to the Remembering Module with Overview, Lesson 10

7
OVERVIEW
REMEMBERING AND FORGETTING
T
he magnitude of the Holocaust did not become evident until April 17, 1945,
when the Allied forces from the west and the Russian forces from the east
linked up at the Elbe River in Germany. As unsuspecting Allied soldiers
entered the concentration camps in Germany, they discovered thousands of
dying people. Despite the efforts of the British and American medical personnel.
these prisoners were rescued too late. In the weeks following liberation, many of
them died of typhus and other diseases or from starvation.
DISPLACED PERSONS
Allied forces faced a serious dilemma. What
was to be done with the freed prisoners of war and displaced persons (DPs).
For most survivors, their homes, family, and friends no longer existed. Those
who did return to their homelands were often met with hostility by their neighbors;
many of whom had profited by their absence. The Allies set up DP camps to
house the vast numbers of
National Archives
Jewish survivors and other
refuges with no place to
return to. The camps were
mostly located in areas of
Germany controlled by the
western Allies, especially
the United States and
Great Britain. By 1946,
250,000 Jews crowded
Portion of letter from President Harry S Truman to General
into DP camps. These
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 31 August 1945, ordering an
camps were considered a
improvement in the condition of refugees in the displaced
persons camps
temporary
arrangement
until the DPs could
immigrate or return to their native lands. When it became clear that other
countries would not significantly raise their immigration quotas, the 200,000 Jews
liberated from the camps were returned to their native countries. Some 65,000
Polish and Lithuanian Jews had nowhere to go.
Both political and humanitarian reasons contributed to the decision to open the
doors of Palestine to the survivors of the Holocaust. In western Europe and the
United States, letters from soldiers in occupied Germany described the horrors of
the death camps. In the United States, the findings from committees and
individuals contributed to public awareness of the Holocaust.
ISRAEL OPENS DOORS TO REFUGEES
In November 1947,
the United Nations General Assembly voted to sanction a partition plan dividing
8
Palestine into a binational state. The state of Israel became a haven for the
surviving Jews of Europe. The modern state of Israel did not result from the
Holocaust. Its roots go back to the
National Archives
Zionist political philosophy of the late
nineteenth century, but the holocaust
experience influenced its establishment. After the horrors of the Holocaust, many Jewish leaders felt that
a Jewish state was the only
guarantee of safety.
Resettlement of refugees was just
one of the problems facing the
leaders of the postwar world. Equally
pressing was the need to understand
and bring to justice those who had
carried out the Holocaust. This was
the purpose of the Nuremberg
Trials held in Nuremburg, Germany.
This was the first time that leaders of
a country were tried by an
international tribunal for crimes that
Rudolf Hess points to Franz Trenkle, number
had been in keeping with state
four on the list of forty accused torturers at
policy. There were two sets of trials
Dachau on trial for their actions, 20 Nov. 1945
of Nazi war criminals. The first set
began November 20, 1945, and lasted until October 1, 1946. An International
Military Tribunal was convened, made up of repre-sentatives of the United
States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. These trials were of the political,
military, and economic leaders of the Third Reich captured by the Allies. Among
the defendants were Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, and Albert Speer. Many of
the most prominent Nazi leaders—Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels—committed
suicide and were not brought to trial. At these trials, most of those who had
participated in the Holocaust were charged with committing “crimes against
humanity.” Such crimes were defined as the murder, extermination, enslavement,
deportation, and other inhuman acts committed against civilian groups on
political, racial, or religious grounds.
The second set of trials, the Subsequent Nuremburg Proceedings, was
conducted by the Office of the U.S. Government for Germany. Although these
trials used American judges, the tribunal considered itself international. These
trials tool place from 1946 to 1949. The defendants were high-ranking Nazi
officials including cabinet ministers, SS officers, and doctors who had carried out
medical experiments. The American Nuremburg tribunal sentenced twenty-four
to death, twenty to life imprisonment, ninety-eight to other prison terms while
acquitting thirty-five.
DEFENDANTS SAY THEY OBEYED ORDERS
Defendants did not
deny the charges, but argued that in a war situation, they were following orders
9
and could not be held responsible for orders from a superior. The prosecutors
argued that while war is an evil thing, there is the unwritten “custom of war” which
forbids murder as distinguished from killing in legitimate combat. Despite these
high profile trials, the majority of Nazi war criminals were not prosecuted. Most
returned to normal life. Hundreds of thousands of members of the Gestapo, the
SS, the Einsatzgruppen, the police, and the armed forces, as well as business
people and bureaucrats who planned and implemented the Final Solution.
received no penalties for their participation in genocide.
NAZI HUNTERS SEARCH FOR WAR CRIMINALS
Between 15,000
and 20,000 Nazi war criminals were still alive in the early 1990s. Most were
thought to be hiding in Europe, South America, or the United States. The search
for these people continues, led by men and women known as Nazi hunters. One
of the most famous Nazi hunters is Simon Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor. He
has successfully tracked down more than 1,000 Nazi criminals. He discovered
the hiding places of Argentina’s Adolf Eichmann, the high-ranking Nazi official
responsible for arranging all transportation of Jews to the camps during the
period of the Final Solution. After the war Eichmann escaped from a POW camp
in Germany and made his way to Argentina. He was captured by agents of the
Israeli government in Argentina in 1960 and taken to Israel, where he stood trial.
Eichmann never denied the accusations against him, but claimed that he was
powerless to resist orders from his military superiors. After a sixteen-week trial,
Eichmann was found guilty of all charges and was hanged in Israel in 1962.
Other well-known Nazi hunters are Beate and Serge Klarsfeld. Through their
efforts, Klaus Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyon after the Nazis took over
southern France, was brought to trial in France and sentenced to life imprisonment in 1987 for committing “crimes against humanity.” Known as the “Butcher of
Lyon,” Barbie carried out the deportation of more than 800 Jews and members of
the French Resistance. In 1951 Barbie moved to Bolivia and lived there under a
false identity until 1972, when the Klarsfelds found him. The Bolivian government
refused to extradite Barbie until 1983. He died in jail.
The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been
so calculated, so malignant and devastating, that civilization
cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive
their being repeated.
Justice Robert Jackson
Chief American Counsel
Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
10
TEACHING LESSON
10
Handout 10A: German Officers State Their Case, Part I
Handout 10B: Himmler Speaks to the SS Leaders
Handout 10C: Julius Remembers Eichmann
Handout 10D: German Officers State Their Case, Part II
Vocabulary:
Nuremberg Trials, Einsatzgruppen, crimes against humanity,
kapo, SS
Either the teacher or a student should summarize Overview 7 for students,
emphasizing the Nuremberg Trials. Point out that although these trials were
unique in having an international panel of judges and prosecutors, they were
conducted like other criminal trials. The defendants were charged in written
indictments, were represented by counsel of their own choosing, had the right to
argue their own cases, and could provide defense witnesses. The accused in the
Nuremberg Trials were charged with three types of crimes. One category was
“crimes against peace” which included planning and waging wars of aggression
and conspiring to commit war crimes. A second category was war crimes. A third
category, “crimes against humanity.” included crimes against civilians and groups
for which the laws of war offered no protection. Guilt or innocence was
determined by a panel of judges from the major Allied powers: the United States,
Britain, the Soviet Union, and France.
Tell students that they are about to read explanations by two German officers
who gave testimony at trials about their reasons for participating in the
Holocaust. Before distributing the handouts, the class can speculate briefly on
what explanations the men will offer for their behavior. Heinrich Himmler, referred
to in Handouts 10A and 10C, was the SS chief with the responsibility for the
Final Solution.
Divide the class into pairs. Give each pair a copy of Handout 10A. Assign
students Part I of the Handout, the testimony of Otto Ohlendorf. Have one
student make a list of the arguments Ohlendorf used to explain his behavior.
Have the other student provide a list of counterarguments for each argument
stated. Repeat this process with Part II of Handout 10A, the writings of Rudolf
Hess. This time, however, have students in each pair switch roles, asking the
student who identified arguments to find counterarguments and the student who
found counterarguments identify Hess’s explanation for his behavior.
11
When all pairs have completed the assignment, one member of each pair can
share their list of arguments or explanations with the class. (Among the
explanations suggested by the readings are the argument that the officers were
just following orders, that to disobey would have been unpatriotic, that it was not
the responsibility of subordinates to make decisions but only to carry them out,
that the military training of German soldiers had not prepared them to make
decisions, that the officers did not have enough information to make a decision
about the rightness of their actions or involvement.)
List all arguments on the board. Then have the students supply counterarguments. Conclude by writing the following statements on the board: It is the
duty of soldiers to obey all orders. Soldiers give up their right to judge and
examine when they enter the service.” Have students debate this statement or
write a paper explaining their opinions. Tell students that Otto Ohlendorf was
executed in 1951. Rudolf Hess was executed in March 1947. Ask students
whether they think German soldiers share the blame for the atrocities committed
by the Nazis with the many millions of civilians who stood by neither resisting nor
protesting these activities.
Before reading aloud the speech by Heinrich Himmler in Handout 10B, explain
that the speech was delivered by Himmler, chief of the elite military corps known
as the SS, to top SS leaders at a meeting in Poznan, Poland, in 1943. Himmler
had much of the responsibility for carrying out the Final Solution. Because of this,
he was one of the most important Nazi leaders. Discuss reactions to Himmler’s
speech. Were students surprised by Himmler’s pride in the slaughter? Why or
why not? Distribute Handout 10B before continuing discussion. Give students
time to read the biographical information about Himmler on the handout. Then
ask:
1. What subject does Himmler say he is discussing? (the deportation and
extermination of European Jews)
2. Why does he say that his topic can be talked about openly at that meeting,
but not elsewhere? (The people in this group presumably share his belief in
the Final Solution and his commitment to the extermination of the Jews.)
3. Why does Himmler say that SS leaders should feel proud about their part in
the murder of Jews? (They should feel proud because they have remained
“decent.” It is a “glorious” page in German history.)
Before continuing discussion of Himmler’s speech, write the word “decent” on the
board. Then ask:
4. What do you think Himmler means when he says that the people who did this
have remained “decent”? (true to their convictions, committed to their racist
beliefs, patriotic or loyal to their country)
5. How does Himmler’s definition of “decency” differ from what is usually meant
by this term? (One definition of “decent” is “morally praiseworthy.” Encourage
students to develop their own definitions.)
12
Conclude this lesson by dividing students into groups and distributing Handouts
10C and 10D. In Handout 10C Julius recalls seeing Adolf Eichmann. This
handout offers a view of the Holocaust perpetrators from the perspective of one
of their victims. Julius’s account is chilling in its vivid portrayal of Eichmann’s
obviously sadistic enjoyment as he watches the execution of five prisoners.
Students have read about Julius, a survivor of Auschwitz, in Handout 5D. Before
students read 10C, review the earlier account of Julius’s concentration camp
experiences.
After reading Julius’s account of his encounter with Eichmann, distribute
Handout 10D. Have students answer the questions on the handout and then
compare Julius’s description of Eichmann’s behavior with Eichmann’s own
justification of his actions.
1. How does Julius’s eyewitness account refute Eichmann’s assessment of his
behavior?
2. How does it damage Eichmann’s credibility?
Working in groups, have students prepare a written or an oral response that a
survivor such as Julius might have given to Eichmann’s plea for leniency and to
his statement that he was only obeying orders.
Connect to Civics: As a class, create a Charter of Rights for members of the
armed forces. Identify rights and responsibilities of soldiers. Students can define
what they believe to be the obligations of soldiers to carry out orders with which
they disagree. They can also decide if soldiers will be held responsible for
carrying out orders that are later judged to be criminal acts.
Interested students might research and report to the class on more recent trials
of Nazi war criminals, the explanations given by Serbian soldiers for their
participation in “ethnic cleansing” during the hostilities in the former Yugoslavia,
or the defense of Lieutenant William Cally for his behavior at My Lai during the
Vietnam War. Students can consult the Reader’s Guide and the Internet for
articles on the trial of Adolf Eichmann or Klaus Barbie. Others might find out
about the work of famous Nazi hunters such as Simon Wiesenthal or Beate
Klarsfeld.
Connect to the Internet: In April 1997 PBS aired a two–hour television documentary, The Trial of Adolf Eichmann. In conjunction with the program, PBS and
ABC News created an outstanding website (www.remember.org/eichmann)
which provides excellent materials on the trial proceedings as well as classroom
activities and other resources for learning more about the Eichmann trial.
13
HANDOUT 10A
GERMAN OFFICERS STATE THEIR CASE. PART I
A
t the Nuremberg War Trials, Otto Ohlendorf, an officer in the German army, was questioned
about his leadership of the Einsatzgruppen, or mobile killing units. These squads moved
from place to place killing groups of people and piling their bodies into mass graves often dug by
the victims themselves. Under Ohlendorf’s direction, Special Task Unit D murdered about 90,000
Jews. The mobile killing units operated in newly captured Soviet territory in 1941, killing more
than 1.2 million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Soviet prisoners of war taken by the
Germans. Ohlendorf was a university-educated officer who held a Ph.D. in law. An academic and
intellectual, he held the position of Director of Research at the Institute for World Economy and
Maritime Transport before becoming commander of Ein-satzgruppen D. Two excerpts from his
testimony at the Nuremberg Trials follow:
USHMM: courtesy National Archives
PROSECUTOR: What were the
instructions with respect to the Jews
and the communists [officials]?
OHLENDORF: The instructions were
that in the Russian operational areas of
the Einsatzgruppen, the Jews as well
as the Soviet political leaders were to
be liquidated.
PROSECUTOR: And when you say
“liquidated” do you mean “killed”?
OHLENDORF: Yes, I mean “Killed.” In
the late summer of 1941 Himmler . . .
assembled the leaders and men of the
Einsatzkommandos, repeated to them
the liquidation order, and pointed out that the leaders and men who were taking
part in the liquidation bore no personal responsibility for the execution of this
order. The responsibility was his alone and [Hitler’s]. . . . To me it is inconceivable that a subordinate [secondary] leader should not carry out orders given
by the leaders of the state.
Otto Ohlendorf testifying on his own behalf
at the Einsatzgruppen Trial, 9 Oct. 1947
PROSECUTOR: Was the legality of the orders explained to these people in a
dishonest way?
OHLENDORF: I do not understand your question. Since the order was issued by
the superior authorities, the question of legality could not arise in the minds of
these individuals for they had sworn obedience to the people who had issued the
orders.
COUNSEL: What were your thoughts when you received the order for the
killings?
14
OHLENDORF: The immediate feeling with me and the other men was one of
personal protest, but I was under direct military coercion and carried it out. The
order, as such, even now I consider to have been wrong, but there is no question
for me whether it was moral or immoral, because a leader who has to deal with
such serious questions decides on his own responsibility. This is his responsibility. I cannot examine and I cannot judge. I am not entitled to do so. What I did
there is the same as is done in any other army. As a soldier, I got an order and I
obeyed this order as a soldier.
1. Make a list of the main arguments Ohlendorf uses to explain his actions.
2. Next to each argument you have listed, write three or four sentences
describing how you think the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trial would
answer each argument the defendant has made.
3. What person or group do you think the defendant would blame for the loss of
life that occurred in the Holocaust?
German Officers State Their Case, Continued
Rudolf Hess became an active member of the SS in 1934. He ran concentration camps at
Dachau and Sachsenhausen before becoming the commander of the Auschwitz death camp in
May 1940. Acting on instructions from Heinrich Himmler, Hess turned Auschwitz from a
concentration camp into the largest center for the mass murder of European Jews. Over four
million people were systematically put to death at Auschwitz. Hess served as head of this camp
from 1940 until the end of 1943. In November 1943, Hess was moved from Auschwitz to Berlin
where he worked for the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office. However, he returned
there in the summer of 1944 to oversee the murder of more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews. Hess
was tried at Nuremberg. A part of his explanation for his actions at the camp follows:
Don’t you see, we SS men were not supposed to think about these things. It
never ever occurred to us—and besides, it was something already taken for
granted that the Jews were to blame for everything. We just never heard
anything else. Even our military training took for granted that we had to protect
Germany from the Jews. It only started to occur to me after the collapse that
maybe it was not quite right, after I had heard what everybody was saying. We
were all trained to obey orders without even thinking. The thought of disobeying
an order would simply never have occurred to anybody and somebody else
would have done just as well if I hadn’t. Himmler had ordered it and had even
explained the necessity and I really never gave much thought to whether it was
right or wrong. It just seemed necessary.
When, in the summer if 1941, Himmler gave me the order to prepare installations
at Auschwitz, where mass exterminations could take place and personally carry
out these exterminations, I did not have the slightest idea of their scale or consequences. It was certainly an extraordinary and monstrous order. Nevertheless,
the reasons behind the extermination program seemed to me, right. I did not
reflect on it at the time. I had been given an order and I had to carry it out.
Whether this mass extermination was necessary or not was something on which
I could not allow myself to form an opinion, for I lacked the necessary breadth of
view.
15
Since my arrest, it has been said to me repeatedly that I could have disobeyed
this order, and that I might have assassinated Himmler. I do not believe that of all
the thousands of SS officers there could have been found a single one capable
of such a thought. It was completely impossible. Certainly many SS officers
grumbled about some of the orders that came from the SS, but they nevertheless
always carried them out.
1. Make a list of the main arguments Hess uses to explain his actions during the
Holocaust.
2. Next to each argument you have listed, write three or four sentences
describing how the prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials might answer each
argument the defendant has made.
3. On what person or group do you think the defendant would place the blame
or responsibility for the persecution and loss of life that occurred in the
Holocaust?
USHMM: courtesy Harry S Truman Library
Rudolf Hess being interrogated by U.S. attorneys for
information pertaining to the Nuremberg Trials, fall 1945
16
HANDOUT 10B
HIMMLER SPEAKS TO THE SS LEADERS
H
einrich Himmler was the head of the SS and the senior SS official in charge of
carrying out the Final Solution. He was one of Hitler’s main advisers and had been
active in the Nazi party since the 1920s. Himmler helped to change the SS from a small
band of Hitler bodyguards into an elite army corps that later ran the concentration and
death camps. In 1939 he helped organize the Kristallnacht pogroms. Strongly committed
to racist Nazi ideology, Himmler believed he was doing a great service for Germany by
killing what he considered to be subhuman or inferior races. When the war ended,
Himmler tried to escape Germany disguised as a soldier, but was arrested by British
troops. In May 1945, he committed suicide. In a 1943 speech he gave to SS leaders in
Poznan, Poland, Himmler made the following statement:_________________________
I want to tell you about a very grave matter in all
frankness. We can talk about it quite openly here, but
we must never talk about it publicly. I mean the
evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish
people. Most of you will know what it means to see one
hundred corpses piled up, or 500 or 1000. To have
gone through this and—except for instance of human
weakness—to have remained decent, that has made
us tough. This is an unwritten, never to be written,
glorious page of our history.
Evidence Presented at the Trial of Major War Criminals at Nuremberg
USHMM: courtesy Instytut Pamieci Narodowej
Reichsfuehrer SS Heinrich Himmler (center, right)
on an official tour of the Janowska concentration
camp in Poland, ca. August 1942
17
HANDOUT 10C
JULIUS REMEMBERS EICHMANN
I
n this selection Julius, who was imprisoned in the Auschwitz death camp, tells about
his encounter with Adolf Eichmann, the top Nazi official in charge of rounding up and
departing Jews to the death camps.__________________________________________
In September 1944, something was in the air. The soldiers and the kapos were
extremely strict, more strict than usual and everything had to be just so. Naturally
we suspected that something was going to happen. We figured that maybe
some high-ranking visitors were coming, maybe Himmler himself. During the
night, before we left for work, they started building something in the middle of the
square, but we didn’t know what they were building. We thought maybe it was a
podium.
The next morning I happened to be working on the day shift. We went to work as
usual at 6:45 a.m. But at two o’clock in the afternoon the whistle blew and we
had to stop. This happened only one day the whole time I was in this camp. It
was very unusual. Everyone started whispering. Rumors began to fly that high
dignitaries were visiting the camp. We marched back to camp and as we entered
the gate, we saw three inmates standing in line in the tube. This was a space
between two electrically charged wires and was the area where they punished us
for minor infractions like stealing some potato peels from the kitchen.
They marched us to the center of the square and we saw that what they had
been building was a gallows. Near the gallows were some chairs. So we start
adding up. We saw the three guys, three gallows. You didn’t have to be a genius
to figure what was happening. We tried to find out why these guys had been
picked up. Nobody knew. Later on, we found they were from the night shift. They
were supposed to be sleeping, but during the day, you were allowed to go the
bathroom if you had to. They went to the bathroom and were going back to their
barrack, when they were taken. They spent the rest of the day waiting for the
hanging.
After about a half hour of waiting in front of the gallows, a group of officers came
in—the camp commander, all his officers, and a few other high-ranking officers.
Then suddenly, the grapevine started moving. “It’s Eichmann, it’s Eichmann.” We
saw them walk in front of the gallows and sit in the chairs. They sat down and the
three poor souls were brought from the tube. They lined them up in front of the
gallows on stools and a German soldier put a noose around each of their necks.
Then they stood there, waiting. After a while the German solider who had put the
nooses around their necks went by and kicked each stool out of there. I had seen
dead people before, but this was the worse sight I’ve ever seen before or since.
Three men, innocent young fellows from Budapest. I knew them personally. No
speeches. No reasons. Actually, it was in honor of the visitor, who turned out to
18
be Eichmann. It was a hanging party in his honor. Some dignitaries would have
been satisfied with a bouquet of flowers. He had to have a hanging party.
The Nazi officers were carrying on a conversation among themselves and we
were wondering what was going to happen next. After a few minutes the officers
stood up, and actually I could see Eichmann clapping his hands and stomping his
foot in glee like he had seen a beautiful performance of some sort. The officers
were laughing and joking among themselves.
USHMM: courtesy Israel Government Press Office
Adolf Eichmann listens as he is sentenced to death
at his trial in Israel, 15 Dec. 1961
The hanging was gruesome, but
the worst was yet to come. The
guest of honor got up from his
chair. He had decided to have
another hanging party. Eichmann
passed down in front of us. We
were lined up in rows five deep.
He picked his first victim. Then
he walked further down the line
and stopped right in front of me,
reaching as if he would grab my
neck; but instead of grabbing me,
he pulled out the poor fellow
behind me and then he picked a
third one. The three men were
lined up on the gallows and
executed in turn.
The hanging party was over. The guest of honor, whom we were told was
Eichmann, left and the camp went back to its normal routine.
19
HANDOUT 10D
GERMAN OFFICERS STATE THEIR CASE. PART II
A
dolf Eichmann has been described as the main coordinator of the Final Solution.
He was brought to trial in Israel in April 1961. At the trial, the prosecution
presented more than 1400 documents showing Eichmann’s deep involvement in
Hitler’s plans to annihilate the Jews. Eichmann’s defense never challenged the
factual account by the Holocaust survivors of his actions or the authenticity of the
prosecution’s documents. The trial lasted four months. After it ended, the court
recessed as the panel of judges adjourned to consider the evidence. The judges
reassembled in December 1961 to hand down a guilty verdict. After the conviction,
the presiding judge gave Eichmann the chance to address the court before the
sentencing phase of the trial began. Here are excerpts from Eichmann’s
statement:_________________________________________
Once again I would stress that I am guilty of having been obedient, having
subordinated myself to the official duties and the obligations of war service and my
oath of allegiance and my oath of office. . . . This obedience was not easy. And
again, anyone who has to give orders and has to obey orders knows what one can
demand of people. I did not persecute Jews with avidity and passion. That is what
the government did. Nor could the persecution be carried out other than by a
government… I accuse the leaders of abusing my obedience. At that time obedience
was demanded, just as in the future it will also be demanded of the subordinates.
Obedience is commended as a virtue. May I therefore ask that consideration be
given to the fact that I obeyed, and not whom I obeyed.
[The] top echelons, to which I
did not belong, gave the
orders, and they rightly, in my
opinion,
deserved
the
punishment for the atrocities
which were perpetrated on
the victims on their orders.
But the subordinates are now
also victims. I am one of such
victims. It is said that I could
and should have refused to
be obedient. . . . Under the
circumstances then prevailing
such an attitude was not
possible. Nor did anyone
behave in this fashion. From
my exper-ience I know that
the possibility, which was alAdolf Eichmann, in a bullet-proof glass enclosure, taking
leged only after the war, of
notes during his trial in Jerusalem, 1961
opposing orders is a selfprotective fairy tale. An individual could secretly slip away. But I was not one of those
who thought that was permissible.
USHMM: courtesy Israel Government Press Office
20
I was asked by the judges whether I wished to make an admission of guilt, like the
Commandant of Auschwitz, Hess, and the Governor General of Poland, Frank.
These two had every reason to make such an admission of guilt. . . . Hess was the
one who actually carried out the mass killings.
My position is different. I never had the power and the responsibility of a giver of
orders. I never carried out killings, as Hess did.
I am not the monster that I am made out to be. I am the victim of an error of
judgment.
1. On whom does Eichmann place the blame for the war crimes of the Nazis?
2. What does Eichmann say was his role was in these crimes? Why does he
say he is a “victim”?
3 How are Eichmann’s arguments similar to and different from those of
Ohlendorft and Hess?
4. How does Julius’s eyewitness account of Eichmann’s actions at Auschwitz
undermine the credibility of Eichmann’s statements about his actions? How
does Julius’s testimony contradict Eichmann’s statement that he did not
persecute Jews with “avidity and passion”?
5. What other statements by Eichmann does Julius’s testimony contradict?
6. Would Julius have been a good witness for the prosecution at Eichmann’s
trial? Give reasons for your answer.
21
EPILOGUE
Handout 11:
The News from Germany: 1998
Optional Video: Not In Our Town: Heroes
Vocabulary:
neo-Nazis
Draw a continuum like this on the chalkboard:
TOTAL ACCEPTANCE
PREJUDICE
REJECTION/DEATH
Explain that the term Total Acceptance describes a society in which the poorest,
least powerful people and the highest, most powerful people in the society are all
subject to the same laws. In such a society, the civil and human rights of all
individuals are equally respected. At the other end of the continuum, the term
Total Rejection describes a society in which the state is all-powerful and
individuals have no rights. The midpoint on this line is prejudice, where the rights
of minorities begin to suffer. Have volunteers draw X’s at the points on the line
were they would put their own community, North Carolina, or the United States.
Working in groups, have students reach a consensus conclusion and then send a
representative to the chalkboard to show their placements on the continuum and
explain the reasons for their choices.
Then focus on Germany in the late 1930s and the war years. Have volunteers
locate on the continuum where such actions as these fall:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
Nuremburg Laws
Kristallnacht
Yellow star badge introduced
Jewish property given to pro-Nazi non-Jews
ghettoization
death camps built in Poland
Jews collected and deported “to the East.”
Have students use the Time Line in the back of the book to pick other events for
the continuum. Emphasize that Hitler’s treatment of the Jews was not an abrupt
move from protection of human rights by the government to genocide. It was a
steady progression from laws limiting civil rights, to ghettos, to the plan for the
genocide of the Jewish people. Along the way, the Nazis skillfully built popular
support by playing on existing fears or hatred of Jews.
Nazi Hunter Simon Wiesenthal has identified six conditions that he believes
made it possible for the Holocaust to take place. These conditions are:
22
1) The existence of a feeling of overpowering hatred by the people of a
nation
2) A charismatic leader able to identify the feelings of anger and alienation
that existed within the nation and convert these feelings into hatred of a
target group
3) A government bureaucracy that could be taken over and used to organize a policy of repression and extermination
4) A highly developed state of technology that makes possible methods of
mass extermination
5) War or economic hard times
6) A target group against whom this hatred could be directed.
Write six of these conditions on the board. Then distribute Handout 11. Have
students decide whether any of these conditions existed in Germany in 1998
when this article was written. How many, if any, exist in any country today? Have
students locate this event on the continuum. Discuss what students might do or
encourage others to do to make sure that situations such as this do not escalate
further. Ask:
1) What role should the government play in ending outbreaks of violence
such as this?
2) Do religious institutions and private citizens have a responsibility to help
defuse such situations?
Point out that Germany has responded to the growth of neo-Nazi groups in a
variety of ways including the banning of such parties and of neo-Nazi literature
and the organization of anti-hate group rallies. Note also that the two young men
who attacked Thavr were being put on trial.
Connect to Civic Participation: Have students report to the class on how
individual Americans and the U.S. government have responded to the rise of
hate crimes in this country. In 1993, when violence and vandalism by white
supremacists threatened Jews, Native Americans, and African Americans in
Billings, Montana, the city’s residents fought back in a variety of ways, including
the formation of a human rights watch committee and holding anti-hate rallies.
After a rock was thrown through the window of the home of a Jewish family
where a Chanukah menorah was displayed, the local newspaper printed a fullpage menorah for families of all faiths to hang in the windows of their homes to
show community solidarity. Nearly 10,000 residents did so. The video Not In Our
Town: Heroes tells the story of events in Billings. A second video, Not In Our
Town II: Citizens Respond to Hate looks at how communities in the United States
have taken a stand against intolerance. Students can also use the Internet to find
articles on responses to the hate crimes that resulted in the dragging death of
James Byrd in Texas in June 1998 and the murder of Matthew Shepherd in
Wyoming in October 1998.
23
HANDOUT 11
THE NEWS FROM GERMANY: 1998
Chicago Tribune
April 5, 1998
Germany’s New Storm Troopers
Fuerstenwalde, Germany—A kind of ethnic cleansing is taking place in democratic
Germany, spawned by violent right-wing groups against mainly Third World foreigners whom they blame for taking jobs from Germans. In towns and villages all over the
former states of communist-ruled eastern Germany, the rightists threaten and beat up
foreigners, trying to force them to leave the country. About ten of their victims have
been killed in the past two years.
“You don’t find foreigners on the streets in eastern Germany past 6 or 8 p.m.,” said
Bernd Wagner, a former police officer who has made a study of rightist violence. “In
the villages, it’s difficult for the police because often their own sons are involved in the
violence,” he said. “And the rightists have some sympathizers among the police. I’ve
heard police say all foreigners are criminals, and the young people help us keep the
countryside clean.”
Antiforeigner sentiment is a problem in several European countries, but the issue is
particularly sensitive in Germany because of its Nazi past and because its extreme
Right, particularly in eastern Germany, is prone to violence. Foreigners account for
only two percent of the population in eastern Germany, but high unemployment in the
region has made them a focus for smoldering discontent.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that democratic traditions have been slow to take
root in a region that was under communist rule for nearly a half century. The evils of
the Nazi era have been drilled into schoolchildren in western Germany since World
War II, but not in the east. “National Socialism (Nazism) and communism were based
on the same values,” Wagner said. “The motor of dictatorship is the same, if not the car
itself.”
The rightists, whose trademarks are shaved heads and combat fatigues, often are
referred to as neo-Nazis. They prefer to call themselves Nationals. With unemployment
in the east running as high as twenty-three percent, twice the national average, and
many people alienated by a sense of being looked down upon by Germans in the more
prosperous west, the groups tend to be anti-capitalist, anti-Semitic, and anti-foreigner.
The rightists also direct some of their anger at homeless people living on the streets. In
their vernacular, foreigners are “ticks”—that is, bloodsuckers—and the street people
are “cockroaches.”
24
Mohammed Al Thavr, 17, a Yemeni student who has lived in eastern Germany since
age five, is among those who have felt the wrath of rightists. On February 19, en route
to school, he encountered four rightist youths who verbally abused him, fired a blank
pistol at him, and threw sharp-pointed metal objects. Then one of them, wearing boots
with metal caps, kicked him in the face. Thavr suffered a broken nose and cheek bone
and a severe concussion. “I’m afraid to go out now,” Thavr said. “The police have
stopped protecting us foreigners, and protect the Nazis. When something happens to
me, people look away. It’s not that the country is bad. There are a lot of nice people in
Germany. But here the bad ones are stronger.
Thavr lives with a German couple, Berend and Beate Maria Klevenhusen. “The Nazis
are only a very small group, but active,” Beate Klevenhusen said. “At home, they hear
about a foreigner with a job while their father is out of work, and they adopt the
attitude of their parents. They are looking for something to hold onto that is not given
to them by the family or by the country. They have a sense of not getting anywhere.”
Thavr’s two attackers are awaiting trial.
Fuerstenwalde is far from being a major hotbed of rightist violence. A town of 34,000
just thirty-four miles southeast of Berlin, it hosts about 1,500 foreigners. Town
authorities have been more vigorous than most in addressing attacks on foreigners.
They have set up youth and sports clubs to attract young people away from violence,
and hold history workshops to reach the young about the Nazi period.
In the old East German communist state, the lessons of this dark period of German
history were not presented to children in the way they have been in West German
schools. They denied there was anti-Semitism in the East, and there was no discussion
of what National Socialism meant to minorities. The magazine Der Spiegel recently
conducted a survey in eastern Germany which found that sixty-five percent of people
think too many foreigners are living in Germany, forty-eight percent say foreigners
take jobs from Germans, and fourteen percent say a dictatorship could solve the
region’s problems better than the present govern-ment.
Andreas Politz, who heads the Department of Social Affairs at the town hall, said,
“You can’t say right-wing extreme ideas are on the fringe here. They are very
widespread. But young people are not the only ones to blame. “What about the adult
who stands behind a curtain and watches what is going on?” he said.
1. What conditions in eastern Germany made it fertile ground for a right-wing
hate group?
2. Why did this group blame foreigners for their problems? What other groups
are the objects of their anger? How did they express their bigotry?
3. What words did they use to dehumanize foreigners and the homeless?
4. What steps have people in Fuerstenwalde taken to stop the attacks on
foreigners?
5. Could a hate group find supporters in our community? Why or why not?
25