APEH

Topic 11 – The World at War

Holocaust Discussion

*Terminology associated with interpretations of the Holocaust:

Historikerstreit (“Historian’s Debate”)  historitization of the Holocaust by historians (especially German) since the 1980s

Historicism  looking at history without impassioned biases

Prelocutionary act  a use of speech that expects the listener to actually do something or carry out an act

*Language of Hate

  1. How did the Nazis utilize rhetoric and euphemism in order to create a “mental discourse” or “cognitive model” of anti-Semitic beliefs?
  2. What language/rhetoric is used in order to de-humanize Jews? How do the Nazis attempt to remove individuality and create only the image of “Jewishness” instead? How do the Nazis create images of Jews as enemies? How do the actions of perpetrators of the Holocaust demonstrate these rhetorical structures and altered perceptions?
  3. Where can we draw the line between passive observers and active perpetrators of the Holocaust?
  4. How does euphemism allow perpetrators of the Holocaust to be freed from culpability for their actions?
  5. When perpetrators insinuate that they are merely following orders, does this constitute a transference of guilt (meaning they are no longer guilty of their actions, or at least less guilty)?
  6. How did the Nazis’ use of language prove to be more effective than bullets or poisonous gas ever could (i.e. how did they effectively brainwash ordinary Germans into being either passive observers or active perpetrators of the Holocaust)?

*Questions/Issues dealing with the Historikerstreit:

  1. What makes Goldhagen’s thesis unique? What historical/sociological factors were present in the German perpetration of the Holocaust that support his thesis?
  2. How is Goldhagen’s thesis flawed, or how could it be argued to be “bad history”?
  3. What is the “Working toward the Führer” thesis?
  4. How did Nazism potentially act as an enabler to the perpetration of the Holocaust by average Germans?
  5. How does the issue of psychological dissonance relate to the perpetration of the Holocaust?
  6. What is Christopher R. Browning’s thesis? Although both Goldhagen and Browning analyzed the same evidence from the same group of perpetrators of the Holocaust (Police Battalion 101), in what ways are their theses dramatically different?
  7. What does Jan T. Gross’ work in Neighbors add to the historiography of the Holocaust?
  8. What factors were present in Jedwabne by 1941 that enabled the massacre?
  9. Describe the massacre and the nature of the murders taking place. How does this compare to the other histories of the Holocaust that you have encountered?
  10. How does Gross add to the “Willing Executioner” theory, but avoid the mistakes made by Goldhagen?
  11. Which argument in the Historikerstreit do you find most convincing and why?
  12. Can the Jews in Israel and Zionists use the Holocaust as a pass for aggression in the Middle East?
  1. Denial of the Holocaust  idea that it simply didn’t happen
  2. Other facets of this argument include:
  3. Some historians argue that the Holocaust was not simply about termination but as concentration, not systematic death. Agree or disagree and why?
  4. Others argue that the extermination of the Jews was part of the war effort. Agree or disagree and why?

*Functionalist argument – the Nazis just fell into the Final Solution, which resulted in a massive extermination effort.

*Intentionalist argument – Hitler had this in mind since the time he took power, Nazis just waiting for war to break out so this could be done.