WEEK 9 The Feasibility of Resistance and Rescue: Debating whether could have been Prevented Prepared by Tony Joel and Mathew Turner

Week 9 Unit Learning Outcomes ULO 1. evaluate in a reflective and critical manner the consequences of and prejudice

ULO 4. recognise important linkages between the Second World War and the Holocaust, and question Hitler’s role in these events

Introduction This week’s learning module grapples with two of the most controversial issues that continue to influence historiographical debate about the Holocaust: the separate but related themes of resistance and rescue. Section 1 examines the question of Jewish resistance. Namely, could and should have stood up for themselves more effectively against Nazi persecution and genocide? Did Jews fail to resist? This section also considers how we can define “resistance,” looking at the divergent ways in which Holocaust scholars view Jewish resistance against Nazism. Should actions only be called resistance if they involved armed force, or did simply surviving in the face of such atrocious treatment constitute an act of resistance? These questions are visited through the best-known example of organised and armed Jewish resistance during the Holocaust: the Ghetto Uprising. Did this act of resistance (and others) reveal the potentialities or futility of Jews employing physical force to oppose the Nazis and their collaborators?

Section 2 focuses on the question of whether the international community could have intervened to rescue Europe’s Jews. The broad theme of rescue envelops two main aspects: the alleged failure of the international community to provide safe havens for Jewish refugees prior to the outbreak of war; and the Western Allies’ and Soviet Union’s apparent failure to save Jews during the war by destroying (or at least interrupting) the Nazis’ killing facilities through direct military intervention. Section 2 focuses on the key issues involving the latter aspect that is concerned with what may have been possible during the war years. While you are encouraged to draw your own conclusions about the validity and persuasiveness of the arguments presented, it is important that you never lose sight of the fact that the primary responsibility for the murder of Jews rests with Hitler’s criminal régime and its many willing collaborators across Europe. LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 2

In completing this learning module, you will continue to evaluate, in a reflective and critical manner, the consequences of racism and prejudice. You will also continue to recognise important linkages between the Second World War and the Holocaust.

Section 1. Resistance We have already seen the extent to which the Holocaust became genocide on a continental scale. To this end, Jews experienced the Holocaust in a multitude of ways and in various settings. Some were confined to ghettos, where they faced disease and starvation, and, for those who survived long enough, eventual deportation to camps. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered through mass shootings conducted by and other murderous forces, often close to where they resided. Other Jews lived in western Europe, where survival depended on the zeal of local collaborators, as well as the kindness or indifference of others. Within each of these settings — and countless others — Jews were faced with a choice to resist what was happening to them, either actively or passively. Most Jews were ordinary folk — men, women, children, and the elderly — with no experience in handling firearms, conducting military operations, or surviving in harsh conditions. The very young and the elderly were in no real position to take up arms against the German army, and, likewise, those who were responsible for the survival of children or elderly parents were similarly encumbered.

Still, the inconsistency of Nazi rule and devotion to Jewish persecution meant that right across Europe Jews faced rather different situations. For many Jews in , for instance, they were trapped within hermetically-sealed ghetto walls, and without outside support. Jews in western Europe generally had more freedom of movement, and arguably faced less of an existential threat than their eastern European counterparts. In other words, Jews in eastern Europe were in greater peril at an earlier stage, though in less of a position to resist through force. Conversely, Jews in western Europe had more opportunities to resist but were more inclined to “hold out” and avoid German capture rather than taking the risk of taking up arms. Whatever the complexities, the points to note are that we cannot generalise about Jewish resistance to Nazi genocide, and that it is important to understand the hopeless reality that Jews faced at the time rather than applying hindsight.

To further complicate matters, scholars do not even agree on what should and should not constitute “resistance” when it comes to Jews and the Holocaust. The eminent Holocaust scholars Raul Hilberg and Yehuda Bauer embody these opposing — indeed, polarized — viewpoints regarding resistance. Hilberg and his supporters, for instance, place emphasis on active resistance and are especially critical of Jewish wartime leadership for a perceived failure to recognise the dangers posed by the Nazis and consequently failing to organise counter measures to resist persecution/extermination. Hilberg argues that the “reaction pattern of the Jews is characterized by almost complete lack of resistance... the documentary evidence of Jewish resistance, overt or submerged, LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 3

is very slight.”1 For Hilberg, the inability of Jews to resist the Nazi onslaught could be attributed to the much longer history of Jews in Europe. Over 2,000 years, the Jewish minority had learnt, according to Hilberg, that they could “survive destruction by placating and appeasing their enemies.”2 The consequences of applying this lesson of history to the existential threat posed to European Jews — what Hilberg famously calls the “machinery of destruction” — were deadly. Hilberg concludes that Jews were “caught in the strait jacket of their history” and, subsequently, “plunged themselves physically and psychologically into catastrophe.”3

Bauer and other likeminded scholars, conversely, stress the importance of not only active but also passive resistance. Accordingly, such an interpretation argues that merely staying alive longer than the Nazis wanted could constitute a form of resistance. Life-saving acts of unarmed resistance — including smuggling food into ghettos and camps, or sacrificing one’s own life to save others from starvation or murder — constitute resistance in Bauer’s view. But the definition also extends to “cultural, educational, religious, and political activities” that may potentially boost the morale of Jews, as well as the work of Jewish doctors to preserve life.4 Clearly, then, a substantial gap exists between the definitions of Jewish resistance to Nazi genocide posited by two of the world’s most esteemed Holocaust scholars in Hilberg and Bauer.

READING EXCERPT: Michael Marrus, in his piece entitled "Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust," summarises these positions and points to nuanced arguments that move beyond such polarisation.

Two of Marrus’ more interesting observations relate to: • the importance of intent and motivation for defining whether resistance occurred; • and the relative insignificance of resistance overall in the Second World War in shaping the course of events. Indeed, Marrus argues that resistance often involved unacceptable risks.

Importantly, from Marrus’ perspective, acts of resistance frequently were made with a view to preserving some form of record for the future. Acts of armed resistance, during which

1 Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews. (Quadrangle, Chicago, 1961). p. 662.

2 ibid. p. 666.

3 ibid. p. 667.

4 Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust. ( Press, New Haven and London, 2001). p. 120. LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 4

Jews faced insurmountable odds of survival and near-certain death, often were preceded by Jews recording their plight for future posterity, whether through secret diaries or final letters. Indeed, probably the most oft-quoted instance involves the renowned Russian-born Jewish historian Simon Dubnow. According to witnesses, when facing imminent death during a liquidation of the Riga ghetto in December 1941 Dubnow’s final words in were a rallying call to his fellow Jews to ensure their genocide would be remembered in future: “Yidn, shreibt un ferschreibt!” (“Jews, write and record!”). 5

The eminent Jewish historian, writer, and activist Simon Dubnow, who was 81 years old when he was shot during a liquidation of the Riga ghetto in December 1941. Source: “The Jews of Latvia: Professor Simon Dubnow and His Final Journey,” The Museum of Family History. http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/mfh-dubnow-simon.htm [Accessed 3 May 2017]

a) Resistance in the Ghettos As Marrus notes in the above reading (in which he quotes Bauer), Jews took up armed resistance against the Nazis in no fewer than 150 ghettos in Poland.6 Despite what appears to be substantial physical opposition undertaken by Jews in ghettos, the interpretation of their behaviour has been the focus of much debate surrounding the

5 See, for instance: “The Jews of Latvia: Professor Simon Dubnow and His Final Journey,” The Museum of Family History. http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/mfh-dubnow-simon.htm [Accessed 2 May 2017]

6 Yehuda Bauer, A History of the Holocaust. (F. Watts, New York, 1982). pp. 270-71, quoted in Michael Marrus, “Jewish Resistance to the Holocaust,” Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 30, no. 1, January 1995, pp. 83-110. Here pp. 103-04. LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 5

adequacy — or otherwise — of Jewish resistance. Theoretically, Jews in ghettos had more opportunity to organise resistance than Jews concentrated in camps because the German presence within ghettos was minimal and responsibility for day-to-day administration lay with the Jewish councils, whereas in camps Jews came almost totally under direct Nazi control.

According to , the reality of ghetto conditions militated against any systematic armed resistance developing.7 Dawidowicz argues that any criticism of the Jewish leaderships’ apparent failure to resist is unreasonable. The failure of resistance was not the result of cowardice but rather a function of the circumstances in which Jews found themselves. Few ghetto inhabitants were capable of embracing the notion that armed resistance might offer a greater chance of survival than complying with German orders. The possibility of escape existed only in some ghettos scattered across easternmost Poland, the Baltic States, and eastern Europe, which were located near forests where local partisan groups supported by the Soviets were hidden. Even in such circumstances, of course, there were no guarantees that Jews could find long-term protection.

(l) Frida and Hanan Altermann, killed during resistance operations in the Minsk ghetto. (r) The Jewish partisan leader Tuvia Bielski, one of the celebrated Bielski Brothers made famous in the 2009 film Defiance (in which the central role of Tuvia is portrayed by Daniel Craig). Tuvia survived the war and eventually moved to the where he died in 1987 aged 81 years old. Sources: Yad Vashem. http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/item.asp?GATE=Z&list_type=3- 0&TYPE_ID=85&TOTAL=&pn=2&title=Belorussia [Accessed 3 May 2017] Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation. http://jewishpartisans.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Tuvia%20Bielski [Accessed 3 May 2017]

7 Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews 1933-1945. (Penguin, London, 1990). See especially the chapter “For your Freedom and Ours,” pp. 376-409. LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 6

READING EXCERPT: Please read Barbara Engelking's piece entitled “In the Ghetto: Moods between Hope and Fear.”

Oscillation between moods of hope and fear partly explains why ghetto inhabitants may have been reluctant to engage in resistance. On the one hand, hope that the nightmare was nearly over meant that ghetto inhabitants felt that it was not worth taking the risks that resistance entailed. On the other hand, fear, especially of retaliation against family and loved ones, could paralyse the will to react against Nazi oppression.

b) The Uprising Michael Marrus, in his reading mentioned above, observes that Hannah Arendt especially glorified the heroics of the participants in the most well-known example of resistance, the , which provided a spectacular exception to the metanarrative of Jewish caution.

Mass deportations of some 300,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to Treblinka took place in the (northern) summer of 1942. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising commenced on 19 April 1943, as the Germans sought to capture and deport the 55,000 to 60,000 Jews who still remained in the ghetto following the mass deportations the previous year. While the uprising demonstrates how Jews were capable of defying the Nazis, its tragic outcome also illustrates what might be the consequences of such defiance.

Jews gathered at the Warsaw ghetto’s deportation point known as the , 1942. Jews selected for deportation were ordered to meet at the Umschlagplatz, without knowing their destination was Treblinka. Source: “Nachum Remba,” Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team. http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/remba.html [Accessed 3 May 2017] LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 7

Does the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising exemplify the limitations of resistance? Or does it suggest possibilities of resistance that could and should have been grasped sooner? (For instance, if the inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto had revolted a year earlier, they still would have numbered in the hundreds of thousands thus making it exponentially harder for the Nazis to counter.)

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Unfolds On 19 April 1943, Jewish inhabitants of the Warsaw ghetto commenced the first mass armed revolt against Nazi occupation anywhere in Europe.8 They initiated the uprising in full knowledge that it most likely would fail, but by this late stage word had filtered back to the ghetto confirming the existing rumours swirling around about was taking place in the located at the nearby village Treblinka. This knowledge meant that those Jews still remaining in the Warsaw ghetto in early 1943 knew for certain that, even if they decided not to resist, they were condemned to death anyhow.

In 1942, a few escapees from the Treblinka extermination camp had found their way back to the Warsaw ghetto to warn of the fate of deportees. Confirmation of rumours about extermination camps resulted in a fundamental change of attitude among those who remained in the ghetto, many of whom were relatively young and attracted to the idea of taking up direct military action. With nothing left to lose, some Jews in the Warsaw ghetto decided to fight back. Zivia Lubetkin, a participant in the uprising, wrote in her memoirs: “It was obvious to us that the Germans would liquidate us. We said to ourselves that in this situation, we must at least kill as many Germans as possible and stay alive as long as possible.”9

After 13 September 1942, the Jewish underground in the Warsaw ghetto prepared for the impending next wave of deportations (although there was uncertainty about when this would take place). As far as possible, the various youth and other organisations within the ghetto were coordinated into a plan of attack. Apart from some splinter groups, general consensus was reached that an armed revolt was the only feasible course of action.

So long as Jews believed that hope existed, most of them could not be easily persuaded to support an uprising. It was crucial, then, to counter against German propaganda promoting the misinformation that deportation meant relocation from the squalid ghetto to better conditions awaiting Jews at labour camps or farms. Arms either had to be procured (a difficult enterprise not only because of ghettoisation but also given the lack of support from the mainstream Polish underground) or manufactured (difficult due to a lack of appropriate materials). Consequently, the fighters were desperately ill-equipped.

8 The following account draws heavily on Shmuel Krakowski, The War of the Doomed: Jewish Armed Resistance in Poland 1942-1944. (Holmes & Meier, New York, 1984). Chapter 10, “The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.” Krakowski’s use of primary accounts by participants, translated from Yiddish and Polish, is of special interest.

9 Quoted in ibid. p. 165. LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 8

The resistance leadership, mobilized under the ŻOB (Żydowska Organizacja Bojowa or Jewish Fighting Organisation), divided the ghetto into sections. Combat units were trained and weapons were hidden in preparation for the assault.

The steps taken demonstrate the complexity of undertaking large-scale, planned armed resistance: • the ŻOB challenged the authority of the , taking over the political and military leadership of the ghetto (this included executing any Jewish informers); • German misinformation was counteracted through the distribution of leaflets;

• a network of hiding places, stocked with provisions, was established; • the ŻOB refined its resistance strategy following a surprise German raid in January 1943; • a community tax in support of resistance was levied;

• and members of different political groups were recruited and fused together in a unified resistance movement.

The surprise German raid conducted in January 1943 revealed weaknesses in the Jewish resistance strategy. Valuable lessons were learnt by the ŻOB for future resistance. According to Zivia Lubetkin:

The January uprising taught us, the Jewish Fighting Organisation, to prepare for the battle awaiting us. We learned that it was most important to put the people into a kind of military barracks, to plan the uprising so that all people would be in their positions, and to make sure that each company commander, each area commander, and each fighter would know what he was to do so that we would not be surprised when the Germans renewed the action.10

(l) Zivia Lubetkin, the only female member of the ŻOB High Command, and its leader . Both survived the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, married after the war in 1946, and later moved to . (r) Zivia testified in the trial in Israel, 3 May 1961. Sources: “Zivia Lubetkin and Yitzhak Zuckerman,” JewishHistory.org http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/showpic.php?ID=679 [Accessed 3 May 2017] USHMM. https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_ph.php?ModuleId=0&MediaId=4976 [Accessed 3 May 2017]

10 ibid. p. 182. LEARNING MODULE 9. Section 1: Resistance 9

When the time came, then, the Jewish uprising was (within the limitations of the situation) a well-coordinated and org