Category: Holocaust

The article “The Possibility of an Ongoing Moral Catastrophe” by Williams (2015) concentrated on the argument that today’s society is unknowingly responsible for severe and large-scale wrongdoings. The author explores the morality associated with two major human-inflicted disasters in history which are, the American institutionalized slavery and the Holocaust. While exploring the topic, Williams offers two perspectives, inductive and disjunctive standpoints. When Williams takes on inductive reasoning, he argues that the majority of societies are unknowingly guilty of actions today, as well as in the past.

Concerning the disjunctive rationale, on the other hand, he claims some decisions may have adverse consequences. Williams also provides recommendations to help people cope with the ongoing moral catastrophes, mainly rooted in slavery in America and the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. Overall, in this paper, I will give rational objections to the argument presented in the article to show why it is faulty. (Exposition)According to Williams, there are two perspectives to the ongoing moral catastrophes. Based on an inductive viewpoint, the author recaps past events, mainly slavery and the Holocaust to project what will happen in the future. During the Holocaust, the majority of Nazi Party supporters believed it was right to kill Jews for their beliefs rejecting Christianity.

The individual who proposed the killing of Jews “had the false moral belief that genocide was the just and proper punishment for the crime of rejecting Jesus” (Williams, 2015). From this, most populations of past societies unknowingly took part in some ongoing moral catastrophes. From the disjunctive standpoint, however, the author offers a different perspective on the issue. He states that there are numerous ways in which society might be wrong about today’s moral practices and beliefs. For instance, a person may be wrong about what constitutes morality, health, or expectations for the future. As such, each event is independent thus, one should reflect on its results.

On a final note, the author offers two recommendations. First, he identifies the significance of identifying wrongdoings. If there is a moral issue, the best way to cope with it is to classify it as wrong. In this way, ‘we will be able to correct our policies intelligently, rather than stumbling around blindly’ (Williams, 2015). Society should use a moral theory, as well as scientific methods to solve issues. Secondly, a nation ought to implement the approved values like the norms and laws related to the subject. In doing this, we must be flexible by taking all necessary actions necessary to resolve an ethical issue. However, in impoverished areas, their situation can influence what is done since most citizens are too busy trying to survive to be flexible. (Philosophical Response)The ongoing moral catastrophe Williams presents in the article is valid. In response to this, I will offer objections to the recommendations presented in his text to show why they are faulty. In my opinion, his goal was to raise awareness about the challenge of ongoing moral catastrophes versus detailed policy recommendations or plans. To start, he claims that to resolve the issue, a society should identify wrongdoings and correct them with policies.

My objection stems from the fact that wrongdoings may stem from multiple kinds of moral uncertainties. Instead, the author says it is a result of merely an event that happened in the past. By doing this, he is not appreciative of these features. When identifying an issue, it is necessary to consider the events of the past. The prevailing uncertainties are also very important because they affect a moral principle. It is, therefore, possible to end an ongoing moral catastrophe, especially by getting input from the public. The other objection stems from the second recommendation. Williams says that society should focus on improving values, including laws and norms in every way necessary to deal with the problem. He further notes that we ought to build a resilient society to accommodate the change. I am opposed to this observation because of the argument that increasing social flexibility may completely ruin the norms of the population. Reasonably, if it becomes too easy to change and adapt to a new value system, society contributes more to the issue of moral catastrophe instead of resolving it. For instance, in the era of American slavery, William points out that the institutionalization of the practice allegedly “ruined” the souls of the perpetrators. This aspect contributed to the perpetrator’s brutality towards slaves, including beating, branding, and chaining among the countless other horrible actions that slave masters carried out.

Zusak’s novel ‘The Book Thief’, based on real events, represents the Holocaust by having details that accurately depict the events of that time, the emotions that were forced upon people and reasons for the decisions they made. Having an accurate novel gives the feeling of a genuine representation that feels true to events that occurred. The authenticity and emotion of the Holocaust has been shown effectively through Zusak’s narrative character of Death. Zusak has also made his book have great effect by using stylistic techniques such as euphemism, imagery and humour. These techniques also work well with Zusak’s focus on abundant detail of a scene. This makes a situation feel more real and gives the reader a genuine connection to the novel. Zusak has interwoven real events and realistic actions of people from the Holocaust throughout the plot of ‘The Book Thief’, making it easier for the reader to connect with the book. Zusak further engages the reader through the use of setting. The novel is written into a realistic and personal setting that engages the reader in every situation.

Death with an inverted and flipped personality, places a different kind of character in the readers mind. This portrays a different set of feelings to what is typically felt with a standardised Death. Death in this new way can effectively show the sorrow and desperation brought by the devastating events of the Holocaust. Zusak has used his unique version of Death to show how serious the effects and emotions are through a character that deals with people dying all the time. Zusak shows through the character of Death the immense impact of the Holocaust when Death himself feels bad for the humans that are left behind without a loved one.

The character of Death has been an effective component in creating a genuine and engaging book due to Zusak’s innovative narrative device, depicting the character of Death as one that cares. Death being normally such a serious character, and one that is typically attached to the idea of a malevolent, fearsome personality, strongly contrasts with Zusak’s re-imagined, benevolent and colour-noticing Death. This shows the reader a uniquely tailored emotional representation of what Death thinks of these things, making the reader feel in a similar way.

While the character of Death sits benignly in the background of the story, the character of Liesel is central to the plot of The Book Thief. Essentially Liesel is a normal kind girl, without any amazing talents, looks or intelligence. In this way Zusak has made the character relatable to the reader by making her average. In addition, Liesel’s sad, unfortunate family background encourages the reader to feel genuine empathy for her, as it is very easy to imagine the devastation of losing your own family. This makes the reader connect with the story even more.

There are various stylistic techniques used in The Book Thief to engage the reader. The technique of euphemism is used to effectively portray an authentic and engaging text that feels genuine and true. Euphemism is used by Death when talking about people dying. By using euphemism Death appears to the reader as a gentler, kinder character. When Death talks about something that may be a horrendous event in a softer and more delicate manner, it displays how he isn’t heartless and same as your typical Death character. Death is also described to be collecting their souls in a very peaceful and respectful manner, physically showing care and respect for the dead. On page 359 Death is shown to say that many people died due to the bombing in a much milder and gentle way. In this quote Death is talking about being very gentle and careful with the children’s souls as he collects them. “Five hundred souls. I carried them in my fingers, like suitcases. Or I’d throw them over my shoulder. It was only the children I carried in my arms.”

Another stylistic device that Zusak uses to connect with the reader is through his use of colour imagery. While very few people would have experienced the horrors and atrocities such as those seen during the Holocaust, most people understand colours and the ideas and feelings that colours can evoke. Zusak uses colours to show emotions. This helps to engage the reader by associating a certain scene with specific emotions using colour. The author first shows this through the character of Death, his gentle nature depicted through his love and attention to colours. Death takes notice of all the colours throughout a day and remembers what colours were there when different people died. Colours are an important part of Death, and generally taking notice of something that is in everyday life shows a careful and mindful character. Zusak goes onto to use colour imagery when Death describes the colours he sees with as much detail as to give the perfect image of an event and its emotions. Death’s notice of colours is seen when he says “I do, however, try to enjoy every colour I see – the whole spectrum. A billion or so flavours, none of them quite the same, and a sky to slowly suck on.” (Pg. 4)

The humorous style of writing that Zusak employs, such as subtle humour and jokes, appears to make light of the serious and horrendous events even when it might seem inappropriate. Although it may seem out of place, humour is used by people all the time when they find themselves in a difficult situation. Zusak is using a style that almost wouldn’t normally fit with a horrendous event such as the Holocaust, but it adds another level of engagement by entertaining the idea that people sometimes cope by trying to make light of dark situation. This sense of realism through humour adds another level of authenticity to the novel. An example of humour can be shown in the book on page where Death makes his usual humorous remark such as; “Whoever named Himmel Street has a healthy sense of irony. Not that it was a living hell. It wasn’t. But it sure wasn’t heaven, either.” And “You might well ask just what the hell he was thinking. The answer is, probably nothing at all. He’d probably say he was exercising his God-given right to stupidity.” (Pg. 26 and 319)

The authenticity of Zusak’s text is further shown through the focus he gives to a moment. Zusak gives a genuine effect in a scene by using the oddly focused and more human like thought process, showing details that would normally be left out. This gives a more personal and truer showing of an event. The focus on details gives the text an accurate and seemingly more genuine emotive presence. ‘The Book Thief’ focuses on small and regularly over-looked aspects of an event or conversation through the closely written details, objects and emotive aspects that are displayed. This helps the reader to feel as if the character lived through the event. Most people can recall a significant or even traumatic event in their life where they can remember some small or irrelevant detail such as what they were wearing, or what they were eating. Likewise, Zusak’s focus on these little details makes the story more believable as it enhances the historical retelling of the Holocaust which generally focuses on big or major details. The detail Zusak uses gives the story more of an authentic and realistic feel, reinstating the theme of an engaging and authentic novel.

‘The Book Thief’ is a believable and genuine plot in the way Zusak has closely followed the real events of the Holocaust. This gives you a clear idea of the events of the time, placing the reader in the scene and helps to show how genuine the people’s actions and thoughts are. Zusak’s use of a unique story line and an interesting structure keeps the reader engaged by having the story uniquely narrated by Death and presenting a very different take on concealing later secrets of the plot and building up the mystery of a situation. The plot of ‘The Book Thief’ was a carefully and cleverly constructed representation of what happened during the Holocaust and an interesting piece of literature. Without the mention and accuracy of the events that occurred during this time.

The setting of the story in a real town, Molching, adds to the authenticity and genuine feeling of the novel by describing in detail, aspects of the location and town. Molching is also located near Dachau, an infamous concentration camp of the Holocaust, providing a believable backdrop to the story. The use of the Hubermann family home, gives as a more realistic setting, creating a genuine feel of which is not difficult to picture during a mid-holocaust house of a poorer family, one that is falling apart in places. Zusak providing a clear description of the domestic setting shows the reader an engaging text with a detailed holocaust house description.

Overall Zusak has produced a novel that describes life during the Holocaust both on a large and personal scale, in doing so has created an authentic and engaging book using multiple stylistic techniques such as euphemism, humour and imagery. Zusak’s use of an inserting plot, realistic and captivating setting as well as his detailed focus on scenes and character draws the reader into the world of the holocaust and the peoples efforts and emotions of that time.

Violence and murder became prominent in European imperialism in Africa and left the supposedly lower races destined for extinction, which would be brought about by any means, including intentional extermination of entire populations like with the Holocaust. Attempts to dehumanize the Jewish people and Africans were also very similar in structure with both authorities using a three-pronged approach. They first stripped the Africans or Jews of their identity, then physically tortured them, and lastly, redefined their humanity such that it became unrecognizable to even the Jews or Africans themselves. Many of the very factors that make us human include aspects of our personal identity, which shape our values, morals, and humanitarian duty, but upon hours of arriving at Auschwitz, the prisoners were completely robbed of all the factors that made them unique and reduced to a less than human state. They were “reduced to ignoble slavery, without hair, without honor, without names, beaten every day, more abject every day.” Levi reiterates that his appearance was reflected in that of thousands of others who had all been molded into miserable and permanently scarred puppets. This lack of personality and a sense of emptiness within themselves rendered to be extremely mentally draining for not only the prisoners, but also the Africans in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which describes the Africans as “dying slowly – it was very clear …. they were nothing earthly now — nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.” The subjected individuals were also severely deprived of food, sleep, space, and medical attention that made them lose all sense of even their basic needs for survival, with Levi mentioning an example of a young man who “has not even the rudimentary astuteness of a draught-horse, which stops pulling a little before it reaches exhaustion.” The young man’s inability to recognize even the fact that he needs rest, shows that the Nazis have completely robbed him of his basic human instincts, reducing him merely to a labor beast. Conrad also shares how the first slaves Marlow (his story’s protagonist) encountered were “with that complete, deathlike indifference of unhappy savages.” Discontentment was a common theme among the prisoners and Africans in Levi and Conrad’s stories, but the final blow came with the social isolation and internal desolation the Jews and Africans had to face. In both the Heart of Darkness and Survival in Auschwitz, it was shown that recognizing the claims and needs of other humans not only keeps us connected to them, but it also lets us remain in touch with our own humanity. However, in the camps and Africa, most individuals held no such civic ties, and therefore were reduced to become beasts with no sense of compassion for those around them. Without being able to forge connections with other human beings, these individuals were deeply isolated and paved their own way to hollowness.

Another key experience that, to some degree, set the scene for the Holocaust is the German imperialism in South West Africa. While Arendt’s general correlation between European imperialism and the Holocaust is questionable because totalitarianism only emerged in Germany, this link can piece together a more concrete comparison. Specifically, the Herero Genocide in South Africa and the cultural developments that glorified imperialism to the domestic audience were significant in serving as a precedent for the later catastrophe in Germany. The war against the Herero people took form as a completely scaled genocide, fought against already dying people with the goal of total elimination as demonstrated by General von Trotha’s annihilation order and demographically portrayed by the Herero population’s reduction from 80,000 to under 20,000 between just 1904 and 1905. Further parallels can be drawn with regard to the ‘extermination through deliberate neglect’ employed by forcing the Herero people into a barren desert, and later in the war against the Soviet Union, which encompassed mass destruction of infrastructure and nearly all basic necessities. This idea of intentional extermination then presents itself again in Levi’s Survival in Auschwitz, where he mentions, “…in this place everything is forbidden, not for hidden reasons, but because the camp has been created for that purpose.” The deliberate planning involved with the creation of the concentration camps of Auschwitz convey the intentional neglect implemented in their ideology from the past, potentially being linked to colonialism in Africa.

However, many of these imperial practices were made possible only by the construction of an “imaginary” colonial history which glorified past colonial actions and constructed Slavic and Jewish people as equivalent to the colonial foreigner. This cultural effort pervaded into the dominant political culture and popular mindset, which proved to be rather damaging as the Jewish and Slavic people were casted into the category of non-Europeans in much of notable German propaganda and literature. The genocidal aspect of imperialism was also glorified in Nazi cultural propaganda which attempted to gain popular approval for past atrocities in Africa to ensure they could commit such again within their European regimes with popular support. Scientists also gave a degree of integrity to the racial disparities that were adopted by imperialism and therefore lent themselves to the ideology of Nazism. Their work lent credibility to otherwise outrageous actions, with even Darwinism supporting a widespread cultural process in which Western societies legitimized atrocity in the colonies in the name of “natural selection”. This played a significant role in the dehumanization of the Africans, and later in that of the victims of the Holocaust, making murder of the “foreigners” thinkable given the anthropological and scientific constructions of cultural hierarchies. These portrayed racial and cultural superiority to be scientifically verifiable to a domestic audience, further building the credibility of the colonial domination techniques used in Africa and then transferred to Nazi Germany.

Although it is truly impossible to connect historical events together to distinctly define and measure guilt, the incidents of European colonial politics conveyed a threshold of cruelty and colonial domination that can clearly be framed as foreshadowing the Holocaust and its progression. This link as proposed by Hannah Arendt carries strong weight as imperialistic expansionism, racism as an ideological weapon, and bureaucratic rule are reoccurring in pan-Germanic imperialism and the methods used by the Nazis. The interconnectedness of science, culture, and literature also played a significant role in justifying the imperialistic actions and legitimizing the violence that took place. An extensively imperialistic mentality and various norms by such were developed in the colonies, which ultimately paved the path for totalitarian domination and mass extermination in Europe, as observed with the Holocaust and its events. Prefigured conditions in which humans were treated as merely superfluous entities made possible the atrocities of both imperialism and the Holocaust, dehumanizing the “other” population to breed an indifference to life and death. This ideology exposed the vulnerability of European humanism and made clear a previously fathomless darkness at the very core of humanity in its entirety.

In the Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglas, the reoccurring strand of freedom develops a foundation of Frederick’s narrative. Douglass, as well as many other slaves, view Baltimore as a place of freedom and somewhere that is a vastly different from where they are from. Similarly, in Primo Levi’s, Survival of Auschwitz, freedom and confinement are two strands that reoccur throughout the text. The people in concentration camps are physically confined, but their lack of freedom consumes them.

Primo Levi describes his experience in Auschwitz by telling his narrative in the concentration camps. During his time at the camps he suffers through confinement and lack of freedom. In Auschwitz, nothing belongs to the prisoners, everything that is “theirs” really belongs to the Nazis. There are many instances that show this type of feeling. One being, “And for many days, while the habits of freedom still led me to look for the time on my wristwatch, my new name ironically appeared instead, its number tattooed in bluish characters under the skin” (Levi). When Primo looks down at his wrist he used to see his watch, but now he sees the Nazi symbol and how he is “owned” by the Nazis. In most cases of the people that were in the camps, they didn’t make it out, or at least didn’t have hope that they would. After getting out of the camp, Primo struggled with what it was like to live as a human, after being in a place that belittled them and treated them like animals. To the Nazis, these prisoners are nothing more than a number.

Throughout the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, it mainly focuses on the lack of freedom of slaves, and the poor treatment bestowed upon them from their masters, and the majority of the south. Masters often treated their slaves as a type of physical property, rather than a human being. Slaves are often passed between owners without consideration as to where their families are or if they even want to go. All they know is what they are told from their masters; who tend to hide the rest of the world outside of the plantations from them. They are estranged from the knowledge of what life could be like somewhere else, and how they can be treated kindly and humanely by people from the north or people closer the city like Baltimore. As Douglass says, “going to Baltimore laid the foundation, and opened the gateway, to all my subsequent prosperity” (Douglass, 18).

The strand of freedom is very prevalent in both of the texts and is similarly represented through the confinement and inhumane treatment of the slaves/prisoners. Levi has somewhat of a different perspective because he went from being a free citizen to being confined in the concentration camps and was stripped of all his personal dignity and just became a “number”. He explains that he and others take freedom for granted, “But consider what value, what meaning is enclosed even in the smallest of our daily habits, in the hundred possessions which even the poorest beggar owns: a handkerchief, an old letter, the photo of a cherished person. These things are part of us, almost like limbs of our body; nor is it conceivable that we can be deprived of them in our world, for we immediately find others to substitute the old ones, other objects which are ours in their personification and evocation of our memories” (Levi).

He says that even the small things in life, like our daily routines, are taken for granted because when you lose it all, you realize how lucky you were to even have it in the first place. For Douglass, he never really had a period of time when he was “free”. He says, “I left Baltimore with a young heart overborne with sadness, and a soul full of apprehension” (Douglass). When he had the opportunity to go to Baltimore is opened his perspective on slavery and made him realize that he has it the worst.

The infamous Kristallnacht- or the night of the broken glass- on the 9th of November 1938 instigated the American public’s severe disapproval. They were appalled upon learning of the aggressive acts of targeted anti-Semitic vandalism and violence, and their reactions were united in their censure of these actions. The mainstream press acted upon the temperament of the public and vigorously reported their disapproval, and the mutual feeling of dissent was particularly evident in their editorials. Despite this broader public sentiment, Roosevelt was hesitant to offer his comment. He was wary of making any hasty and ill-informed statements or decisions, particularly aware that though there was a strong sentiment of condemnation at the time, Americans were just as stringent in their refusal of easing immigration restrictions and did not desire for their country to be involved in the European disturbances. Such a sentiment owed itself to the American policy of isolationism and neutrality; in fact, a Gallup poll conducted in 1939 revealed that Americans saw the maintenance of neutrality as the most pressing challenge of the time, thereby blatantly expressing their relative unconcern with the Jewish victims’ and immigrants’ fates. In this light, Roosevelt did not make any drastic alterations to the foreign policy either.

The Wagner-Rogers bill

One of the central arguments for relieving the press of the blame for the government’s inaction comes about the Wagner-Rogers Bill of 1939. This legislation called for the admittance of around 20,000 child immigrants to America. The press was extremely vocal in its support of this measure and openly sought its passing. Even former President Herbert Hoover, who had been skeptical of immigrants in the aftermath of the First World War, endorsed the bill and his words resounded through the front pages of a myriad of publications, including the New York Times. Numerous editorials reflected the public’s sympathies for the children’s plight and were confident that the bill would receive majority support. However, irrespective of the press’s lobbying, after a four-day session the committee failed to pass the bill towards a Congressional vote.

Despite being in the midst of a largely supportive environment, the few stringent skeptic individuals and organizations- such as the American Legion, the Daughters of the American Revolution, etc.- came together and made their case in speaking of the domestic sufferings of the children within America. Though the basis for their claims hasn’t been explored in depth so far, one may speculate that they feared the competition that the American youth would face in terms of access to educational and job opportunities. Another reason cited in opposition went beyond the realms of irrationality in stating that the bill was flawed and held loopholes that would allow Aryan Germans to be shipped to America, and consequently tear German families apart against their will. Moreover, the opponents drew on Roosevelt’s words in speaking of how “charity must begin at home”. Here, one should also note that despite the resounding press support, Roosevelt once again failed to openly take a stance on the matter, and inquiries made regarding the same were filed under “No Action FDR”. On the contrary, an unashamedly anti-Semitic declaration came from the wife of the U.S. Commissioner of Immigration, who went so far as to state that “20,000 charming children would all too soon grow up into 20,000 ugly adults”. What becomes increasingly disheartening is the realization that only a year from that time the American government modified its immigration quotas to admit child evacuees from Britain, therein exposing its explicitly discriminatory leanings. The aforementioned facts should ideally leave no room for doubt in assessing the failure of the American government as independent of the press reportage of the time. One must recognize the government’s stringent resolve to remain selectively isolated from the rest of the world, even in light of such severely tragic moral and ethical implications. The benevolent stand taken by the press was insufficient in combatting pre-existing fears, opinions, and prejudices. (this ties in with the papers burying the Holocaust news within the folds- cuz other issues took up more domestic importance)

Sentiments during the war and the surfacing of voices advocating immigration

Beliefs in German Espionage As briefly mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, in the wake of the Second World War in 1939, there was a resounding fear regarding the possibility of German spies being implanted within the American population. The underlying basis for this notion lay in the memory of German espionage during the First World War and the press reports from the 1938 Rumrich trial, which had exposed a persisting network of Nazi spies and secret agents who were organized into well-connected groups across America’s landmass. Such fears heightened further with the increased activities of the pro-Nazi organizations such as the German-American Bund, who under the leadership of German immigrant Fritz Kuhn had adopted uniforms, symbols, and mannerisms identical to those of the Nazis, and openly claimed to take their orders from Hitler directly. Though scholars have accused the press of sensationalizing such stories and creating mass hysteria, research indicates that the American government, in its attempt to maintain caps on the immigration quotas also endorsed the same belief. The Assistant Secretary of the State Breckenridge Long was of the view that German spies were entering the country in the guise of refugees. Similarly, the President chose to pay significant heed to these claims and publicly expressed his intent for a stronger espionage force. As a result, in 1939-1940, Americans came to attribute the Nazi invasion of France, Scandinavia, and Poland to the espionage of the German sympathizers and spies, who they believed were stationed across the Allied nations. Thereafter, they increasingly resonated with Long’s views, and their already tainted attitudes towards immigrants now also became plagued with strong suspicions. Though these rapidly multiplying suspicions came to influence the reporting of the press to an extent, one must note that this was also in the light of the government instruments and spokespersons advocating the same views. In 1940, the Ambassador to France gave the following statement to the New York Times, “The French had been more hospitable than are even we Americans to refugees from Germany. More than one-half of the spies captured doing actual military spy work against the French army were refugees from Germany. Do you believe that there are no Nazi and Communist agents of this sort in America?” Yet another rigorous propagator of espionage and fifth column fears included the FBI director J. Edgar Hoover who appealed to the masses to report any suspicious activities to the authorities.

Roosevelt further ignited the prevalent fears by addressing the spies as “aliens” and openly perceiving their activities as a threat to national security. On the 20th of May 1940, he called for Congress to shift the Immigration and Naturalization Service from the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice. Stringent actions on the State’s part only reinforced the mass hysteria and proved to be increasingly disadvantageous to the incoming immigrants, especially since the Department of Justice had its hands full in the pre-war period and owing to their lack of expertise in employment or labor market issues, immigrants’ concerns took a back seat. Notably, a similar apprehension had arisen regarding the possibility of the dissemination of Communism within America. In addition to their anti-Semite policies, news of the Nazi’s hatred for the Communists had reached the American populace, and owing to Long’s publicly declared assumption of a possible link between Communism and Jewish internationalism, they began fearing the assimilation of Communists within the incoming refugees. One may infer that these fears were rooted in the memory of the Red Scare from the post-World War One period. These misgivings would be fueled further in 1941, with the Nazi initiation of ‘Operation Barbarossa’, wherein death squads specifically targeted Soviet Russia’s Bolsheviks. In 1941 the State Department- under Long’s influence- gave an anti-refugee ruling wherein any refugee with relatives in the German-occupied territories was barred entry into the United States.

The State Department specified that this was in response to the investigations of the ‘House Un-American Activities Committee’ which claimed to have found that any prisoners released from the concentration camps in Germany were made to pledge their allegiance to the service of the Nazi Gestapo. However, despite the prevailing anxieties, this ruling was on the receiving end of backlash from numerous segments of the press for its ambiguity and the lack of evidence made available to support their claims. And though at the time it was instrumental in asserting the public’s fears, later in 1943 the State Department would be implicated in a series of immigration and Holocaust-related cover-ups, further dissolving the authenticity of their claims. Bermuda Conference Before 1941, though there were numerous instances of witnessed killings of the Jews, the Nazi persecution hadn’t involved the large-scale extermination of the Jewish civilian masses systematically. The infamous ‘Final Solution’ was initiated in 1941. Though in its early stages, the killings were enabled through the use of ‘mobile killing units’, these soon progressed to the stage of ‘death trains’ which carried Jews to the dreadful extermination and concentration camps. However, owing to the deceptive and secretive measures taken by the Nazis to conceal their actions, as well as the logistic issues and ambiguities inherent to wartime, it wasn’t until 1942 that the Americans came to be aware of the repugnant Nazi atrocities. Needless to say, on receiving official confirmation of these barbaric events, the American public’s reaction was one of shock and absolute horror. The American Jewish committees’ and Jewish sympathizers’ rallies and protests took on an extreme vigor, and the pressure on the American government to reprimand the German state and sanction aid for the Jewish victims multiplied manifold. Finally, in 1943 the United States of America and the United Kingdom decided to hold a bilateral conference to discuss the possibilities of aid and laxer immigration measures. Or so they claimed.

Genocides have been around since the dawn of time. One of the earliest genocides happened in Carthage around 146 BCE (Matthews 2). Genocides can not be prevented. The United Nations has been ineffective in making policies to put an end to genocides for decades. A good education does not have all the power people think it does when it comes to putting an end to mass killings. Additionally, genocides have been linked to other worldwide problems; factors that have also been around for centuries and are only nonexistent in an ideal world.

The UN has been unsuccessful in preventing genocides despite numerous attempts. The United Nations established the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948 to try and prevent another Holocaust. However, it had some flaws to it. As stated by Paul Hiebert, “Although the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, established in 1948, was designed to avoid another Holocaust, the international community has a sad history of arguing over semantics and hesitating to act if a genocidal crisis isn’t deemed Holocaust-like enough, as backward as that may sound” (Hiebert 2). With this policy, genocides are only considered “genocides” if the death toll meets or surpasses that of the Holocaust. The amount of people who died during the Holocaust was around one million. Therefore, unless over a million people are being slaughtered, the UN will not intervene. Additionally, in 2005, the UN adopted the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). “The basis of R2P (responsibility for protection) is that all humans should be protected from the four mass atrocity crimes – genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity” (Adams 4). Under this principle, genocides should not occur because all people are supposed to be protected from them. However, this has not been the case. Since 2005, genocides have continued to happen. These policies mean nothing if there are no repercussions for people who violate them. According to Paul Hiebert, “Many of those who participated in the 1994 genocide remain unpunished in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”(Hiebert 3). Not only does this scenario show that there truly is no price to pay for partaking in a genocide, but it also shows how the UN’s policy to prevent another Holocaust-like genocide, put in place forty-six years ago, was ineffective. Time and time again, after countless attempts, the United Nations has not been successful in stopping or preventing genocides.

Many people will argue that educating people and building schools will help in preventing genocides. There is evidence to prove this claim is not true. Ellen Kennedy makes a strong point in “Here’s Why Genocide Keeps Happening.” She said, “Although we can teach people to accept one another, this won’t change large-scale malnutrition, economic despair, and political instability” (Kennedy 6). Educating people and teaching them respect and tolerance is great. However, that is not enough to stop a genocide from happening. One could even argue that genocide leaders are already smart because they gain control and power over a large area. Education does not play as big of a role in genocide prevention as people think. There are so many other factors that go into causing a genocide and whether or not people are educated is not one of them. There have been times when highly educated people had the opportunity to intervene and stop a genocide, but they chose not to. In 2001, author Samantha Power and the current U.S. ambassador to the UN reported that “The Clinton Administration knew what was happening in Rwanda back in 1994, and therefore both could have and should have done something to help. ‘Any failure to fully appreciate the genocide,’ she writes, ‘stemmed from political, moral, and imaginative weakness, not informational ones’” (Hiebert 2). In this case, education had nothing to do with preventing genocide. It just came down to morale and character. Those aren’t things that others can impose on people. Those things are decisions and ultimately, people have to decide what type of person they want to be, no one else can do it for them. Education is not a major factor in preventing genocide.

Genocides are caused by far too many outside factors making them impossible to prevent. Mass killings are caused by many different things. According to Ernesto Verdeja, “Significant social crises may create the context for genocidal violence. Revolution, massive, economic upheaval, and especially war increase collective fear and acculturate a society to violence” (Verdeja 8). Similarly, Charles J. Brown said, “Scholars have identified certain external factors – particularly war, impunity for past crimes and regime fragility – that can influence or accelerate the decision to kill” (Brown 9). It is quite obvious that all genocides have many similar factors that played a role in the formation of the genocide. However, there is one factor that is always mentioned without fail, war. Just like genocides, war has also been around since the dawn of time. Nobody knows a world without war. According to the New York Times, humans have only been entirely at peace for eight percent of recorded history (Hedges 1). As for the other ninety-two percent of history, humans were at war. And with war, comes genocides. Genocides are caused by too many factors that are only nonexistent in an ideal world.

Although it is unlikely genocides will ever be prevented, there is a chance that they might be preventable someday. In Elie Wiesel’s speech Hope, Despair And Memory, he said, “(It is the wise men who will bring about peace.). Perhaps, because wise men remember best” (Weisel 3). Perhaps, if people learned from past errors that led them to such tragedy, then they would be able to make sure they did not repeat the same actions to lead themselves into another genocide. Therefore, genocides could potentially be prevented. However, sometimes not even wise, powerful people, like members of the United Nations, can control and put an end to genocides.

The world does not know a world without tragedy, war, death, and genocide. As dark as that may sound, it is the truth. Genocides have yet to be prevented and never will be. The UN has been unsuccessful in intervening and making laws to prevent mass killings for decades. Education is not a factor in preventing genocides. Both educated and uneducated people have the same capability of preventing genocide. Additionally, there are so many outside factors that are linked to genocides that have also been around since the beginning of time. Genocides can not be prevented.

Works Cited

1. Hedges, Chris. ‘What Every Person Should Know About War.’ The New York Times, 6 July 2003. The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/ what-every-person-should-know-about-war.html. Accessed 31 Mar. 2020.
2. Hiebert, Paul. ’20 Years After Rwanda, Why Is It Still So Hard To Stop Genocide?’ PacificStandard, 3 May 2017, pp. 1-3. PacificStandard, psmag.com/ news/20-years-rwanda-still-hard-stop-genocide-77540. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.
3. Matthews, Rupert. ‘Battle Of Carthage.’ Britannica, www.britannica.com/event/ Battle-of-Carthage-146-BCE. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.
4. Murekatete, Jacqueline, et al. ‘Here’s Why Genocide Keeps Happening.’ Zocalo, 1 May 2015, www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2015/05/01/heres-why-genocide-keeps-happening/ideas/up-for-discussion/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.
5. Wiesel, Elie. ‘Hope, Despair And Memory.’ Nobel Lecture, 11 Dec. 1986. Speech.

The events in the aftermath of World War 1 had unquestionably contributed to the development of the Holocaust and the degree of the contribution of the event was extensive. Germany took the worst hit from the aftermath of the war. The Holocaust was a horrific occurrence that happened during 1941 – 1945 and resulted in the death of 6 million Jews. The main events that contributed to the Holocaust were The Weimar Republic, the Treaty of Versailles, Concentration Camps, and the Berlin Olympics.

The Weimar Republic era was during a difficult time both economically and socially. It was Germany’s government during the period after WW1 (1919 to 1933) and until the rise of Nazi Germany. Throughout the war, the value of the German currency, the Reichsmark, decreased incredibly. In an attempt to fix this, the government printed more money but this caused the value of the Reichsmark to decrease even more. During this economic crisis, Germany continued to try and pay the reparations as stated by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany requested permission in 1922 to halt their payments whilst their economy recovered but the Allies declined their request. Source 1 is an American political cartoon of a man (Germany) being crushed by a giant bag (reparations) demanded by the Treaty of Versailles. Germany was on the verge of collapse by 1923 and was unable to continue paying reparations. This led to France and Belgium invading Ruhr, a region in Germany. Both France and Belgium wished to use resources from Ruhr to compensate for the unpaid reparations. This demonstrates how much of a severe impact it left on not only the German people but also its economy.

The Treaty of Versailles worked well in the favor of the Allies but not Germany. The treaty quite clearly blamed Germany for the damages and forced them to disarm & become defenseless, make territorial grants, and pay a tremendous amount of $5 billion. Germany reacted very negatively to this. Protests took place outside the German Parliament and on the streets. Some historians referred to it as ‘history’s most hated treaty’ and blamed it for paving the way for the Second World War whereas others disagreed and said that the negotiators did the best they could in the challenging circumstances. Source 2 is the perspective of a Canadian Military Historian, Terry Copp, and his view on the Treaty in his book, No Price Too High. It was stated in his book that, “This view of the Great War and the peace settlement was never accepted within Germany and quickly became unfashionable among liberal and leftwing intellectuals in Britain, the United States, and Canada. This history of the origins of the war was “revised” to argue that Germany had been drawn to the war by her allies. The real causes of the war were said to be rival imperialism, the naval race, the armaments industry, or simply capitalism.

If Germany was no more “guilty” than France or Britain, the moral basis for restraining German military power or requiring reparations did not exist. The development of “revisionist” ideas about the causes of the war was paralleled by a growing disillusionment with the heroic image of the soldiers.” In that specific paragraph, he is indicating that the Treaty wasn’t as bad as people insist it to be. He pointed out that over the course of history, people just made the terms of the treaty sound overly extreme. He even argued that the Allies would not have imposed strict military restrictions and reparations on Germany if they were not guilty. Therefore he implied that Germany must have been extremely destructive during the war and deserved the punishment they received.

Once a Jew was placed into a concentration camp, they were guaranteed to have a rough time. They detained people under extremely harsh conditions without them even being indicted of a crime or going through a judicial process. The first camp was built in Dachau on March 22, 1933. In Nazi Germany, concentration camps became a critical way in which Nazis subjected their control. Source 3 is snippets of a transcript from a Holocaust Survivor, Theodore Haas. “The horror of Dachau was known throughout Germany” yet no one ever tried to intervene but it wasn’t that simple, Hitler had immense support and influence. Theodore was asked “How did you accept the fears of Dachau?” to which he replied, “Due to the constant hunger and extremely cold weather, one becomes too numb to even think of fear. A prisoner under these conditions becomes obsessed with survival; nothing else matters.” This just goes to prove how once a Jew ended up in a concentration camp, it would be nearly impossible to get out. The situation was very traumatizing for the survivors. Even to this day, they can’t sleep in peace without the past coming back to haunt them and this is when he says “I have nightmares constantly.” He also mentioned that as punishment, he got stabbed and shot several times. From his perspective, America wasn’t what it seemed like and there was more anti-semitism there. “Now, due to the curse of Liberalism, America is in a period of moral decline….. police officials who don’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights. They just want to control people, not protect and serve. When you study history, you see that when a country becomes an immoral manure heap, as America is rapidly becoming, all minorities suffer, and ultimately, all the citizens.” This source showed that an innocent 21-year-old got thrown into the camp but he was lucky enough to make it out.

The Berlin Olympics was a powerful propaganda tool. The Holocaust was still years away but Jews and non-Aryans in Germany were already being targeted a while before the Olympics took place. Rallies and boycotts happened, Jewish books were burned, and Intermarriage was banned. There was just so much happening against the Jews because of the Nuremberg Laws which had been the start of the Holocaust. At first, these laws were only relevant to Jews but were soon extended to other groups such as Gypsies. Due to pressure from other nations, they stopped their activities for the duration of the games. Source 4 is an image of Lustgarden at night and many Berliners and tourists were strolling. This source presents one of the ways Germany tried

to leave the foreigners with a good image of Germany and for the rest of the world to see while Hitler devised domination and war. By using many different methods to appeal to foreigners, the games were a success and many left Germany with a positive image of the country.

The main events that occurred after World War 1 did contribute to a great extent to the development of the Holocaust. If Germany wasn’t forced to sign the terms, then their economy wouldn’t have suffered so much and the rise of the Nazi party would have been difficult meaning that the Holocaust could have been prevented or at least decreased its impact on the modern world.

To begin with, No one would want something like the holocaust to occur to happen again. Well, something similar to it can happen again. People may still be anti-Semitic and if people do not speak about the hate of Jews or try to fight against it, something like the holocaust could happen. People need to educate themselves on what happened during the event. Gen Z mainly lacks knowledge of it and should know some facts about it.

A man named Irving Bienstock happens to be, a child who had lived the Holocaust nightmare. He went through everything and explained how he was bullied just for being Jewish. Irving claims, ‘Anti-Semitism is coming back, and it scares me. The holocaust could happen again if we do not oppose it, that’s what happened in Germany.” Bienstock stated. Jews weren’t allowed to own businesses, Jews never felt safe, etc. He said that the Holocaust happened due to the fact that people were against Jews. They were treated poorly. No one had stopped what was going on and that is how the Holocaust occurred. It could’ve been prevented. There is a lot of hate in the world and no one should be treated differently for their background.

As well as, In the article, it states, “There is anti-Semitism here, today, too. I am playing a role in educating the next generation, and I’ll keep doing it as long as I can.’ Inviting Bienstock stated. People need to be educated on what happened during the Holocaust and defend Jews. When people offend Jews or any different culture in general someone needs to defend or speak up for them. Even though it has been 75 years or more since the Holocaust, something like it can happen again. Especially with all of the racism in the world. They were put in gas chambers, caught diseases, etc. They were even starved. The Jews’ rights were taken away, they were all deported. It was as if their lives didn’t matter. Discrimination, in general, has to come to an end or an event like so can happen again.

Another equally important fact, there is a survey that finds that many Kentuckians think the holocaust could happen again. In the article, it states,” Nationally, 63 percent of all survey respondents do not know six million Jews were murdered and 36 percent thought that “two million or fewer Jews” were killed during the holocaust.” It was a very tragic event. Many people’s lives were taken. Jewish families may have all lost someone in their life because of the Holocaust. Families were also separated. Many Jews who were living in Europe were also murdered. Everyone in school right now, globally, lacks knowledge of this major event. It is such a large number of people who were murdered during this time and everyone needs to acknowledge it. Nothing like the Holocaust should happen again.

As a result, something like the Holocaust can likely happen again. History can repeat if no one is educated on what has happened. Jews were treated terribly and many lives were taken. If people were to stop discriminating against Jews; others in general maybe it can reduce the likelihood of it happening again.

Introduction:

The Holocaust stands as one of the darkest chapters in human history, characterized by the systematic genocide of millions of innocent lives. Within this harrowing period, the experiences of the Jewish community in Sighet, Romania, highlight the complex dynamics of survival, fear, and the failure to anticipate the true nature of Nazi terrorism. This essay critically examines the factors that contributed to the failure of Sighet Jews to anticipate the extent of the Nazi threat, including their limited access to information, the influence of denial, and the manipulation of propaganda.

Limited Access to Information:

One crucial factor in the failure to anticipate Nazi terrorism was the limited access to information faced by the Jewish community in Sighet. During the early stages of the Nazi regime, information about the atrocities committed against Jews in other regions was scarce and often distorted. The lack of reliable news sources and the deliberate suppression of information by Nazi propaganda machinery shielded the Sighet Jews from fully comprehending the magnitude of the threat they faced. This information gap inhibited their ability to assess the gravity of the situation and take necessary precautions.

Influence of Denial:

Denial played a significant role in the failure to anticipate Nazi terrorism. The Jews of Sighet, like many others at the time, found it difficult to fathom the sheer brutality and inhumanity of the Nazi regime. They clung to the hope that reason, empathy, and human decency would eventually prevail, blinding themselves to the signs and warning signals that were becoming increasingly evident. This denial, while understandable given the unimaginable horrors they faced, ultimately hindered their ability to recognize the urgency of the situation and take proactive measures.

Manipulation of Propaganda:

Another critical factor was the manipulation of Nazi propaganda, which served to deceive and control the Jewish population. The Nazis skillfully employed propaganda to disseminate false information, create divisions within the Jewish community, and instill a sense of false security. Through their propaganda machine, the Nazis presented themselves as protectors of law and order, while concurrently spreading anti-Semitic sentiments. This manipulation of information and emotions contributed to the confusion and complacency among the Sighet Jews, preventing them from accurately assessing the impending danger.

Collective Trauma and Paralyzing Fear:

The collective trauma experienced by the Jewish community, coupled with paralyzing fear, also played a role in their failure to anticipate Nazi terrorism. The unimaginable horrors of persecution and the constant threat to their lives created a climate of fear and desperation. This fear often led to a state of paralysis, where the community became trapped in a cycle of survival instincts, unable to fully comprehend the scale and intensity of the Nazi onslaught. The trauma and fear permeating Sighet’s Jewish population hindered their capacity to think critically and foresee the atrocities that lay ahead.

Conclusion:

The failure of the Sighet Jews to anticipate the true nature of Nazi terrorism was influenced by various factors, including limited access to information, denial, the manipulation of propaganda, and the collective trauma and fear experienced. While it is essential to understand the context and complexities surrounding their failure, it is equally crucial to acknowledge the overwhelming power and brutality wielded by the Nazi regime. The Holocaust serves as a grim reminder of the consequences of human complacency and the necessity of remaining vigilant against hate, oppression, and genocidal ideologies.

Genocides have been around since the dawn of time. One of the earliest genocides happened in Carthage around 146 BCE (Matthews 2). Genocides can not be prevented. The United Nations has been ineffective in making policies to put an end to genocides for decades. A good education does not have all the power people think it does when it comes to putting an end to mass killings. Additionally, genocides have been linked to other worldwide problems; factors that have also been around for centuries and are only nonexistent in an ideal world.

The UN has been unsuccessful in preventing genocides despite numerous attempts. The United Nations established the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948 to try and prevent another Holocaust. However, it had some flaws to it. As stated by Paul Hiebert, “Although the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, established in 1948, was designed to avoid another Holocaust, the international community has a sad history of arguing over semantics and hesitating to act if a genocidal crisis isn’t deemed Holocaust-like enough, as backward as that may sound” (Hiebert 2). With this policy, genocides are only considered “genocides” if the death toll meets or surpasses that of the Holocaust. The amount of people who died during the Holocaust was around one million. Therefore, unless over a million people are being slaughtered, the UN will not intervene. Additionally, in 2005, the UN adopted the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). “The basis of R2P (responsibility for protection) is that all humans should be protected from the four mass atrocity crimes – genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity” (Adams 4). Under this principle, genocides should not occur because all people are supposed to be protected from them. However, this has not been the case. Since 2005, genocides have continued to happen. These policies mean nothing if there are no repercussions for people who violate them. According to Paul Hiebert, “Many of those who participated in the 1994 genocide remain unpunished in the Democratic Republic of the Congo”(Hiebert 3). Not only does this scenario show that there truly is no price to pay for partaking in a genocide, but it also shows how the UN’s policy to prevent another Holocaust-like genocide, put in place forty-six years ago, was ineffective. Time and time again, after countless attempts, the United Nations has not been successful in stopping or preventing genocides.

Many people will argue that educating people and building schools will help in preventing genocides. There is evidence to prove this claim is not true. Ellen Kennedy makes a strong point in “Here’s Why Genocide Keeps Happening.” She said, “Although we can teach people to accept one another, this won’t change large-scale malnutrition, economic despair, and political instability” (Kennedy 6). Educating people and teaching them respect and tolerance is great. However, that is not enough to stop a genocide from happening. One could even argue that genocide leaders are already smart because they gain control and power over a large area. Education does not play as big of a role in genocide prevention as people think. There are so many other factors that go into causing a genocide and whether or not people are educated is not one of them. There have been times when highly educated people had the opportunity to intervene and stop a genocide, but they chose not to. In 2001, author Samantha Power and the current U.S. ambassador to the UN reported that “The Clinton Administration knew what was happening in Rwanda back in 1994, and therefore both could have and should have done something to help. ‘Any failure to fully appreciate the genocide,’ she writes, ‘stemmed from political, moral, and imaginative weakness, not informational ones’” (Hiebert 2). In this case, education had nothing to do with preventing genocide. It just came down to morale and character. Those aren’t things that others can impose on people. Those things are decisions and ultimately, people have to decide what type of person they want to be, no one else can do it for them. Education is not a major factor in preventing genocide.

Genocides are caused by far too many outside factors making them impossible to prevent. Mass killings are caused by many different things. According to Ernesto Verdeja, “Significant social crises may create the context for genocidal violence. Revolution, massive, economic upheaval, and especially war increase collective fear and acculturate a society to violence” (Verdeja 8). Similarly, Charles J. Brown said, “Scholars have identified certain external factors – particularly war, impunity for past crimes and regime fragility – that can influence or accelerate the decision to kill” (Brown 9). It is quite obvious that all genocides have many similar factors that played a role in the formation of the genocide. However, there is one factor that is always mentioned without fail, war. Just like genocides, war has also been around since the dawn of time. Nobody knows a world without war. According to the New York Times, humans have only been entirely at peace for eight percent of recorded history (Hedges 1). As for the other ninety-two percent of history, humans were at war. And with war, comes genocides. Genocides are caused by too many factors that are only nonexistent in an ideal world.

Although it is unlikely genocides will ever be prevented, there is a chance that they might be preventable someday. In Elie Wiesel’s speech Hope, Despair And Memory, he said, “(It is the wise men who will bring about peace.). Perhaps, because wise men remember best” (Weisel 3). Perhaps, if people learned from past errors that led them to such tragedy, then they would be able to make sure they did not repeat the same actions to lead themselves into another genocide. Therefore, genocides could potentially be prevented. However, sometimes not even wise, powerful people, like members of the United Nations, can control and put an end to genocides.

The world does not know a world without tragedy, war, death, and genocide. As dark as that may sound, it is the truth. Genocides have yet to be prevented and never will be. The UN has been unsuccessful in intervening and making laws to prevent mass killings for decades. Education is not a factor in preventing genocides. Both educated and uneducated people have the same capability of preventing genocide. Additionally, there are so many outside factors that are linked to genocides that have also been around since the beginning of time. Genocides can not be prevented.

Works Cited

1. Hedges, Chris. ‘What Every Person Should Know About War.’ The New York Times, 6 July 2003. The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/books/chapters/ what-every-person-should-know-about-war.html. Accessed 31 Mar. 2020.
2. Hiebert, Paul. ’20 Years After Rwanda, Why Is It Still So Hard To Stop Genocide?’ PacificStandard, 3 May 2017, pp. 1-3. PacificStandard, psmag.com/ news/20-years-rwanda-still-hard-stop-genocide-77540. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.
3. Matthews, Rupert. ‘Battle Of Carthage.’ Britannica, www.britannica.com/event/ Battle-of-Carthage-146-BCE. Accessed 13 Mar. 2020.
4. Murekatete, Jacqueline, et al. ‘Here’s Why Genocide Keeps Happening.’ Zocalo, 1 May 2015, www.zocalopublicsquare.org/2015/05/01/heres-why-genocide-keeps-happening/ideas/up-for-discussion/. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.
5. Wiesel, Elie. ‘Hope, Despair And Memory.’ Nobel Lecture, 11 Dec. 1986. Speech.