I've almost finished book that was recommended here (
butchersapron )
Was the extermination of the Jews part of the Nazi plan from the very start? Arno Mayer offers astartling and compelling answer to this question, which is much debated among historians today.In doing so, he provides one of the most thorough and convincing explanations of how the genocidecame...
www.versobooks.com
By Arno Mayer
Wondering what to say about it. I would recommend it as a work that covers not only the mechanics of the Holocaust but context in which it took place. Starts with a short history of Jews in Europe at this period. Then goes into the reasons for the rise of the Nazi and Hitler. Before going into the Judeocide. His prefered term. He wasn't keen on the term Holocaust.
For him Hitler didn't have a premeditated plan to murder the Jews of Europe. The war as well as Nazi ideological hatred of Jews interacted. When the war on the Eastern front started to go badly the level of violence against the Jews increased. He sees this a rage coinciding with the setbacks the German army was having in the East.
One camp near the end of the war most inmates were killed by Germans themselves. ( that is not gassed. Brutal face to face killing. In fact large percentage of Jews were killed in this way during the war.) He sees this as a rage at losing the war which was taken out on the Jews.
The early years of the Reich saw Jews gradually lose their civil rights in "legalistic" fashion. In order to keep his traditional elite supporters onside Hitler got rid of the more proletarian Street fighting Brown Shirts. To be replaced by Himmlers SS. Who were elite drawn in early days from the upper echelons of society. It was SS who were to play major role in the Judeocide. The "rational" bureaucratic way to deal with the Jewish "problem" became pre eminent
Emigration was difficult but encouraged by early Reich. Still as Mayer points out many German Jews simply could not believe this oppression of German Jews could last. This was understandable as German Jews were highly assimilated unlike Jews from the East. Germany in many ways was advanced liberal society. Hitler was in power initially due to the old elite Conservative elements in society seeing him as bulwark against Socialism/ Communisn.
Actual violence against Jews rather than "legal" oppression was limited and controlled. Mayer ( controversial ) view is that Jewish policy wasnt at all times something Hitler put first.
So if I read him right the Holocaust/ Judeocide as it happened was not inevitable. Thats not to say Hitler didnt want a conquered Europe to be Jew free. But their was more then one plan. One idea was to deport them all to Madasgascar. That was a non starter as UK ruled the waves and it wasnt going to cooperate. Emigration was affected by how many Jews another country would take. Jews did leave. Often for other European countries like France. Where they were trapped later on. UK limited numbers to Palestine. Hitler wasn't keen on Jews setting up in Palestine.
Operation Barbarossa was meant to be quick defeat of the Soviet Union. The Jews would have been pushed out and expelled from Europe. However the war in the East got bogged down due to Soviet dogged resistance.
This meant the Jews of Eastern Europe could not be pushed over the Urals out of Europe. Germany suddenly found itself occupying land with a large minority population of Jews.
For Hitler the war in the East was a war against Judeo Bolshevism. The killing squads that followed the German army early on didn't specifically target Jews. They targeted a range of people. Communists, etc.
There was murdering of Jews by locals. Encouraged by the Nazis. But at that stage no planned extermination programme.
Like in Germany Jews in occupied East Europe lost civil rights. They were separated off from general population into ghettos.
Still at this point many Jews could just survive. Within the SS their was a split between those who wanted to keep Jews alive as slave labour producing goods for the German army and the "exterminists" who wanted to kill them straight away.
Poor living conditions meant many Jews died or became incapable of work. The early killings were of those no longer capable of work.
So Mayer is saying the fate of the Jews was bound up with the exigencies of the war on the Eastern front.
The full on murder only took place in closing months of the war when the Red Army were clearly pushing the German army back.
Mayer implicates not just the SS but German industry and the German army. None of them had clean hands.
German business / industry never pushed back at getting involved in using Jewish slave labour. Due to war demands more and more German workers were called up leaving a Labour shortage. So keeping Jews alive as replacement workers was "pragmatic" move.
So instead of a straight line from Hitler getting to power to the gas Chambers its a more gradual move to the "final solution".
I have a few doubts. When Hitler invaded Eastern Europe the Nazis must have known that this would mean occupying land with large number of Jews. Mayer almost treats it as an accident. They suddenly found themselves with the problem of millions of Jews to deal with. I maybe read him wrong but I can't believe the Nazis didn't realise this would happen.
Second whilst they were used as slave labour Mayer says life expectency was three months. They were deliberately worked to death. Which is as good as exterminating them. The reversal of the war in Red Army favour may have hastened the mass murder of Jews but even if Germany had prevailed I'm wondering if the Jews would have been worked to death as slave labour. Hence the Judeocide would have still happened but taken longer. So maybe he's making to much of the difference of divisions in the SS over this?
Where he is convincing is how Hitler changed his rhetoric. At beginning of the war on Eastern front he was emphasising this as war to crush Bolshevism. Hoping to gain more support.
As war went on he increasingly started to blame Jews as the hidden hand in US and USSR setting both countries against Germany. An embattled Hitler and Nazi faithful took their rage at starting to lose the war out on the Jews.
Mayer looks at history of persecution of Jews in Europe. Which started off in the early crusades. Instead of going straight to the Holy Land the early crusades went on through Europe making pogroms against Jews as they went. Mayer compares this to Hitler war on the Eastern front. Mayer makes convincing case that the war against Judeo Bolshevism was a modern day crusade. That was how the Nazis saw it. German churches on the whole supported this. As it was against atheistic communism.
One of the few parts of Europe were Jews were safe was the Soviet Union.
Anti semitism was rife in Eastern Europe but it was not genocidal. Jews were most at risk during times of conflict and chaos. In 20c Europe after end of WW1 when revolutions and new states were forming attacks on Jews took place. This calmed down for a while once these new states and governments were established.
For a while the position of Jews improved.
Another thing Mayer goes on about is simultaneity or rather lack of it. Take Germany - whilst in many ways it was a modernising country it was still ruled by entrenched old elites. So it was a combination of old and new. With the old holding the country back. The old elites made a pact with the devil to keep their power. Hitler had the populist touch they didn't have. Mayer sees this a problem across most of Eastern Europe. If I read him right this leads to a blockage in social progress with ,as can be seen with rise of Hitler dangerous, consequences.
This I don't fully grasp. It's quite a difficult idea.
Mayer sees the post WW1 formation of new small states in Eastern Europe as a bit of a disaster. They ended up largely being run by the old conservative elites that survived WW1.
The Soviet Union, whilst brutal, was a modernising force. The Jews in Soviet Union weren't held back from education or social advancement. Unlike in many of the new Eastern European countries.
Taking it to now ( Ukraine crisis) Mayer did not I think see the post WW1 settlement of new borders as conducive to peace in long term. Soviet Union giving up on expanding westwards and joining up with European communist parties meant it turned inwards. To the detriment of the form of communism it built in one country. Maybe could say this legacy is still here.
As one can see their is an awful lot of ground and ideas covered in this book. Which is not a criticism. It's a plus point. I wasn't expecting this when I started it. Thought it would cover the Judeocide/ Holocaust but not putting it into context.
I haven't looked at the reception Mayer book got yet. I think some of it could be seen as controversial. He doesn't down play the Holocaust. But at times reading it it almost reads like he's saying it was a minor issue for the Nazis. Only coming to the for when they were facing defeat.
Anyway I've still got the end to read yet.
I'm not saying everything Ive written is right. If anyone else has read the book be interested to see what they think And I'm wondering what writers take a different view to him?
www.hollywoodreporter.com
www.motherjones.com
yougov.co.uk
en.m.wikipedia.org
