Is it me or is she fit?????

Why did Nazi measures against Jews escalate into the Holocaust 1933 – 45?

The Holocaust was the mass murder of approximately 6 million Jews. The Nazis had conceived a system that envisaged the removal of Jewry across Europe: the ‘final solution.’ In 1941 two decisions were taken that would alter the course of history: the decision to kill the Jews in the Soviet Union and the decision to kill all the Jews that inhabited Nazi occupied Europe. A decision such as none that had been paralleled in history before it. But how did the perverted psychology of one individual consequent in the meticulous attempt to eradicate an entire race of people? This is what I aim to discuss and surmise.

Firstly, I believe that it crucial to understand that Hitler was not the instigator of anti-Semitism in Europe; rather he was product of it. As Jews became assimilated into European society, so did an anti-Jewish feeling. This manifested itself into social Darwinism and a ‘folk ’(interlinks with the concept of a master-race) was born. It was, however the culmination of WW1 that had such a profound effect on Hitler. For the frontline and for Hitler it was an ‘untold catastrophe, cowardly capitulation, detested revolution and national humiliation.’ Obtaining a scapegoat was not difficult: the Jew. This unjustified blame manifested itself into an unrelenting bombardment of propaganda against the Jews. They were to be presented as back-stabbers who had escaped the line of duty and had orchestrated Germanys defeat, profiting from it. Hitler’s anti-Semitism fed off this and cemented his own pathological fixation that the Jews were responsible for all of Germanys woes. A malevolent hatred of the Jews was further compounded by their links to Bolshevism, exemplified by the part of Leon Trotsky in the Russian Revolution. Hitler would address his party leaders on the 12 Dec. 1941 stating his belief that the Jews had caused the war and they will pay for it by forfeiting their own lives. He made reference to a speech he had delivered at the Reichstag on the 30 Jan.1939 where he claimed that if the ‘Jewish financiers’ plunged the nations yet again into a world war then the outcome would be ‘ the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.’ Hitler had established a genocidal psychology and that the Jews were to be held accountable for yet another World War. The repercussions of this would be devastating for the Jews across Europe he warned. In one of the closing passages to Mein Kamf, Hitler had concluded that if ‘twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters been held under poison gas at the beginning of the war,’ then such a ‘sacrifice at the front’ would never have existed. Many had immersed themselves in the doctrine that stated that the Jews were the roots of all evil and in instituting a powerful Reich that it must first be purged of the ‘impure elements,’ most notably the Jews. This ‘bacilli, poison or vermin’ on German society constituted a mere 0.76% of the German population in 1933, yet the Nazis had dreamed up a fantasy where they were a ‘supreme existential danger,’ as Ian Kershaw puts it. This was no orthodox hatred. As Otto von Kulka, a Jewish professor explained this persecution was a ‘fundamental attempt to change the course of History to attain national redemption.’ The basis of national resurgence was the Nazi propagation of anti-Semitism. With Hitler leading a rejuvenated fatherland, anti-Semitism became a core component of state policy.

A paramount reason behind the escalation was the nature of the state itself. This intertwines with the debate raging between intentionalists and functionalists. Intentionalist historians stipulate that the holocaust was a scrupulous climax to a premeditated plan; accelerated by an internal structure that operated in harmony. However I take the more moderate functionalist point of view: decision-making stemmed from Hitler’s personal whim, not bureaucratic procedure. This unfunctionary style of rule, stressing utmost secrecy, masked language and simple gestures as opposed to unambiguous commands, characterized Nazi genocidal policy. It also means a limitation in concrete evidence in analyzing the ‘final solution.’ Ian Kershaw, a functionalist historian, says that ‘there was a complex interrelationship of ‘green lights’ for action coming from above and initiatives taken from below combining to produce a spiral of radicalisation.’ There was however some form of central fomentation; moreover a sanctioning of action from the top of the pyramid. The dialectic ‘wishes of the Fuehrer’ would inevitably filter down to those in charge of immediate operations. However, to suggest Hitler was the solitary driving force behind genocidal policy would be incorrect. Intentionalists such as Lucy Dawidowicz command such a view that Nazi Germany was a well-oiled totalitarian state. The reality was far from this. Taking the views of functionalist historians such as Mommsen and Broszat, policy formulation lay in the hands of squabbling bureaucracies in an incessant struggle for power. Mommsen explains that ‘the system is held together by the Fuehrer cult.’ The Fuehrers role however is an ambivalent one; avoiding direct responsibility for the ‘final solution’ and distancing himself from Pogroms and the Nuremburg Laws, refusing to openly support the anti-Jewish excesses. Historians such as Broszat assert that Hitler was a ‘weak dictator,’ and that the anarchic system controlled Hitler, rather than he the system, yet the reality undermines such a porous notion. Hitler, although adverse to systematized procedure and uninterested by the day-to-day affairs with running the state, was by no means weak. Fundamental rulings were always left to Hitler and such extreme functionalist perspectives are underestimating him. Therefore the Nazi state was the hybrid of a polycratic (rule of one) and monolithic state (rule of many). Absolute power was maintained by the Fuehrer, but was rarely employed, and consequently Nazi chieftains locked horns, endeavoring to see out his equivocal instructions: ‘working towards the Fuehrer (cumulative radicalization).’ Indeed Hitler was seldom active, but he could be assured that his ‘underlings at different levels of the regime were adept at knowing how to ‘work towards the fuehrer along the lines he would wish.’

Post 1933 ordinary professions were joining hand in hand with the government to adjust to their political realities in a common struggle against biological ‘degeneration.’ In that year, Eugenics was established, targeting human beings distinguished as Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life), interrelated with action T4, the methodical killing of 200,000 of people with disabilities, striving towards ‘ the eradication of unwanted segments of the populace.’ Kershaw called it ‘a vital step in the descent into modern barbarism.’ The gassing of those deemed biologically subordinate had set a dangerous precedent. Now with Hitler in power, his chronic fixation with the Jews could take legislative form. The spring of 1933 heightened the anti-Semitic climate with a boycott of all Jewish stores on April 1st. Local measures to push Jewish store owners out of business did not prevail. However, waves of violence and distress upon the Jews were now habitual. Six days subsequent to this, the Law for the Restoration of the professional civil service was enforced, dissuading Jews to the menial sector. Removal of what was considered the ‘corrosive elements’ to German life as they had come to be second-rate citizens in a third Reich. At this point, compounding the structralist point of view, ‘removal’ was simply the ousting of one strand of political culture, and by no means physical extrapolation. This however, could merely be out of foreign policy considerations. 1934 was a year that saw the excesses of 33’ dwindle, possibly a conscious appreciation of the moderate sect of the Nazi party and to appease to masses (beyond the party faithful, they were not all committed anti-Semites). 1935 however, certainly made up for this. It saw the implementation of the infamous Nuremburg Laws that in essence institutionalized Nazi racism. Passed in September, they prohibited the marriage of any Jew and gentile and combined with the Reich Citizenship Law, which stipulated that all Jews (even quarter or half) were no longer citizens in their own countries – demoting them to the status of social lepers. This was an upshot of the ’unending agitation, frequent discrimination and sporadic violence (often referred to as Pogroms),’ channeled towards the Jews. 2 years of relative calm followed this, until the year of Reichskristallnacht (9.10- Nov. 1938, dubbed after the sheer amount of broken glass that paved the streets), a pogrom exhibiting the full horror of Nazi persecution. Historian Eric Johnson says the Nazis “had entered into a new radical phase in anti-Semitic activity.” Indeed, they had done so with such minimal provocation (the killing of Von Rath by a Parisian Jew), suggesting such action had been well anticipated. Crystal-Night was an orgy of devastation unleashed throughout the nation upon Jewish property and synagogues, and laid bare the repressive nature of Nazi Germany to the international community. Historian Max Rein said that ‘Kristallnacht came…and everything changed.’ Indeed it brutalized steps towards the Jewish community, transforming from social/economic to physical attacks. Goebbels (who had been fueled these attacks) ascribed these disturbing events to the ‘healthy instincts’ of the German populace. The view that they were an already indoctrinated people, gripped by the cult of the Fuehrer would be to overplay such significance; many were appalled. The importance of Kristallnacht was the intensifying radicalization of persecution and openly exemplified ‘working towards the fuehrer.’

Such a widespread condemnation of Kristallnacht, entailed that more ‘rational policy,’ was desired. With Heydrich occupying a crucial role in the future of Jews that inhabited the newly occupied territories, deportation, favored after the deportation successes of Adolf Eichmann in Vienna, was seemingly the viable alternative. The ‘final solution’ was by no means confined to just Germany itself; the occupation of Poland entailed a further 2 million Jews were left in the destructive hands of Nazi tyranny. Grandiose schemes were drawn up. Blueprints were assembled with the designation set in the realms of the ‘General Government.’ Its head Hans Frank remarked that for those traveling towards his region ‘the more die the better.’ For such an impoverished, overpopulated district, the possibility of such substantial population transfer could not be realized. The combination of Frank’s reluctance and Gorings concern at the economic disruptions emigration would spawn, engendered abandonment to the plan. The Madagascar Plan was then toyed around with: the notion of sending Jewish to this French Colony as a Jewish reservation. Confident of eventual German seizure, the plan looked workable and gained even the approval of the Fuehrer himself. The Madagascar plan goes a long way in augmenting the Structralist point of view. However, it does have unmistakably genocidal connotations; the idea of leaving Millions of Jews to simply rot in such uninhabitable conditions. These notions do seem ‘erratic and improvised.’ If the ultimate aim in 1939 was forcing emigration, then the suggestion he was already contemplating large-scale genocide seems improbable. The eventual collapse of the Madagascar Plan was irrelevant. A more feasible option would soon emerge.

Between 1939-40 the Nazis began a ghettoisation policy in Polish cities, supposedly a preliminary step in their eventual expulsion eastwards. Intentions believe that this was one formulated step in the procedural objective of annihilation. In stark contrast, Functionalists take the view that although ghettos did facilitate the execution of the holocaust Nazi Leadership never thought through it. Chris Browning, who does not usually take the functionalist outlook, is convinced there was never a large-scale ghettoisation plan, nor was it designed for the liquidation of Jews. Kershaw says that ‘ghettos, initially envisaged as no more than temporary holding places until their inhabitants could be deported, turned into lasting institutions.’ Indeed, forced ghettoisation only became implemented during 1940. Conditions were harsh and disease was rife and many advocated simply letting the Jews decompose in these confines. Browning calls such Nazis ‘attritionists’, with genocidal implications beginning to appear behind their insistence. Productionists’ on the other hand, believed Jews were vital in terms of the war effort and they began to prevail. Browning believes that such behavior was fundamental in the deduction that there was no pre-meditated plan for eventual mass murder.

22nd March 1941 – Operation Barbossa is launched – the opportune moment to eliminate ‘Jewish Bolshevism,’ and to generate lebensraum for the German master race. Hitler had expressed this would be a ‘war of annihilation’ and that the treatment of soviet Jews would be enmeshed in the barbarism of the war itself. He stated quite categorically that the ‘Jewish-Bolshevik intelligentsia’ had to be ‘eliminated.’ General acceptance greeted Hitler’s call for this exceptional brutality. Such methods of operations were supervised directly by Himmler and Heydrich. By May four Einsatzgruppen were dispatched by Heydrich, comprised of former SD and Security police, their objective to wipe out ‘all subversive elements.’ The ambiguity of this was intentional; Jewry and Bolshevism were entangled and thus, in line with the Feuhrers wishes, had to be eradicated. Ian Kershaw says that ‘by the time German Troops crossed the Soviet frontiers … Hitlers regime had moved a long way in a genocidal direction.’ The decision to occupy the USSR had expedited radicalization. The decision taken for all out annihilation had yet to be made. But now with a territorial answer to the ‘Jewish Question:’ the arctic wastelands of the Soviet union conceived as a trash can for the Jews of Europe, added to the open invitation for the Einsatzgruppen to decimate Jews and communist functionaries, entailed all-inclusive decimation was fast approaching. Arbitrary atrocities were now rife in the Soviet Union. Jews equated to criminals were seen to be the root of bolshevism and this mentality was injected into ordinary soldiers, required to undertake ‘senseless shootings of both prisoners of war and civilians.’ There was no formal order, moreover, Himmler verbally instigated it and was the main carrier of this open-ended mandate, and only weeks after the death squads had been dispatched. These vague instructions encouraged those at ground level to essentially act as they saw fit, liberated from any precise instructions. This was brutally exemplified in the slaughter of 2,000 Jews In Bialystok where ‘action had been initiated by a few fanaticized Nazis within the battalions ranks.’ Initiative was encouraged (indeed some isolated Nazis killings were often more confined to ‘target-groups’) but inhumanity was now expected. Most historians, however, accept that this violence cannot be classed with the systematic killings that were to follow. In fact, a July 1941 plan show Himmler did not envisage the large-scale killings, moreover, a brief period of killing. But such comprehensive liquidations does suggest a ‘quantum leap’ in the spiral of radicalization. Browning believes Hitler had been assured of victory against the Soviet Union and therefore initiated the process of ‘racial cleansing. In mid July 1941. 2 SS battalions were installed in the USSR to supplement the bulging numbers of Einsatzgruppen. Combined, there was adequate manpower to enable thorough annihilation through the USSR. This amounted to the decision to eradicate Jewry in the USSR. A genocidal climate had been reached.

The mobilization of transporting all the Jews of Europe to Nazi occupied Soviet Union would be a monumental undertaking. The sheer immensity of this solution meant it was simply not practical. The prospect faded into a lingering fantasy. Yet again the ‘Jewish Question’ was in urgent need of a remedy. Hitler again states his belief that a state could ‘live without Jews.’ In the quest for a radical solution, this would surely have not been lost on Himmler and Heydrich. Meanwhile, back home in the Reich, the wearing of the ‘Yellow Star of David’ had become compulsory on the 1st of September. As Kershaw put it, they were now a ‘marked minority.’ It was either in this month, or October, that the ‘final solution’ would finally be resolved. This is what Historians like Kershaw and Burrin believe, supported by the fact neither Heydrich nor Goering initiated any organization of a genocidal programme subsequent to this. They have asserted their belief that that any definitive measures were taken in the context of ‘desperation rather than euphoria.’ Mounting anxiety and soaring anxieties drew a need for central decisions to be taken. Burrin has said that it would be the Jews that would ‘foot the bill’ for all the German blood spilled on Russian snow. The decision to extend Russian Genocidal policy to the remainder of Europe ‘had arisen from a murderous rage increasingly exacerbated by the ordeal of failure of his campaign in Russia.’ Therefore by removing the most typical German enemy i.e. the Jew, this would show a statement of intent. The final solution was imminent rather than awaiting the go-ahead. The issue of deportation had now become a redundant one – the ghettos were bursting to the seams. They could not sustain them and therefore those unable to work were simply shot. And as yet more deportation trains rolled out of the stations, the final hour for these Jews was about to sound. The physical annihilation that followed was no ground-level initiative. They worked from Himmler’s orders who in turn worked from Hitlers. Authorization was emanating from the very tip of the pyramid. Indeed, Himmler maintained that ‘ I do nothing that the Fuehrer does not know. Transportations to Ghettos such as Lodz halted in early November, and by this time, their fate had been sealed. Mass shootings waited the traveling loads, until a more ‘human’ alternative was adopted: Poison gas. Kershaw noted that ‘ to all appearances, a fundamental decision to exterminate Europe’s Jews had by now been taken.

Clarification of such a decision was now needed. The Wannsee conference, headed by Heydrich (20 Jan 1942) achieved just that as heads of Departments were informed of their varying levels of responsibility in what had become ‘the final solution to the Jewish question.’ They were left under no illusions; systematic annihilation was the next step. The meeting provided a coherent programme that would put the death of 11 million Jews into practice. Procedures were still at a relatively embryonic stage; it would not be until March that the likes of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka started functioning as death camps.

Compare and Contrast the ways in which Pride and Prejudice discuss ideas regarding marriage and social class with Henry James’ Washington Square


Washington Square has often been used as a great example of how the work of Henry James is not dissimilar from that of Austen’s, in the sense that both maintain an intense focus on the theme of family relationships. Both consist of straightforward, unconvoluted prose and in this instance, centre events around heroines entangled in the sticky web of marriage and social class. Indeed, both story’s main contexts are greatly concerned with a very narrow upper class society where wealth and respectability are fundamental to the development and outcomes of these two very linear narratives. Washington Square concerns itself with the plight of poor Catherine, a passive young lady who has become infatuated by a suitor by the name of Morris Townsend who is what one might refer to as a ‘mercenary.’ The novel fixates itself on the predicament Catherine finds herself in once Townsend proposes to her and essentially a conflict of obedience to her family or willingness to her lover arises. Similarly to Washington Square the focus of Pride and Prejudice is again very domestic where love and marriage are the main sources of interest and whereby both have to be consecrated by society and its expectations. Both have a bitingly witty edge and both are set in approximately the same time albeit in different locations; Washington square in New York and Pride and Prejudice primarily in Hertfordshire. It is however the theme of Marriage and Social class that will be explored with some rigorous examination now and where one should hopefully uncover numerous similarities as well as some dissimilarities, however small.

As I have stated before, both heroines are submerged by societies expectations of them in terms of finding a suitable partner in wedlock. There are no less than four marriages in Pride and Prejudice to consider and to subject to scrutiny. Charlotte marries Mr Collins to live up to social expectations despite his outrageous pomposity and conceitedness. It is via this marriage that Austen is able to attack and condemn conventional attitudes to marriage and the social necessity of doing so irrespective of who you are marrying. A disparity exists between Charlotte Lucas and the independent, principled nature of Elizabeth Bennett who spurs the chance to marry Mr Collins thus in turn rejecting the strict views and rules society and indeed her mother who is symbolic of such a thing, places on her. Charlotte views marriage in a deplorably materialistic light. To Charlotte the attraction of marriage comes in the form of financial security and the dignity that comes with being a clergyman’s wife. To her a successful marriage is characterised by such things, not love nor happiness. The ‘bond’ that forms between Lydia and Wickam is in all actually more lamentable. Austen here presents us with the perfect model for an imperfect marriage defined by sexual gratification and financial packages. Indeed it is an exemplification of what can happen when one completely disregards society and family and in turn shame them. In Washington Square Morris Townsends intentions are purely to find a wife of come considerable fortune so he can assure himself a life of luxury and he is comparable to Wickham in the sense that he is devoid on conscience; both serve as characters in their respective novels who’s motivations are that of temptation and greed and who’s means are marriage; it is presented as an avenue by which fortune can be attained. Both heroines in Catherine and Elizabeth however are intent on marrying for love and not for social advantage. And this is what makes them so admirable. For American puritan society however, what apparently should determine a young woman’s happiness is whether her groom is of the same social class. Dr Sloper is staunch in his refusal to allow Catherine to marry Morris because of such economic and social imbalance between the pair and unlike Catherine his primary concerns are with her future rather than her happiness; the two apparently are not interlinked. Morris is in search of a good match, which will help him move up the social hierarchy.

I think however there is an extreme fundamental difference in show these melodramas of the elites are played out in these two novels. There is substantially realist edge to James’ novel that can be found lacking in Austens’. This world rife with convention is presented to us as ‘a ragged picture…of lost hopes, hypocrisy, narrowed and constricted lives, grinding frustrations of poverty and isolation.’ This gritty realism that is constructed derives from both convention and cynism in the novel. Inchoately the novel begins and it slowly unfolds as a very typical romantic novel concerned with marriage and love all of which falls apart of course. Convention is indicated early on, exemplified by authorial comment regarding Mrs Almond ‘who’s daughter was to marry a stock broker…it was thought a very good thing.’ Morris indeed courts Catherine in a manner accustomed to the time but it is of course greed and suspicion that pervert him. In this specific scene, it is interesting to note the juxtaposition with Dr Slopers character who finds Catherines red dress coarse and vulgar, representing his very puritan sensibilities. To him, displaying such opulence should be considered ‘vulgarity’ and that shows of wealth should moreover be understated. A great deal of emphasis is made of her very limited intellect and her very ‘plain’ features. Similarly it is made apparent that ‘Lizzie is not half as handsome as Jane.’ Intellect and attractiveness are elevated in these respected societies. These superficial qualities are however subtly dismissed by their respective authors and it is their earnest nature that connects with the reader, not how attractive they are or how well read they are. Both are heavily bogged down by societal problems trying to express their ‘true’ feelings, and to some extent (more so in Catherines’ case) they are restricted and constrained. Societal restrictions on the lives of women are made prominent in both novels. The women of Pride and Prejudice seem to travel for travels sake. In Washington Square Mrs. Penniman goes to meet Townsend at the bowery partially because it is somewhat of an adventure. There is a sense of tedium to their lives that comes from attitudes towards women of the time. Catherine herself is constantly instructed by men and females of the time would probably be able to relate to her plight and the feelings of insecurity regarding herself and her future she would be experiencing. Catherine at one point contemplates that ‘The idea of a struggle with her father, of setting up her will against her own, was heavy on her soul, and it kept her quiet.’ Elizabeth Bennett on the other hand is independent from the very beginning and has a robust, spirited readiness for disputation. In this sense we can see that society is not overwhelmingly restricting, although it can be for the initially timid Catherine. Once breaking free from these shackles we can see that Catherine develops a strong incipient will in her clashes with Dr Sloper. She has to break down societies barriers to realize that her problem is not that Dr Sloper will not consent to her engagement but that those around her simply do not give her the love and respect she deserves. Lizzie Bennett also experiences some form of moral evolution too through overcoming her prejudice and this greatly parallels with the transformation of Catherine.
Encounter with highly abnormal shark-like fish! I tagged it dorsally with a homing dart!