The theory that the people of Germany exhibited indifference during the Holocaust is widely believed to be true by many people. Both James M. Glass’ “Against the Indifference Hypothesis: The Holocaust and the Enthusiasts for Murder” and Omer Bartov’s “Defining Enemies, Making Victims: Germans, Jews, and the Holocaust” provide alternative reasoning for why German citizens not only watched the slaughter, but also actively participated in it. While Glass effectively argues that the German populace was indoctrinated to believe that the Jews were vermin, Bartov’s argument that they were simply scapegoated since they had historically fulfilled that role carries more scholarly merit due to his methodology.
Glass’ essay focuses on disproving a previously …show more content…
He utilizes first-hand accounts of people who actually were victimized (i.e. Jewish), did the victimizing (i.e. German officials) or simply German citizens in order to provoke an emotional response in the reader. These anecdotal segments are critical to Glass’ argument, and are far more effective than his own words could possibly be. Dr. Kurt Heissmeyer’s response to inquiries as to why he did not test on animals or guinea pigs embodies how crucial these stories portray the fact that the German people were clearly not indifferent towards the plight of fellow human beings, as the Jews were no longer seen as …show more content…
He describes how the anti-Semitism of centuries past came to a head in the early twentieth century. The Great War forced people into rigid typecasts, to belong to a larger group, even if they were a fairly distinct minority. This separated people into distinct camps: friend or foe. Jews signed up for the army and died in droves but this did not prevent the “Jewcount” of 1916, where in there was an investigation into the “alleged underrepresentation of Jews in the army.” As the war progressed and more men died, there was a shift in the camps. The men in the trenches – be them of the alliance or the entente – began to commiserate with each other. They started to view each other as friends, while those away from the fighting were the enemy. Following the end of the war, veterans struggled between wanting to reintegrate into society, and feeling alienated because the rest of the population really had no idea what they had gone through. This confusion led them to search for the ‘true’ culprit, which cumulated into the legend of the “stab in the back”. This legend spread throughout the country, and the government scapegoated them as they took the pressure off the government and redirected the citizens’ frustrations with “political and military leadership.”
“Defining Enemies” takes a more clinical approach
Glass’ essay focuses on disproving a previously …show more content…
He utilizes first-hand accounts of people who actually were victimized (i.e. Jewish), did the victimizing (i.e. German officials) or simply German citizens in order to provoke an emotional response in the reader. These anecdotal segments are critical to Glass’ argument, and are far more effective than his own words could possibly be. Dr. Kurt Heissmeyer’s response to inquiries as to why he did not test on animals or guinea pigs embodies how crucial these stories portray the fact that the German people were clearly not indifferent towards the plight of fellow human beings, as the Jews were no longer seen as …show more content…
He describes how the anti-Semitism of centuries past came to a head in the early twentieth century. The Great War forced people into rigid typecasts, to belong to a larger group, even if they were a fairly distinct minority. This separated people into distinct camps: friend or foe. Jews signed up for the army and died in droves but this did not prevent the “Jewcount” of 1916, where in there was an investigation into the “alleged underrepresentation of Jews in the army.” As the war progressed and more men died, there was a shift in the camps. The men in the trenches – be them of the alliance or the entente – began to commiserate with each other. They started to view each other as friends, while those away from the fighting were the enemy. Following the end of the war, veterans struggled between wanting to reintegrate into society, and feeling alienated because the rest of the population really had no idea what they had gone through. This confusion led them to search for the ‘true’ culprit, which cumulated into the legend of the “stab in the back”. This legend spread throughout the country, and the government scapegoated them as they took the pressure off the government and redirected the citizens’ frustrations with “political and military leadership.”
“Defining Enemies” takes a more clinical approach