Tag Archives: Nazis

Is Evil Banal? Part 4

22 Jun

Polen, Ghetto Warschau, Ghettopolizei

Jewish police in the Warsaw Ghetto (From the German Federal Achives)

In the movie Hannah Arendt, one of the points she made that was most bitterly criticized was that there were Jews who were complicit in aiding the Holocaust. She said that maybe if there was less organization and more chaos, more Jewish lives could have been saved. Arendt wrote that: “To a Jew this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story.” Many Jews were furious with her, and accused her of betraying her people. Did she?

When Jews were forced into ghettos, the Nazis gave internal control of the ghettos to a Jewish councils, or Judenrat. Then they would slowly force the Judenrat to organize lists of names and assets, turn over certain numbers of people for transport, and otherwise aid in helping to keep the residents of the ghetto in line. Often they were led by rabbis and other prominent members of the community. In some cases, members of the Judenrat would be sincerely trying to help minimize the damage to their people, but in other cases, they engaged in extortion, favoritism, and actively helping the Nazis. Jewish “police” in the ghettos could be crueler than the Nazis, according to some accounts. But in the end, most ghettos were liquidated and the Judenrats right along them.

Questions: Is it right to blame the Judenrats for complying with the Nazis? Yes and no.

Why no? First, it is not fair to blame people for decisions they make when they have a gun held to their heads. It would be normal for the members of the Judenrat to try to use their position to try to outplay or at least slow down the destruction of their communities. Perhaps they could at least buy time. They didn’t know that behind every door was Death.

Second, The Nazis lied to them, and people tend to believe what others tell them. In the normal business of life, people say what they mean. It is sociopaths and psychopaths who say only what benefits themselves.

Third, Some may have felt they were doing the right thing. Indeed, in the Polish Ghetto uprising, a number of the uprising’s leaders came from the Judenrat.

Fourth, they had limited information. Part of it was because they were somewhat cut off from the world. Furthermore, they were, like all of us, cut off from the future. They couldn’t know what would happen for sure.

Fifth, they were hungry, sick, weak, fighting for scarce resources, and worse yet, so were their families. They had to deal with conflicting loyalties.

Sixth, Jews had been treated as subhuman since the early 1930s. This vicious treatment could undermine their self-respect.

Why Yes? Every time they turned over names, they were condemning their fellow Jews to some kind of horrible future.

Any Jew who acted cruelly to, stole from, or used his or her position to gain an advantage for himself in any way is guilty of his individual act. But there will always be people like that in any group. Add stress, fear, hunger, danger, and the constant message that you are a subhuman, and the foundations of human dignity will be worn away for many.

The real question is: Is it anti-Semitic to say that some Jews cooperated with Nazis? No. Because it’s a fact. Is it anti-Semitic to say that some Jews actively betrayed other Jews? No. Because under the circumstances, in a sociopathic system, that kind of self-serving behavior is normal. What’s a miracle is when it DOESN’T happen, when most people are still decent.

What’s NOT normal is what the Nazis did. Germany had been a relatively open and tolerant society where Jews had lived with freedom and opportunity for many years. The Nazis turned the dial of history backwards and became primitive beasts with modern technology. They were not banal—they were monstrous. And that’s what’s so hard to understand. The villainy of one person does not obligate his victim to become an angel. So the actions of the Judenrats  do not indict the Jewish people. The shame ultimately belongs to Nazi Germany.

Writing Prompt: Do you disagree? Do you think it is ant-Semitic to accuse Jews of aiding the Nazis?

Is Evil Banal? Part 2

20 Jun


Hitler in 1933. (via Wikimedia commons)

In the movie Hannah Arendt, the 20th century philosopher wrestled with the problem of what to make of the unimpressive Adolf Eichmann, on trial for organizing the exportation of Jews during World War II to concentration camps. But as the movie explored her thoughts, I began thinking, too. I thought about how it is a normal human tendency to want to follow rules , to do meaningful work, and to belong.

Even though Nazism was built on a twisted fairy tale woven by a madman, Germany in the 1930s was a creative but unsettled place. The modernness of art and architecture (such as the Bauhaus movement) was intimidating and strange. Berlin was filled with decadence. Too many people were unemployed. Economic troubles ran deep. Many were bitter about losing the First World War. People needed jobs. They wanted dignity. They wanted to belong. And the Nazis were efficient about providing these normal human needs. Individually, people got jobs scheduling trains or working in munitions factories or making poison gas. But each part of the operation was so fragmented from the other that many people but blinders on and thought only of their small part of the larger picture. They did not ask where the trains were going. They did not ask why the poison gas was made. As Arendt says (in the film) about Eichmann, “He was simply unable to think.” But all of these pieces, the handiwork of all these hardworking laborers, was to create one of the most evil forces the world has ever known.

Another example of this tendency of human beings to just want to do their jobs and follow the law is the behavior of the people of Netherlands during World War II. Perhaps because Anne Frank’s secret Annex is so famous, or because The Netherlands seems like such a hip, open, friendly society, many people are under the impression that the Netherlands was a safe haven for Jews, with noble Dutch farmers hiding Jewish families in their basements and haylofts. Indeed, the Netherlands had been a haven for Jews for centuries. But during the war, 75 percent of the Jews in the Netherlands were taken away and murdered—the highest rate in any Western European country. According to an article, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies,  “The Holocaust in the Netherlands and the Rate of Jewish Survival” by Marnix Croes (http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/languages/dutch/pdf/article_croes.pdf) “Of the 140,000 people. . . . whom the Nazis considered “full” Jews in 1941, only 27 percent survived the occupation. Yet in Belgium, 60 percent of the approximately 66,000 Jews survived, and in France, 75 percent of the approximately 320,000 Jews escaped death at the hands of the Nazis.”

Not only were they betrayed in great numbers, the Jews were frequently rounded up by Dutch police. As Manfred Gerstenfeld wrote in Wartime and Postwar Dutch Attitudes Toward the Jews: Myth and Truth (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs) (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp412.htm) “Since The Netherlands was well-administered and well-documented, it was relatively easy to round up the Jews. Orders were given by the occupiers and executed by the Dutch authorities.”

He adds,” After the flight of the Queen and the government (to England) . . .the Germans could count on the assistance of the greater part of the Dutch administrative infrastructure (to catch Jews). . . .  Dutch policemen rounded up the families. . . Trains of the Dutch railways staffed by Dutch employees transported the Jews to . . . death camps. . . .  Eichmann later said ‘The transports run so smoothly that it is a pleasure to see.’”

Efficiency. Hard work. A job well-done. These are important things. But what Hannah Arendt alludes to is that it is not enough to follow the law. It is not enough to do your job well. It is important to put it into a larger context. You cannot rely on your society alone as a moral compass. You, as an individual, are responsible for your little piece of what your society does.

Writing prompts: Is there some wrong you’d like to right? Do you believe your work is a force for good in the world?

But that’s not all . . . See Part 3 for more

Is Evil Banal? Part 1

19 Jun

Strangely enough, nobody else seemed too eager to join me to see the new movie Hannah Arendt. Go to a movie about a philosopher’s musings on the nature of evil? What a laff riot! And action! Can’t wait for the special effects! But it was one of the best movies I have ever seen. It was dramatic, lively, and so full of ideas that I found myself writing down sentences in the darkness of the theater.

Jewish-German-American political theorist Hannah Arendt coined the term “the banality of evil” when she covered the Adolf Eichmann trial in Jerusalem for the New Yorker and later a book. I was very curious about this idea. As a card-carrying member of the Formerly Bullied Club, I have experienced my own small measure of evil, and from my point of view, “banality” doesn’t cover the sheer spiteful glee my tormentors used toward me. I made it out of the leafy suburb where I was bullied alive and well, and although I don’t think bullying =Holocaust, it’s important to remember that the cruelty of bullying can be fatal. A few days ago, a 12-year-old beauty, Gabrielle Molina, hanged herself on a ceiling fan at home in Queens, New York, after months of harassment.

Therefore I was very interested in—and somewhat dismissive of—the idea of how Hannah Arendt could find the idea of evil as banal. But it was much more complex than that. It was complex because much of her thought was formed by philosopher Martin Heidegger, her teacher and lover, who became an active member of the Nazi Party and never publically renounced his connection to it. But was the part of him that allowed him to become of the 20th century’s most influential philosophers the same part of him that allowed him become a Nazi? Can brilliant people also be stupid in other areas of their lives? I ask that question sincerely because I don’t yet understand enough of Heidegger to make a judgment on that point. Would Arendt—who had suffered as a prisoner in a Nazi camp herself—be compromised by that association, or would there be a part of his thinking that could form a useful substructure or framework for thinking for his most brilliant students, such as Hannah Arendt?

The film shows Arendt’s happy life in New York, rich in friends, love, and work. However, the substance of the movie is about Arendt’s coverage of the famous trial of Adolf Eichmann. Eichmann managed many of the logistical elements of how to send Jews to concentration camps, and had escaped to Argentina after World War II, until he was captured by Mossad operatives and brought to trial in Jerusalem in 1960. The film shows real footage of the trial interspersed with Arendt’s (as played by brilliant German actress Barbara Sukowa) reactions to it. In conversation and thought she wrestles with the idea of how a mediocre man such as Eichmann, who would readily admit to making bureaucratic decisions about (I believe) the number or schedule of trains that were being sent off to death camps, but who would take no responsibility for where they went—“That was another department.” And, as he had pointed out,he had taken an oath to follow Hitler and “an oath is an oath.” Furthermore, as in the Nuremberg Trials, he had not broken any laws—at least, the laws of his own nation at the time. In fact, he had followed the law with enthusiasm. What right, he asserted, did Israel have to try him?

For more, see part 2.

Writing Prompt: Do you think it’s fair to try people for war crimes if they were legal at the time? And how do you think a truly brilliant thinker could be caught up in Nazism?