When looking for who to blame for the Halocaust (since that seems to be the theme this week), we must remember that while not all Germans are willing participants, they voted for the death of democracy and moderate governance. They largely supported Hitler (many up until the end of the war, and after), turned dissidents in willingly, and looked the other way when Jews were marched to the camps in broad daylight.
Clearly, as has been said by many others, we can't related or even pretend to understand life at the time. It's true that it was an extreme time, perhaps even a less civilized time (if we want to use such terms), but morality can't be so relative, and we can't make excuses. If we accept that morality is based upon the golden rule, the idea that others should not be hurt by any action of yours, then the killing of another person seems like the most blatantly obvious transgression of morality.
Yet Browning provides accounts that suggest that at the best, those who objected to the killings did so as "a reaction to the sheer horror of the killing process itself", not any any sort of moral grounds. It was more about the brains and skull fragments on their clothes than the fact they were taking life without reason.
Browning, in his afterword, talks about how deeply ingrained antisemitism in Germany was, how it infiltrated the entire right wing, the universities and state institutions. The 'stab in the back' myth was widely believed. Is it possible that for most Germans, the rift between Jews and Germans had grown so wide that they could no longer see them as fellow humans?
Between Browning and lecture, it's clear to me that the Germans had the chance to object, to abstain, to resist. Very few ever did.
And of course, this begs the scariest question of all. How did some 'ordinary men' kill so many, and could it happen to anyone? I think anyone in our modern situation would like to think they'd first turn their guns on their superior officers than on unarmed civilians. But had any of us been in that situation, I fear we would have pulled the trigger like everyone else.
Mankind is only 10,000 years out of the cave, after all. Perhaps evolution has yet to catch up with morality, and we're still sadistic, tribal creatures below our shallow exteriors.
I think we can say that the people of Germany during World War II were part of a participatory dictatorship partly for the same reason Browning said the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101 were able to murder, which is conformity to the group. The conformity to the group led the men to act in the way they felt they were expected to by the other members of Reserve Police Battalion 101. They did not want to be that one person singled out for not playing their role and thus making the other men have to do more of the murdering. This conformity to the group was imbedded in them in a time of war and anti-Semitism that told them the Jewish were their enemies.
ReplyDeleteConformity is a binding factor in a society because people conform to the group of people around them. During this time of war, where people were being told the Jewish were the enemy, and anyone who did not believe in the Fuhrer and his plans would be arrested and killed there was very little choice but to conform to the society around you. It was especially difficult to stand up for what was right and say what Hitler and those murdering the Jewish was wrong in this time because not only would you be singled out as different, but you would also be arrested and maybe killed. The actions of the German people during World War II was them conforming to those around them, the widespread anti-Semitism, and the widespread belief in their Fuhrer. People did not trust each other enough to find out what they really believed and possibly start a large scale protest.
I agree with what Peter and Kelvin have said thus far. As Peter posits, it is a scary thought to put ourselves in the shows of the Reserve Battalion 101. Milgam’s experiment as Browning points out would suggest that we would likely act the same. Under authority and conformity many were more likely to shock the “victim” to death. I did not realize until reading Browning’s last chapter how much psychology and sociology plays into the action of the Reserve Battalion. Among the group no one really could handle the gruesome killings they conducted. However, Browning points out that if you avoided the killings then you were seen as a coward and a nuisance. If you opted out of a killing you weren’t pulling your weight in a job that no liked. Keep in mind that no one opted out on good faith, just that they were too weak.
ReplyDeleteBrowning also highlights that in the beginning no one wanted to perform the gruesome job, yet many became accustomed to it. There initial queasiness subsided. This reminds me of a psychological phenomenon which name escapes me. Basically when you are first given a stimulus, you react greatly to it. However as this stimulus continually occurs you become less surprised and react less.
Lastly, we must consider that these policemen were young. They grew up “immersed” with racism and anti-semitism. I would argue that if you were raised to hate the jews, then you would. As Peter mentions morality has not caught up with evolution. This may be the case. If morality is learned then for these policemen they learned the morality that jews were evil.
Just to response:
ReplyDeleteKelvin: I understand the power of conformity, and that's it's especially strong in military formations, but Browning's book showed that early in the campaign many men, of whom many did not intend to be career policemen, were offered the option to step aside consequence-free yet few did. There was even an example mid-book (around page 100?) were an officer returned home with a favorable review, despite having opted out. Clearly that was an exception rather than a rule, however.
But that's what I couldn't accept the comformity argument in its entirely - part of these men either didn't consider the Jews humans, or lacked some serous moral guidance. Peer pressure shouldn't be enough to commit mass murder alone.
I like Jonah's idea about 'not pulling your weight' in a job that everyone hated. Perhaps this is more convincing, as people are often quick not to let each other down. Still, I can't (or don't want to believe) that that sort of work ethic was enough to justify these murders.
But Jonah also said the policemen were young - some were, but I understood that Police Battalion 101 was mostly middle aged men with no particularly strong sense of antisemitism - many had in fact been part of the SPD in the past. It's (slightly more) understandable that a Nazi party member, raised in the Hitler Youth, and committed to the program would be willing to murder. But not these men, who had no apparently stake in the conflict and were mostly conscripts.
Like the professor said, it's not uncommon for men to be killing for an ideology. What's scary is when they kill for no clear reason at all.