Review: Massenmord und schlechtes Gewissen by Frank Bajohr and Dieter Pohl

Revisionist historians are constantly trying to rewrite the history of the Third Reich.  In their"histories", Germans were "victims", first of Nazi tyranny - imposed from above - and then of a brutal firebombing by American and British bombers.  The American "historian" Alfred de Zayas goes one step further in his book Völkermord als Staatsgeheimnis (Genocide as State Secret): he absolves the German people of any complicity in the Holocaust.  According to de Zayas, a small group of SS officers were able to pull off the systematic murder of six million Jews and keep it secret from the German people and the world.  This thesis is attractive to right-wing historians and politicians, since it works against the idea of German "collective guilt."

The historians Frank Bajohr and Dieter Pohl blow this "thesis" out of the water in their short but well-documented book Massenmord und schlechtes Gewissen (Mass Murder and Bad Conscience).  The authors document that the persecution of the Jews in Germany had broad support from the German people, that knowledge of the mass-murder of Jews was widespread within Germany and reported accurately in the British and American press, and that the firebombing of German cities was perceived as "payback" (Vergeltung) for the inhuman treatment of the Jews. 

The book is neatly divided into two sections: Bajohr writes about involvement of broad segments of German society in the Nazi persecution and deportation of the Jewish population between 1933-1945; Pohl writes about the reporting of mass murder and other war crimes in the international press and the response of the Nazi regime. 

In his section, Frank Bajohr documents with devastating clarity how the majority of Germans bought into the Nazi idea that Jews were an alien body within the racially cohesive ideal of "Volksgemeinschaft"  - and therefore needed to be marginalized, then persecuted, then expelled, then finally "exterminated" (ausgerottet).  Some of this enthusiasm for persecution of Jews was motivated by pure greed:  Germans lined up at their local police stations to denounce their Jewish neighbors  in the hope of being assigned their houses or apartments.  Bajohr includes photographs of crowds of people participating in the auction of furniture and other property of Jewish citizens.  He notes that the detention and deportation of Jews in every city was announced publicly and thousands of people turned out to watch the spectacle, shouting their support.  He includes photographs of some of these deportations showing laughing adults and jeering children, while columns of mostly elderly Jews were herded into trains. 

But how many Germans knew what fate awaited their Jewish neighbors after they were herded onto the trains?  This is a tricky question to answer; Bajohr estimates that at least 22 million Germans had some direct knowledge of the mass murder of Jews.  But nearly every German citizen was exposed to Hitler's repeated assertion that he had "turned the tables" on the Jews, who had wanted the "destruction"(Vernichtung) of the German Volk but instead were being "exterminated"  (ausgerottet).  Bajohr cites the example of a machinist in Celle who in a 48 hour period in 1942 made notes in his diary of mass killings that he learned from multiple sources, including a from a soldier on a train, his own brother-in-law who was an eyewitness to mass execution of women and children in the Ukraine, and reports on the German-language BBC on mass gassing of Jews in Warsaw.  He hadn't been seeking out this information; it was freely transmitted.

Knowledge of the mass killings of Jews didn't especially concern too many as long there was the perception that Germany was winning the war.  On the contrary, there was a kind of triumphalist pride that mission of ridding Europe of an unwanted bacillus was being accomplished. History, it was believed, is written by the victor, so the atrocities would soon be forgotten.  But this changed after the defeat of the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad and the idea of Germany's defeat began to sink in. Defiant pride turned into a scramble for self-preservation, leading to strategies of denial and willful ignorance, well-documented by the historian Peter Longerich in his book Davon haben wir nichts gewusst! ("We knew nothing about that!") See my review.  A typical example cited by Bajohr was Ilse F., secretary to the Nazi Gauleiter in Hamburg Karl Kaufmann.  Ilse took dictation and typed up detailed reports on the deportation of the Jewish population in Hamburg and the murder of prisoners in the Fuhlsbüttel concentration camp. But when interrogated after the war she feigned total ignorance of any crimes:

"Also, wir wussten ja von dem nichts, wir erfuhren bloss mal so was hinten rum, und dann sagten wir: "Das kann ja gar nicht wahr sein." {...}Wann sollte ich nun mal was erfahren?"

(We knew nothing about any of that; we just heard some rumors and then we said: "That can't be true."  How was I supposed to know about that?)

In the second half of Massenmord und schlechtes Gewissen Dieter Pohl details the coverage of mass killings of Jews in the international press.  Starting with Kristallnacht in 1938 there were accurate and detailed reports on the atrocities which the Nazis didn't even bother to refute until after Stalingrad.  Pohl doesn't just quote from the articles; he includes photocopies of articles from the New York Times - one front-page item from June 30, 1942 which reports the murder of one million Jews through the Nazi extermination program.  These articles provide a powerful refutation of de Zayas and other revisionist historians who claim that the Final Solution was kept completely secret (Staatsgeheimnis).  No doubt de Zayas would accuse Pohl of photoshopping the articles, but I did my own quick search of the New York TImes archives and discovered a plethora of pieces on the Holocaust, including this 1943 article on the gas chambers at Treblinka capable of killing 700 Jews at a one time. 

True, most Germans did not have access to the international press, but it was monitored closely by regime officials, and top managers of German businesses routinely read the American and British press.  Goebbels was a regular reader, and grumbled that the British press inflated the number of murdered Jews in Poland to 2.5 million, when in fact "only" 2.2 million had been killed.  After the defeat at Stalingrad the Nazi officials feared consequences from the Allied forces for their genocidal policies and launched a counter-publicity campaign highlighting the Soviet murder of Polish officers at Katyn.  But this would have only limited success, and with the discovery by the advancing Red Army of the first death camps at Majdanek the terrible truth was made known throughout the world. 

There is a constant need to research and write the truth about this period of history. Holocaust-denial sites such as kreuz.net are more popular than ever.  Charlatans like Alfred de Zayas are constantly coming forward with their revisionist "research" and then are celebrated in publications such as the neo-fascist weekly Junge Freiheit.  Earlier this year the American professer Paul Gottfried told readers in America that it is a "leftist myth" that the German people had any knowledge of the mass-murder of Jews.  Frank Bajohr and Dieter Pohl have done their part in capturing the historical truth; I fear more will need to be done.

Comments

[koogleschreiber]

What more could be done? I just used the Google translator to get Vergangenheitsbewältigung in English and it spat out Dealing with the Past. The terrible German language... The English expression sounds much more positive: Make the best deal you can with your history!
Japan, for example. They kept their Tenno, the country wasn't 'dekaiserized'. The defeat was a shame for the country, epic shame, itself already being the ultimate punishment. Not the A-bomb, btw. Japans Deal with the Past: We don't do it anymore, we even don't talk about it anymore. Instead, we become a stable market.

Germany hasn't been nuked, but we got another Deal with the Past: "We will never do it again and we will always talk about it. We make our shame an institution." All Germans born after 1960 have enjoyed a one year history lesson exclusively on that matter at school. (The following year explains why we are in NATO though the U.S.A. are not better than us.) Since the eighties we can't escape shame books and TV shame soaps anymore, we know everything now and if there was a world series of Third Reich knowledge Germans would make the first 80 million places. We are so good, we would win the Trivial Pursuit Third Reich Edition in a run. Except, perhaps, some million immigrants making own deals with their past. Btw, did I already mention our secret service?

Vergangenheitsbewältigung has also become, willingly or not, a business model for TV productions. Vergangenheitsbewältigung is 24/7 on German TV, most popular: Everything about Wunderwaffen and Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun.

Before this background, the establishment of controversy is almost inevitably. The controversy even doesn't need that background, or might have another one, as it looks like in other countries. Anyway, there is always and everywhere room for both sides, at least, when there is freedom of speech.

In Germany, we already do the utmost to instruct everyone about the nazi terror.
Sure, getting it all in 3-D and HD would be great and it will come definetly, but further improvements are science fiction. The event horizon of guilt has already been reached.

[David]

I've always felt that Americans could use a great deal more Vergangenheitsbewältigung. After all, we are a nation founded on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, built up by slavery.

We have a propensity to get involved in stupid wars of choice - with disastrous consequences for us and for the civilian populations (Vietnam - 1-2 million non-combatants killed).

But the wars quickly recede from memory and so we are doomed to repeat them.

What is needed every time is a constant, laser-like focus on the truth. Wherever it may lead.

[Steve]

There is still a major flaw in this thesis, namely that some knowledge of earlier persecution of Jews, and later coverage in foreign press (which even many in Allied nations did not believe, and was often relegated to smaller columns on minor pages), does not prove or demonstrate actual knowledge of or support for extermination on a widepread basis, which was not publicised in Germany. The machinist in Celle was more an exception than the rule, he had after all a close relative who witnessed an atrocity and told him of it, which most didn't. A Gauleiter's secretary is not a typical case at all. One does not have to be a Holocaust denier (I'm not) to find this argument severely deficient. And it ought to be measured against the knowledge and response of people in the Allied countries, who for the most part were no more concerned or worked up about it, when it counted, see eg The Abandonment of the Jews or Why We Watched. In fact the Allies consistently refused any serious action to save Jews other than routine prosecution of the war, even rejecting opportunities to save Jews when available in some cases. The fact is few cared enough to bother much, even when they did know, and were not under a ruthless dicatorship themselves. This needs to be remembered also. Nor did they care or act when Stalin was exterminating millions before (and even after) the war.

Lastly, once more, de Zayas' books on the expulsions are entirely legitimate, and his latest book mentioned here should not be condemned a priori in such terms without being read first.

There is certainly a need for research and discussion of this period, and others too. But it needs to be with sounder methodology and greater caution than is on display here.

[Steve]

Thanks though for bringing the books to attention, I will read them when I can, albeit with some skepticism as to their advertised arguments (on both sides - I would say the truth is somewhere in between).

[David]

Curious as to why you insist that Germans were in the dark?

Goering told the court at Nuremberg that he did not have the slightest "inkling" that Jews were being murdered. And he doubted that Hitler had any knowledge as well. Do you also believe him?

Most were probably like my elderly landlady in Freiburg who claimed not to have known ("Ich wusste NICHTS davon!"). But her favorite expression concerning the Holocaust was: "Es braucht immer zwei zum Tanzen!" (It takes two to Tango.)

So they somehow had it coming to them...

[koogleschreiber]

Göring told the court at Nuremberg...?

[David]

Oops...danke.

[Steve]

Look at what I am actually saying instead of a parody. Goering was obviously lying, as were some others. That's a seperate matter from the average citizen who was not 'in the loop'. Some found out, to varying degrees, via relations etc, but there is no proof or even likelihood most knew, let alone fully, as they had no means to, it's as simple as that. And there are certainly known examples, as I quoted once.

[Steve]

And a question for you, do you disbelieve Helmut Schmidt when he said he didn't know until after the war, as did von Weizsaecker (other than a single incident)? And bear in mind also, that they were in a better position to know than many. Local people far from the front, camps or Jews in any number are supposed to have known how exactly? I know of some that didn't.

[David]

In the end, Steve, I'm not sure what difference it makes. The massive deportation of Jews could not have taken place without the active participation of many, and the consensus of most, Germans. After their neighbors were gone, there was little or no curiosity as to their fate. Even if the truth had been put in every newspaper, I doubt there would have been any protests.

My guess is you are in the UK. Peter Longerich is a professor at Royal Halloway University of London - his book is by far the best in terms his systematic research into non-traditional sources of information (letters, diaries, transcripts of German language BBC broadcasts, etc,) Why not write him ([email protected]) and let him know he got his facts wrong? Or better yet, go meet him for a cup of tea? I plan on e-mailing him myself and will publish any response I get back.

[Zyme]

Goodness I have to agree with Koogleschreiber when it comes to the tiresomness of this.

It does teach us a lesson though. We should do our best not to lose the next war :-)

Only with a future armed conflict beginning I can see this hype to end.

[Steve]

I missed your last reply at the time. It certainly makes a difference, in terms of culpability, and given the arguments over it. In fact the numbers of Jews deported from Germany was relatively small, a few tens of thousands over a number of years, most German Jews had either gone into exile before 1941 or into hiding, or were in camps in Germany under the earlier laws. And the deportations were advertised (to the extent they were mentioned at all) as just that, deportations to the East for labor and resettlement. Most deportations were from other countries to Poland, with as little 'concern' there as in Germany. In fact quite a few did help Jews to hide or escape, all over Europe, but the deportations were security operations under a dictatorship in wartime, not the sort of thing the average person is in a position to openly resist except at cost of their own liberty or life. Nevertheless local protest over the Euthanasia program (led by the Church and regarding German citizens) did have some effect in slowing the program, it was an exceptional circumstance however.

I'm not in the UK, but I will certainly compile a critique of Longerich et al's claims when I am able, right now I am not. But as to facts, they are spare and limited in this area, it is the grandiose conclusions drawn from them that I take exception to. I certainly know however from personal experience with Germans that many did not know, in keeping with the practically zero information they received on the matter. The Allies had more knowledge, and still did next to nothing (the war was fought for other reasons).

[David]

I would have hoped you had read Longerich by now. After reading his biography of Himmler (reviewed elsewhere on my blog) I am more convinced than ever that he is a first-rate historian.

[Steve]

It's on my list, but I have scores of other ones in between.

He may be an impressive writer and researcher, but that does not mean he is always correct. Whole schools of brilliant history have been founded on false premises and misinterpreted sources, WW1 is a case in point. It is now emerging that the mainstream narrative of the last century of its causes and course is grossly misleading, and essentially a form of skilfully disguised propaganda. For an intro see Clark (Kaiser Wilhelm II and The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914), Ferguson (The Pity of War), McMeekin (The Russian Origins of the First World War), Ponting (13 Days) and Zuber (The Real German War Plan), plus Buchanan's Churchill Hitler and the Unnecessary War for additional key material if not always conclusions. There is much more besides.

[David]

You don't cite any current research from respected historians in Germany, where most of the research is taking place. Instead you cite revisionists like Buchanan (a notorious anti-Semite).

From everything I've read, I tend to agree with Bajohr that the systematic killing of Jews was known by millions of Germans, but it didn't concern them as long as Germany was winning the war. Only after Stalingrad did people feign ignorance - as a survival strategy.