The Genocide Forum
Table of Contents
- The Great Holocaust Debate
- Women as Victimizers: A Second Look
- The Decline and Fall of Holocaust Studies in Cyberspace
- Injustice and Fallacious Logic: The Low Politics of the Jeffrey Case
The Great Holocaust Debate:
German Antisemitism Exceptional, Traditional or Secondary?
Locating and classifying antisemitism in the context of the Final Solution has become a baffling task. Most recently, three hefty books have made three separate and widely differing, if not contradictory, cases for raising and answering key questions fundamental to an overall understanding of what transpired in the heart of Europe at mid-century, when Nazi Germany launched its racist war of extermination against European Jews, a widely scattered minority of twelve million people. One book questions the centrality or primacy of antisemitism as a sufficient explanation for the racist war set off by the seizure of power by National Socialism. The other two affirm antisemitism as a necessary cause for the Hitlerian decision to engage in the genocide of the Jews, but they part ways on the character of that Judeophobic ideology. One author argues that the antisemitism marshaled by the Nazi leadership was but a variant perhaps a higher-density-variation of mainstream European antisemitism; the other strenuously builds an argument for the existence of a special and peculiarly German brand of genocidal antisemitism that distinctly sets it apart from all other brands of European antisemitism.
Henry Friedlander's The Origins of Nazi Genocide: from Euthanasia to the Final Solution (University, of North Carolina Press, 1995) makes strenuous efforts to demote antisemitism as a primary cause and promotes National Socialist racism in its stead as the essential explanation for the genocide of the Jews. The argument, however, is flawed logically as well as contextually. Euthanasia per se is not, nor pretends to be genocide; literally, it is a kind of "pruning," the removal of excess or unwanted categories of individuals in order to preserve a race of which they the mentally retarded, the emotionally disturbed, the dependent aged, the physically crippled, and the otherwise handicapped are, nevertheless, biologically an integral though imperfect part. Because of their intellectual, emotional, physical and other deficiencies, they have forfeited their right to life, hence their classification as lebensunwertes Leben, those deemed to have lost their innate right to life. Yet, their killing was not on account of their race, although some victims of euthanasia were disposed of more readily due to their racial (semitic or gypsy) identity.
The leap from euthanasia (the killing of individuals) to genocide (collective killing) required a radical shift, from the goal of preserving the purity of the Aryan race from the enemy within to destroying the entire Jewish race, the enemy outside. Superficially, some of the same bureaucratic mind-set might seem to link one to the other. On closer examination, though, they are psychologically fundamentally distinct. The methods may resemble each other, but the underlying philosophies, respectively promoting euthanasia and encouraging the annihilation of the twelve million Jews of Europe, are distinct and only indirectly related. Are we to believe the Ghettos and Killing Centers would not have been had there been no euthanasia Hadamar killing hospital? That the organization and training of the Einsatzgruppen was contingent on the euthanasia program? There is little ground for such a syllogism. Historical evidence makes it a lie.
The facts the hard evidence point to a parallel development of euthanasia practices and increasingly racist, genocidal anti-Jewish policies. Kristallnacht was much more integral to the acceleration of lethal violence against Jews than the murders of hundreds of patients by the euthanasia establishment. Indeed, in tracing the origins and significance of the mercy-killing program, Friedlander adds little to what has already been said by Ernst Klee in his classic monograph Euthanasie im NS-Staat (1983); not even Friedlander's archival findings differ much. Of course there was some dove-tailing of the "mercy-killing" program and genocide: the euthanasia staff found itself recruited into the Endlösung program; but they were not its inventors, nor were those inventors led towards their visions of genocide by knowledge of the mercy-killing operations. These were two parallel developments, both of course inspired by racial goals: one to assure the future, the biological health, of the Master Race; the other was to guarantee the extermination of the Jewish people, ideologically branded an anti-race. The former was influenced by National Socialism's theory of Aryan racial superiority, the latter by its apocalyptic brand of racist antisemitism and its stress on the absolute racial inferiority of the Jews. These were two sides of the same ideological coin, no doubt, but not logical out growths, one of the other.
A strong case could be made that euthanasia would certainly have emerged in Nazi Germany had there been no Jews and/or antisemitism. Similarly, the escalating, violent campaign against Jews would have climaxed with genocide even if there had been no euthanasia program of non-Jews. In other words, antisemitism remains a central force in the Final Solution.
But what kind of antisemitism was it? European or specifically and uniquely German? According to John Weiss' Ideology of Death: Why the Holocaust Happened in Germany (Chicago, 1996) it was an intensified variant of what afflicted most peoples of Europe. Primarily antisemitism in Germany was a confluence of circumstances that led to the Holocaust originating in that country; however, it could, given certain events, just as well have started in France. Though Weiss does not say so explicitly, the thrust of his text does implicitly lay the groundwork for such an analysis. The case for the Holocaust happening in Germany is circumstantial but not determined. Weiss, therefore, leaves ample room for a complex Germany in which large segments of the population were either not primarily antisemitic or had other priorities that led them to back the Hitlerian regime with "soft" support.
In sharp contrast, Daniel Goldhagen, in his much publicized and overrated work, Hitler's Willing Executioners (New York, Knopf, 1996) brashly concludes that by 1933, virtually all Germans were in the grips of what he dubs a culture permeated by "exterminational antisemitism." By this term, he claims that even before the Nazi seizure of power, the German population had internalized a reflexive "eliminationalist" genocidal hatred for Jews: hence the mass complicity with the regime. He leaves virtually no room for millions of Germans who clearly demonstrated no such signs of an overt desire to have any Jews killed.
Through his biased anti-German lenses there is no way to account for the millions who harbored other social, non-racist agendas, much to the chagrin of the SA, whose leaders had to admit that the German population had to be taught a radically new psychology of collective racial identity. Practically all Germans in 1933 defined themselves according to traditional, regional, religious and national categories. Almost none understood what it meant to be an Aryan. The Nazis did, but they would have to instruct an entire people to be racially conscious of themselves and others, beginning with Jews. That Jews, as a race, were incompatible with Germans qua Aryans and had, therefore, to be expunged from civil society was not a dominant thought and popular conclusion in 1933. It is doubtful it ever was among the population as a whole by 1939 or even in 1945 when Germany lay in ruins. There is ample evidence of a profound ambiguity of self-identity in the ranks of the German population. Goldhagen's chiaroscuro version of reality, much of it motivated by a meta-scholarly agenda, still persists, obstructing a more flexible and rational interpretation of German grassroots antisemitism during the Holocaust.
All three books are now on the shelves ready to influence future generations of scholars and students who will have to continue the debate on the centrality and character of antisemitism at the time of the Third Reich. Each of the books enriches the discussion considerably, despite their conflicting, and occasional mutually exclusive conclusions. This reader's vote goes for John Weiss' more balanced monograph.
Henry R. Huttenbach (CCNY)
Women as Victimizers: A Second Look
In "The Holocaust and Gender" article (TGF 3/4) women were specifically included in the ranks of the victimizers in various capacities. To date, this topic has been given little scholarly attention. Nevertheless, a slim but noteworthy literature does exist that ought to be of interest to our readers, especially in the realm of women qua women as transmitters of antisemitism before and during the Holocaust. Almost all of this research has been published in German in Germany.
A pioneering article by Marlis Dürkop, "Erscheinungsformen des Antisemitismus im Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine," appeared in Feministische Studien, 1/1984, pp. 140-149. It unambiguously establishes the central part antisemitism played in Wilhelmine Germany's national women's organizations up through World War I. This line of research was extended into the early years of the Third Reich by Marion Kaplan in her cogent article "Schwesterlichkeit auf dem Prüfstand. Feminismus und Antisemitismus in Deutschland 1904-1938," published in the same issue of Feministische Studien, pp. 128-139.
Since then, despite the dearth of publications, there have been periodic meetings, formal and informal, held by concerned women scholars in Germany. Primary focus has been on the transition period between the end of World War I in 1918 and the seizure of power by Hitler in 1933. Studies are being pursued of the relationship between the older and younger generations of women during the Weimar Republic, namely, the transition from "traditional" (religious, social) antisemitism to outright Nazi (racist) antisemitism. A leading investigation in this direction is being conducted by Dr. Leonie Wagner at the University of Kassel. Her papers on the subject are incisive and her conclusions disturbing. Her most recent paper, "Frauenbewegung und Antisemitismus," read in November 1996, demonstrates the radicalizing impact World War I had on the German Women's movements, whether Protestant, Catholic or non-sectarian nationalist.
Rather than blindly going down the one-dimensional, politically correct scholarly path depicting women as victims, a more balanced and historically more accurate picture may be gained by taking the less popular but intellectually more fruitful way that investigates contributions by women per se in making possible the Holocaust in particular and genocides in general. Sociology specifically ought to be the leading discipline in this endeavor, linking the family to women's organizations to the promotion of extreme prejudice and, thereby, to the execution of genocide. Women with gender-specific tasks in traditional societies are an organic part of the process that creates a genocidal or genocide-prone climate. It would, for example, be useful to learn the major sources of ethnic hatred in such places as Bosnia and Burundi. Precisely where do children learn to hate "the Other" in these countries, and who, as they grow up, teaches them? And what part do their mothers play in this education of prejudices and stereotypes?
Henry R. Huttenbach (CCNY)
The Decline and Fall of Holocaust Studies in Cyberspace
Any discipline requires time (leisure) and space (a fitting venue) for formal and informal discussion and debate. One without the other would either lead, in extremis, to barren formalism or self-indulgent dilettantism. Generally, a natural balance is achieved, despite occasional tilts one way or the other. These correctives are usually the result of a mix of self-policing and exposure to public criticism. So far, prior to the introduction of the "Cyber-Superhighway," these adjustments have assured scholarly interaction of high quality, in large measure due to regular accountability.
Unfortunately, this dynamics of mutual criticism has been fast eroded by the unsupervised (indeed unsupervisable) adoption of the computer; not the computer as a transportation facilitator (of letters and manuscripts) but as a substitute for bona fide professional conversations and responsible, disciplined exchanges of ideas. What has happened is a virtual switch-over from traditional formats of careful and analytic dialogue to chaotic and structureless schein discourse.
This is more or less true in countless electronic "meetings." I do not mean the well-prepared agenda-driven conference call: (which, nevertheless, carries with it its own particular dangers for one thing the strong possibility of crypto-, or non- if not anti-democratic, consensus.) What is meant is the spontaneous "bull session" during which any thought is introduced willy-nilly without regard for any agenda parameters or dialectical sequence. As with other cyber-space get-togethers, the absence or presence of these rules and guidelines deeply affect the caliber and quality of Holocaust discourse held via this medium.
A review of various cyber "encounters" on the topic of the Holocaust exposes a sad state of affairs. Innumerable "discussions" lack any continuity of substance. With no regard for the totality of what was "said" before, anyone can inject him/herself into the process. Non-sequiturs abound, and no one seems to be aware of them; on the contrary, participants seem to delight in the loose, participatory experience, in which opinion is king and sound criticism willfully absent. The "I think" clause abounds. The most reputable of scholars take part in these cyber têtes-à-têtes without regard for even the simplest rules of logical sequence. If opinionating reigns, then improvisation is not far behind in these unlinked chains of generally disconnected statements: the impromptu and the extemporaneous are uniformly encouraged. One is told that the "informality" allows for a "special" kind of intellectual stimulation. This observer/reader is not convinced.
As for the quality of the language of each contribution, they are an editor's veritable nightmare. Sentences are frequently run on, or phrases are left pitifully dangling. Antecedents are unclear, and tense mixing seems to be the norm. Punctuation is a disaster: commas are liberally sprinkled where they do not belong or forgotten when they should be remembered. Style elegance of expression and a sense of the aesthetic has gone down the drain. The old-fashioned qualities of rhetoric seem to be studiously avoided. Texts are rarely proof-read, so errors of fact and language abound.
These cyber exchanges strike one as breathless, as each hasty contribution seems to expect a rushed answer. Quiet reflection is all too often sacrificed for instant replies. A recent flurry of cyber "talks" on the "uniqueness" of the Holocaust itself a politically correct canard is a convenient example of the practice of a priori thinking collectively encouraged.
Does anyone ever critically re-read these cyber "exchanges"? Does anyone occasionally collect them for their inherent value? Does anyone from time to time quote them in scholarly publications? Has anyone even once acknowledge in print how these cyber "encounters" were fertile experiences that significantly impacted on the flow of ideas and/or substantively influenced thought processes; and, if so, explained precisely how?
What precisely has gone wrong? For one thing recalling the first paragraph virtually everyone has embraced cyber "functions" at the increasing expense and abandonment of other modes of professional interaction. Just as on a ship, if all the passengers stand on one side, the vessel tilts and threatens to overturn (and sink!). So it is with Holocaust cyber-discourse: a growing number has plunged headlong into the cyber "world", neglecting to maintain a vital equilibrium by nurturing other equally integral modes of thought exchange. An over-dependency on cyber-space as the primary venue for fruitful professional talk has locked discourse into the narrow parameters of the medium with all its pitfalls.
Cyber-disciples and practitioners are hereby asked: What is wrong with this analysis? In what concrete manner (chapter and verse) have Holocaust Studies profited so far from these cyber-encounters? What can be done to improve them? What can be done to correct egregious errors? And, finally, what would happen of consequence to Holocaust research if the journey along the cyber highway were given up entirely? The Forum and its readers await responses. Web fans arise! Defend the electro-revolution!
Henry R. Huttenbach (CCNY)
Injustice and Fallacious Logic: The Low Politics of the Jeffrey Case
This is the third time that I publicly write and speak about the issues embodied in what I once dubbed rather grandiosely L'Affaire Jeffrey. The obvious reference to the Dreyfuss Affair which raged exactly a century ago was not accidental. There are more elements in common than may meet the eye despite the real absence of Devil's Island, though metaphorically it is starkly present. The feverish emotions elicited during the Jeffrey case, however, could have condemned her to such a place had it been accessible. The politics of the case sought to recruit the overwhelming power of the government against a relatively powerless individual. In both instances, the innocence of both Dreyfuss and Jeffrey was obtained through the stubborn persistence of a handful of individuals who refused to be stampeded by bad and evil thinking run amok in the service of narrow self-serving interests. Hence my title "Injustice and Fallacious Logic."
In my two sorties into print, once in 1995 and again in 1997, I focused on two issues: the constitutional and the pedagogic. In the former I established that the deliberately false accusations of antisemitism rendered against Jeffrey violated basic constitutional rights, including the deprivation of self-defense and confrontation with ones accusers, who were more concerned with swaying public opinion via the media than in engaging in open debate and observing the basic rules of civility and fair play. Instead the emphasis was on willful defamation of character and determination to compromise a person's career. In the latter article I concentrated on the egregious misuse of information to distort intention; in this case Professor Jeffrey's advice that students learning about the Holocaust should be taught the fundamental principles of National Socialist racist doctrine was distorted to signify she promoted Nazi racist teachings.
Today, I wish to focus on two of the principal parties involved in the attack against Jeffrey in order to pinpoint the precise errors committed by each one in the hopes some lessons for a democratic society can be gleaned from such an analysis. The two parties in question are: Facing History and the Anti-Defamation League. The first has been engaged primarily in providing ways and means of teaching about the Holocaust in a meaningful way at the primary and secondary school levels. It is their debatable assumption that such an approach will help American youngsters come to terms with prejudice and racism in US society. The merits of this logic are not in question here; what is, is the organization's role in contributing to branding Professor Jeffrey as unsuited to her appointment by Speaker Newt Gingrich to House historian. The second group is an old, established watchdog organization supported by the Jewish community to monitor acts of antisemitism and related events of intolerance towards Jews and non-Jews. It has an honorable record, but surprisingly chose to lead the shrill campaign to discredit Professor Jeffrey, including the serious and devastating charge of antisemitism.
On closer examination, the part played by Facing History is one that smacks of revenge on the order of a personal vendetta. Facing History allowed itself to become involved as an accuser on account of its failure a few years earlier to obtain funding from the Department of Education., At the time Facing History applied for a grant, Professor Jeffrey was employed by the Department of Education as a referee who read and evaluated applications for their merit. In this case she advised against Facing History's project. Among other faults, she found a basic imbalance insufficient teaching about Nazi philosophy which was serious enough in her mind not to recommend Facing History's request for funding. She felt this was a crucial omission from a pedagogical point of view. Her decision not to recommend was upheld by the Department of Education. Facing History seemed to have accepted the negative decision since no appeal or protest was made. 6-8 years later, however, the organization saw fit opportunistically to dredge this matter up, not in an academic context but in the public arena once it had learned of her appointment to House Historian. The purpose was to back up an accusation, initially not made by them, that Jeffrey was antisemitic. The only "proof" they had was her negative critique of their proposal. Citing isolated bits and pieces from her written remarks, Facing History tried to depict her as a supporter of Nazi ideology who encouraged its teachings when, of course, that is not at all what she had written and intended. Facing History knew this, but chose to go the less honorable way which lead to her being fired. (In passing, it should be pointed out that the Department of Education had not found Professor Jeffrey's work unacceptable, not to mention "antisemitic.")
Assuming no ill-will on the part of Facing History since motives are next to impossible to establish unless there are compromising documents in their or in others' files then the organization was guilty of at least shoddy reasoning. To encourage that Nazi ideology be discussed as a way to a better understanding of the Final Solution is by no means synonymous with promoting Nazi teachings. This seems obvious enough. Yet during the height of L'Affaire Jeffrey, this fundamental distinction seemed beyond the thinking capacity of Facing History and, I might add, the willingness of others, in this case distinctly people of ill-will who rushed to get on the defamation bandwagon.
Facing History must, therefore, seriously self-examine its organizational procedures to discover 1) how and why it fell into this trap of fallacious logic and 2) what it can do to avoid future failings in right thinking. It needs to identify who was responsible for that kind of indiscriminate conclusion-making that allowed the organization to be perceived as engaged in a public vendetta. Mere post-facto apologies and regrets are insufficient, though there has been no sign of them. There has to be proper recognition of what went wrong and where the blame must fall. Letting responsibility fall collectively on everyone's shoulders is evasive; it leaves the innocent semi-guilty and allows the guilty to be semi-innocent. That is the equivalent of sweeping the dust under the rug; a common but corrupting device, though not a commendable recommendation for an organization devoted to teaching youngsters about the Holocaust, and about prejudice, intolerance and scapegoating in the US.
The case against the ADL is far broader and more serious, if only because of the national stature of this organization. Again it is hard to fathom the organization's head, Abe Foxman's leap into the battle. Was it politics? Is the ADL partial to the Democrats and, therefore, found it useful to embarrass Speaker Gingrich, a Republican? I shall presume no, though I'm unconvinced. One must ask: Mr. Foxman's unrestrained public pronouncements about Professor Jeffrey were they his own views or did he voice those of his organization? Did the ADL hold meetings to arrive at a conclusion to target Jeffrey? How much of the attack was improvised? How much was based on careful weighing of the evidence? After he had been soundly criticized by a few, including myself, for unprofessional and undemocratic behavior, Mr. Foxman began to retreat somewhat without, however, retracting. Only after her firing and support in her behalf gained real strength did Mr. Foxman finally admit his guilt he called it an unfortunate error. Namely, he admitted to not having read, for example, Professor Jeffrey's full text about Facing History's grant application. In other words, with the full authority of the ADL behind him, Foxman had knowingly cited out of context extracts of her text. Whether these citations were selected by him or fed to him by others is not clear, though I suspect the latter, but have no idea by whom, unless it was Facing History. Foxman, therefore, had publicly made the serious charge of antisemitism based on one source of "evidence," namely, carefully chosen quotes that, taken in isolation, did indeed suggest antisemitic tendencies on the part of Jeffrey. This is a serious act with profound ethical and legal implications.
Again one must state that effusive apologies and retractions on the part of Abe Foxman are not enough to undo the injustice done to Professor Jeffrey and the extreme consequences she suffered from these false accusations. To be branded an antisemite is no light matter. The damage of the accusation does not dissipate by a simple retraction. Furthermore, what has transpired at ADL since its egregious error? Has anyone taken stock there? Has the leadership assigned blame? Has anyone been rebuked? Held accountable? Fired? Demoted? Asked to resign? Mr. Foxman is still national president. Does that mean his error is seen as minor? Inconsequential? Serious but forgivable? Is ADL back in a business-as-usual mode? Was damage control applied in the hopes the whole embarrassing matter would soon be forgotten? Judging from phone calls I received from Mr. Foxman's office, my writings were more of an evil than the unjust actions taken by ADL against Professor Jeffrey.
In a world or let us say in our society where accountability should be a major column propping up our civilization L'Affaire Jeffrey is a sordid reminder of what happens when there is a breakdown of assigning responsibility honestly and openly. In that sense the event is a microcosm of a larger malaise in our society. It is not simply about one person whose rights were wantonly violated but about much more. In this case, both of the violators were organizations dedicated to and founded expressly for the safeguarding of human rights. There is tragic irony here which warrants further investigation and assessment.
Unfortunately neither group is willing to open its files and share correspondence and internal communiqués re this event. The answers lie in them: in the numerous phone calls, in log books, in memoranda, etc. There is no mystery here, just a possible cover-up. To get to the core question: cover-up of what? Has the evidence been shredded? Removed? In the absence of a court trial there is no subpoena. Consequently, scholarly access is impossible and both organizations can take comfort from behind their bureaucratic walls. But their integrity has been permanently compromised. There are too many examples of the consequences of this kind of corruption in influential and powerful organizations and their accompanying collective silence and stonewalling.
For me, the file on the Jeffrey case has not been closed. The issues are still alive. Injustice cannot simply be ignored, and incompetent thinking at the expense of others cannot just be overlooked. To tolerate both is an injustice in itself. For most, this topic may be nothing more than a storm in a tea cup; but for a few it is symptomatic of a moral decline in public behavior on the part of those with more power than others. It embodies the essence of oppression and is a direct assault on the spirit of liberal democracy. The mistreatment of one lonely citizen may seem minor but, as Martin Luther King warned, "injustice towards one is injustice towards all." One might add: genocide happens precisely at the moment when the powerful assault the powerless.
Henry R. Huttenbach (CCNY)
Announcement: A New Publication
The Journal of Genocide Research
Editor in chief: Henry R. Huttenbach
Publisher: Carfax Publishing Co., (UK)
Genocide Research's editorial policy seeks to further a deepening understanding of annihilationist events by promoting three paths of investigation:
- Theory
- Methodology
- Comparative Case Studies
Genocide Research will appear three times a year, beginning with Vol. I, No.1, in Spring 1999.
Genocide Research's Editorial Board is presently in formation and will be composed of an interdisciplinary, international group of scholars.
Genocide Research is a peer-review academic journal
Call for Papers:
Scholars are urged to submit their manuscripts to:
Professor Henry R. Huttenbach
History Department
The City College of New York
Convent Ave. at 138th Street.
New York, NY 10031
Fax (718) 624 - 0450
For further information about Genocide Research subscriptions, book reviews, etc. contact Professor Huttenbach at the above address.