| International
|
[
International ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
54792 |
|
|
Date: June 22, 2024 at 04:00:37
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: How Did the World Remain Silent During the Holocaust? |
URL: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2016-10-05/ty-article/.premium/world-was-silent-during-holocaust-is-silent-now-with-aleppo/0000017f-dc15-df9c-a17f-fe1d09ab0000?lts=1719053672391 |
|
Haaretz | Opinion
Opinion | How Did the World Remain Silent During the Holocaust? Exactly the
Way It’s Doing in Aleppo
"President Obama, at the end of his term, must enforce a no-fly zone if the
massacre is to end.
Nitzan Horowitz
Oct 5, 2016
For as long as I can remember, when I was told about the Holocaust they
always said that the world was silent. “The Jews were sent to the gas
chambers and the world did nothing,” the teacher leading Holocaust
Remembrance Day ceremonies would say, and her voice would crack with
tears. So did my grandmother, whose huge ultra-Orthodox family was shot,
burned, poisoned and starved in the Nazi killing fields. The few who
managed to flee for their lives, shivering refugees, faced a hostile reception
in neutral countries like Switzerland. American visas were not even the
remotest possibility.
For Israel, Battle Over Aleppo Favors Iran-Hezbollah Axis
West Should Abandon Old Image of Russia
Oudeh Basharat / Silence of the Wolves
That same grandmother, who was already in this country, went as far as the
British high commissioner to beg for an entrance permit for her mother, who
remained behind in Poland. In vain. “There’s not even room for a cat in
Palestine,” the senior British official told her. Her mother was murdered, and
that cruel response burned in her until her dying day.
How could the world have remained silent? Why didn’t they stop the
destruction, or at least bomb the death camps, the trains and the tracks?
Toward the end of the war, when the military balance in Europe had changed,
they could have done this. Some of the Jews of Hungary, for example, could
have been saved from Eichmann’s clutches. Hundreds of thousands of
people. How did they not open the gates?
How? Look at Aleppo and you’ll see. No comparisons allowed? I’m
comparing. To Guernica for example, the symbol of fascist violence in the
Spanish Civil War. The mass murderer Bashar Assad, assisted by the brutal
Vladimir Putin, dropping barrels of burning oil on residential buildings,
carpet-bombing entire neighborhoods, exterminating children, the elderly,
farmers and merchants. It’s been going on for five years. Half a million people
have been killed. More than four million have fled the country. Double that
number have become refugees in their own country. Right now hundreds of
thousands of people are under siege in Aleppo, about to be annihilated.
War crimes? Certainly. A crime against humanity? No doubt. And the world is
silent. There is an international coalition in Syria, led by the United States. It is
even working energetically, and apparently also efficiently, against the Islamic
State and the rest of the murder organizations of its ilk. A worthy goal indeed,
but ISIS is responsible for only a small part of the massacre, the destruction
and the waves of refugees generated by the regime in Damascus and their
patrons in Moscow.
The Nobel Peace Prize laureate, President Barack Obama, did not bring
peace. Syria was a major lost opportunity, a stain on his presidency. True, he
inherited a terrible legacy from the Republicans: a bleeding swamp in
Afghanistan and the fraudulent war in Iraq. The last thing he wanted was
another entanglement in the Middle East. It’s hard to blame him, but one
should: It was his duty. Had he responded firmly to the horrors perpetrated
by Assad and Putin at the outset, perhaps this nightmare of a war would not
have reached its current proportions. It would have been possible – and
these things were proposed and discussed in real time – to declare a no-fly
zone in the regions of the civil war, just as was done in Iraqi Kurdistan against
Saddam Hussein. But it wasn’t done, and Putin pulled the rope tighter and
tighter until he broke it completely. Millions of people are paying the
unimaginable price.
So as not to make life too easy for ourselves, we must add that we, too, are
silent. Like all the others, we don’t want to interfere. We are always looking to
Washington or Paris, although we are much closer, and have the means. But
no one in his right mind wants to dive into that inferno. Would any of us be
willing to risk our own lives or those of our families, and the security of our
country, in war in a hostile country to save civilians there from a murderous
regime? Would we be willing to take in refugees from Syria? The answer is
clear.
Nonintervention in Syria, while maintaining coordination with Russia, is
considered a prime diplomatic and security interest for Israel. That is the
consensus here and it’s understandable. What’s more, Israeli involvement
could make things worse. But it must be understood that this is the feeling in
other countries as well, and that’s the way they felt then, too. Why risk
American or British soldiers, why waste costly armaments, to save riffraff? In
1944 is was not a high priority, and not even a low one. And it isn’t in 2016
either.
And yet, there must be intervention. Certainly after the atrocious infraction of
the cease-fire by Assad and his allies. That is not just a prime moral
obligation, but also a strategic need. Obama knows full well what Putin’s
nature is, and Secretary of State John Kerry knows all the details of the
horrors going on in Syria. Now he is threatening and if the massacre in
Aleppo continues, the U.S. will “stop the talks” with Russia. How scary. Putin
is really quaking in his boots, and the bombings are increasing. At the end of
the week Kerry even apologized to the Syrian opposition. Putin is snickering.
Clear boundaries must be placed before Putin, otherwise he will strike other
places as well. He has already proven this in Eastern Europe. The military
might and economic means of the U.S.-led coalition are much greater than
what Putin and his Damascus protégé have. Aerial defense zones must be
declared in Syria, and responses – military as well – must be made against
anyone who defies them. The destruction of Aleppo can still be halted. There
must be a red line against Russia run amok. If there is one thing that Obama,
at the end of his term, can do, it is this."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[54793] |
|
54793 |
|
|
Date: June 22, 2024 at 04:08:55
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Bystanders |
URL: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/bystanders |
|
BYSTANDERS
Dictionaries define “bystander” as “a witness to events,” “one who is present
but not taking part in what is occurring.”
KEY FACTS
1. “Bystanders” is a catch-all term that has often been applied to people who
were passive and indifferent to the escalating persecution that culminated in
the Holocaust.
2. After the war, many ordinary Germans and Europeans claimed that they
were “not involved,” that they were “bystanders” to the events of the
Holocaust. Use of the term “bystander” to avoid any responsibility for what
happened, however, obscures the many different levels of individual
involvement at all levels of society.
3. Reviewing the use of “bystander” as a general category leads to a more
nuanced exploration of the full range of behaviors and what people did—or
did not do—to facilitate the persecution and mass murder of other human
beings.
Holocaust complicity occupation World War II
Background
Unlike present-day crime scenes, accidents, or emergency situations
witnessed by “bystanders,” much was different about the Holocaust. Leaders
of Nazi Germany driven by ideological goals formed the policies. Civil
servants, police, and military forces—servants of the state—and their
collaborators in other countries implemented the escalating racial measures,
including anti-Jewish measures, which culminated in mass murder and
genocide.
The Holocaust was a series of events that happened over a long period of
time. Jews were dehumanized, deprived of many legal rights, became the
victims of both random and organized violence, and were socially if not
physically isolated from the rest of the population. Many people became
“bystanders” to this ever-radicalizing program long before the mass
roundups and killings began.
Who Were the “Bystanders”?
Soldiers from unidentified units of Einsatzgruppe (mobile killing squad) C
look through the possessions of Jews massacred at Babi ... [LCID: 5057]
Looking through the belongings of massacred Jews
Soldiers from unidentified units of Einsatzgruppe C look through the
possessions of Jews massacred at Babi Yar, a ravine near Kiev. Soviet Union,
September 29–October 1, 1941.
US Holocaust Memorial Museum
The term “bystander” is used in the context of the Holocaust in two ways.
The first refers to external or international “bystanders”—witnesses in a
nonliteral sense because of their distance from the actual events. These
“bystanders” range widely from the Allied governments and neutral countries
to religious institutions and Jewish organizations. The second—the focus in
this article—refers to “bystanders” within societies close to and often
physically present at the events.
“Bystanders” as used to refer to German and European populations close to
the actual events are often defined by what they were not. They were not the
“perpetrators” or the “victims.” Nor were they among the tiny minority of
“rescuers” of the “victims.” “Bystanders” as a group have often been
characterized as “passive” or “indifferent.” They included those, for example,
who did not speak out when they witnessed the persecution of individuals
targeted simply because they were Jewish, or during the phase of mass
murder, did not offer shelter to Jews seeking hiding places.
The two words “passive” and “indifferent” themselves have distinct
connotations. “Passive” implies “inaction.” Passivity could derive from a
range of quite different feelings: from a sense of powerlessness, fear for
one's physical safety, social pressures within one's group or community, or
tolerance or support for the perpetrators' actions.
“Indifferent” is defined as “having a lack of interest in or concern about
something: apathetic.” The “indifference” of “bystanders” to the plight of
Jews is often attributed to people's daily preoccupations, from surmounting
the hardships of the economic depression of the 1930s to focusing on the
survival of their families in the face of wartime deprivations and suffering.
Existing antisemitic prejudices, including traditional religious forms of
antisemitism, heightened by Nazi propaganda efforts to divide peoples of
different ethnic backgrounds, resulted in many people seeing Jews as “alien,”
contributing to the climate of passivity or apathy.
But what about “bystanders” who were not “passive,” “indifferent,” or
“apathetic”? Many people became involved to various degrees over time in
events of the Holocaust than is usually implied by the catch-all “bystander”
tag and the characterizations associated with it.
Levels of Involvement
After the war many ordinary Germans and Europeans claimed that they were
“not involved”—in essence, that they were “bystanders.” Refusal to take any
responsibility for what happened, however, obscures the reality of the
involvement of people at all levels of German society and beyond. Many
onlookers to events who approved or tolerated what they witnessed were
also involved.
Within Nazi Germany many individuals became active or semi-active
participants in Nazi racial and antisemitic policies. These included civil
servants who became involved as part of their normal work: finance officials
processing tax forms, including the steep “tax on Jewish wealth” imposed
after Kristallnacht or processing property seized by the state, including
homes and belongings left behind following the “resettlement” of Jews
during the war into occupied territories; clerks who kept files of identification
documents that included one's “race” or “religion”; school teachers who
followed curricula incorporating racist and antisemitic content.
Individual citizens chose to be involved when, out of a sense of duty, or
prejudice, or some opportunity for business or other personal gain, they
voluntarily denounced their co-workers and neighbors to the police.
Teenagers in many communities became involved when they enjoyed their
newfound power to harass with impunity Jewish classmates or even adults to
whom youth were generally taught to defer—thereby contributing to the
isolation of Jews.
Many ordinary Germans became involved when they acquired Jewish
businesses, homes, or belongings sold at bargain prices or benefited from
reduced business competition as Jews were driven from the economy. With
such gains, these “bystanders” developed a stake in the ongoing persecution
of the dispossessed.
Outside Nazi Germany, countless non-Germans, from leaders, public
officials, and police to ordinary citizens became involved by collaborating
with the Nazi regime following the German occupation of their countries
during World War II. Individuals helped in their roles as clerks and
confiscators of property; as railway and other transportation employees; as
managers or participants in roundups and deportations; as informants;
sometimes as perpetrators of violence against Jews on their own initiative;
and sometimes as hands-on killers in killing operations, notably in the mass
shootings of Jews and others in occupied Soviet territories in which
thousands of eastern Europeans participated.
In communities across Europe where the Germans implemented the “Final
Solution to the Jewish Question,” they needed the help of people with local
languages and knowledge to assist them in finding Jews who evaded
roundups. As German and local police found willing helpers lured by the
opportunity for material gain or rewards, Jews in hiding in countries from the
occupied Netherlands to occupied Poland faced daunting odds of survival.
A Range of Helping Acts
Gertruda Babilinska with Michael Stolovitzky, a Jewish boy she hid. [LCID:
00901]
A rescuer with the Jewish boy she hid
Gertruda Babilinska with Michael Stolovitzky, a Jewish boy she hid. Yad
Vashem recognized her as Righteous Among the Nations. Vilna, 1943.
Gay Block and Malka Drucker
The number of “rescuers” who either actively worked to save Jews, often as
part of resistance networks, or who responded to requests to shelter them,
was relatively small. This form of help, if discovered, especially in Nazi
Germany and occupied eastern Europe was punished by arrest and often
execution.
A larger group of witnesses to the victims' suffering assisted in lesser ways.
A small minority publicly expressed their solidarity with the persecuted—
notably mostly isolated clergymen in some communities in Nazi Germany
and occupied countries. Other individuals assisted the victims by purchasing
food or other supplies for Jewish households to whom shops became
closed; by providing false identity papers or warnings about upcoming
roundups; by storing belongings for those on the run that could be sold off
little by little for food.
In small acts of kindness, some individuals publicly embraced Jewish friends
and neighbors when they were being taken from their homes to trains for
“resettlement” or pressed sandwiches or blankets into their hands. Jewish
survivors often vividly remembered these moments because of their humane
and exceptional character.
Beyond the “Bystander” Category?
The examples above help us break apart the “bystanders,” a large group
encompassing vast populations often regarded as all alike. They show the
possibilities for acting in ways more—or less—beneficial to the victims.
Drawing on the evidence of such examples, particularly of the high levels of
active or semi-active involvement in events of the Holocaust, a growing
number of scholars in recent years have argued that the term “bystander” is
becoming obsolete and should be jettisoned because of its connotations of
passivity and inaction.
More research on the social dynamics within affected groups and
communities across different regions and countries is needed. Additional
future studies will help us to portray more fully and in all shades of gray, the
range of behaviors that marked relations between Jews and non-Jews—to
continue to move beyond broad generalities about “bystanders.”
Future research should also provide a better understanding of how in
different places and times, people were mobilized or came to do what they
did—or did not do—to facilitate the persecution and mass murder of other
human beings.
Author(s): United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, DC
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
SEE ALSO
Perpetrators
ARTICLE
Perpetrators
Collaboration
ARTICLE
Collaboration
What Groups of People did the Nazis Target?
ARTICLE
What Groups of People did the Nazis Target?
How Many People did the Nazis Murder?
ARTICLE
How Many People did the Nazis Murder?
The Holocaust and World War II: Key Dates
ARTICLE
The Holocaust and World War II: Key Dates
RELATED LINKS
Online Exhibition—Some Were Neighbors: Collaboration & Complicity in the
Holocaust
Personal History—Steven Fenves, "ties that endured, ties that frayed"
Oath and Opposition: Education under the Third Reich
Ethical Leadership educational modules
Ethical Leadership educational modules: How was the Holocaust possible?
CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS
How do bystanders, or witnesses, contribute to the possibility of mass
atrocity?
How can indifference to, insensitivity to, or tolerance of hurtful acts be
combated?
How do meanings of words change over time? What connotations do the
words “bystander” and “witness” have? Are they the same?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
International ] [ Main Menu ] |