The picture would have allayed people's fears because it suggested that the Nazis were compassionate towards its enemies. I would question the reliability of this source and be wary of what it suggests, as it is misleading.
The "Jews" in the picture many not have been Jews at all but camp guards dressed up for this staged photograph.
Q3B. Do sources F and G suggest that the Nazis were successful in their aim?
Yes, Source E was meant to give a good impression of Jewish treatment; although we don't know if either person saw Source E. The person in source F wasn't necessarily fooled.
Its suggested that she was a nazi supporter and could have convinced herself that nothing bad was happening, if she had seen source E, it would give her more reason to do so.
The girl in Source G seems to be from a Nazi School and could have been 'programmed' to believe that the Jews were treated well; more so if an S.S. officer told her so. However, what she says is coloured by hindsight, casting some doubt upon its reliability.
Q4. How does Source H attempt to represent the views of different Germans towards the final solution?
Source H is an extract of the film "Schindler's List". It is meant to enlighten people on the treatment of the Polish Jews. Most of the Germans we see in the film are army officers; therefore, the source is not terribly representative of German public opinion.
The views expressed by the Germans about the Jews are always negative, even those of Oscar Schindler; who is initially presented as being dismissive of the Jews, although he becomes like a saviour to them.
The source should not be taken as entirely historically accurate because although it is meant to enlighten people about what happened, it is essentially for entertainment and was made by a Jewish director on a Jewish topic, making it subjective and we cannot say for certain that the views expressed applied to all S.S. men.
Q5. Which of the Sources, J or I is more critical of the role of the German people towards the final solution?
It seems that source I is far more critical of the German people. We first have to look at the title, which says a lot: "Hitler's willing executioners."
The source refers to the Ordnungspolizei, who were everyday family men. They represented a large proportion of the German population.
It says that these men were passionate and overfilled their 'quotas', killing with sadistic abandon. Source I suggests that it was the everyday German people who murdered the Jews. Source J does not use strong critical language, it simply says the Germans turned a blind eye to the Jewish situation and were indifferent. This, it could be argued is very damning criticism. However, source I is more critical, as it states that Germans as a people, participated actively in genocide.
Q6. What are the strengths and weaknesses of sources K and : for an historian studying the Final Solution?
Source K is a useful source because it gives us an insight into the point of view and feelings of a camp commandant.
It is a subjective source and one of its weaknesses is that it is an extract of a judicial statement. The commandant was not going to say anything to implicate himself, but things to influence the court and obviously his future.
Source l is also useful. It interprets well who controlled what and how they were involved. It is a subjective source as the commander is trying to distance himself from what happened by constantly claiming his innocence. This makes us suspicious. This source also has the weakness that the commander is making a judgment with hindsight. After 45 years, he would have had plenty of time to make up excuses and reflect on what had happened.
An historian should be wary about taking both these sources at face value, as they contain possibly misleading information, and their use of emotionally persuasive language should be viewed guardedly as well.
Q7. What light does Source M shed upon conditions in Germany that would have permitted the Final solution to take place?
M tells us that Hitler's dictatorship gradually corrupted the German People. People were afraid to comment on the rumours they heard about the Jews. Some even made themselves believe that nothing was happening, while many were simply indifferent.
Even those who rounded up the Jews and transported them to the East may have tried to believe that the deportations had no sinister implications. The propaganda the Nazis used to publicise resettlement plans and the fear of government reprisals may have contributed to creating the conditions that existed in Germany at this time.
Q8. The German people were 'Hitler's willing executioners'. Using the sources and your own knowledge to what extent do you agree with this statement.
Idisagree with this statement. While it is clear that some people knew, and some didn't even care, it is impossible to say that 80 million Germans wanted the Jews to die. When we consider that the executions happened in the east, outside Germany and that the authorities kept the news from the public and tried to deliberately mislead them, then it is very unlikely that the Germans were Hitler's willing executioners; Himmler's speech illustrates this in particular.
From one perspective, Germans always had a notion at the back of their minds that there was something sinister, but wanted to believe or were made believe by propaganda that nothing strange was happening and that the Jews were being treated well.
People were not stupid; they had heard the rumours, and those in the town of Dachau outside Munich could smell the stench from the camps.
Some did not care, some knew and were in favour, but the majority were unsure about what was happening, and could only speculate so they chose to keep quiet, trying to believe that everything was o.k. They knew if they protested, they would end up in a camp themselves.
Not many spoke out because of the fear imposed on them by the Nazi police state. Some will point out that the Einsatzgruppen comprised of ordinary family men who overfilled their 'quotas' by killing Jews with 'sadistic abandon', which meant that the Germans surely were Hitler's 'willing executioners.
All that can be said about the men in the Einsatzgruppen is that, given the chance, every man woman and child would pull the trigger and kill a Jew because of the national hatred of Jews which existed in Europe for centuries; and it was in their blood; however how realistic a view is this?
And what about the millions who had that fear, but really knew nothing? How could they? They never told exactly where the Jews were going or about the Final Solution.
All this information was being covered up by propaganda, which was used to allay people's fears. Execution took place mostly hundreds of miles away.
Even the people of Dachau were amazed and revolted when they saw what was happening in their own back yard. They could believe what went on right under their noses.
It is clear from the sources that people wanted nothing to do with the Final solution, whether they are just defending themselves or honestly mean it.
A lot of the sources have manipulated the evidence to make a case for the argument that Germans were Hitler's willing executioners, but these sources may not be historically accurate or be representative of everyone's opinion. The sources are also very subjective and a lot of them are personalised.
They are all trying to say the same thing: "I didn't know anything; I didn't want anything to do with it; I only followed orders; how could I be an accomplice?" Some of the sources, particularly Himmler's evidence appears to be trying to distance himself form the atrocities.
Because these sources have the advantage of hindsight, we must therefore question their face value.
In conclusion, it is impossible and far to simplistic to say that the German people were Hitler's willing executioners.
