The Nazis were irrational about the acts and crimes they committed.  They killed millions of innocent Jewish people and others who were completely innocent.  They did not have a reason for the mass genocide they committed.  According to The United States Holocaust Museum, many Jews served their country and were decorated war heroes who were proud to live in Germany (“Nazi Camps”).  The Museum, in the same article, also states that fourteen Jewish-German people won the Noble Prize in the thirty years before the Holocaust.  The concentration camps that the Nazi regime used to kill the millions of Jewish people in their country and in other countries had significant and lasting effects on the society of the Jewish people. 

                A concentration camp is defined by The Oxford Dictionary as “A camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated” (qtd. in “Concentration Camps”).  Beginning in 1933, the Nazis created 20,000 camps to punish and kill enemies of the state.  Dewey Browder states that although the camps were originally created to hold the Nazi’s political enemies, they were later intended solely to kill Jews and various others such as Roma, homosexuals, and people with mental and physical disabilities.  These concentration camps that Hitler and the Nazis built were used to accomplish their goal as a regime, which was to have the entire Europe be controlled by the Aryan race (“Victims”).  Life was difficult in the camps where roll call was repeated twice daily at three in the morning and five at night and there were often no rules pertaining to guards in these camps, so they beat prisoners frequently.  The events that happened in the camps were extremely brutal.  Nazis gassed up to 800 people at a time, and screams and shrieks were heard as the innocent prisoners died (Fiedman and Berenbaum).  These atrocities were hideous reminders of the Holocaust, and there were many things that led to the camps that affected the entire European Jewish population.

                Government wide boycotts, pogroms or religious persecutions, and racism led to the Holocaust and the notorious concentration camps of Nazi Germany.  The events that most likely had the most effect on the beginning of the holocaust were the boycotts and pogroms of Jewish citizens.  Robert Jackson states that during two nights in November of 1938, a pogrom occurred where the SS, or Schutzstaffel, troops killed 1,500 guiltless Jews and sent 30,000 Jews to concentration camps.  These pogroms were basically the beginning of a nationwide anti-Semitism belief that left Jews in camps where they were either executed, or worked to death.   To supplement the pogroms in the hatred against the Jews, the Nazi government put boycotts on Jewish businesses, and even some people that never considered themselves Jewish were boycotted due to the Nuremburg Laws.  On the first day of these boycotts, April 1, 1933, German storm troopers painted stars of David across the windows of Jewish shops, claiming not to buy from them (“Boycott of Jewish Businesses”).    If the boycotts and pogroms were not enough, Hitler ordered that all civil jobs were strictly for Aryans.  This led to the firing of every Jewish teacher and government worker.  This nationwide prejudice of the Jewish population led to the creation of the concentration camp and ultimately left a lasting effect on the Jewish people.  Once the camps were installed, the horrible killings started, and did not end until the conclusion of Hitler’s reign. 

                The killings in the Nazi concentration camps were taken to extremes.  In his article, Flint Whitlock states, “Sparks soon arrived at the crematorium where he saw piles of emaciated corpses, stacked nearly to the ceiling.”  This only starts to describe what happened at these camps.  When prisoners first entered the camps, they were given an examination.  Those suitable for work were sent off to labor until they died, while those who weren’t were simply executed, whether it be gas chamber or firing squad.  The most painful way of death in these camps was by medical experimentation.  Dr Mengelo, the most well known doctor during the time of the holocaust, performed tests on children and killed people by lethal injection just to study their internal organs, believing that his work would give him scientific honors (Feidman and Berenbaum).  After the Jews were exterminated, their bodies were looted by the SS troops for any valuables such as gold rings and other jewelry, which if found were put into the Reichsbank under the SS account.  After the hundreds of bodies were confiscated of valuables, they were sent to the cremation center where they were cremated.  The death of millions was obvious, and, “As the rate of extermination increased, heaps of ashes accumulated by the pits, whose smoke was visible from far away.  The distinct smell of burning flesh permeated the area” (Feidman and Berenbaum).  The Jews and others were taken advantage of in the worst ways possible.  Even German businesses benefitted from this. For example, I.G. Farben used the cheap labor from the camps to produce goods for a great profit, but over 25,000 people died as a result of the overwork in the factories (Dewey Browder).  Once again, the mass murder of Jews throughout Germany and other countries left major effects on the Jewish population.  The knowledge of the camps throughout Nazi territory would also cause lasting bewilderment on the side of the people. 

                                The Nazi camps were eventually liberated by the two Allied forces at the time, the Americans and the Russians. Although this happened, millions were killed as a result, and the culture of the Jews was affected significantly. The Jewish people to this day remember these camps and look back at them in fear.  At Dachau, one of the biggest camps, some 32,000 prisoners were saved.  The American and Russian militaries did not have good enough medicine to cure diseases evident in the camps.  Realistically, only 30,000 prisoners lived.  Even though the camps were eventually shut down, they killed enough people to upset the Jewish society.

                The concentration camps created a scar in the German society that society remembers today.  This is evident when Jackson states, “You will have difficulty, as I have, to look into the faces of the defendants and believe that in this Twentieth Century human beings could inflict such sufferings as will be proved here on their own countrymen as well as upon their so-called inferior enemies.”  This anti-Semitism that the Nazis practiced has proved prevalent throughout the history of Europe, and is still much too common around the world (“Victims”).  With the Holocaust being the single biggest war crime in all of history, and the death for millions of innocent Jews, it left many parts of Europe without many Jews.  Most Jews will nowadays live in different areas of the world because their families moved or were relocated due to the Holocaust.  The killings of Jews in the camps around Germany were so severe in the later years of Hitler’s reign, in 1942, only twenty percent of the people who died in the Holocaust were dead.  Fourteen months later, an astonishing eighty percent of the people to be killed were already dead (Fiedman and Berenbaum).  In 1933 alone, the Nazi party killed over 500,000 Jewish people (Jackson).  The extensive killings and racism by Nazis against the Jews left a major effect on the Jewish society, where the fear of anti-Semitism is excessive.  The Jewish people will always hold the Nazis and the country Germany  responsible for the atrocities they did to their people.

                The society of the Jewish people was affected severely by the concentration camps used to exterminate Jews during World War II.  The concentration camps destroyed a society and culture of Jewish people throughout Germany.  The pogroms and boycotts of Jewish people were also prevalent in making a lasting effect on the society.  Even the citizens of Germany, who had no idea of the camps, created sorrow, because the Jews felt that they could have helped them.  The Jewish society could have been much less affected by these happenings if someone had taken a step forward and attempted to prevent them before they were able to kill millions of Jews. 

Works Cited

“Boycott of Jewish Businesses.”  United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  United States Holocaust

     Memorial Museum. 6 January 2011. Web. 7 December 2011.    

Browder, Dewey A. “Concentration Camps, German (1933-1945).”  History and the Headlines.  ABC-

CLIO. 2011. Web. 1 December 2011. .

“Concentration Camps.”  International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.  Encyclopedia.com 2008.

     Web. 18 December 2011. .

Feidman Nira, and Michael Berenbaum.  “Camps.”  Jewish Virtual Library.  The American-Israeli

     Cooperative Enterprise.  2008.  Web.  1 December 2011.

    .

Jackson, Robert.  “Nuremburg Trials.”  A Teacher’s Guide to the Holocaust.  University of South Florida.

     2005. Web. 7 December 2011.  .

“Nazi Camps.”   United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  United States Holocaust Memorial

     Museum. 6 January 2011. Web. 1 December 2011.  

     .

“Victims.”  A Teacher’s guide to the Holocaust.  University of South Florida.  2005.  Web. 

     7 December 2011.  .

Whitlock, Flint.  “Liberating Dachau.”  World War II.  March 2000: 26+.  SIRS Issues Researcher.  Web.

                29 November 2011. 

Image via Wikipedia

Over the past few weeks, much discourse (both public and private) has taken place within the Jewish community (among many other communities, I am sure) on the subject of Darfur. Much of what has been said and written has been quite eloquent concerning the unspeakable horrors facing the victims there, and many have exhorted the members of our community to participate in an April 30 rally in Washington, to urge prompt action upon the Bush Administration. To my great surprise, and, I am sorry to say, embarrassment, I have heard words from people to the effect of: “what do I care about these people?” or “they’re mostly Muslim and hate Jews…why should we help them?”

In the world in which I grew up (and, I daresay, this applies to many, if not all of us), it was a virtual article of faith to say that: “while the Jews burned, the world kept silent.” I, like most of my peers, accepted that statement as (you should excuse the expression) Gospel. In my opinion, if we do not stand up for Darfur, we lose the right to continue complaining about world apathy, past and present, for Jewish woes. In short, we forfeit the moral ‘high ground’ and, I believe, no longer can lecture an uncaring world.

This is such a basic article of the Jewish creed, that I am astonished that it needs to be pointed out by anyone, least of all, an am ha’aretz like myself. One of the three principles enunciated and ALWAYS quoted and attributed to Hillel is: “If I am only for myself, what am I?”

Now I know that it is only natural that people worry first about their family, next about their friends and community and only afterward about strangers and the world at large. But somewhere in the mix, we need to consider not only WHO the victims are, but the severity and scale of the suffering. And while I would certainly be the last person to suggest that helping finance a yeshiva is unimportant (I beg that you not interpret my words to, G-d forbid, say such a thing), the people of Darfur are, in my opinion, the victims of a holocaust.

Yes, I know it makes Jews very angry to see that loaded term used in ANY context other than THE HOLOCAUST—hence, I use a lower-case ‘h’. But in reality, we might ask ourselves, “Why is this NOT a holocaust?” It is, after all, precipitated by nothing other than racial/ethnic hatred, involves the wholesale murder of, potentially, millions of people, and in a brutal, gruesome manner that would do the Nazis proud.

Thus, I am hard-pressed to understand why people who are always responsive to charitable requests, and who usually, if not always, turn out for Jewish or Israeli causes, find Darfur unworthy of their efforts. I don’t know a single one of the victims or potential victims of these atrocities. I probably never will. I don’t have any personal emotional investment in their well-being, or even that of their innocent children. But I know, as surely as one can know anything, that our standing up for them is a kiddush hashem, and an obligation that we all share.

Those who do not think this horror deserving of their attention must, I think, consider carefully any future complaints against a world indifferent to Jewish suffering. And if our community, which (rightly) supports Jewish soup kitchens, UJA, Israel Bonds, and literally dozens of other wonderful and important causes and acts of chesed, does not turn out in DROVES for this event on April 30, then SHAME ON US!

Once again, please accept these words as an expression of strong personal feeling and not of criticism of anybody or of our community. The skilled and articulate leaders in our midst who are advocating participation in this event hardly need my help in promoting it. In reality, in any event, the justice of the cause should speak for itself. Please consider the foregoing in that light.

I have two articles to share with you today, which might not seem related at first. But bear with me.

The first one, from MSNBC, was about three people who were keeping four mentally disabled adults chained up in a basement with only a jug of orange juice and some buckets to go to the bathroom in. Looking at the 200+ comments on the article, people were pretty outraged and disgusted at this crime, some saying the criminals should be treated the same way as they treated their victims.

Once upon a time, the mentally handicapped were not so well thought of in society, nor so well protected. Once upon a time, limits on a person’s mental functioning also meant limits on the worth of that person’s life. It’s wonderful to see that this is, for the most part, no longer the case. The acceptable viewpoint in society is that the mentally disabled are real people who deserve protection and love. Varying levels of intelligence have no real influence on our judgment of the worth of fellow human beings. We see what these criminals did as unacceptable, perhaps even more despicable because their victims were childlike and vulnerable. Exploiting the disabled for one’s own purposes is generally agreed to be wrong.

Will there be a time when the same can be said for animals? People justify exploiting animals because human beings have a higher intellectual capacity than other animals. Smart adult animals have about the same mental capacity as human children… probably roughly similar to what these adult victims have. Animals are vulnerable and childlike in many ways. But we see them as inferior because of having less mental capacity. So, it’s okay for us to lock them in concrete or steel enclosures for extended periods of time, letting them live in their own waste, without regard for their emotional health, without regard for their physical suffering. Because they’re not as smart as we are. And there’s money to be made off them.

Why is it different? Because we’re human, and they’re not? Is it just because we only look out for our own kind? How is that so different from saying it’s okay to enslave people of other races, because we’re white, and they’re not?

Well, some people get outraged when they see videos of abuse at meat, egg, and dairy farms… but they don’t believe that this sort of thing happens all the time. They think it’s just an isolated incident… they say the individual person beating the animal should be arrested, and this is often true, but there’s more going on than just one case of a single psychotic farm worker. They can’t see, or else choose to ignore the fact that it’s the industry itself which is encouraging this abuse. It’s the way we think about animals. As objects. As inferior because of intelligence, because of a different physical shape or color… or something.

I wish there were some way to open people’s eyes, and get them thinking. What is the difference, really?

The other thing I read today was a post from the Action for Animals newsfeed on my facebook page. As much as I dislike bringing up the Holocaust…. It talks about how some people didn’t want to believe that the concentration camps of the Holocaust were real, and that it was just individual, evil officers in isolated incidents of abuse. Looking back now, most people agree that the concentration camps were real, and that thousands of people died there, people who were seen as inferior. It was the way that people thought about the Jews, the mentally disabled, and other “Others” which brought about this black mark in history.

The beginnings of this kind of tragedy still live inside of all of us. Any time we think of another living being as inferior, as an object which can be disposed of at our whims, which has no inherent value in itself… we are echoing the root cause, the spirit of the Holocaust.

So I invite you to read it, and think about it. It’s not very long. Just think about it. What is the difference? Is there one?

The Article: We Can’t See The Truth Through Rose-Colored Glasses.

This book was a real secret that Nonna Bannister carried almost to her Tennessee grave. She had to endure the Concentration camps because she was grown up in wealth. Learning forgiveness and compassion for her fellow human being was the most difficult task she had to take on. The Russian refugee Bannister (1927–2004) rarely spoke about her brutal experiences under the regimes of Stalin and Hitler, not even to the American she married after the war.

This book was a great inspiration to those that have read it. You have to imagine the horror and tragedy that she had to endure. This is a great read to those that can handle the cold heart truth of the Holocaust.

For those idiots that said that the Holocaust did not exist this spits right in their faces and shows that this was the worse tragedy in history.

There are not many books that have this impact. BOOKSGALORE has this and many more.

Cover via Amazon

Around six million Jews were killed in the Holoucaust, led by Nazi Germany at the time, and currently of which some 200,000 survivors are still living in Israel. 

If the legislation does go ahead, it would mean that if anyone is found to be using the term ‘Nazi’ or symbols related to the Holocaust – when not in a teaching principle – will be sentenced for up to 6 months in jail and a fine of $25,000.

There has been much critisism over ultra-orthodox Jews in recent weeks however, as many feel that they attempt to impose their strict beliefs upon other people and religions. 

Tyrannical leaders similar to Napoleon led their countries into times of war, despair, and economic depression, and during these times the people’s quality of life deteriorated significantly. Although they may differ in their methods used to rise to power, dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Muammar al-Qaddafi abused their political power and forcibly oppressed their citizens to make irrational decisions that brought harsh repercussions.

            First used by the Ancient Greeks, the term tyrant commonly refers to a violent, ruthless, and unreasonable ruler who independently gains absolute control over his nation and uses a multitude of different strategies to gain supporters which become loyal to the tyrant (Tyrants). Under this definition, Napoleon of Animal Farm can easily be proven to be a tyrannical mastermind as he also came to power by force rather than election. In addition, he exercises the use of propaganda with the help of Squealer to trick the less intelligent animals into believing that conditions were improving as they were obviously becoming much worse than before Napoleon ruled. Much like this method, some politicians may use false promises of restoring peace, granting freedom, or solving economic problems to procure a large number of followers (Tyrants).  This utilization of misinformation and trickery is simply one of many tactics which tyrants employ to increase their authority and control. After coming into power, by using the manipulation of propaganda and the blind loyalty of many supporters, a tyrant can pass his or her own rules or amend existing ones to further establish their dominance over the people. Most of the time, the new regulations would only benefit the oppressive ruler and ultimately cause the circumstance of life for common people to plummet (Tyrants). In the course of history, infamous authoritarians such as Adolf Hitler have used these tactics to assert themselves as tyrants and hurled their nations into times of anguish and hardship.

            Early in his life, Hitler became intrigued with the ideas of anti-Semitism and mass political manipulation. These beliefs are what enabled him to quickly escalate his social status until he created the Nazi party in 1932 and received enough recognition that President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor (Adolf). He made great use of his enormous support base by eliminating all other political rivals and then appointing himself as Fuhrer when the president finally died (Thomson). During charismatic and motivational speeches, Hitler made promises to fix the economic problems Germany was faced with from the depression, (promises which he would not keep). He exploited these fabricated assurances to keep the nation loyal while established his own police force and an immense system of propaganda, which allowed him to achieve complete control (Adolf). With these in effect, Hitler was free to do as he pleased while the people were unaware of his decisions, causing very little opposition. As the economy remained in a global depression, Hitler had no way of restoring stability and therefore he blamed Jewish people as a scapegoat for all the complications which he could never fix. His Nazi party which he created to gain many of his followers supported this nationalist plan, and the persecution of Jews throughout Germany soon ensued (Thomson). Using his propaganda system, Hitler convinced the people of Germany that they would need to prepare for war, and then six million unemployed citizens were put to work. The erratic decision for Hitler and his brainwashed army of Nazi soldiers to invade many nearby countries in Europe caused world a war to be waged on Germany. As Hitler and his army campaigned across Europe, conquering huge amounts of territory, he employed his “final solution” plan to imprison and kill all the Jews in each new land he took under his control (Adolf). This had major effects on the people as the Green Police shut down all Jewish businesses and worked to instill fear in the citizens. As Hitler and the Nazis made their way into the Soviet Union, they were faced with such heavy opposition from the Red Army that he recruited everyone from young boys to old men into battle with very little training (Thomson). As many people began to see how Hitler’s plans were causing conditions to sink tremendously, assassination attempts were conducted by some of his highest military officers. This internal disunity caused enough turmoil for the American soldiers to invade Germany, eventually conquering Berlin and brought the war to an end (Adolf). Hitler’s inability to successfully come through with his plans shows how tyrants’ ineffective manners of authority lead to disastrous outcomes, not only for the tyrant, but for the entire nation.

            While some rulers slowly evolve into tyrants using manipulation, others quickly establish themselves as corrupted and irrational leaders, but usually both ways cause a similar end result. Muammar al-Qaddafi, a pious Muslim and Arab nationalist, began plotting to overthrow the Libyan king as early as when he graduated from college. He entered the military and speedily climbed through the ranks, until in 1969 a group of officers and he seized the king’s monarchy and took control for themselves. Qaddafi was pronounced the commander-in-chief of armed forces and chairman of the new governing committee, the Revolution Command Council (Muammar). He immediately began employing his radical nationalist ideals by creating many harsh and restrictive rules which conveyed his personal Islamic principles. Policies such as the removal of foreign military bases, expulsion of Jews and Italians, monopolizing other countries’ oil resources and a ban on alcohol were approved without consensus from the Libyan citizens. This caused Libya to be partially isolated by those Qaddafi wronged and made the Libyan citizens suffer trade implications and some sanctions to be placed (Wallechinsky). After 1974, Muammar was becoming more known in the international prospect for his erratic and unpredictable actions. He began financing a wide range of terrorist organizations and had teams of Libyan agents go to murder exiles in foreign countries (Muammar). Qaddafi’s increasing terrorist activity brought growing conflict with the United States government and in 1986 British warplanes bombed several cities in Libya, killing or injuring multiple civilians while they were attempting to kill him (Wallechinsky). Other such acts which caused his people to suffer was the establishment of cleansing committees, which were originally intended to help people in the workplace be equal. Instead, the groups operated to identify and kill anyone who opposed Qaddafi and could make an attempt to revolt (Muammar). Muammar al-Qaddafi was quick to develop tyrannical behaviors and abuses his power to oppress his people, while only focusing on his own values, which causes the populace to suffer greatly.

            While tyrants and dictators both establish themselves into rule by ways of deceit, half truths, and military utilization, the natures of their rules are radically different though they both result in deteriorated living conditions for the people. Such as how Hitler used the Great Depression to gain supporters and then caused World War II to destroy most of Germany. Similarly, Muammar Qaddafi overthrew the government using his military control and when he came into power he allied himself with terrorists, which brought forth destructive bombings on Libya. They both made unreasonable decisions which brought harm to their people when they were only focused on furthering their power and trying to accomplish personal goals.

Contemporary studies of political discourse in twentieth-century Germany commonly focus on the actions of the Nazi Party and the genocide of the Holocaust as a central reference point for analysis. During the 1970s and 1980s, new studies and publications introduced alternative criteria and perspectives for examining the social and political precipitations that created such a viable landscape for a fascist takeover. Following American feminist Claudia Koonz’s publication of Mothers in the Fatherland in 1986, the debate intensified and became centralized around the role that women played in the fall of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis’ rise to power. Koonz examination of female involvement challenged the cultural feminist notions of victimization in the female experience in the far Right. As noted by Koonz among others, a distinct paradox arises when studying German women’s relation to far-Right politics regarding the contradictory nature of feminist ideologies and the decidedly antifeminist ideologies of the parties and organizations which they supported (Harvey, 152). However, Koonz’s findings were quickly challenged by women’s historians, specifically Gisela Bock, based on what they perceived as conceptual shortcomings in Koonz analysis.

            The resulting ideological volley of criticism and counter-criticism has since occupied the debate on feminism in Nazi Germany, and furthermore created new conceptual tools for gender studies at large. However, this complex debate is still unresolved in terms of providing a singular and definitive explanation for the female role in the rise of the National Socialist Party in Germany. Because the debate is layered with a vast and interconnected “ensemble” of Nazi values, conflicting theoretical assumptions, and a uniquely volatile social and political context, an examination of this debate requires a nuanced analysis of all facets of feminism in the National Socialist movement, and most importantly, one that carefully avoids generalizations (Leck, 162). And while this essay is also incapable of providing a singular answer for the role of women in Nazi Germany, it will attempt to rationalize feminist action that is seemingly self-detrimental. In addition, it will illustrate the transformation of gender studies in Nazi Germany away from the victim/ perpetrator dichotomy, and toward an examination of the contributing factors to the patriarchal society, as it is manifest in the Koonz-Bock debate. The question is no longer how to label women’s role in Nazi Germany, but rather as Elizabeth Harvey articulates, “What drew women to radical political ideologies and movements that were chauvinistically nationalist, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, and typically antifeminist” (Harvey, 152).

            The foundation for feminist participation in Nazi Germany, and subsequently the debate therein, began with the early twentieth century movements for women’s suffrage and political activism. Following significant electoral losses in the 1912 election, the Deutsch-Konservative Partei (DKP) allowed the formation of the Union of Conservative Women in April 1913. However, as Harvey points out, “Its purpose was not so much to give conservative women a voice in the party as to spread conservative ideas among women and to mobilize them as a resource” (Harvey, 155). The designation of German women as a “resource” illustrates a notion of self-interested motivation on the part of the patriarchal conservative parties. While the German women embraced motherly roles as “guardians of the German home and German values,” right-wing men simply “tolerated women’s associations that formed as auxiliaries to nationalist pressure groups in order to raise funds and support policies such as naval expansion, colonial policy, or anti-Polish campaigning” (Harvey, 154). And while there was a largely manipulative context to these “auxiliary” relationships, the feminist movement undoubtedly succeeded in increasing participation by women in the political process. By the spring of 1918, German women accounted for one-third of the Fatherland Party’s individual membership, and following the German defeat in November 1918, female participation eclipsed 80% voter turnout in the January 1919 elections (Harvey, 155). At this point, a series of unexpected and somewhat ironic events occurred within the feminist movement, which shifted it in a direction that was fundamentally antifeminist.

            The years following World War I and the fall of the German Empire were a critical, yet uncertain time in German politics, and many right-wing groups capitalized on the many perceived threats by espousing more radicalized policies that took root in the highly revolutionary era. The far-Right became concentrated in the Deutschnationale Volkspartei (DNVP), and rallied around “its hostility to democracy, its ultra-nationalism, and its strong streak of völkish (racist) thinking” (Harvey, 154). During the Weimar Republic, the Bund Deutsche Frauenvereine (BDF) “was overwhelmingly allied with political conservatives and/ or economic liberals,” including the DNVP. And while prior to the collapse they had never overtly claimed radical policies so closely tied to antifeminism, “German women’s organizations did fortify patriarchy through their support for conservative political parties” (Leck, 151). The genesis of German female organizations out of parties such as the DKP and DNVP forged a fundamental connection to the patriarchal system, and as Koonz and women’s historian Ralph Leck would agree, it created a common discourse that would result in “complimentariness” between Nazism and German cultural feminism (Leck, 152). In utter contradiction of traditional feminist ideology, “women flocked to support the conservative or more radical right-wing parties, whose composition and traditions reflected the forces that historically had done less to encourage women in politics” (Harvey, 156). In 1921, German women accounted for 54% of DNVP members in Danzing, and 43% of the DNVP membership in Hamburg (Harvey, 156). In addition, the DNVP received disproportionate support from women in several constituencies where men’s and women’s votes were counted separately (Harvey, 156). This research, paired with similar statistical support for the Nazis, undermines Bock’s assertion that German women were “particularly resistant to National Socialism” (Leck, 149). Therefore, the next logical step is determining which ideologies drew women toward the increasingly illiberal and antifeminist parties and organizations at the far-Right in Germany, and why.

            In the period after the German defeat in 1918, right-wing women became increasingly committed to “feminine” roles in the ultranationalist agenda of the far-Right conservative parties. They embraced their duty to protect the German nation and German biological heritage, which was defined as a Volksgemeinschaft (national community) that was culturally homogenous and uncontaminated by “alien blood” (Harvey, 158). Several feminist organizations, including Guida Diehl’s Neuland movement and the Queen Luise League, adopted this ideology, which more specifically “advocated as an alternative to democracy the racially based ‘national community’ in which membership was based on the ‘quality’ of one’s German heritage rather than liberal notions of equal citizenship” (Harvey, 158). All at once, German women practiced their feminist duties as “guardians of the race” and “carriers of the blood” tasked with “[strengthening] racial boundaries, [curbing] the reproduction of the ‘inferior,’ and [promoting] the breeding of pure ‘Aryans’” (Harvey, 159). These roles and responsibilities specifically combined nationalist and racist ideology with a flair for feminism manifest in the very literal, biological integrity German women were expected to protect. With such limited political influence, it is very likely that women embraced the National Socialist movement because they acknowledged this tangible and ultimately necessary role in procreation, which was paramount to the Nazi campaign for cultural supremacy. Additionally, the domesticated nature of their “womanly” capacities played into the “paranoid style of far-right women, who, like male demagogues, generate an ever-expanding list of enemies” (Blee, 216).

Claudia Koonz identified another common discourse between Nazism and German women’s movements in the campaign for Lebensraum (living space), which also satisfied the criteria of a male/ female binary that identified “mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting spheres of patriarchy” (Leck, 150). The issue of providing adequate living space for the entire population of German peoples had existed long before the twentieth century, however the context of Lebensraum in the years leading up to the Nazi takeover enhanced the depiction of a feminine role in the patriarchy of Nazi society. Women’s display of support for Lebensraum was largely manifest in the policies of the thriving women’s organizations of the time, many of them constituents of the BDF. Groups like the Bund Deutscher Hausfrauen (Union of German Housewives, BDH) praised stay-at-home motherhood and viewed Lebensraum as “a celebration of the political role of the domestic sphere” (Leck, 152). For the male Nazi leadership, however, Lebensraum reinforced their increasingly radicalized ideology, and represented “the conceptual centerpiece of a racist plan for imperialist expansion” (Leck, 152). The key characteristic of Lebensraum for Koonz’s and Leck’s analysis of patriarchy in Nazi Germany concerns the presence of a dynamic male/ female binary, which serves the interests of both men and women alike. Leck suggests that Lebensraum represents Nazi patriarchy as “a common discursive regime with sexually differentiated but mutually reinforcing political meanings” (Leck, 152). Once again, this analysis is incompatible with Bock’s victimization theory, because it addresses the empowerment of women’s organizations inherent in their participation in the ideology of motherhood and its connection to Nazi politics of cultural superiority. Taking these developments into account, it is reasonable to abandon an analysis within the confines of a victim/ perpetrator dichotomy. However, this does not completely remove questions of culpability from the analysis, rather it removes many of the limitations present in the original Koonz-Bock debate. In the place of the victimization theory, a thorough examination of Nazi policy and the constructs of patriarchal society will hopefully refine and focus the contextual definition of antifeminism within Nazi Germany.

            Leck addresses the logical fallacy inherent with German female activism in the far-Right by asserting in non-sequitur fashion that “(1) Nazism is antifeminist, and (2) Nazism is a continuation of the mainstream German women’s movement, a movement most historians identify as feminist” (Leck, 151). Leck stresses the importance of defining German feminism and Nazi antifeminism in order to expand and derive some greater logic from the contradictory nature of the relationship between the two. The first complication arises from the lack of a universally-accepted criterion for identifying antifeminism and antifeminist actions. Leck notes, “Historians often use the term [antifeminism] vaguely to maintain that Nazi patriarchy was injurious to women. The implication is that women could not have benefitted from and did not support Nazism” (Leck, 154). The latter assumptions can be already be dismissed due to the fact that Leck already identified German women as both supporters and beneficiaries of Nazism in various capacities. Leck’s discontentment with such a limited, insufficient, and subjective assessment of German antifeminism reiterates the problems that vague generalizations create in such a complex situation of overlapping movements and ideologies. Leck suggests, “The designation of Nazi social policy as antifeminist is particularly problematic because it equates illiberalism, antimodernism, and patriarchy with antiwoman policies” (Leck, 154). Leck also addresses the implications of an antifeminist label in Nazi culture upon the seemingly feminist German women’s organizations and movements of the early twentieth century. “To apply the term antifeminst to Nazi culture allows one to ignore strong continuities between pre-1933 mainstream German women’s organizations and the sexual politics of the Nazis” (Leck, 154). As Leck points out, the feminist misidentification works both ways. He cites historian Nancy Reagin’s refusal to recognize the BDF (arguably the most significant women’s organization in the Weimar years) as a “feminist” organization because it “rejected political equality for all women” (Leck, 161). To clarify the distinction between antifeminism and the ideologies at the core of the Nazi Party, it is easiest to look toward enacted Nazi policies that directly affected women and were seemingly characterized by gender and sexism.

            The Nazi Party’s rapid radicalization and rise to power in the 1930s brought with it a collection of extremist policies, which violated various human rights. One of the more oppressive and foreboding set of laws was the Nazi antinatal policy, which mandated compulsory sterilization and abortion. Because the nature of this policy targeted women specifically, some historians, including Bock, perceive this as an overt act of sexism. While Bock acknowledged the importance of racist ideology in this policy as well, her focus on gender divisions and misogyny in her analysis reiterates her dedication to the image of female victimization. However, Koonz challenged Bock’s approach with evidence of a sharp increase in the birthrate after 1933. Koonz corrected, “In reality, the official portrayal of racial and genetic ‘Minderwertigen’ [less worthy ones] were, in the propaganda of race politics, gender neutral” (Leck, 150). Once again, this reinforces the polarized opposition of male and female spheres at the forefront of Bock’s analysis in contrast to Koonz’s mutually reinforcing male and female binary. Policies of sexual privilege in the German colonies also illustrated right-wing concepts of cultural superiority through the application of fundamentally illogical and contradictory notions, which elevated the German national community. German colonists disregarded the sacred mandates of racial separation in order to exercise their colonial prerogative of sexual access to African women (Blee, 219). In order to circumvent the laws of racial purity, the various colonies instituted their own amendments to these rules, which would ultimately permit interracial concubinage, casual sex, and prostitution between German men and African women (Blee, 219). These laws are significant because they depict one instance in which misogyny and antifeminism clearly take precedent over the racist ideologies at the core of the German far-Right establishment. Not only did these laws compromise the integrity of the racist ideology, but they also asserted male authority over women in completely different classifications of race, status, and class. Because this policy affected women both inside and outside the racially-pure German population, it carried a more universal brand of female oppression that is undoubtedly identifiable as antifeminist.

            As mentioned, women successfully integrated themselves into active roles in German politics, however they remained hesitant to challenge the patriarchal constructs of Germany society. “[Right-wing] women shared liberal feminists’ desire to accentuate female influence in society, but renounced any more emphatic insistence on women’s rights” (Harvey, 155). Harvey described their actions as “asserting themselves unassertively.” The formation of women’s organizations and their integration into the periphery of the political system of German men was certainly empowering, however these female activists never sought to challenge the obvious inequality between the spheres of men and women. “Right-wing activism in the 1920s gave some women an opportunity to exercise their political muscle without threatening traditional notions of gender roles” (Blee, 217). These self-imposed limitations paired with disputes between feminist groups concerning the pursuit of egalitarian rights created a decentralized and seemingly unmotivated foundation for the feminist movement going forward. During the Weimar years, the feminist movement shifted its focus away from women’s rights and instead adopted the ultranationalist ideologies of the German far-Right. Blee and Leck both discuss the conceptual multiplicity common in the political ideologies of conservative movements, which helps to explain how German women quickly found themselves in support of extremist ideologies in the Nazi movement. Leck describes it as the “Nazi Matrix,” which defines the Nazi ideology as an ensemble of wide-ranging values in hopes of fostering mass appeal. Leck said, “Nazi ideology was not an objective ideology that possessed a universal meaning for all Germans. It was a form that could be filled with various subjective contents” (Leck, 163). Such was the case with German women asserting their roles in the protection of racial purity as well as German and Protestant values. As the conservative landscape became more and more extremist with the rise of the Nazi regime, German women followed and likewise identified with increasingly extremist ideologies. Blee described this shift writing, “In the 1920s, conservative forces targeted various fronts – sexual, gender, economic, political – in their battle to defend traditional society, believing that changing any one structure of society would lead to a transformation of them all” (Blee, 217). This perceived threat of a domino effect closely linked the wide-ranging issues, “[making] it possible for women to slide from anti-women’s suffrage to anti-radicalism” (Blee, 217). Because the first women’s organizations were formed out of the very patriarchal traditions of conservative German groups, German women grew to foster the same ethnocentric beliefs as the Nazi Party, however they were very distinct variants. While German women defined their conservative beliefs in more traditional terms, the Nazis transformed nationalist ideas that historically aimed for unification and stability and applied radical separatist notions of hate and racism. Where the BDF practiced doctrinal ethnocentrism, the Nazis practiced racial ethnocentrism; where the BDF practiced religious Anti-Semitism, the Nazis practiced racial Anti-Semitism (Leck, 156). While these differences provided the female activists in the BDF a unique identity within the far-Right temporarily, they were eventually swept up and marginalized in the Nazi takeover like the rest of the political organizations, becoming the perceived threats to a National Socialist Germany themselves. As Leck articulates, “German women’s affirmation of Nazi patriarchy… was the embrace of ethnocentric cultural identities that empowered women by exalting their social status as mothers, Germans, and Christians” (Leck, 164).

Ideologically, the victim of Nazi tyranny can only be identified as those not meeting the criteria of the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft, which constituted “uncontaminated,” white German Protestants. While certain civil rights were undoubtedly violated based on gender and sexism over the course of Nazi rule, the manipulation and marginalization of women was simply the product of the highly radicalized patriarchal structure. And while labeling the National Socialist movement as antifeminist is far from an absolute falsehood, it is a major oversimplification and generalization that fails to account for the extremely unique political and social landscape, which could be characterized as a perfect storm of overlapping extremist ideologies. Leck articulates this conclusion best saying, “Nazi ideology was a potent mixture of various identities and policies combining, like a chemical reaction, to create a toxic elixir authorizing racial anti-Semitism and the Holocaust” (Leck, 163).

Works Cited

Blee, Kathleen M. “Troubling Women’s History: Women in Right-Wing and Colonial Politics.” Journal of Women’s History 15.2 (2003): 214-21.

Harvey, Elizabeth. “Visions of the Volk : German Women and the Far Right from Kaiserreich to Third Reich.” Journal of Women’s History 16.3 (2004): 152-67.

Leck, Ralph. “Conservative Empowerment and the Gender of Nazism: Paradigms of Power and Complicity in German Women’s History.” Journal of Women’s History 12.2 (2000): 147-69

Hysteria: Behavior exhibiting excessive or uncontrollable emotion, such as fear or panic.

Hunch: A stooped or curled posture; a slouch, also means a theory, idea or a guess.

Hypnosis: A trancelike state, artificially induced, in which a person has a heightened suggestibility, and in which suppressed memories may be experienced.

Hyper: Having an increased state of activity.

Human: Belonging to the species Homo sapiens or its closest relatives.

Holy: Dedicated to a religious purpose or a god or gods.

Holocaust: The mass murder of Jews and other groups by the Nazi regime during World War II.

Home: One’s own dwelling place; the house or structure in which one lives; especially the house in which one lives with his family; the habitual abode of one’s family; also, one’s birthplace; The place where a person was raised; Childhood or parental home; home of one’s parents or guardian.

Heebie-Jeebies: A general feeling of anxiety, fear, uneasiness, or nausea.

BONUS:

Preparation H: Ointment to treat hemorrhoids, wrinkles from skin and heal dry, cracked, and irritated skin.

-

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with A

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with B

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with C

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with D

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with E

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with F

Click here for 10 interesting words that starts with G

“Sarah’s Key” is yet another movie dealing with the Holocaust and its impact on us all, but don’t be fooled into thinking its going to be the same old thing. Based on the novel “Her Name Was Sarah” by Tatiana de Rosnay, it ventures into this dark part of history from a different perspective as we watch the French army and bureaucracy aiding the Nazi party as they rounded up Jews and shipped them to Auschwitz (the event was called the Vel’ d’Hiv’ Roundup). As the story moves back and forth in time from 1942 to 2009, American journalist Julia Jarmond (Kristin Scott Thomas) works to solve a decades-old mystery that can no longer remain hidden.

In 2009, Julia has moved into an apartment with her French husband and teenage daughter. She had previously written a celebrated article about the Vel’ d’Hiv’ Roundup and soon learns that her husband inherited the apartment from his grandparents who came into possession of it during that time. From there she becomes obsessed in learning about the apartment’s history and learns it was the scene of an unspeakable incident. Finding out the truth about this incident however proves difficult as her family sees it as too damaging to reveal…

Julia’s main focus centers on a young girl named Sarah Starzynski (Mélusine Mayance) who hid her little brother Michel in a closet to keep him from getting rounded up with everyone else. She makes him promise to stay in the closet until she returns and takes with her the only key to that can unlock it. But Sarah soon realizes no one will be going back home and escapes her captors in a desperate attempt to save Michel before it’s too late.

Like Stephen Daldry did with “The Reader,” director Gilles Paquet-Brenner makes the transitions between past and present feel seamless and never jarring. He also avoids turning “Sarah’s Key” into a schmaltz fest begging for Oscar consideration which is a relief. By getting naturalistic performances from his actors, he creates an atmosphere that feels real and not exaggerated for effect. You end up getting so caught up emotionally in the story and its characters that you don’t feel like you’re watching just any movie.

Thomas is an amazing actress who never gets the same acclaim Meryl Streep does on a regular basis. Maybe it’s because her acting is not as theatrical as Streep’s tends to be, but Thomas’ strength is in inhabiting characters to where you never catch her acting. She pulls off a flawless American accent making it look effortless, and she speaks fluent French beautifully.

Attention must also be paid to Mélusine Mayance who gives a very believable performance as the young Sarah. Called upon to portray a child going through horribly nightmarish circumstances, Mayance holds her own among the adults and breaks your heart through her utter commitment to the character. She makes you share Sarah’s desperation in getting to her little brother before someone else does.

“Sarah’s Key” is one of those movies where it is hard to find any fault with it. Everything seems to fit together perfectly and nothing ever seems superfluous to the story. While it treads the well worn ground of Holocaust movies, it finds an interesting angle by looking at the complicity of the French in this atrocity. It never did get much of a release and you will probably be hearing about it soon on DVD and Blu-ray, or you can catch streaming on Netflix. Here’s hoping that it finds the audience it deserves soon.

* * * * out of * * * *

See also:

“I’ve Loved You so Long” – Kristin Scott Thomas in a Tour De Force Performance

“The Reader”

Adolph Hitler took Germany into war in 1939 with a hazy idea of world domination but a very clear vision of conquering Europe. He saw the rise of Germany as revenge for the humiliation of losing the 1914 – 1918 war and the economic collapse that followed.

Germany was strong again. Hitler had risen to power  by demonising the Jews and blaming them for all the post war problems. He was backed by Germany’s ruling classes who were eager to use seized Jewish assets, rebuild the country and exploit conquered territories. Hitler began his “final solution” and murdered 6 million Jews in the Holocaust 

Germany was only defeated in 1945 after six years of hard warfare by the allied forces of the US and UK.

Now 66 years later Germany is poised to take over the leadership of Europe and force the 27 countries of the European Economic Community to follow German rules.

The irony is that this time round the Germans are not keen on the role.

When the Eurozone was set up, the countries that joined abandoned their national currencies and agreed to follow a set of financial disciplines, mostly designed by Germany. The idea was that all would benefit from increased trade and financial stability – while Germany would be protected against other countries devaluing their currency and gaining a competitive edge in world trade.

The idea has not worked because a group of countries including Portugal, Ireland, Greece, Spain and Italy could not keep to the financial rules of the game. Their economies were not strong enough and unlike Germany, the citizens of countries like Greece and Italy regard not paying taxes as the national sport.

To keep the Euro afloat Germany will have to bail out the economies of weaker countries, with some help from France. The cost will be paid by German taxpayers who are not keen on subsidising struggling economies. Particularly when their media is full of stories about Greek workers who start late, get down to the beach and retire early.

But the alternative, allowing the Euro to collapse, is even less welcoming.

Germany and the rest of Europe would be devastated financially as banks and the markets collapse. In a near fatal domino effect, world markets, including Wall St, are dragged into the inferno. Unemployment and inflation soar, world trade tanks for up to a decade.

So Germany will be forced to do what it tried, and failed, to do 66 years ago. Effectively take over the leadership of Europe.

The final twist is that countries with weaker economies will be exploiting German strength. Hitler must be spinning in his grave.