The inaction of other countries and their unwillingness to help Jews confirmed the Nazis in the Tightness of what they were doing. “At bottom,” Goebbels wrote in his diary in December 13, 1942, “I believe that the English and the Americans are happy that we are exterminating the Jewish riff-raff.”20 Resistance and pressure might have focused the attention of the Nazis on moral values and caused them to worry about the effects of their actions on themselves.
Jewish cooperation, resistance, and psychological experience
Forceful resistance can make the mistreatment and murder of a group both physically and psychologically more difficult. Although Jewish resistance to the Nazis was substantially greater than early reports indicated, it was not strong enough to deter perpetrators. Resistance was also limited by other victims of Nazi Germany and victims of other genocides. Russian prisoners of war did not rebel until nearly the end of the war, even though they were soldiers and even though half of the six million held by the Germans were killed or died of starvation and overwork.21 Facing overwhelming, brutal force, people follow commands and accept suffering in the hope of saving their lives and the lives of people they love.
Helen Fein classified rulers or masters of a conquered people as oppressors, exploiters, or enemies. Enemies seek not only to debase, oppress, or exploit, but also to destroy. The Jews’ definition of the situation was crucial in determining their response: when and where they became aware that the Nazis were enemies, they did attempt to escape and, under certain circumstances, to resist.22 Resistance required accurate perception of Nazi intentions and a cohesive group. Individual resistance was futile and brought collective retributon: the killing of family members or of large numbers of other Jews.
The Jews survived many centuries of persecution through yielding to their persecutors. Sometimes they even anticipated and fulfilled demands (such as fines) before they were made – in the hope of avoiding greater demands and worse persecution. They believed that if they did not resist, their troubles would blow over; they would be allowed to stay in their homes and retain at least some of their property; in pogroms some would be killed but many would live. In the face of Nazi persecution they initially followed the same blueprint for survival. However, in their history, Jews had faced all three types of threats – oppression, exploitation, and destruction – and responded accordingly. They responded to intensely violent pogroms in Russia by escape. Between 1888 and 1914, 2.5 million of them emigrated to the United States.23
The Jewish councils
In medieval Germany, the Jews had been led by Jewish councils (Judenrdte) made up of respected members of the community. The Nazis reconstituted the Jewish councils and used them to control the Jewish population and help fulfill Nazi goals. What was the degree and nature of “cooperation” by Jewish councils and what was its consequence?
They story of the Jewish councils is complex, and it is still being told. Starting as early as 1939, the existing Jewish leadership and new leadership groups created by the Nazis were turned into Jewish councils in every country the Nazis occupied. First they were to transmit and execute orders. Later, they became instruments of what Hilberg calls the destruction “process” or “machinery": identifying Jews, selecting deportees to fulfill German quotas, and assembling them for transport. They made the Nazis’ job easier.
The motivation of council members varied greatly. Many hoped to limit Jewish suffering by maintaining order and effectively executing German orders. Some believed that they might save the people by making the ghettos economically indispensable to the Germans; that they might save people from retribution by suppressing Jewish resistance; that, when they helped in deporting Jews, by sacrificing some people they saved the lives of the rest. Some council members hoped to gain security for themselves and their families. A very few had megalomaniacal ideas, glorying in their power. Many filled the role involuntarily.
Hannah Arendt stressed the cooperation of Jewish leaders.24 But from the start the Jewish councils varied in cooperation depending on many factors, including the amount of non-Jewish cooperation with the Germans and the degree of local anti-Semitism. The willingness of Jewish leaders to serve was also a response to the conditions and needs of the Jewish population. “Jews in all German occupied states before 1943 were progressively defined, stripped [of their rights and livelihoods], and segregated.... [This created] a ‘welfare’ class... needing public assistance to survive. The Judenrat was employed to dispense such assistance.”25
Even though this endangered them, some Jewish leaders refused service in the councils. Of those who served at the start, a substantial portion did not fully cooperate with German demands (one-third according to Helen Fein, and one-third fully cooperated). Most of those who did not cooperate were killed, were deported and died in the camps, or committed suicide. They were replaced by others more malleable. The elimination and replacement of members of the councils continued, as needed to fulfill SS designs.26
Another reason for cooperation was that the SS did everything possible to camouflage the ultimate fate of Jewish victims. Victims were told that they were being deported for resettlement or that the weak would be deported, but the strong would be allowed to stay (or vice versa), using all possible means not only to mislead but also to divide people. Psychological defense mechanisms were essential to make an unbearable situation bearable and contributed to cooperation (see the section on the psychology of victims, pp. 162-5).
Hannah Arendt suggested that organizations within the totalitarian system that compromised with the system became ineffectual in opposing it and ended up helping it.27 Although cooperation by Jewish councils was in response to strong threat and adverse conditions, past cooperation made it difficult to change: to stop, to cut losses, to give up hope that cooperation will save people. An added block to resistance was that it had only a remote chance of success in
