In order to answer the question it
is vital to weigh up the reasons behind why the German perpetrators killed
Jews, and decide whether factors such as Anti-Semitism were strong enough to
mean that ordinary Germans desired to kill Jews, or whether it was the
circumstances in which they lived which led them to such atrocities. This essay
will argue that whilst it was a conjunction of desire to kill and duty to
kill, one cannot be blamed without the other. It will look at the important debate of Intentionalism vs. Functionalism,
and then develop to discuss factors such as group membership and authority
figures, the psychological construction of the ‘other’ and the
perpetrator’s methods of dealing with their cruelty and guilt, in order to
assess whether or not ordinary Germans killed the Jews because they wanted to.
This leads me to discuss the
argument which continues between historians Browning and Goldhagen as to
whether the Germans executed mass numbers of Jews due to Intentionalism or Functionalism.
Intentionalists believe that the Nazi Regime’s
extermination of the European Jewry was a methodically planned process which
came from Hitler’s anti-Semitism and personal initiative. On the other hand,
Functionalists believe the Holocaust manifested along more utilitarian lines,
with the methods and inclinations of the genocidal killers being dictated more
by the situation that they were in within Eastern Europe which left the
perpetrators with rapidly reduced options on how to deal with the increasing
number of Jews under their control[additional reference].
Goldhagen takes the approach that it is Germany’s history of cultural Anti-Semitism and desire for elimination of Jews which caused the German perpetration of the Holocaust, stating that ‘Germans’ antisemitic beliefs about Jews were the central causal agent of the Holocaust . . . The conclusion of this book is that antisemitism moved many thousands of “ordinary” Germans – and would have moved millions more, had they been appropriately positioned – to slaughter Jews’[1] - vehemently asserting that anti-Semitism was solely to blame for the motives behind the mass murders of the European Jewry. In response to Goldhagen, Browning argues that a multi-causal explanation can instead be given to explain the perpetrator’s motives. He states that the war environment was vital in explaining why ordinary Germans killed the Jews, and states that they were not sent to ‘murder Jews because it was composed of men specially selected or deemed particularly suited for the task. On the contrary, the battalion was the “dregs” of the manpower pool available at that stage of the war. It was employed to kill Jews because it was the only kind of unit available for such behind-the-lines duty [2]. This portrays the perpetrators not as evil beyond human capability, but as ordinary men who committed extraordinary crimes, and who he argues committed these atrocities as they wished to do ‘whatever they were asked to do, without ever risking the onus of confronting authority or appearing weak’ but ‘did not volunteer for or celebrate the killing.’ He then goes on to add that the men were ‘increasingly numb and brutalized, they felt more pity for themselves because of the “unpleasant” work they had been assigned than they did for their dehumanized victims. For the most part, they did not think what they were doing was wrong or immoral, because the killing was sanctioned by legitimate authority. Indeed, for the most part they did not try to think, period’, stating that a mental detachment of Germans and victims had occurred.
Despite the ongoing argument between Goldhagen and Browning, Ian Kershaw importantly concluded that ‘‘intention’ and ‘structure’ are both essential elements of an explanation of the Third Reich, and need synthesis rather than to be set in opposition to each other’[3] upholding the view which this essay takes.
Goldhagen takes the approach that it is Germany’s history of cultural Anti-Semitism and desire for elimination of Jews which caused the German perpetration of the Holocaust, stating that ‘Germans’ antisemitic beliefs about Jews were the central causal agent of the Holocaust . . . The conclusion of this book is that antisemitism moved many thousands of “ordinary” Germans – and would have moved millions more, had they been appropriately positioned – to slaughter Jews’[1] - vehemently asserting that anti-Semitism was solely to blame for the motives behind the mass murders of the European Jewry. In response to Goldhagen, Browning argues that a multi-causal explanation can instead be given to explain the perpetrator’s motives. He states that the war environment was vital in explaining why ordinary Germans killed the Jews, and states that they were not sent to ‘murder Jews because it was composed of men specially selected or deemed particularly suited for the task. On the contrary, the battalion was the “dregs” of the manpower pool available at that stage of the war. It was employed to kill Jews because it was the only kind of unit available for such behind-the-lines duty [2]. This portrays the perpetrators not as evil beyond human capability, but as ordinary men who committed extraordinary crimes, and who he argues committed these atrocities as they wished to do ‘whatever they were asked to do, without ever risking the onus of confronting authority or appearing weak’ but ‘did not volunteer for or celebrate the killing.’ He then goes on to add that the men were ‘increasingly numb and brutalized, they felt more pity for themselves because of the “unpleasant” work they had been assigned than they did for their dehumanized victims. For the most part, they did not think what they were doing was wrong or immoral, because the killing was sanctioned by legitimate authority. Indeed, for the most part they did not try to think, period’, stating that a mental detachment of Germans and victims had occurred.
Despite the ongoing argument between Goldhagen and Browning, Ian Kershaw importantly concluded that ‘‘intention’ and ‘structure’ are both essential elements of an explanation of the Third Reich, and need synthesis rather than to be set in opposition to each other’[3] upholding the view which this essay takes.
This
essay will now attempt to highlight the reasons why Germans killed the Jews,
based on the belief that the explanation is due to a conjunction of the
cultural history of Germany which made the separation of “us” and “them”
possible and easy, linked with the factors of inter-war Germany which simply
changed the way the country operated. The factors of Group membership and authority
figures, the psychological construction of the ‘other’ and the
perpetrator’s methods of dealing with their cruelty were all vital in explaining
the motives which turned ordinary Germans into murderers.
Firstly, this essay will address how the group membership and authority held by the Nazis was central to the ordinary German’s personal identity. It is a human desire for social dominance in a structure ‘where people are differentiated interns of power, status and patronage’ which allows for a cultural model of obedience to and respect of authority[4]. Some may argue that the obedience demonstrated by the ordinary Germans here was due to an inherent desire to kill the Jews. Whilst there may be an element of truth in this when analysing the mindsets of the SS, the majority of the ordinary Germans were more convinced by their surroundings. This is behaviour is demonstrated by the Stanford prison experiment, in which a group of people from all different backgrounds took part in a study simulating a prison environment. It produced shocking results, as time went on the guards went from ordinary citizens to become tyrannical rulers over the prisoners and the experiment had to be terminated. These results demonstrate that it is not a certain type of person that can become evil, but that it is inherent within every human being given the right circumstances.
Whilst the soldiers were obedient to their officers, the government on the whole held a legitimising capacity which took away personal responsibility and left the perpetrators with the information that orders must be followed. It was by the ideologies implemented by the Nazi government that social dominance was adhered to, as they seemed to be united by a legitimate cause which they thought would lead to a better future for Germany. The fact that the obedience was shown to authority figures is important within a military context, as it was vital that orders must be followed from those above you. In an inter-war period this becomes normality, as the only thing the men knew was that authority figures knew best and their requests must be adhered to. Furthermore, following orders from figures of authority removed the personal responsibility of the men which would have lead to feelings of guilt, and they instead defended themselves, saying that they were only following orders. The Germans did not kill the Jews just because they wanted to, but because of a complex need to respond to authority figures. Another important area for discussion is the division of labour and feeling of routine which developed. Firstly the division in labour was demonstrated by the deportations to Treblinka which ‘had an added advantage psychologically. Not only was the killing done by others, but it was done out of the site of the men who cleared the ghettos and forced the Jews onto death trains’[5] meaning that the men involved with the perpetration of the holocaust never had to see a job through from start to finish, and so never had time to form any bonds or sympathetic emotions towards the prisoners. This division of labour also removed the element of reality for the perpetrators, as although they knew the final solution was in operation, they did not witness the whole process in sequence. This is shown by ‘their sense of not really participating in or being responsible for their subsequent actions in ghetto clearing and cordon duty’ which Browning argues is ‘stark testimony to the desensitizing effects of division of labour’[6].In addition to the division of labour, Nazi policy meant the shooters’ role was to kill time and time again. It was said that once the desire to kill was unlocked it became routine for the men, and they were desensitised to the horrors of their work.
This essay will now develop to discuss the process of a psychological construction of the ‘other’. This is one of the most important reasons in explaining why the Germans killed the Jews, as it created a moral disengagement and placed blame on the victims. These isolated subgroups of Jews and other prisoners were stigmatised as inhuman, and ‘memories of their past misdeeds, real or imaginary, are activated by the dominant group’[7], in this case the Nazis. This “us” and “them” mentality allows a detachment which aids the self-defence of the perpetrators as it acts as a moral justification, where mass murder is made acceptable personally and socially as it is portrayed as socially worthy or morally purposeful. This makes perpetrators believe the rationalisation to such an extent that it is not only morally justifiable to do so but is an outright moral imperative[8]. Although the shooters had a choice whether or not to accept their position, at a time of warfare they would have thought less about whether or not they wanted to do it, and more about the consequences of not doing it – as a bitter rejection from the ranks and humiliation would have followed due to the complex pressures created by the military environment. The Nazi agenda clearly stated that they wanted a ‘Judenfrei’ Germany, and this became a duty that every German was expected to fulfil. Browning argues that war was ‘a struggle between “our people” and “the enemy”’ which ‘created a polarized world in which “the enemy” is easily objectified and removed from the community of human obligation’[9]. Whilst the Jews were dehumanised as the ultimate enemy, I would argue that this was more to do with the “us” and “them” war mentality than inherent Anti-Semitism. Whilst there was a historical culture of Anti-Semitism which made the persecution of the Jews more accepted, we must note that Germans did not murder Jews alone, but killed millions of other people. For example, Soviet Prisoners Of War, gypsies, disabled people and Germans who rejected Nazi dictatorship. It has been argued that ‘The greatest catastrophes occur when the distinctions between war and crime fade; when there is dissolution of the boundary between military and criminal conduct…when political, social or religious groups embrace mass killing and genocide as warfare’[10], and when men are at war for as long as they were in WWII this mentality and attitude towards the enemy would have become so ingrained in popular culture that the boundaries between humanity and barbarity could have easily been blurred – because once a group of people is dehumanised the brutality of the killing easily escalates. In short, ordinary Germans did not simply kill because they had an inherent hatred for Jews and desired their eradication, they killed due to the “us” and “them” and ‘take no prisoners’ mentality that had been created in the inter-war period which was not solely Anti-Semite, but was against any enemies of the Nazi ideologies altogether.
Firstly, this essay will address how the group membership and authority held by the Nazis was central to the ordinary German’s personal identity. It is a human desire for social dominance in a structure ‘where people are differentiated interns of power, status and patronage’ which allows for a cultural model of obedience to and respect of authority[4]. Some may argue that the obedience demonstrated by the ordinary Germans here was due to an inherent desire to kill the Jews. Whilst there may be an element of truth in this when analysing the mindsets of the SS, the majority of the ordinary Germans were more convinced by their surroundings. This is behaviour is demonstrated by the Stanford prison experiment, in which a group of people from all different backgrounds took part in a study simulating a prison environment. It produced shocking results, as time went on the guards went from ordinary citizens to become tyrannical rulers over the prisoners and the experiment had to be terminated. These results demonstrate that it is not a certain type of person that can become evil, but that it is inherent within every human being given the right circumstances.
Whilst the soldiers were obedient to their officers, the government on the whole held a legitimising capacity which took away personal responsibility and left the perpetrators with the information that orders must be followed. It was by the ideologies implemented by the Nazi government that social dominance was adhered to, as they seemed to be united by a legitimate cause which they thought would lead to a better future for Germany. The fact that the obedience was shown to authority figures is important within a military context, as it was vital that orders must be followed from those above you. In an inter-war period this becomes normality, as the only thing the men knew was that authority figures knew best and their requests must be adhered to. Furthermore, following orders from figures of authority removed the personal responsibility of the men which would have lead to feelings of guilt, and they instead defended themselves, saying that they were only following orders. The Germans did not kill the Jews just because they wanted to, but because of a complex need to respond to authority figures. Another important area for discussion is the division of labour and feeling of routine which developed. Firstly the division in labour was demonstrated by the deportations to Treblinka which ‘had an added advantage psychologically. Not only was the killing done by others, but it was done out of the site of the men who cleared the ghettos and forced the Jews onto death trains’[5] meaning that the men involved with the perpetration of the holocaust never had to see a job through from start to finish, and so never had time to form any bonds or sympathetic emotions towards the prisoners. This division of labour also removed the element of reality for the perpetrators, as although they knew the final solution was in operation, they did not witness the whole process in sequence. This is shown by ‘their sense of not really participating in or being responsible for their subsequent actions in ghetto clearing and cordon duty’ which Browning argues is ‘stark testimony to the desensitizing effects of division of labour’[6].In addition to the division of labour, Nazi policy meant the shooters’ role was to kill time and time again. It was said that once the desire to kill was unlocked it became routine for the men, and they were desensitised to the horrors of their work.
This essay will now develop to discuss the process of a psychological construction of the ‘other’. This is one of the most important reasons in explaining why the Germans killed the Jews, as it created a moral disengagement and placed blame on the victims. These isolated subgroups of Jews and other prisoners were stigmatised as inhuman, and ‘memories of their past misdeeds, real or imaginary, are activated by the dominant group’[7], in this case the Nazis. This “us” and “them” mentality allows a detachment which aids the self-defence of the perpetrators as it acts as a moral justification, where mass murder is made acceptable personally and socially as it is portrayed as socially worthy or morally purposeful. This makes perpetrators believe the rationalisation to such an extent that it is not only morally justifiable to do so but is an outright moral imperative[8]. Although the shooters had a choice whether or not to accept their position, at a time of warfare they would have thought less about whether or not they wanted to do it, and more about the consequences of not doing it – as a bitter rejection from the ranks and humiliation would have followed due to the complex pressures created by the military environment. The Nazi agenda clearly stated that they wanted a ‘Judenfrei’ Germany, and this became a duty that every German was expected to fulfil. Browning argues that war was ‘a struggle between “our people” and “the enemy”’ which ‘created a polarized world in which “the enemy” is easily objectified and removed from the community of human obligation’[9]. Whilst the Jews were dehumanised as the ultimate enemy, I would argue that this was more to do with the “us” and “them” war mentality than inherent Anti-Semitism. Whilst there was a historical culture of Anti-Semitism which made the persecution of the Jews more accepted, we must note that Germans did not murder Jews alone, but killed millions of other people. For example, Soviet Prisoners Of War, gypsies, disabled people and Germans who rejected Nazi dictatorship. It has been argued that ‘The greatest catastrophes occur when the distinctions between war and crime fade; when there is dissolution of the boundary between military and criminal conduct…when political, social or religious groups embrace mass killing and genocide as warfare’[10], and when men are at war for as long as they were in WWII this mentality and attitude towards the enemy would have become so ingrained in popular culture that the boundaries between humanity and barbarity could have easily been blurred – because once a group of people is dehumanised the brutality of the killing easily escalates. In short, ordinary Germans did not simply kill because they had an inherent hatred for Jews and desired their eradication, they killed due to the “us” and “them” and ‘take no prisoners’ mentality that had been created in the inter-war period which was not solely Anti-Semite, but was against any enemies of the Nazi ideologies altogether.
The final factor in the explanation of why ordinary Germans killed Jews is how they managed to deal with their cruelty and guilt. The essay will now briefly look at the ‘mechanisms used in creating an immediate social context in which perpetrators initiate, sustain and cope with their cruelty’[11], For instance, one method of controlling feelings of guilt of their cruelty was professional socialisation, meaning that the men interacted with those who they could relate to; who were performing the same tasks as them. This created an atmosphere in which the men knew they would be safe from judgement or discussion on the duties they as they were all in the same position. This follows on to group identification, which is similar to the above- as when the perpetrators could identify with each other it allowed them so share and disperse their guilt, and in their minds they were a collective unit working for the greater good rather than individuals acting in a barbaric and cruel way. It is things like this which acted as binding factors of the group, as each of them men knew what the other was going through, and this inability to socialise and relate to those outside of perpetrators of the same circle could have blurred their reality into one where the behaviours they were expressing were the norm within that social community. Without outside challenges to their behaviour which would occur under normal circumstances, the men’s guilt could be avoided and even ignored altogether. From the way ordinary Germans dealt with their guilt and cruelty, ‘We must borrow the perspective of the perpetrators and view their actions, not as the work of ‘madmen’, but as actions with a clear and justified purpose – as defined by a social construction of cruelty’[12].
From all of the complex factors
discussed, I would conclude that whilst there were undertones of Anti-Semitism,
it was not simply the inherent desire to kill Jews which turned ordinary Germans
into murderers, but was a much more complex psychological process which was a
conjunction of the psychological construction of ‘the other’, the role of group membership and authority figures and the
perpetrator’s methods of dealing with their cruelty and guilt. The “us” and
“them” mentality dehumanised the victims, and detached and disengaged Germans
from the reality of their actions in an extreme inter-war period. The group membership and authority figures
denote the extremely complex psychological processes behind the tasks the men
were performing and how these set ups were strong enough to be able to overcome
the moral fabric of ordinary Germans. And
finally, the methods of how the Germans dealt with their guilt show that they
did not hold a desire to murder the Jews, but felt an extremely complex form of
peer pressure to do so from other colleagues within the ranks and the fact that
they needed to create a self-defence against their actions shows that they were
not solely driven to kill the European Jewry ‘because they wanted to’ but
because of a host of complex psychological and social factors of the period.
Bibliography
R. Bessel, Functionalists vs. Intentionalists: The Debate Twenty Years on or Whatever Happened to Functionalism and Intentionalism?, German Studies Review, Vol.26, No.1 (Feb 2003)
C. R. Browning, Ordinary Men Reserve Polica Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (London 1992)
D. J. Goldhagen, Hitler’s willing executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York 2008)
O. Jensen, Ordinary Men as Mass Murderers (Hampshire 2008)
R. Bessel, Functionalists vs. Intentionalists: The Debate Twenty Years on or Whatever Happened to Functionalism and Intentionalism?, German Studies Review, Vol.26, No.1 (Feb 2003)
C. R. Browning, Ordinary Men Reserve Polica Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (London 1992)
D. J. Goldhagen, Hitler’s willing executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (New York 2008)
O. Jensen, Ordinary Men as Mass Murderers (Hampshire 2008)
[1] Daniel
Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler's willing
executioners: ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, (New York 1996), p.9
[2]
Christopher. R. Browning, Ordinary Men
Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland (London 1992)
p. 165
[3]
Richard Bessel, Functionalists vs.
Intentionalists: The Debate Twenty Years on or Whatever Happened to
Functionalism and Intentionalism?, German Studies Review, Vol. 26, No. 1
(Feb., 2003), pp. 15-20
[4]
Olaf Jensen, Ordinary Men as Mass
Murderers, (Hampshire 2008) p.153
[5] R.Browning,
Ordinary Men p.163
[6] ibid
p.163
[7] O.
Jensen, Ordinary Men as Mass Murderers,
p.150
[8]
ibid p.156
[9] C.
R. Browning, Ordinary Men, p.162
[10]
O. Jensen, Ordinary People as Mass Murderers,
p.146
[11]
O. Jensen, Ordinary Men as Mass Murderers,
p.151
[12] Ibid
p.157
No comments:
Post a Comment