How does “thinking too much” endanger prisoners?
How much of survival is due to diligence and strength vs. luck?
Does the fact that civilians traded with prisoners refute claims that Germans were unaware of what was occurring?
Having now read this book twice, there were a few points that resonated with me throughout both readings. I was struck by the fact that those working with the Jews were described as “mistaking the effects for the cause.” In other words, Nazi sympathizers, collaborators, and occasionally, civilians, believed that Jews were truly desperate, dirty creatures, and thus were in the camps. They did not grasp that the camps had molded them into this form. Perhaps this is an example of selective viewing or a sort of survival mechanism. Nazis appeared to process what they saw through their world view. Rather than seeing the humanitarian crisis in front of them, they took what they saw as evidence that the Jews were receiving what they deserved. I found it fascinating that the evidence that one would thing would most directly challenge this viewpoint was instead twisted to confirm it.
I was further struck by how many civilians appeared to be trading with the prisoners. This raises many questions. How many civilians were aware of what was occurring in these camps? Those who directly traded may have told others, leading to rumors. After all, some form of explanation had to be given as to the source of these newly produced goods. These stories make me much less likely to believe that no ordinary German civilians were aware of the atrocities that were occurring. Many may have been ignorant, but certainly not all. I find it much more likely to believe that those who heard rumors or suspected such deaths were occurring (after all, their Jewish neighbors did not simply “disappear”) deliberately turned a blind eye. Whether this was due to fear or a subtle form of support, it is my belief that many more than the official orchestrators of the genocide knew it was occurring, even if these individuals did not directly participate.
German actions while invading Russia were particularly interesting to try to grasp and understand. I had not heard that Germans feared that changing conditions at home to provide for troops (through methods such as rationing) would have damaged the German war effort. The only justification I could see for that is that patriotism/nationalism could be damaged, and the morale on the home front could be weakened. But whether this justified the deliberate neglect of troops is certainly up in the air. The German hopes that troops could live off the land could perhaps be understandable, but was clearly countered by the Soviet “scorched-earth” policy.
This certainly provides a new perspective to the German campaign into Russia. Usually the campaign is part of a one sentence joke (never invade Russia in the winter). It’s intriguing to me that high school history de-emphasizes this aspect of World War II. The western front of the war is taught over the Russian front, and the tragedies suffered by millions under Soviet rule is neglected in favor of the Holocaust. This is not to say that this emphasis should be reversed. But I do believe that each story has merit and deserves to be told, jointly, to provide a more complete picture of early 20th century history.
I was also compelled by the amount of collaboration observed as Germans took over the Western portion of the Soviet Union (Ukraine, etc.). It’s an interesting psychological phenomenon, which I believe is linked to the brutality these areas felt in relation to their rule under the Soviet Union. Perhaps some wished to view the Germans as liberators. Perhaps others preferred to believe the Nazi narrative that blamed the Jews for their misfortunes. And perhaps still others saw collaboration as a path to survival. After all, “it’s them, not me.”
I plan to research the Madagascar Plan. While articulated and fully researched by the Nazi Party, the concept has roots that run much deeper. Poland considered relocating its Jewish population in the 1930s, and while the project never came to fruition, it did catch the eye of senior German leaders. For instance, the trial of Adolf Eichmann’s involved intensive questioning on the subject of the Madagascar Plan, with this video footage available from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum film archives.
Possible origins for this particular Polish plan are incredibly intriguing. Some maintained that a collection of Madagascar natives held Jewish ancestry, potentially providing a justification for emigration by labeling Madagascar a Jewish “promised land”. Furthermore, ideas for an emigration plan for the Jews may have been proposed as early as the 19th century, in the wake of a resurgence of European anti-Semitism. These ideas were often proposed by academics and other learned individuals, thus making an academic exploration of this topic even more intriguing.
It is these ultimate roots that I am most interested in examining. I wish to scrutinize early plans for Jewish emigration, and why Madagascar was selected as the most likely candidate. In particular, I would like to research the idea that Jews had connections to Madagascar. Did this concept have any form of merit, and why did it arise? Potential sources will ideally be primary, largely consisting of the 19th and 20th century academic writings relating to this topic. I will also rely on the research and compilations of others who have previously researched the Madagascar Plan. This combination of primary and secondary sources should hopefully provide the research with both a sense of breadth and depth. Ultimately, I hope that the examination of this topic will result in a better and fuller understanding of the origins of the Madagascar Plan.
Would changing conditions at home in Germany (rationing, etc.) to provide for troops in the USSR have truly damaged the German war effort?
Did Germany plan to conquer all of the USSR (including areas such as Siberia)?
Could collaboration with the Germans as they executed the final solution be seen as a survival mechanism (they’re not targeting me)?
I was most intrigued by the official Soviet response to the crisis in Ukraine. The position appeared to be contradictory. Sometimes officials simply denied that mass starvation was occurring, and when such starvation was acknowledged, it was described as an anti-Communist plot. Both positions were fascinating. It was hard for me to understand how denial could occur with such evidence surrounding the starvation. Starvation leaves bodies on a mass scale, and bodies are hard to hide. Yet even Soviet officials working directly in these reasons followed the party line and would deny the scale of the crisis. The proposed explanation appeared to be one of fear. When higher ups denied the deaths of millions in Ukraine as a gross exaggeration, one’s best course of action would be to parrot this position or risk being purged.
Furthermore, the latter course of describing mass starvation as an anti-Communist plot left me incredulous. The idea that people would be willing to believe that millions individuals would be willing to sacrifice their health (and in many cases, their lives) to undermine Communist success seems entirely illogical. Yet many people, including Stalin, appeared to embrace this. Why? I would point to a form of rationalization. Soviet-style communism under Stalin did not allow for the possibility of failure. Communism had to succeed, and many staked their careers and lives on it. Therefore, it became much easier to believe that an apparent failure was the deliberate work of others to undermine one’s success. In other words, victim-blaming occurred on a massive scale. It also provided an additional reason to not intervene. Snyder explains that many of these deaths were preventable had government officials changed policy. But labeling victims as anti-Communist made it much easier to deny these courses of action. While in some cases, this blindness was probably malicious, I believe that others were self-imposed as a way to cope. It was one of the few ways to explain away the great tragedy that many officials were witnessing.
This was a beautifully crafted movie. It illustrated many of the complexities of the Holocaust, with all its shades of gray. Perhaps most fascinating was the character of Schindler and his evolution to become a savior to so many. He was clearly rough around the edges. He was a womanizer, often sharp-tongued, and impatient. But despite these character flaws, he was still able to empathize with the Jews he interacted with, and work to minimize their pain and suffering. His ability to work with Nazi officials and camp leaders was fascinating. He manipulated many to great personal danger, but was able to do so successfully and with minimal suspicion. This was acted beautifully by Liam Neeson. I am largely accustomed to seeing him in action roles, so watching him play such a complex character greatly increased my respect for him as an actor.
The movie itself was quite brutal. In traditional movies, a character is introduced, one begins to empathize with them, and then they are placed in danger. Suspense is created, but the viewer knows that the character will escape. Not so in Schindler’s List. Many characters were introduced and brutally killed in an almost secondhand nature. This both enhanced the historical accuracy of the piece while creating true suspense whenever danger was presented to the viewer. One never knew who would live and who would die.
The implementation of the Final Solution was also well done. Rather than jumping right to the concentration camps (which is what many initially think of when the Holocaust is mentioned) the movie chose to start during the detention of the Jews. It then proceeded to the liquidation of the ghettos, then to work camps, then to concentration/death camps. This gave a more complete image of the Holocaust, as well as further details on how it was implemented.
What struck me most in reading this book was the circular nature of violence illustrated in chapter 3. Groups in conflict repeatedly were drawn to creating broad generalizations, criminalizing and hating a whole people, including innocents such as women and children, who played no part in violence. The general pattern appeared to be one in which a group would commit a killing. This would lead to a form of justification for the other group, which would in turn escalate the violence. Both sides would demonize the other, and whoever held the best weapons and technology would commit the most horrific atrocities and force the other group into submission. This pattern could be seen in the interactions between Europeans and the Americas, China, India, and Africa.
In each case, European intrusion lead to conflict, often resulting in European deaths. This would lead to Europeans labeling the natives as “savage”, and result in mass scale retributive killings in response. As soon as an atrocity is committed by both sides, each adversary feels completely justified. Each has an excuse by which to commit further atrocities, thus fueling more violence. This sense of justification was especially disturbing to me, as each group seemed blinded by hate. Across history, adversaries appeared unwilling to deescalate violence as each sought to achieve retribution/justice for the acts perpetrated against them. This reasoning contributed to the continuation of atrocities perpetrated against often innocent/nonviolent parties.
The main counter that I could see to this repetitive cycle of violence is the idea of self-interest introduced in the book Killing Civilians. If adversaries recognize that treating POWs and civilians with respect and care increases the chance of their own POWs and civilians being treated well, the risk of unnecessary bloodshed is diminished. While it is unfortunate that selfishness can be the main path to achieve de-escalation of violence, its usefulness cannot be understated.
I was most intrigued by the theories that eventually emerged to protect civilians. Many arose out of religious thought, such as the preciousness (or sanctity) of human life. St. Thomas Aquinas advocated a form of limited war that protected civilians, while Pope Gregory also argued for the protection of those who are not actively taking part in violence (women, children, the elderly, the infirm, priests, peasants, etc.). This also supported the idea of “civilian obligation” which is outlined by Slim. Essentially, civilians must remain innocent in order to maintain their protected status. However, this does not necessarily yield a form of black-and-white decision-making. In some cases, civilians may be actively supporting troops or be at risk for indoctrination, subterfuge, sabotage, or other acts that aid the enemy. Slim argues that recognizing this ambiguity is key.
Other philosophies or ideas that protect civilians are more logical. Some advocate a fair fight. A traditional civilian cannot truly fight back on the same playing field as an active soldier. As such, it is not just to kill them. Protecting the civilians of the enemy also helps ensure that one’s own civilians are protected should the enemy encroach upon your territory. Furthermore, many leaders recognize that decimating a population can eradicate the productivity of an area. This self-interest is certainly not the most ideal philosophy to subscribe to when protecting civilians, but it is intriguing that selfishness can be twisted in a way that benefits others. Furthermore, the usage of authority is also crucial. Strong leadership that cracks down on civilian mistreatment will discourage fighters from initiating further mistreatment. Finally, the rise of humanitarianism and universal rights is increasingly being used to build a body of international law to protect civilians. With such precedents as the Geneva Convention and the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, nations are increasingly moving towards a world where violence against civilians leads to outright condemnation. It has become much rarer for such violence to be justified and sanctioned on a global platform.
One of the foremost pieces of information that stuck with me after the viewing was the fact that the creator of the term “genocide” used the atrocities committed against the Armenians as an example when explaining the definition of the term. This makes it very difficult for me to find any credence in Turkish claims that the genocide designation is misapplied.
The nature of the genocide itself was also almost contradictory. It clearly had some form of structure and organization. Senior government leaders ordered the deportations, and their rhetoric indicated extreme hatred and prejudice against the Armenians. But no official “kill order” has been found. However, the documentary made clear that this did not mean that a genocide did not occur. The actions speak for themselves. The deportations were intended to be death marches. In many cases the routes were over the most difficult and treacherous terrain, and did not take the direct path towards the supposed destination. Oftentimes the Armenians were marched in circles. Further atrocities not related to the official deportations also occurred. Witnesses and descendants testify that many women were violated and forced into harems. These stories indicate that the genocide was not simply an “accident” that occurred from overzealous locals and bad weather during wartime. Many acts of premeditated violence were observed in a way that completely counter the idea that over a million individuals “happened” to die.
Religious rhetoric was used as justification to encourage the locals to initiate further atrocities against the group. One religious leader is quoted as saying that killing enough Armenians will lead to the “the gates of hell turning into the gates of heaven”. However, it’s important to note that this does not mean that religion itself precipitated the killings. The Turkish mindset of the time was it will either be “us or them” who secures Anatolia. And as such, religious rhetoric simply played into this justification.