Hannah Ardendt’s Ghosts: Reflections on the Disputable Path from Winhoek to Auschwitz.
When we look through the work of Gerwarth and Malinowski throughout this article its clear they are the link between European colonial atrocities from the past and the culmination of this violence in the Nazi execution of the ‘Jewish Problem’ in the 1930’s-40’s. This is because the turn in history to further breakdown why violence happened, and linking it to our colonial past is posing yet another challenge to the holocausts monopoly on mass violence. Sartre claims that mass violence and genocide was “like a boomerang which came back to Europe in the form of fascism.”
When analyse the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people Ardent tells us we must take into account the racist supremist thinking of the late 1800’s into account – and even further back to the Catholic Church suppression of women and the superiority complex over other worldy religions. This amalgamation of racist superiority complexes which have lived in the mind of Europe for a millennia is the central pillar of Ardendts argument, and claim that Nazism was not the first, as when we look at how German’s treated their African colonies in Herero and Nama its clear to see where to get the ideas for “space and race.” throughout the article Gerwarth and Malinowski make reference to main great genocides throughout history showing to us that the Holocaust, although horrible is not the only genocide to have had countless deaths.
They make reference to the American Genocide in the Philippines in which over 5 times as many Filipinos died to Americans, with an U.S general Arthur MacArthur claiming that “Whites are less likely to succumb to their wounds than those of lower races.” This further reinforces Ardendt’s argument that race superiority is not a new phenomena and has pre-existed Nazi ideology. However Gerwarth and Malinowski provide an argument to Ardendt’s theory of continuity using the defeat of WW1, political and economical instability as the key driving force behind why violence was used so openly within Germany, and why it motivated the scapegoating and extermination of the Jewish people. On the other hand Hitler does claim in 1941 that “Russia is our India and so as the English ruled it with a handful of men, so will we hold our colonial assets.” Although Gerwarth and Malinowski believe Ardendts continuity proposal is wrong it is hard to argue against the years of socio and political bias which has been instilled in the European mindset that “white is right.” as racial and supremacist ideals can not be extinct within a single generation.
Word Count: 424
Student No. 2718521
Madley – Dan
Madley’s piece is an examination of the precedent German colonial violence in Namibia set for Holocaust and Generalplan Ost. Importantly, Madley emphasises that German policy in Namibia was not qualitatively different from the colonial regimes of other empires, which themselves also inspired the Nazis, albeit less directly. Violence was the norm in Europe’s colonies – they could not be maintained without it.
Madley goes on to discuss explicit ideological continuities, demonstrating how the concept of lebensraum, which the Nazis used to justify their genocide, was first developed by the geographer Friedrich Ratzel in 1897. While Madley alludes to Namibia specifically here, he does not provide any hard evidence that it was the initial visualised site of lebensraum, although he does show the infatuation German imperialist circles, including the Nazis, had with settler-colonialism in Namibia. Another ideological continuity Madley discusses is the dehumanisation and infantilisation of so-called ‘racial inferiors’, who in the eyes of Germans were fit only to serve or die. He argues that the ubiquity of this rhetoric regarding Africans in German media, science, culture, and government was a direct precursor to its use by the Nazis, who deployed many of the same rhetorical tools and colonial racial hierarchies onto Europe. Emphasis is placed on the legality of racist violence and the illegality of ‘race-mixing’, two key components of Nazi colonial policy as well as Imperial German.
Madley also discusses continuities in war, identifying five commonalities between the Herero and Nama genocides and that conducted by the Nazis. These are: the identification of the conflict as a racial one, an emphasis on total annihilation of the enemy as a war aim, the genocidal implementation of this aim against military and civilian victims, the justification of genocidal violence by framing it as a protection of health, and the extensive use of concentration camps as a method of control and mass murder. He then gives extensive examples of these four criteria for both time periods, effectively illustrating his point.
Finally, Madley discusses personal continuity between Germany’s colonial regime in Namibia and the NSDAP. The most famous participant in both was Hermann Göring, and Madley explores his familial and professional connections with German Namibia, as well as those of von Epp and Fischer, arguing that they served as conveyors of German colonial violence in Africa to the Nazis and were greatly influential in the adoption of such. While these examples are illustrated well, it seems an overstatement to attribute such a role to individuals, especially given the evidence Madley provides earlier for said colonial violence being near-ubiquitous in German society.
Stone – ‘The Holocaust: Child of Modernity’ – Alex
Whilst Stone provides other historians theories as reasons behind the Holocaust, he is forceful with his own argument that bureaucratic administration was clearly the reason behind the Holocaust. Stone is very critical of Bauman’s argument and is quite forceful in his criticism.
On the Subject of ideology, Stone claims that the systematic murder of the Jews was down to the Nazi view that the Jews signified everything that was wrong in the World. This potentially is the most logical reason behind the Holocaust; the fact the Jews did not conform to the idea of the ideal ‘Aryan’. Those that were not Jewish, Poles or Romanians, were put to work instead and the other ‘no Germans’ went through forced ‘Germanisation’.
Whilst Stone pushes his argument that it was bureaucratic administration that was the reasons behind the Holocaust, he concludes by stating that modernisation (Bureaucratic administration) and barbarism from the past, compliment the thoughts behind the other. Modernity provides the means for the barbarism to be much more successful in the modern era.
Thanks Mark and Dan for these summaries. As you suggest – and as we will discuss in the seminar – colonialism poses a challenge in terms of our understanding of the origins of the Holocaust. Clearly colonialism was an important influence, but how much of an influence was it? I find the evidence regarding Goering to be pretty thin – would you agree, Dan?
I hope we can open up here into a wider conversation of the strengths and weaknesses of focusing on colonialism. Ironically a better example for understanding the relationship between colonial violence and mass violence in Europe is Spain: many troops who had gained experience in a brutal war in Spanish Morocco used their experience and employed the same practices of violence during the Spanish Civil War, in the so-called ‘Spanish Holocaust’ (Paul Preston).
I agree with Dans summary to an extant, although I feel that Madley did establish the connection between the idea of lebensraum first coined by the colonists and the desires of expansion sought after by the Nazi’s. Madley shows us that Ratzels theory of ‘culture superiority’ was first put into action by the German Colonists who used this justified their genocidal acts through the idea that these natives were inferior and thus had to be ruled and put to work, as they were seen as useless. He shows us that Nambia had the largest population of German settlers than any other German colony and connects the justifications of Himmler and Hitler that were used for the ‘final solution’ to those used by the colonists, even citing similar word choice and rhetoric.
I think both summaries are very well done, I found it very interesting reading Ardent’s chapter when the history of white racist supremist was discussed and I think Mark summarises this well pointing out the main factor that Germans treatment to Jews was not the first they had previously done it to their African colonies and to make clear although the Holocaust is a very horrific event it has also happened numerous times in other places in the world.
I think there is a clear connection between colonial operations in Africa and the Holocaust. This is evident with policies implemented under colonial rule, specifically through the idea of ‘Lebensraum’ in Namibia. Although Dan Stone’s argument regarding modernity is also somewhat convincing. I think we have to be cautious in specifying the exact roots of the Holocaust, but instead we should see it as a consequence of factors relating both to colonialism and modernity.
I agree with Mark in regards to his final comment about how the white man viewed himself as superior and were responsible for multiple atrocities. It is also interesting and horrific to learn about the multitude of genocides that occurred within such as small time period and how little has been taught about them as even today in current Secondary curriculums focuses on Eurocentric history.
Both are really good blog posts, thank you! I found Madley’s comparison of the Holocaust and the genocide in Namibia very interesting to read. He establishes a connection between colonialism and the Holocaust and makes very good points of similarity, like the prohibiting of ‘race-mixing’ and using health concerns as a justification for genocide. Although I think that there are influences from the Namibian Genocide and colonialism in general, that can be seen in the roots of the Holocaust, I also think that there are aspects that are very different. Therefore, I think that we should be cautious when analysing the Holocaust and it’s roots.