Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Professor Wendy Lower (John K Roth Chair of History, Claremont McKenna College, USA) – “I Wanted to Prove Myself to the Men”: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields

Drawing on wartime documents, postwar trials, private letters, diaries and interviews, this lecture focuses on outstanding cases of women who became direct witnesses, accomplices, and perpetrators of the Holocaust. In the colonial outposts of the Nazi East, German women were an integral part of the society of perpetrators. They enjoyed privileges as members of the new ruling elite, and they possessed extreme power over the lives of Jews and other victims of the Holocaust. Professor Lower will explore what some of these women chose to do with this new-found power during the war and how they distorted the truth in accounts of their criminal behavior after the fall of the Third Reich.

(Source: Backdoor Broadcasting)

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

More from David Ward

Again with this.

Friday, January 10, 2014

Germany’s Not Just Faking Holocaust Contrition

News that drunken revelers had, on New Year’s Eve, used Berlin’s Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europeas a urinal came shortly after The New York Times published an op-ed by Yascha Mounk on the conflicts of being a German Jew.

Together, these items create an image of a Germany not at ease with itself, of a nation that still hasn’t come to terms with its past and found a place in its social fabric for Jews or the memory of Jews. Mounk suggests Germany has swung between “a bout of philo-Semitism” and “a new mood of ‘enough is enough’” when it comes to processing the Second World War, adding:

Clearly, there was something artificial about the ritualistic displays of historical contrition that had long been central to public life in Germany. But to assert that the time had come to move beyond the past, once and for all, was no less artificial. Normality cannot be decreed by fiat.

Mounk is right, on the one hand, to suggest that after the Shoah, things can never be normal again, neither for Germany as a whole or German Jews in particular. “Increasingly, I realized that the mere mention of my heritage erected an invisible wall between my classmates and me,” Mounk writes. “I realized that even my most well-intentioned compatriots saw me as a Jew first, and a German second.”

But to suggest that Germany’s public struggle to come to terms with the past is in some form artificial does a disservice to what Germany has achieved since the end of the Second World War in this regard.

Read More

Monday, June 24, 2013

A Bittersweet Holocaust Memorial in Berlin

While President Obama attended meetings in Berlin prior to his grand address at the Brandenburg Gate, First Lady Michelle Obama and their children, Malia and Sasha, visited the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe. Guided by the director of the site, Uwe Neumärker, the family spent half an hour among the 2,711 stone sarcophagi which range in height and rise and fall along the undulating ground across the five-acre site.

“They were impressed that we Germans have such a memorial in the centre of our city,” Neumärker later told the JTA. The First Lady in particular was said to have commented that the memorial “really has an aura.” But while the site has the White House seal of approval, since its opening in 2005 — in fact, even during the years preceding its construction — Peter Eisenman’s memorial has been controversial and divisive.

I have been to the memorial on several occasions at different times of day and night and at different times of year. With each visit, my impression of the site evolves and changes. Its scale – the memorial takes up an entire city block – can at times feel alienating and at others speaks to the scope and enormity of the catastrophe. Its logical, fashioned layout and the cool and unrelenting greyness of the stones can either feel distant and impersonal or like a statement about the cold, mechanised, and rationalised way in which the Holocaust was carried out, how it came to be faceless for those who were committing the crime.

In particular, I appreciate the way in which Memorial to the Murdered Jews has come to be the focal point for commemoration of the Jewish past in Berlin, a space for strangers to explore, wander, and wonder. When you walk down into the very centre of the memorial, sunken and enveloped by the looming columns, the sounds and sights of Berlin are eradicated. The Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe thus, at its best, creates the space for reflection and contemplation, or at the very least forces an emotional response through isolation and dislocation. At night, when the stelae hold back what little light there is, such thoughts and reactions are only heightened, deepened.

This is made possible by the memorial’s abstraction and ambiguity – nothing about it is guided or forced, each visitor granted the space to engage and have their own experience. But it is this indistinctness and the almost remote nature of the memorial that has beget criticism. Writing in The New Yorker, Richard Brody stated that there is a vagueness about the memorial which is he finds “disturbing”. Indeed, without the full title, “it would be impossible to know what the structure is meant to commemorate; there’s nothing about these concrete slabs that signifies any of the words of the title, except, perhaps, ‘memorial.’”

This disconnection Brody identifies is indeed inescapable. For a site which proclaims itself to be specifically dedicated to the memory of murdered Jews, there is nothing particularly Jewish about it at all. By comparison, across the street is the Memorial to the Homosexuals Persecuted under the National Socialist Regime, at which through a small window in a concrete cuboid, a movie depicting a kiss is visible. This scene is befitting as a symbol of defiance, “a lasting symbol against exclusion, intolerance and animosity towards gays and lesbians.” Whatever one thinks of the memorial and the film, it does at the very least fulfil its duty in this way.

Read More

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

In Prishtina, Jews Have Become History

PRISHTINA, Kosovo — There is no longer a Jewish community in Pristina, the capital of the newly independent country of Kosovo. Through flight, deportation, aliya, and intermarriage, Jewish Pristina has over the past seventy years gradually diminished into non-existence.

During the era when Kosovo formed part of Yugoslavia, the government in Belgrade did not do much to discourage this trend. In fact, in 1963 as part of an effort to rationalise the centre of Pristina, the authorities demolished swathes of the city’s historic centre, including many Ottoman-era houses, a covered market, and various holy places including Pristina’s only synagogue. The gradual exodus of Jews thus came with an erasure of their physical presence.

Since independence in 2008, however, the new government of the Republic of Kosovo has sought to memorialise Pristina’s Jewish history. Not only does the government view such efforts as essential to Kosovo becoming a nation integrated into Europe, but it understands the parallels between the histories of Jews and Kosovar Albanians, both as persecuted peoples, peoples who have been the victims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and peoples whose ambitions at statehood have been rejected by the rest of their respective neighbourhoods.

This process began in the summer of 2011, when students from Dartmouth and the American University in Pristina cooperated on an exploration of genocide, an exercise which culminated in the renovation of the city’s small Jewish cemetery. A new entrance was constructed, the site tidied, and the gravestones repaired, renovated, and replaced to their original location, the shards and slabs having previously been littered around and about.

But a few months later, the site was vandalised by neo-Nazis who spray-painted swastikas on the freshly-repaired gravestones, adding the words “Juden Raus” for good measure. Within forty-eight hours, municipal authorities made clean the site, and today while the grass has grown long around the burial places, the stones themselves – some of which are more than a hundred years old – remain in place and intact.

Read More

Monday, April 8, 2013

Europe’s Foundation of Ashes and Dust

Europe’s foundations are constructed upon ashes and dust. They are built where the walls of the ghettos were once erected around overcrowded quarters in Warsaw, Łódź, and Krakow. They are built upon the pits of Babi Yar and the mass graves made across Poland, Russia, and the Ukraine. They are built upon the ruins of the camps whose names are forever branded on our collective memory: Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Sobibor.

Europe exists because of the Holocaust – it is forever tied to that awful past. Through education, commemoration, and memorialisation, the peoples of Europe are constantly borne back to the horrific events which preceded our zero hour, in the knowledge that they were of our own making and that it is our responsibility as a continent to ensure such things never occur again. European institutions exist precisely in order to prevent another war to end all wars, another war of imperialism, slavery, and annihilation.

By extension, Europe also exists in order to protect those who were the victims of the last great war and Hitler’s campaign of racial and biological purification, including and perhaps above all the Jewish people. Ensuring the safety and allowing for the political, economic, and cultural flourishing of European Jewry is or should be one of postwar Europe’s founding principles. It is an obligation of national governments and the European community to uphold it at all costs.

The nations of Europe have indeed succeeded in preventing another war, another catastrophe, yet across the continent conditions for Jews are worsening. In 2012, recorded anti-Semitic hate crimes increased by 30 percent year-on-year, ranging from physical violence to the vandalism of synagogues and cemeteries. This was not, as it has been in the past, a phenomenon linked to events in the Middle East, a revulsion at times of conflagration and unrest in Gaza or Lebanon. Rather, there has been an overall deterioration in the economic and political state of Europe, with Jews suffering disproportionately as a consequence.

Read More

Monday, March 4, 2013
The figures are astonishing:

When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500.
The numbers astound: 30,000 slave labor camps; 1,150 Jewish ghettos; 980 concentration camps; 1,000 prisoner-of-war camps; 500 brothels filled with sex slaves; and thousands of other camps used for euthanizing the elderly and infirm, performing forced abortions, “Germanizing” prisoners or transporting victims to killing centers.
In Berlin alone, researchers have documented some 3,000 camps and so-called Jew houses, while Hamburg held 1,300 sites.

These new statistics — which definitely demonstrate the scale and reach of the Holocaust across eastern Europe — do, to some extent, demonstrate further that the road from Mein Kampf to Auschwitz is not a clear and straight one. In other words, the Holocaust was not (or not only) imposed from the top-down, a product of one man’s fanatical Jew-hatred, psychotic leadership, and awful vision for the extermination of European Jewry, but in its shape and form it emerged from the bottom-up, and relied upon collaboration in much of Europe in order for the various programmes of annihilation and destruction to succeed.
In brief, this local collaboration or initiative in nations occupied by Nazi forces did not always have to be active, as it were, though it sometimes was — see Vichy France, the Ustaša, or local mayors and administrators in the Ukraine and elsewhere. What these statistics highlight in particular, however, is that given the immense concentration of ghettos, labour camps, killing fields, and death camps in the Generalgouvernement in eastern Poland, as well as Belarus and Lithuania, the Holocaust had to have demanded in eastern Europe a a good degree of either implicit or explicit acceptance of occupation in totality, including the mass slaughter of local Jewry, simply because it would have almost impossible for eastern Europeans not to have known what exactly the occupation forces were undertaking. The new Nazi administrations were aided in this regard, for they were able to feed off rampant Jew-hatred in eastern Europe, the product of hundreds of years of anti-Semitic Christian doctrine.

The figures are astonishing:

When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500.

The numbers astound: 30,000 slave labor camps; 1,150 Jewish ghettos; 980 concentration camps; 1,000 prisoner-of-war camps; 500 brothels filled with sex slaves; and thousands of other camps used for euthanizing the elderly and infirm, performing forced abortions, “Germanizing” prisoners or transporting victims to killing centers.

In Berlin alone, researchers have documented some 3,000 camps and so-called Jew houses, while Hamburg held 1,300 sites.

These new statistics — which definitely demonstrate the scale and reach of the Holocaust across eastern Europe — do, to some extent, demonstrate further that the road from Mein Kampf to Auschwitz is not a clear and straight one. In other words, the Holocaust was not (or not only) imposed from the top-down, a product of one man’s fanatical Jew-hatred, psychotic leadership, and awful vision for the extermination of European Jewry, but in its shape and form it emerged from the bottom-up, and relied upon collaboration in much of Europe in order for the various programmes of annihilation and destruction to succeed.

In brief, this local collaboration or initiative in nations occupied by Nazi forces did not always have to be active, as it were, though it sometimes was — see Vichy France, the Ustaša, or local mayors and administrators in the Ukraine and elsewhere. What these statistics highlight in particular, however, is that given the immense concentration of ghettos, labour camps, killing fields, and death camps in the Generalgouvernement in eastern Poland, as well as Belarus and Lithuania, the Holocaust had to have demanded in eastern Europe a a good degree of either implicit or explicit acceptance of occupation in totality, including the mass slaughter of local Jewry, simply because it would have almost impossible for eastern Europeans not to have known what exactly the occupation forces were undertaking. The new Nazi administrations were aided in this regard, for they were able to feed off rampant Jew-hatred in eastern Europe, the product of hundreds of years of anti-Semitic Christian doctrine.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Memory and the Vel d’Hiv

Monday marked the seventieth anniversary of the rafle du Vel d’Hiv, the mass arrest and deportation of Jewry from France, conducted by Nazi and some 9,000 Vichy police officers, on July 16 and 17, 1942. 12,884 Jews were penned into the Vélodrome d’Hiver, the majority including 4,000 children for five days in the heat of summer with little sustenance, before movement onto Drancy and then Auschwitz. An official act of commemoration in the presence of President François Hollande will take place on Sunday, July 22.

A poll conducted by CSA for the French Union of Jewish Students has revealed that 67% of those aged between 15 and 17, 60% between 18 and 24, and 57% between 25 and 34 did not know of the round up of Jews into and out of the Vél d’Hiv. Across the entire population, 42% possessed no knowledge of the one of the most important events in the history of twentieth century France, indicitive of the nation’s struggle and oftentimes failure to face up to the hand it played in the Holocaust.

It was not until 1995 that the French government officially acknowledged that it had played any part in this most heinous of acts. “These dark hours soil our history forever and are an insult to our past and our traditions. The French and the French state seconded the occupying powers in their criminal folly”, Jacques Chirac proclaimed on Vél d’Hiv day in 1995. “France committed the irreparable”.

Read More

Monday, July 9, 2012

History and the Holocaust: Holding the Vatican to Account

Historical narratives in the Middle East have often been the most malleable of things, twisted and adapted to suit the needs of political or monied interests. As Simon Sebag Montefiore notes in his ambitious and sweeping tome, Jerusalem: The Biography, during the 1990s, the PLO banned Palestinian historians from admitting that there had been a Jewish Temple built upon the Haram al-Sharif. This instruction came from the top, and at Camp David in 2000 when peace was within pen’s reach, Yasser Arafat is said to have “shocked” American and Israeli negotiators by suggesting that the Temple was in fact located on the Samaritan Mount Gerizim. Any Jewish claim to the Mount or indeed the city itself was therefore a kind of modern fabrication.

The history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has too suffered from the existence of propagandistic and nationalistic historical narratives from which deviation was (and in some cases still is) deemed unacceptable. It was not until the 1980s in Israel that, thanks in the rise of the New Historians including Benny Morris and Avi Shlaim, the hypothesis that the Land’s Arab population in 1948 fled their homes of their own will, or that they were instructed to do so by their leadership, was publically challenged and discredited by worthy scholars. On the other side of the fence in Palestinian schools, whilst textbooks have had passages which incite violence expunged, the State Department found that they often showed “imbalance, bias, and inaccuracy”, with some failing to depict “the current political reality, showing neither Israel nor the settlements”. It very much remains the case that one man’s atzmaut is another man’s nakba.

Within Israel and the wider West at least, those whose pursuit is the study of the Holocaust have by contrast been committed to the search for a truthful historical narrative. This is not to say the Holocaust is not open to historical debate – see the division which exists between the intentionalists and functionalists over the very origins and nature of the Shoah, as an example. It is certainly the case, however, that the volumes of research published on the Holocaust have led to the creation of a clear narrative arc, replicated in museums and memorials around the world, including in Jerusalem’s most astonishing and draining exhibit at Yad Vashem.

The most recent alteration to the main display, however, places such claims into doubt. Writing in Ha’aretz, Nir Hasson reports that a wall panel explaining the role, or lack thereof, of the Vatican and the leadership of the Catholic Church in Holocaust has been edited in order to portray Pope Pius XII in a more flattering light. Whilst the previous inscription noted that Pius XII, whose accession occurred in 1939, “shelved a letter against racism and anti-Semitism that his predecessor had prepared” and “abstained from signing the Allied declaration condemning the extermination of the Jews”, the new panel adds what might be deemed colour, adding that some argue his silence “left the initiative to rescue Jews to individual clerics and laymen” who carried out “a considerable number of secret rescue activities”.

Read More

Friday, September 23, 2011