain his point, given that Germany had so many Jewish people until Hitler and his goons took over. When the author was unable to explain why, the guy said something like: "Maybe the Germans were not really that unfriendly to Jewish people before Hitler. Maybe that is why there were so many living in Germany." The author got quite angry and refused to comment on the subject of why there was a sizable population in Germany any further. The main reason I remember this book is because of how unreasonable the author became in trying to respond to a reasonable question.

 

What pisses me off most about this guy is that according to him somewhere deep inside Germans there is hidden some 'eliminationist anti-Semitism'. Insidious. Just because Germans committed the Holocaust and because Goldie finds this ... 'thesis' ... somehow explains the Holocaust. Maybe this explains my morningly bloodthirst

But he doesn't stop there. According to him the vatican had this 'eliminationist anti-Semitism' too, and he suggested it's about time to think about sueing them for compensation ... riiiight.

That is to say, he has an agenda and I guess the result of his 'research' was clear already when he started to work on his books.

When that required ignoring inconvenient facts, or modifying quotes by re-translarting second hand sources, that is english texts, back into german (thus falsifying them - the original texts were notably different in Goldies versions) instead of searching the original source - swell.

Proper methods as tools and of the trade are for sissies anyway. He's a little bit neo-con in his approach to this issue What use are facts when you *know* the answer already? And then, don't forget he's a political science scholar

Most serious historians considers Goldies idea as utter nonsense, and his research as dillettantic at best, willfully neglegient at worst, but that didn't diminish the popular appeal of his book - it provided the easy answer so many people searched for.

The other problem is him poisoning the well by lowering standards for research - when Goldie can tweak quotes, why can't I? He also is providing Nazis with an easy opportunity to discredit holocaust research - they can simply recycle the devastating critiques on Goldie's book made by serious historians for that.

Goldhagen also likes to label people criticising him as antisemitic. That's probably just vanity, like: "They can't possibly criticise me for being an incompetent and brazen blowhard, it must be because I'm jewish!" Sure thing, Sherlock.

 

Rags, you're approaching this the wrong way. Don't be annoyed by the man's idiocy--be amused by it!

 

How can you be amused by it? Maybe if a)People didn't believe it, however most people who will read his book are not well informed on the holocaust and wont see the diffrences in his sources and the glaring errors in his work, thus most people will acept it at face value. Book's have some sort of stimga, if its in print it must be true.

b) It wasn't over such a serious issue.

 

Those reasons are precisely why you should be amused by it, Mr. Writer.

"Laughter is the best medicine," after all.

 

If AdoIf Hitler had only killed all of the Jews, we probably wouldn't have to have this discussion, but like most of Der Fuhrer's grandiose schemes--the conquest of Russia, the supression of the West--he fell short in the final reckoning, due mostly to his own refusal to recognize that there were limitations to both human abilities and to his own occasional genius. As Mussolini said, "Hitler's tree reaches as high as the sky--but it grows only to ruin." (This as he prepared to follow Hitler to his own ruin.)

The Holocaust was entirely Hitler's doing. No one else in the Nazi hierarchy would have had the nerve, or the vision, to do such a thing. Certainly it would have taken daring on a grand scale to mount such a project behind Hitler's back. Himmler is the only possible alternative. This was a man who crept quietly into his house at night through the back door so as not to awaken his wife and his pets. I certainly don't buy it. As to Heydrich, ruthless enough maybe, but he was assassinated in 1942. Did he organize it from the grave?

Hitler's apologists usually fall back, sooner or later, on the writings of David Irving, a reporter turned historian, but Irving's credentials are not the best. He sometimes has cited sources that don't exist. A couple of years ago a reviewer called him a liar , and Irving sued. He lost, in an English court where rules of evidence apply. This probably doesn't mean much to Hitler's admirerers, who account periphernalia more important than evidence; it's certainly more colorful.

A main point of those who would absolve Hitler is that he never signed an order to exterminate the Jews. But Hitler wasn't an order signer; unlike his great opponent Churchill, he preferred to give his orders verbally. (One of Churchill's first directives was that unless an order was confirmed in writing, it was not to be considered as coming from him; Hitler never issued such a non-equivocal directive.) The fact that there is no written order really has no weight.

But what did Hitler think of the Jews? How did he feel about them? Did he hate them enough to attempt to exterminate them?

"Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness...in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew..." (Mein Kampf)

"The ultimate goal of the Jewish struggle for existence is the enslavement of productively active people,,," [Mein Kampf]

"...I have changed my opinion about the methods to fight Jewry. I have realized that up to now, I have been much too soft....I have come to the realization that in the future the most severe methods of fighting will have to be used to let us come through successfully....For Judaism is the plague of the world." [To a visitor in prison, 1924]

"I have often made prophecies and people have laughed at me...the Jews always laughed louder when I prophesied that one day I should be the leader of the German state, and that then...I should find the solution to the Jewish problem. Today I am going to make another prophecy: If the Jewish international financiers succeed in involving the nations in another war, the result will be...the destruction of the Jews in Europe..." [Reichstag speech, Jan. 30, 1939]

"Above all I charge the leaders of the nation and those under them to scrupulous observance of the laws of race and to merciless opposition to the universal poisoner of all peoples, international Jewry." [Final paragraph, Political Testament and Will, April 29, 1945; i.e., his very final public words.]

All this will probably mean little to those who are determined to exonerate Hitler, since evidence counts for little in the face of conviction, but it's certainly enough for me.

 

And my mother is the daughter of one such couple. Which leads to the question of historic responsibility across generations; does the guilt for this pass down, as in the Judeo-Christian formulation, to the seventh generation? Should Germans who were children during the war (and who are now at the age of retirement), along with those who were born after the war, still carry a sense of personal guilt about the Holocaust, above and beyond an understanding of Germany's historic responsibility? To what extent would I, as a grandchild of non-Jewish Germans, who by the way left Germany right before the war (1937-38), and under political duress no less, bear some amount of guilt? Would the fact that my other grandfather saw action as an officer with a US artillery unit during the war and no doubt has German blood on his hands mitigate this?

The line between personal and cultural guilt is a blurry one. For example, it would be relatively easy for me to get dual citizenship, which would be super useful to me if I ever wanted to work in the EU, but I must admit that the idea of taking on the burden of German national identity gives me pause.

Of course, nations have longer lives than people, and Germany will as a nation carry guilt for the Holocaust for generations to come, just as the United States will carry guilt for its past of slavery and genocide against Native Americans. All nation states are guilty of terrible crimes. But to what extent do these adhere to their citizens, especially those born after the event took place?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and say, "Not at all guilty," as far as those born after the event.

Nation states are artificial constructs, like corporation. Nations do not commit crimes. People do.

 

Can any of you guys give me a website with information about Jewish refugees during the world wars? Or any books that would be easily available on the same subject? I have to do a seminar on Friday about refugees.