Prusin, ‘Zone of violence’.
In the chapter, Prusin discusses the anti-Jewish pogroms in Eastern Galicia between 1914-1915 and 1941. Prusin starts the chapter by examining the different ethnic groups within the region. In Eastern Galicia, there were the Ukrainians, Poles and Jews whose relations remained dormant until wartime brought intercommunal hostilities. The Polish mainly made up the nobility while the Ukrainians were a large percentage of the peasants. The Jews were the middlemen. They were alien to the Polish and Ukrainians due to their different religion, language and culture.
After the outbreak of war in August 1914, the Russians gained entry into Galicia. As the Austrian army began evacuation, there was a void of authority which resulted in many shops and businesses being robbed. Many of these belonged to the Jews. Prusin states that for the Russian army, ethnicity and religion were key for loyalty to the state. However, Jews were most resilient to this. Thus, in the Russian army, officers would pass anti-Semitic propaganda to the soldiers, who often considered that the war was not only against the Central Powers, but the Jews as well. During this period, Jews were blamed for treacherous acts such as allegations of shooting troops. This would be followed with plunder, rape and massacre.
Prusin then goes on to discuss Jewish pogroms in 1941. At least 10,000 were killed in Eastern Galicia. The German invasion of the Soviet Union sparked violence against the Jews who were considered as the main beneficiaries of the Soviet regime. The pogroms in 1941 began with robberies and looting which occurred under Soviet evacuation. However, in contrast to 1914-1915, the pogroms of 1941 were “native-driven” and were organised by Germany. Ultimately, Jews were targeted by violence due to the crime of being Jewish, regardless of whether they had any connection to the Soviets.
Prusin’s argument throughout the chapter is that it was the outbreak of war which produced violence between the different groups. Jews did not fit into the Russian national and Nazi racial order which resulted in them becoming a target for violence. Violence also came from segments of the population who were encouraged to participate in the genocide. Prusin explains his argument well and gives a clear overview of how Jews were treated in 1914-15 and 1941.
Thomas Ord
Overy, ‘Ordinary Men’.
Overy begins by stating that the holocaust was different from other mass killings. This is in part due to the number of men who played a direct part in the genocide was immense. Overy intended to understand why German policemen and security agents killed defenceless Jews in the Western Soviet Union between 1941 and 1942, then in the extermination centres set up in Poland.
Overy uses other historians’ arguments to understand why Germans behaved this way. He relies on Milgram who came to the conclusion that not all Nazis had to be brutal murderers to carry out genocide. Milgrim considers that those who perpetrated genocide could justify their behaviour because they were following orders from someone else who accepts responsibility.
Another historian who Overy addresses is Christopher Brown who wrote the book ordinary men. The title was chosen because those who carried out the killings were ordinary men. Brown agrees with Milgram’s argument that they were working under orders and did not want to disobey authority. Similar conclusions were reached by Dick de Mildt who considered most of the policemen had become used to brutality.
Nevertheless, Overy claims that Milgram and Browns arguments about perpetration in the holocaust have provoked challenge. An example of this was from Daniel Goldhagen. Goldhagen studied the same reserve police battalion that Browning examined but found that all Germans carried with them a historically embedded desire to exterminate Jews. Few historians agree with this statement. Other historians such as Matthaus also had different views. He considered that the police battalions who carried out the mass murders of Jews did so due to their training and the education they received.
Overy concludes that Milgram’s views divide historians over the holocaust. While some historians argue that it was pressure to conform to the demands given, others consider that it was ideology or conditioning that led to the holocaust. The perpetrators who carried out the genocide did what they believed was necessary and justified, and followed orders which they considered to be the only their only choice as they had little control.
Thomas Ord
| Omer Bartov, ‘Eastern Europe as the Site of Genocide’ (Marcus)
Bartov points out that not enough attention has been given, by historians, to not only the testimonies of Jewish victims but also the experiences of those who lived in, what he refers as, Genocidal communities. Bartov argues that contemporary historiography tends to focus too much on the experience of the perpetrators, Germans, by focusing on policy and bureaucracy regarding the “final solution”, using the Jewish experiences to only provide context in order to illustrate the holocaust as an efficient, cold and industrial machine of mass murder. When in fact, as Bartov explores, it was far more personal and brutal for those living in the killing fields of Eastern Europe. He points out that, the majority of killings happened in the Eastern Europe, going so far as to declaring it as the centre of the holocaust. By looking deeper into the experience of Jewish victims within Poland, he argues that we can examine the relationship between Jews, Poles and German occupiers in order to richen our understanding of the causes for such extreme forms of violence in Eastern Europe. He uncovers, looking at written sources and tesomonies from “bystanders”, that the holocaust infected every aspect of peoples lives. Mass murder was witnesses on the streets by the general populace, on a daily bases. The mass killings of Jews could not entirely be credited to the Germans, as it is clear they were denounced by their neighbours. Bartov shows us that the will to survive, caused many people in Poland to betray their jewish friends, often extorting them for money under the threat of turning them into the Germans. Many of these communities, in fact, profited from the mass murder, by selling Jewish possessions, looting and moving into victims property. He points out that a large number of people in Eastern Europe today, still live in these “stolen homes”. Jews were seen as mythical money collectors, who had vast amounts of wealth hidden amongst their properties and looked for opportunities to take advantage of people for further financial gain. This views perhaps made it easier for communities to aid the German occupiers and take part in the rounding up and murdering of these people. Bartov suggests that this attitude can trace its roots to Christian anti-jewish theology during the medieval ages. Suggesting that a negative attitude towards the Jewish people is inherent in Eastern History. The Jewish community did not only experience persecution from their German occupiers but also from their neighbours and friend, as the entire community would also turn their backs on them. Which paints a far more, complex, violent and intimate picture of the holocaust, that simply was not experienced in the same way in Western Europe. However, this more realistic side of history has only recently been surfaced as a result of new access to Polish and Russian archives, thanks to the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the start of a change in attitude towards studying the holocaust, by younger historians. Soviet accounts of the German occupation tend to omit any reference to the holocaust completely, instead recording only soviet citizen deaths. Furthermore, the reluctance of historians to use these testimonies caused this part of history to be neglected. Therefore Bartov call for next generation of historians to give this aspect of the holocaust more attention. |
Thanks, Thomas, for this summary of Prusin and Overy. As you note, Prusin emphasises the context of war in both episodes of violence, but it does seem that there is something different about the nature of the Holocaust compared to 1914/5. I also find Prusin’s text interesting from the point of view how we can think about long term and short term factors that ‘shaped’ antisemitic violence and I hope we can discuss this in the seminar.
In terms of Overy, I think this is a good summary of how historians have grappled with the idea of perpetration. I wonder what you all think of the use of psychological theories? Is this an appropriate historical method?
Overy’s article is intriguing and forces us to consider whether these were ordinary people who found themselves in extraordinary situations whereby there was no choice other than to commit the unthinkable. However as he reminds us towards the end of his article, we must be careful not to over-generalise each individual circumstance because each circumstance has many different motivating elements. I do however believe a psychological approach could be useful in examining victim’s accounts.
There is clear origins of anti-Semitic violence in early 20th century Europe, especially during the Russian army’s campaign in Galicia during WWI. However, as we discussed in the seminar, the implementation of this violence became systematic under Nazi occupation, and as such produced much more devastating consequences during WWII.
I think all of the summaries are really well done. For Overy’s article, I think he illustrates well the discussion between historians about perpetration during the Holocaust. While I don’t think psychological theories can provide a thorough enough explanation of the Holocaust on their own, I do think they provide important analysis for some of the potential reasons behind the wide scale violence. Psychological theories allow for the analysis of the education of the soldiers and the idea of soldiers following orders, which could prove an explanation for why the violence was so far spread. For this reason, I think that psychological theories are an appropriate historical method for analysing accounts from victims and soldiers.
I don’t know if I agree with Brown’s idea that perpetrators of war crimes did so just because they were ordered. Obviously being ordered to do something is a huge pressure, especially in the military where refusal to follow orders is punished, but I think it takes something more than that to reach the level of violence we read about in the Holocaust. Goldhagen goes pretty far in the other direction but I think there is something in his idea of negative cultural attitudes towards specific ethnic groups legitimising violence towards them, even if it didn’t apply to every single German
I found the article by Prusin an interesting read, i feel the treatment of the Jewish communities in WWI isn’t spoken about enough, although it was nowhere near the same scale of the violence against the Jewish people in WWII it is still important. I feel it is so important as it could be suggested that the violence and atrocities carried out against the Jewish community in WWII could just be a continuation of that from WWI. Also the Galician Jews that received the bulk of the violence in WWI were not only subjected to physical violence but also had to deal with the destruction of major religious artefacts and synagogues, i feel this takes the hostility towards Jewish people even further.
Great insight on the persecution of minorities outside of the holocaust. Some Jews supported Bolshevism and, therefore the Jews were identified with Bolshevism. Because of this, they were probably targeted in the Russian Civil War and in Eastern Europe. Therefore non Bolshevik supporting Jews were targeted because of a minority.
During WW1 350000 Jews were displaced as refugees. Those who came from Germany were mistreated by the Allies just as much as the Axis powers mistreated the Jews. No matter where they went they were always going to be persecuted.