Raul Hilberg, 81; scholar's views on the Holocaust attracted criticism

[Lionel Mandrake]

Source: LA Times

Raul Hilberg, who established himself as the preeminent scholar of the Holocaust with his monumental and still-controversial 1961 book "The Destruction of the European Jews," the first comprehensive study of the Nazis' genocidal campaign, died of lung cancer Saturday at a hospice in Williston, Vt. He was 81.

"Raul Hilberg's work and great opus, 'The Destruction of the European Jews,' set the standard and created the foundation for the development of the whole field of Holocaust studies," said Paul Shapiro, director of the Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C.

Hilberg's primary focus on the perpetrators and some of his conclusions -- in particular, his assertions about the lack of substantial Jewish resistance -- drew sharp criticism from some Jewish historians and the Jewish public, whose attacks continued unabated throughout most of his five-decade career.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/obituaries/la-me-hilberg7aug07,0,42743.story?coll=la-home-obituaries

---

Hitler and the Nazis have become the standard by which all other evil is measured. Much of our knowledge of these monsters derives from the work of Raul Hilberg.

[rasputin1952]

1. Hilberg was correct in some of his views, but the blatant

oppression of the Jews, (and others), would have been difficult to reverse by unarmed, beaten into submission individuals. There were several attempts at resistance, but they were brutally repressed.

And when the Jews were initially being deported, as opposed to being exterminated en masse, few nations were willing to take them in...this enabled Hitler and his minions to justify mass murder in their own minds.


The whole episode in history is a sordid tale based on guilt that goes beyond nazi's. Those who allow such things to occur, are complicit.

It is a very complex issue, but the bottom line is, it could have ended quickly, if Hitler, particularly in the beginning of the reign of terror, was challenged. Each time a challenge arose, a 'back-off' swiftly followed, w/each of these, Hitler was re-enforced in his belief he was right.

[Lionel Mandrake]

2. I agree with most of what you say.

You have put your finger on one of Hilberg's more controversial viewpoints. Others have disagreed with his emphasis on the perpetrators and with his use of non-judgmental language, e.g., "destruction" where most people would have written "murder". I think a reasonable case can be made for just about everything Hilberg has written.

[rasputin1952]

6. destruction and murder are actually two different situations.

Murder is the act of killing an individual(s), under certain circumstances; however "destruction" is the annihilation of all that are associated in this instance.

While murder was certainly a base part of the thought process of nazi's, it went much further, right to the point of destruction of the entire gene pool of the Jewish line. Slavs, Gypsy's, homosexuals, etc were drawn in as well, and often forgotten, but they were not "sectioned off" for full destruction.

As I said, this is complicated, and a stain on humanity, the main thing is to ensure it, or something like it, never happens again. It is far easier to curb such things when they first become apparent, before they gain much power.

[Lionel Mandrake]

10. Hilberg had in mind a different distinction

between "murder" and "destruction". Hilberg's point was that the acts of the Nazis speak for themselves. He did not need to point out what was obvious, namely, that they were evil. His methodical, objective analysis is arguably the most devastating indictment of what the Nazis did.

Among the victims of the Nazis were also those with physical disabilities. Weakness of any kind was not to be tolerated.

Hitler thought of Jews, Gypsies, Negroes, and Slavs as undesirable races, some more undesirable than others. All would be killed eventually, to make room for "Aryans". I'm not sure what Hitler's plans were for the Japanese, whom he respected for having defeated Russia in 1905.

In December 1941 Hitler and Churchill were both delighted that the USA was finally at war. We all know why Churchill felt that way. Hitler's motives are less well known. Hitler believed that only a racially homogeneous state could be strong. He viewed the USA as hopelessly "mongrelized" and therefore not much of a threat. Hitler soon declared war on the USA, thereby relieving FDR of the need to convince the Congress and the people to go to war against Germany.

Hitler's greatest blunder, attacking the USSR, can also be partially explained by his racism: the Slavs would be easy to defeat because of their racial inferiority. Hitler was also influenced by how poorly the USSR did against Finland in the Winter War. But I digress.

Unfortunately, since 1945 there have been many developments reminiscent of the Holocaust. What was once viewed as a peculiarly German phenomenon is now seen as universal. We are all potential Nazis, as Stanley Milgram showed in his book, Obedience to Authority.

[rasputin1952]

18. "We are all potentially Nazi's" is very true...

Fortunately, the vast majority of humanity can repress such indignities to the human soul.

Totalitarian regimes have existed for as long as humanity has come together to form societies. Raely however, have they come to the extremes that Nazi's and Imperial Japan of the 30's-40's seem to have expressed. Attila, Xerxes etc., found many ways to terrorize and subjugate peoples and exterminate them as they saw "fit". We are no more than animals that have, on occasion, reached heights that have moved us up the scale somewhat.

While many have see Hitler's move against the USSR as it's point of no return and greatest blunder, to me, his greatest blunder was when he claimed complete power....from there on, he was hell bent on personal as well as societal destruction. Also, leaving Britain essentially intact, ensured that there was a close jumping off point for the carnage that would end his rule.

[Lionel Mandrake]

20. Hitler didn't want to leave Britain essentially intact.

He tried like hell to knock out the UK after defeating France. The attacks of the Luftwaffe on British air fields were meant as a prelude to an invasion. The idea was to knock out the RAF and thereby gain air supremacy, which would have been necessary for a successful invasion.

After the RAF won the Battle of Britain, there was no longer a prospect of a German invasion of the UK.

Since the western front was a stalemate, Hitler turned his attention to the east. In June 1941, he launched an attack on the the part of Poland occupied by the USSR. IMHO this attack (Operation Barbarossa) was Hitler's greatest blunder. Of course, there is room for more than one opinion about this.

[rasputin1952]

21. He didn't want to, but he did leave Britain intact...

a full scale invasion would have changed things dramatically, but he thought Goering was right on airpower. The RAF and British ground forces were pretty well taken down, but Hitler had no idea.

Anyway...to be honest, there were massive blunders everywhere. The worst thing he could have done was overextend his supply, which he did virtually everywhere. If he had known Enigma was being used against him, and if he would have left generals to run the war, things would have been very different.

Essentially, he overextended himself in every way possible. When he took over command of the war, he was history.

What it all comes down to in a nutshell, is that i hope humanity has learned from this horror, but apparently, most of the lessons learned, are of the negative kind, and others have learned that genocide is somehow "acceptable"....:(

[Lionel Mandrake]

22. And we can all be thankful

that the British air defense was successful, that Britain survived, and that Hitler deteriorated and became his own worst enemy.

By the end of 1941 Hitler had new enemies - the USA and the USSR - to contend with. Soviet manpower and the American economy made a huge difference, but not right away. German submariners had their "second happy time" at our expense. The Red Army, having been weakened by Stalin's purges, lost huge numbers of men and a huge amount of territory in 1941. The Battle of the Atlantic remained a serious threat to the survival of Britain until mid 1943, when it became clear that the U-boats were getting the worst of it. Stalingrad was a turning point, and Kursk was the nail in the coffin for the Wehrmacht on the eastern front. Hitler helped the Allies immensely by issuing nonsensical orders (you alluded to this). Hitler's refusal to delegate responsibility to his generals played a big part in the success of D-day and the subsequent breakout in Normandy. After that there was much hard fighting but no doubt about the final outcome of the war.

Even as the Allied armies were closing in on Germany, trains continued to carry Jews and other prisoners to the death camps. The Allies could have bombed the trains and the camps, but chose not to, despite knowing exactly what was going on. This is something we have to live with.

[David__77]

5. There was armed, heroic resistance.

There were many Jews among the partisans fighting fascism all across Europe, from France to Greece. The Warsaw ghetto uprising was a glorious act of resistance that should inspire everyone to this day. The armed resistance of Europe's Jews should not be negated or diminished.

[rasputin1952]

7. There certainly were, and many came to the aid of the Jews

as well as Jews coming to the aid of others.

Most stories have been covered over by the immensity of the Holocaust, but there was most certainly resistance, however, once again, it was brutally suppressed...:(

The bravery and tenacity of those who fought should be brought to light whenever such things are uncovered.

[David__77]

8. Triumph of the human spirit.

It sounds cliche, but in that resistance, the best of what humanity has to offer can be seen. It was, straightforwardly, a stark contrast between the greatness and the evil against which it was directed. Sometimes I fear that progressives lose sight of the fact that it is their fights and causes that are indeed profoundly moral and lofty, while our opponents are profoundly immoral and debased. There is no relativity on these questions.

[Exiled in America]

9. Anyone familiar with Howard Zinn's very different take on this?

I'm at work and don't have the time to write it out now. But basically as a pacifist and historian, he argues that going to war against hilter is what pushed him into the final solution and the execution of jews... before that says Zinn, the Nazi's primarily wanted to expell the jews only.

I am not knowledgeable enough, but it goes with out saying my first reaction to Zinn was to think it was ridiculous. I wondered if anyone else had was more familiar with his case?

[happyslug]

11. Zinn is relying on that the Nazis were doing before 1939.

Prior to 1939 the Nazis preferred that all and any Jews leave Germany. Germany was even the main force smuggling Jews into Palestine during the late 1930s (with The English trying to STOP the Jews from going to Palestine). With the Start of WWII in September 1939, England could stop German ships smuggling Jews to Palestine in European waters instead of having to wait for the ship to get off the shore of Palestine.

Even then Hitler did NOT start the death Camps. After England and France declared war, Hitler gave a Speech where he said he would Kill off every Jew in Europe if the US entered the war. Thus sounded like a hollow threat, but the US stayed out of the War till December 1941.

The "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem" was only conceived in December 1941 about the same time as the Japanese attacked Pearl harbor. The Conference had been set up weeks (if not months) earlier so Pearl Harbor was NOT the reason for the meeting. In that meeting the process to gather the Jews, set up death camps and sent the Jew to the Death Camps was set up. The reason for this is twofold, First it looked like the German Army would take Moscow (it failed but that is another Story) and German Troops would have a place to stay the Winter (Moscow) and Russia would be split in two, each half easy to take the next year, but Poland would have to be the base. This lead to a Concern about the Jews in Poland and how the discrimination laws against the Jews would be enforced.

Now, many (if not a Majority) of European Jews lived in Poland and had for Centuries (Poland would take in Jews as they were expelled from other European countries, starting with England under Edward III, Spain in the 1600s, and the rest of Europe during times of Discrimination before 1800). Now Poland was NOT 100% tolerate of Jews (You did have a huge anti-semitic movement in Poland) but under the Laws of Poland the Jews had certain rights if they stayed in their own Communities. For this reason many (if not most) Jews in Europe lived in Poland.

When Russia took over Poland the Czar passed discrimination laws against the Jews (and banned them from moving to any other part of Russia) but other then an occasional pogrom on Jewish towns, the Jews were tolerated even under Czarist rule. As you near 1900 European Anti-Jewish laws were either repealed or ignored, leaving many Polish Jews the ability to go to the rest of Europe but many stayed in Poland.

This lead to the first set of problem, what to do with the Jews of Poland? The invasion of Russia had brought even more Jews under German Control. The SS adopted a policy of sending SS troops behind the Regular army troops to gather up and shoot the Jews (as did German Soldiers in the Regular German Army for killing a Jew was NOT a crime in the German Army). The problem with the shooting of Jews was the Troops assigned to the job did NOT like the job and they suffered from Psychological problems do to the killings. This problem forced the SS to look to anther way to reduce the Jewish population (Since Shipping the Jews to Palestine was no longer possible). It was decided to set up the Death Camps modeled after the euthanasia program already in use in Germany at that time. Thus the death camps were set up in the beginning of 1942 AFTER THE US HAD DECLARED WAR.

On top of this the German Army became dependent on the Jewish Ghettos for support. German equipment was rebuilt and re-shipped from the Polish Ghettos. Many Jews stayed alive do to be needed for th war effort, but as the Russians pushed the Germans back, this need for support dried up and the Jews were sent to the Camps (The main reason the Warsaw Ghetto revolted in 1943 was they new what was happening to Jews who left the Ghetto, the reason they knew is they had time to hear the stories, spread the stories and accept the stories, most other Ghettos did NOT have the time, time provided do to the need for the German Army to keep the Ghettos open to support their Troops.

Thus by 1942 Germany was set up to start the Death Camps. Jews were shipped to them by rail, 55 boxcars at a time (55 was the standard train size in Germany at that time). Roughly 20 people per boxcar so about 1100 at a time arrived at the Death Camps.

Zinn says all of this was the result of the US entering the war, had the US NOT entered the war, Germany needed those trains to support its army in Russia. Given what Germany had to do to conquer Russia, Hitler had no reason to make a special effort to kill the Jews. Hitler was known for one thing, he kept his word. He promise he would NOT take Czechoslovakia in 1938, he kept this word, he only took it in the spring of 1939. Hitler promised he would support Japan in any war between Japan and the US, the US declared war on Japan, Hitler Declared war on the US. You had to be careful around Hitler, but once you reduced him down to what he promised he kept his word. This is the second point I want to make, Hitler said if the Jews of New York City do NOT keep the US out of WWII, hitler would kill off every Jew in Europe (and the reverse is also true, if the US stayed out of WWII, no jew in Europe would be killed by Hitler). Hitler kept his word so the Jews had to all die.

In a heart Zinn argument was that the pressure of the War would have contained Hitler, but once the US entered the War Hitler's Anti-Semitism lead to the Death Camps. I understand where Zinn is coming from, it is logical, but Hitler and the Nazis were NOT operating on a rational level. The Jews were the cause of all of their problems and if you killed as many of them off as you can, they would be less Jews to cause problems in the Future. Just a dispute as to HOW Hitler was thinking from 1941-1945. Zinn puts more reliance on Hitler's Word, the other side on Hitlers need to keep the anti-Semitic radicals, who were the heart and soul of the Nazi party, happy by leaving them arrange to kill all the Jews in Europe. IT is a tough debate but one I have to go against Zinn, the Nazis were so anti-Semitic they would kill Jews both in Defeat and Victory, or they believe that victory could only be achieved if all the Jews were dead.

[Exiled in America]

12. Thank you thank you thank you for that excellent summary!

:toast:

[Lionel Mandrake]

14. Thank you very much for an excellent post.

I would have to agree that Hitler's word wasn't worth much in the long run. You gave some examples of promises he kept for a while and broke later.

In addition, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of August 1939 was essentially a mutual promise between Hitler and Stalin not to make war on each other. As we all know, Hitler broke this promise in June 1941. So much for him keeping his word!

[ProudDad]

15. Hitler didn't have the corner on the anti-Semite market

Voyage to Doom:

http://www.heritagevision.org/350/look/look2.htm

Anti-Semitism in America during the Holocaust

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/usholo/LaurenAntisemPage.htm

[Lionel Mandrake]

16. More information on this topic

can be found in Part III of Hilberg's Perpetrators Victims Bystanders (1992).

[LanternWaste]

17. I knew there was a good reason I've been avoiding Zinn...

"The Nazi's primarily wanted to expel the Jews only."

I knew there was a good reason I've been avoiding Zinn...

[Lionel Mandrake]

19. The development of the Nazi policy toward Jews

was described more succinctly by Hilberg than by Zinn. Hilberg noted three stages. I don't remember the exact wording, but it goes something like this:
1. You will not be allowed to live here as Jews.
2. You will not be allowed to live here.
3. You will not be allowed to live.

[Ian David]

3. On a related note, The Bush Administration got busted trying to whitewash The Holocaust...

See related thread:

U.S. State Dept. to revise Web site after Holocaust complaint
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=316&topic_id=1306&mesg_id=1306

[PATRICK]

13. That seems cleverly crafted

with the outstanding lawsuit against the Bushes for 40 billion perhaps in mind. Without specificiity of the Jews being victims maybe the lawsuit can get brushed aside. It is a gun Israel holds to the dynasty's head, it thinks.

[barb162]

4. kick