Source 8, by Phillip Sauvain, shows an account “By an American Serviceman,” who’s name is not told. Because there is no name given for the American Serviceman the source’s reliability is questionable, the source could be made up. Because the American Serviceman’s name is unknown it impossible to find out his background, which may affect his opinion of the German people and so change the way he sees things. eg; he could be Jewish and so ‘bear a grudge’ making the source biased.
Assuming this source is true then the information which is described, how “men and women screamed and fainted,” suggests that the people were horrified at what they saw, portraying that they didn’t know what had been happening. These displays could be viewed in many ways. The people may have known what was going on and so put on this act to absolve themselves from any blame OR they may have felt immense guilt for what they had supported OR they may truly not have known. The latter is doubtful because if they really, “had no idea of what was going on in the camp just outside their town,” Source 4(Phillip Sauvain) would suggest otherwise, because “the unmistakeable odour of burning bodies could be detected for miles around concentration camps.” Source 8 is not reliable because the ‘American Serviceman’ is an unknown figure, if he exists. As evidence to suggest that the Germans did know what was happening it is void because it implies that the Germans did not know what was ‘going on.’
Source 9, B Engelmann, gives rise to great discussion. Depending on how it is looked upon determines whether or not this source may be found to be a reliable first hand account. The opening line to this source reads ‘quoted in.’ This implies that B Engelmann has quoted someone in his book but they are unknown. It does not read not ‘quoted from,’ as was written in almost every other source, which gives the impression that the source comes from B Engelmann’s own personal experience.
If the opening line is ignored and it is assumed that the source is about Engelmann’s mother then it would be fair to say that it is reliable because Engelmann would have been writing from first hand experience. In the source it tells of how, “she dismissed all the whispers of the atrocities as stupid, malicious gossip.” This gives the impression that there were rumours going round about the ‘Final Solution,’ meaning that the Germans did know what was going on. His mother’s dismissal of the gossip may be explained in the first line where she appears to have been manipulated by Nazi propaganda, “My mother... was convinced everything the Nazis did was right and essential.” A further display of how much she disbelieved the gossip is shown when it is learnt that “her whole world collapsed,” after being shown round a concentration camp, which gives the impression that she really did not know(believe) what was going on.
From the view that this Source is from B Engelmann’s experience it is reliable to show that the German people did know what was happening in the concentration camps as it is learnt that there were rumours about it. It is also reliable to show that the Nazis essentially brainwashed people, i.e. Engelmann’s mother. On the other hand, without overlooking the opening line, it is viable to say that this source is anonymous which gives good reason to say that it is unreliable because it could just be made up.
I personally think the latter, that this source is anonymous and unreliable. I think this because B Engelmann’s name sounds Jewish, it may or may not be. If it is, then it is very unlikely both that his mother would have been a Nazi supporter and that they would not have been ‘resettled.’
In Source 10 Daniel Goldhagen writes of how,
“A woman...noted in her diary,” about how the Jews were disappearing and of how there were rumours going round about their fate. This source can be regarded as reliable so as to say that it is the truth because due to it being a personal diary account, the woman has no reason to lie. It reliably shows that the Germans had more than an inkling as to what happened to the Jews because the rumours that went round were of,
“-mass shootings and death by starvation, tortures and gassings.” However there is something questionable about this source, Who is the woman behind the diary account? All that is known of her is that she is said to have worked to save Jews but without a name to back the source, its reliability may be doubted by some as there is no evidence to show that she actually saved a single Jew. I personally think this source is reliable because it was written whilst the events in question were occurring(“on December 2 1942”) and so would have been fresh in the writer’s mind. Also because it is a diary account I see no reason for it to be false. She has no motive for writing it other than for personal reasons, why would she lie to herself?
Question 4
Which Source do you consider least reliable? Do you agree that this means it is useless to a historian studying the German people’s knowledge of the ‘Final Solution’?
I consider Source 9 to be the least reliable source. I view this source in the light that it is anonymous and so I believe that because there is no name to back up the source that it could be made up and so it would be untrue.
Overlooking the point of the source being anonymous it can still be deemed unreliable. The writer of the source may be trying to protect his mother and absolve her from any blame for what happened to the Jews. In protecting his mother the writer may alter the truth which would make this source void. It is possible that the nervous breakdown the writer’s mother is said to have taken may not be genuine.
Although I find this source to be unreliable, I still think that it is a useful source. It is useful in several ways. It gives an indication that the Germans did know about the Final Solution, “all the whispers of atrocities.” It shows that the Nazis’ propaganda campaign was successful in making Germans believe what they did was right, “My mother...was convinced everything the Nazis did was right and essential.” It shows how shocked Germans were at learning of what the Nazis had been doing, “her whole world collapsed,” which gives the impression that the Germans did not know. It also gives an indication to the awful conditions in the concentration camps and the extent of the mass killings of Jews, “I’ll never forget those heaps of emaciated corpses.”
From this source information can be extracted to support the findings of other, reliable, sources. It is because of this that I think this source is useful.
Question 5
Examine Sources 11-14
a) In what way were the Jews represented in in these sources?
b) Why were they represented like this in Germany in the 1930’s and early 1940’s?
5a) In Source 11 the Jewish community are represented as being beggars, leeches of the state, shown by the stereotypical Jew holding his hand out with loose change in it. In his other hand is a whip suggesting oppression, that the Jews are wicked, a threat. Also shown in this source is the map of Germany with the ‘Hammer and Sickle’- symbols of Communism, implying that the Jews threaten to introduce this ideal into Germany. Another thing to be noted about this source is that the Jew depicted is a very typical caricature like figure. The man is unshaven and dirty, is sneering and his features are exaggerated which gives people a false impression of Jews.
In Source 12 a primary Source is shown, a beer mat from the time of Nazi rule. It has a caption which translates as
“Whoever buys from the Jews is a traitor to his people.” This caption implies that the Jews were the Germans’ enemy. Depicted is another stereotypical caricature of a Jew, sneering with exaggerated features and a sinister expression on his face. He appears dirty and again as in the previous source is not cleanly shaven.
In Source 13 another primary source is displayed, from a children’s book published by the Nazi Party. It compares an Aryan man, ‘the Perfect German,’ with a Jewish man, ‘the greatest scoundrel in the whole Reich.’ The Jewish man this time is represented in a way which contradicts other sources. He is represented as being a rich, overweight, well dressed person but still the stereotypical features, of being dirty and ugly, are applied in the drawing. These are shown by the briefcase he carries in his right hand and the money he tightly clenches in his left. The exaggerated features are again the large nose and irregular ears, as well as the man also being, yet again, unshaven. In contrast is the Aryan man who is shown as young, fit and attractive. He is a ‘worker,’ shown by him grasping a shovel in one hand, which implies that he is not living off the state in contrast to what Jews were shown to do.
In Source 14 children are shown begging on the streets in a Warsaw ghetto. Assumed to be Jewish, these smiling children give the impression that they are happy to be living like this, scrounging off the state without making effort to help the German economy. They are shown to be dirty and this makes the Jews appear to be second class citizens.
5b) During the 1930s and 1940s Jews were presented like this because Germany was under Nazi rule. One of the founding principles of the Nazi Party was racism, namely anti-Semitism as stated in the 25 Point Programme,1920. The Nazis presented the Jews in this way because they blamed them for Germany’s ‘loss/surrender’ of WWI(signing of the Treaty of Versailles 1918 by ‘November Criminals’).The Nazis also showed the Jews in this way to manipulate Germans into the Nazi way of thinking. e.g. Source 13 shows that children were being taught in school that Jews were “the greatest scoundrels in the whole Reich.” Another reason the Nazis showed the Jews this way in the sources was to show Germans the association between Jewry and Communism, ie Source 11. Doing this would have made Germans weary of Jews as Communism was not a very welcome ideal in Germany.
As well as these reasons which show that the Nazis wanted the German people to dispel the Jews, this propaganda was also intended to encourage Jews to leave Germany of their own free will, and create a mass emigration policy of Jews from Germany.
The Nazis presenting the Jews like this for such a long period of time made Germans accept that that was the way it was, the Jews were second class citizens. These presentations helped justify the Nazis introducing the Nuremburg Laws, laws that persecuted and discriminated against Jews. It made German citizens accept that all Jews should be made to wear a Star of David to show that they were Jewish. Source 12 justifies the Nazis policy of boycotting Jewish shops, as it says anyone who buys from a Jew is a traitor to his country. The representation of Jews to be filthy justified the actions which took place on Kristallnacht, when many Jewish owned shops were destroyed and several Jews were arrested for simply being Jewish. The stereotypical views this propaganda created also was the gateway for the Nazi Party being allowed to force Jews to emigrate in 1939, without any opposition from the German public. Finally the ultimate crime this propaganda allowed to happen was decided at the Wansee Conference in 1942, where the mass extermination policy of all Jews in Germany was planned.
By the time of the Wansee Conference in 1942 the images presented in Sources 11-14 had successfully indoctrinated the German people into accepting that the Jews were second class citizens and their treatment of the Jews was fair. Because this propaganda had manipulated Germany as a nation the Nazi Party faced little opposition to stop the bad treatment of Jews.
Question 6
Read the following extract from ‘Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ by Daniel Goldhagen (1996)
“No one could believe that anything but a dire fate awaited the Jewish men and women, the elderly and the children, whom in the midst of this war, the German government was forcibly sending, often with open brutality, to the East. Their attitudes indicate that Germans assented to these measures to make Germany judenrein, free of Jews...
The inescapable truth is that, regarding Jews, German political views had evolved to the point where an enormous number of ordinary, representative Germans became...Hitler’s Willing Executioners.”
Using all the sources and your own knowledge explain whether you agree or disagree with this interpretation.
6) It is debatable whether or not all Germans knew about the fate of the Jews. The Sources previously analysed are very helpful in this debate. Several give solid evidence to suggest that the Germans did know what was going on while other sources give equally strong evidence to suggest that the Germans did not know what happened. There are also some sources which are ambiguous, giving different impressions when read in different ways. Through analysing the sources the idea that the German people were ‘willing executioners’ of Jews can be found out by examining whether or not the Germans acted upon their knowledge.
Source 2 shows that the Germans did take part, indirectly, in the extermination of Jews, “Germans rounded up the Jews and transported them eastwards.” This shows that German people did knowingly send Jews to their deaths, “rumours did circulate about the dreadful deeds in the East.” From this information it is fair to say that the Germans were ‘willing executioners.’ However the same source goes on to say, “to ask too many questions, let alone protest, was to risk arrest and possibly death,” which may give the impression that the Germans were afraid to speak out against the cruel happenings. This can be understood to mean that the Germans were not ‘willing executioners.’ However it must be recognised that they were not ‘unwilling executioners.’ (ie they did nothing to stop the Jews being transported eastwards.)
Source 3 tells about the workers at extermination centres, “workers at an extermination centre in Austria.” As far as it is known there was nothing to stop the workers from leaving their jobs. Therefore this source shows that Germans were ‘willing executioners’ because they actively participated in the killing of Jews.
Source 4 talks about the “unmistakeable odour of burning bodies,” and how, “villagers got up petitions to have the camps moved elsewhere.” This clearly indicates that the Germans did know about the massacres. If the villagers could get up petitions to have the camps moved, surely they could have also gotten up petitions to stop the killings. Therefore this source shows that the Germans were not ‘unwilling executioners.’ If they were they would have tried to stop the Nazis.
In Source 5 there is no information to say that Germans were ‘willing executioners’ but there is information to suggest that the Germans did know about the mass killing of Jews, “It is difficult to believe that there existed...anyone who did not know that most of the Jews had disappeared, and had not heard some story that they had been shot or gassed.” Because this implies that the Germans knew about what went on, although there is no evidence that the Germans were ‘willing executioners,’ it is still fair to say that the Germans were not ‘unwilling executioners.’
Source 6 provides a vast amount of evidence to show that the German people did know about what was happening to the Jews, “a massive broadcast campaign... million copies of a leaflet...” Again, due to lack of evidence to suggest that the German people acted upon this information it may be concluded that the Germans were not ‘unwilling executioners.’
Source 7 is an extract from a pamphlet issued in 1943 by ‘Die Weisse Rose,’ an anti-Nazi resistance group. Its content seemingly refers to the mass murder of Jews, “this abominable and inhumane crime,” though this is not mentioned by name such was the sensitivity of the information. It confirms what other sources show, that the Germans were not ‘unwilling executioners,’ as they failed to act against the Nazis, “...the German nation goes on sleeping its dull stupid sleep, giving these Fascist criminals the boldness and opportunity to storm ahead.” This source illustrates clearly how the German people did not try to stop the Holocaust happening, and how they were not ‘unwilling executioners.’
Source 8 presents the observations of an American serviceman who had participated in showing Germans round a concentration camp after the war. He tells how men and women, “swore that during the past years they had no idea what had been going on in the camp just outside their town.” Their actions as they passed torture chambers and ovens, “men and women screamed and fainted,” shows how shocked the Germans were at the horrific sights and smells of the camps. Perhaps, these action due to guilt, but this is doubtful. If the Germans had have known about the horrific crimes that went on in the camps it is doubtful that they would have been supportive of it, and less likely that they would have been ‘willing executioners.’ However it should be noted that this does not prove the Germans were ‘unwilling executioners.’
Source 9 is very interesting in the debate of whether the German nation were ‘willing executioners.’ The writer’s mother “was convinced that everything the Nazis did was right and essential.” This may be understood to mean that if Germans were convinced the Nazis were right in everything they done then the people supported their treatment of the Jews, and so concludes to mean the Germans were ‘willing executioners.’ The opposite interpretation may also be extracted from this source due to the reaction of the writer’s mother at the sight of the dead bodies. The writer’s mother is said to have taken a nervous breakdown after, “her whole world collapsed.” Therefore it is viable to say that the writer’s mother was unaware of what happened to the Jews, and so she was not a ‘willing executioner.’ If this is the case then it is possible that other Germans were also unaware of the Jews fate which makes it fair to say that they too were not ‘willing executioners.’
Source 10 is from a woman’s diary. The writer is said to have worked to save Jews. From this information it can be stated that the writer of this source was an ‘unwilling executioner’ because she actively tried to prevent the murder of Jews. This source is reliable because it is written in a private diary where the writer has no reason to lie. Therefore the information in this source can be trusted and the conclusion that not all Germans were ‘Hitler’s willing executioners’ may be drawn.
Alfons Heck, a member of the Hitler Youth in 1938, said in a television programme that the German people knew the fate of the Jews after Kristallnacht, “After Kristallnacht no German could any longer be under any illusion,” as to the fate of the Jews. This declares that the Germans knew what would happen to the Jews. Thus it can be stated that the Germans did not act upon their information to prevent the mass killing of the Jews and therefore they were not ‘unwilling executioners.’ In his interview Heck also mentioned how he had never met a Nazi who hated the Jews so much that he wanted them all dead, “I myself never met even the most fanatical Nazi who wanted the extermination of the Jews.” This shows, from a first hand reliable source, that not even committed Nazis wanted the Jews to die, and confirms that the Germans including Nazis were not ‘willing executioners.’ The interview with Alfons Heck draws the conclusion that the Germans were neither ‘willing’ or ‘unwilling executioners,’ they were stuck in the middle of an awkward situation and everyone ‘went with the flow.’
Oskar Schindler’s heroic crusade to save Jews during the war is a prime example of an ‘unwilling executioner’ in action. Schindler was a Nazi who used his position to save many Jews by smuggling them to safety. When he became aware of the terrible crimes being committed against the Jews he worked to save them. His work to save Jews confirms what Alfons Heck’s interview revealed, even the Nazis didn’t want the Jews to be exterminated.
There is proof that there was public demand to have the inhumane testing and killing of mentally handicapped patients stopped. These protests were successful in putting an end to the murder of demented people. This shows that the German people were capable of getting together in force and stopping the Nazis doing things that were very wrong. From this information it is unbelievable that the Germans did not protest in the same way to stop the mass murder of Jews. This may be understood to mean that the Germans supported the killing of the Jews and so incriminates the German people to be ‘Hitler’s willing executioners.’
From all the sources studied and other knowledge a wide range of perspectives can be seen regarding the ‘willingness’ of Germans to have the Jews exterminated. From these there is little evidence to show that Germans were ‘willing executioners.’ In contrast there are a great number of indications that Germans were ‘unwilling executioners,’ (Sources 7&10) and Alfons Heck’s interview which states that even fanatical Nazis did not want the Jews to be exterminated. The majority of the information analysed is unclear in saying how willing the Germans were in supporting the Final Solution. The vast majority it seems were neither actively ‘willing executioners’ or ‘unwilling executioners.’ They were stuck in the middle and just ignored or went along with what was happening.
I think that the sources and other knowledge discussed shows that there may have been a very small number of people who were ‘willing executioners,’ ie the workers at extermination centres. There was an equally small number of ‘unwilling executioners’ who actively tried to discourage the killing of Jews, ie ’Die Weisse Rose,’ the diary writer in Source 10 and Oskar Schindler. I find that the vast majority of German people may have thought of the topic of the Final Solution as a taboo subject and so were neither willing or unwilling executioners. I think they did not become unwilling executioners because they were afraid to speak out against the Nazis, “at risk of arrest or possibly even death.” I think they did not become willing executioners because they knew it was wrong what the Nazis wee doing. The Germans were stuck in the middle with no-where to go. Although it was not through the fault of the vast majority of German people that so many Jews were killed, I still think that those who were neither willing or unwilling executioners do hold some responsibility for letting the “abominable and inhumane crimes happen.” I draw the conclusion that the German nation as a whole were neither willing or unwilling executioners.
