We talked about the situation regarding the Jewish population in class today, and I believe that I have come to a more accurate understanding of the reality in which they lived. A question that I have always had is: why not just leave? I mean, my gracious, if i am faced with death and the possibility of being destitute the rest of my life, I will take my chances with the latter and work my way back to an acceptable standard of living. Yes I realize this could be construed as a demeaning way of looking at these peoples problems, but I do not mean it in this way. I truly believe that if it were me (disregarding the fact that I am female and women just "did not" work during this era) in that situation, I would do everything I could to keep my family alive and then fight my hardest to provide for them and myself in a way that I could be proud of.
As we discussed further, other factors began to weigh in and started to change my mindset about the Jewish populations predicament. When drawing an opinion on the matter there were a couple of "facts" that I took for granted. One, you have to go back and look at the time line. At what point was the "point of no return"? Again, if you look at the functionalist point of view (which I am more inclined to believe, along with a few intentionalist notions), it is not clear that from the beginning the holocaust was inevitable. If I put myself in their shoes, would I want to gamble and lose everything? I have to remember that that they did not necessarily know what lay ahead. It very easy in hindsight to say "oh you should have left", but living in the situations that they did I no longer think that line was so clear.
Another "truth" that I took for granted was that the Jews would have a place to go. I mentioned in class that I felt like either the Jews should leave or that the Nazi's should just deport them all (especially if they had no where to go. just leave them out on their own, its their problem). But one has to consider where could they go? I mean the could illegally sneak into other countries, but remember that many countries that would be "desirable" were at war! And no body wanted them. Somebody mentioned in class that they would not even let them settle in Alaska. Wow. And that's all I have to say about that.
Something that I think is important to remember and that is often overlooked in the history of the Jewish people. As Professor Malto said, what was happening back then (before the mass executions began) was not the worst tragedy to befall the Jewish population. Since the beginning of their existence, the Jews had been persecuted and abused. None of which were truly justifiable. I think that knowledge of their historical resilience hurt them in that it made their thresh hold for pain so great, they couldn't monitor the catastrophe they could face with normal amount of fear.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
national nazis?
Actually I want to throw out there that i was going to go on a rant about the selfish ignorance of the German people. How on earth could they support a political group such as the Nazi's!? They were a part of the problem, not the solution. In fact, they created a whole new set of problems! But after talking about them in class i have reached a new understanding of the Nazi party, and yes, i am a touch impressed. They saw the needs of the people and modified their doctrine and methods to appeal to the majority. To me, that is extremely clever. Especially in a time that was so divisive, where individual interests groups reigned, to recognize that the people truly desired unity and then to offer them that security is astounding. No other political party can truly make that claim. Every single on was angled to a specific set of people- which in turn inherently divides the nation. So by bringing all of these divisions together, the Nazi's were essentially creating a brand new country, not just government or economic system. Therefore the Nazi party garnered and unprecedented sense of nationalism, pride and unity that I would argue hasnt been replicated. That is not to say this party did not have enemies, or that they maintained this support, but for that moment in time, they were a forced to be reckoned with.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
all for one and one for all...
but the Jews dont count.
during the first world war the german peoples banded together to help one another survive. they actively chose to rely on one another rather than the government. someone, though they were apart of this coming together of people, the Jews became further ostracized. more and more they were differentiated from being "true" germans
how this logic makes sense escapes me. much like many of the decisions that the German population seems to have made socially, politically or militarily. (disregarding a few people of course, who seem to have been radically sane from their bretheren).
somehow, before/during/after the war this feeling on antisemitism began to take hold on the country. but why? why was it more socially acceptable to have anti-semetic views now than before? where does the beginning of this shift lie?
Of course, the Jewish nation has been the pariah of every country since practically the start of history. their persecution is not novel, but it is still terrible. and i am always amazed at the hatred mankind can have for one another. and this hatred does not even have valid grounds!! I digress.
Germany had previously been a center for Jewish persecution (during the 1500's i believe. if you are interested, look up the myth of ritual murder. its fascinating what people can come up with... basically they accused the Jews of stealing children to sacrifice their blood and use their bodies in grotesques rituals. another aspect of this was the desecration of the host: the Host would be stolen and tortured until it became a small child (Christ symbol. someone had a rampant imagination). It seems that they just really really wanted to bring it back. But i dont understand how being a Jews makes you not suffer as much as anyone else, or not stand in line as long, or even look different than the average German. The Jews were not exempt from the Burgfrieden. Can someone please explain to me how on earth the German population cam to the point where the majority did not like the Jews?
during the first world war the german peoples banded together to help one another survive. they actively chose to rely on one another rather than the government. someone, though they were apart of this coming together of people, the Jews became further ostracized. more and more they were differentiated from being "true" germans
how this logic makes sense escapes me. much like many of the decisions that the German population seems to have made socially, politically or militarily. (disregarding a few people of course, who seem to have been radically sane from their bretheren).
somehow, before/during/after the war this feeling on antisemitism began to take hold on the country. but why? why was it more socially acceptable to have anti-semetic views now than before? where does the beginning of this shift lie?
Of course, the Jewish nation has been the pariah of every country since practically the start of history. their persecution is not novel, but it is still terrible. and i am always amazed at the hatred mankind can have for one another. and this hatred does not even have valid grounds!! I digress.
Germany had previously been a center for Jewish persecution (during the 1500's i believe. if you are interested, look up the myth of ritual murder. its fascinating what people can come up with... basically they accused the Jews of stealing children to sacrifice their blood and use their bodies in grotesques rituals. another aspect of this was the desecration of the host: the Host would be stolen and tortured until it became a small child (Christ symbol. someone had a rampant imagination). It seems that they just really really wanted to bring it back. But i dont understand how being a Jews makes you not suffer as much as anyone else, or not stand in line as long, or even look different than the average German. The Jews were not exempt from the Burgfrieden. Can someone please explain to me how on earth the German population cam to the point where the majority did not like the Jews?
Friday, October 2, 2009
oh wilhelm...
wilhelm the second was quite a fascinating character. Not that i admire him or even really like him all that much. but he is really interesting to observe. his decision making process was just wild.
when "willie" was born there was a complication and this resulted in the laming of his arm. In photographs he was able to hide this disability but it plagued him emotionally. It undoubtedly influenced his emotional stability and growth through his childhood. not to mention his parents, the crown prince and princess of germany, were influenced to raise him harshly to compensate for his weakness. Not that they raised him themselves of course, this was not how it was done. but the tutors hired to watch over the boy were very strict. one in particular was extremely harsh and he remembers him as not ever uttering a word of praise but being a very harsh critic.
it is important to note, i believe, that the crown princess was a very significant woman in her own right. She was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert (who was never crowned king). She was also her fathers favorite child. She was bright and precocious. her younger brother, the crown prince of england, was less so. he was tricky and rebellious. In many ways he was like willie. yet where Albert (later Edward VII) was a renegade, I feel that Willie was unstable.
Willie was a very jealous person given to fits of indecision. it is evident that his rearing in a society that glorified the military had a profound impact: he loved to dress up in uniform. he loved the discipline and "glory" of the military. of course he was not himself given to the hard work and discipline that the military required, but it was a nice idea.
Wilhelm II assumed the title Kaiser upon the early death of his father, Frederick III. Unfortunately, the cruelness in his nature became even more apparent. He had him mother placed under house arrest and charged her with sending state papers out of the country and into England (this charge is actually somewhat true. Frederick and Vicky were wary of their sons impending rise to the throne and had sent papers out of the country for safe keeping prior to fredericks death. what these papers were i dont remember...). But this cruel streak would reappear numerous times over the course of his rule. He did not have particularly sound relations with his family, particularly his elder sister Sophie, the Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Greece. He was a tyrant, bent on being the "patriarch" of the family. He felt that his siblings should acquiesce to his "almighty power". hah. His mother wrote numerous concerned letters to her daughter articualting her fear and concerns for her son.
when "willie" was born there was a complication and this resulted in the laming of his arm. In photographs he was able to hide this disability but it plagued him emotionally. It undoubtedly influenced his emotional stability and growth through his childhood. not to mention his parents, the crown prince and princess of germany, were influenced to raise him harshly to compensate for his weakness. Not that they raised him themselves of course, this was not how it was done. but the tutors hired to watch over the boy were very strict. one in particular was extremely harsh and he remembers him as not ever uttering a word of praise but being a very harsh critic.
it is important to note, i believe, that the crown princess was a very significant woman in her own right. She was the eldest daughter of Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert (who was never crowned king). She was also her fathers favorite child. She was bright and precocious. her younger brother, the crown prince of england, was less so. he was tricky and rebellious. In many ways he was like willie. yet where Albert (later Edward VII) was a renegade, I feel that Willie was unstable.
Willie was a very jealous person given to fits of indecision. it is evident that his rearing in a society that glorified the military had a profound impact: he loved to dress up in uniform. he loved the discipline and "glory" of the military. of course he was not himself given to the hard work and discipline that the military required, but it was a nice idea.
Wilhelm II assumed the title Kaiser upon the early death of his father, Frederick III. Unfortunately, the cruelness in his nature became even more apparent. He had him mother placed under house arrest and charged her with sending state papers out of the country and into England (this charge is actually somewhat true. Frederick and Vicky were wary of their sons impending rise to the throne and had sent papers out of the country for safe keeping prior to fredericks death. what these papers were i dont remember...). But this cruel streak would reappear numerous times over the course of his rule. He did not have particularly sound relations with his family, particularly his elder sister Sophie, the Crown Princess and eventual Queen of Greece. He was a tyrant, bent on being the "patriarch" of the family. He felt that his siblings should acquiesce to his "almighty power". hah. His mother wrote numerous concerned letters to her daughter articualting her fear and concerns for her son.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
