Active Resistance Vs. Passive Resistance During The Holocaust

627 Words2 Pages

In the Holocaust, the Jewish people had two options on how to resist, passively or actively. When you actively resist, you bring a gun, but have a higher risk of dying. Passive resistance allowed them to stay alive (or at least have a higher probability,) but didn’t do as much as someone who killed a general or a soldier. Miep Gies is an example of somebody who passively resisted Nazi Power in World War Two by hiding her Jewish friends, like the Frank and Van Daan family even though she wasn’t allowed to. The reasons I feel like passive resistance is better than active resistance is because it preserves life, helps the society, and prevents a war-torn environment.
The first reason why I feel that passive resistance is better is because it preserves life. The Jews would passively resist the Nazis generally instead of arming themselves because it was certain they would die in that circumstance. Showing the issues within armed resistance,“Jewish workers initiated uprisings that were brutally put down” (Resistance During the Holocaust, page 3). This was a rebellion between the people who worked for the Nazis, which could kill one to five people, but get themselves killed in the process. Some arguments may say that you aren’t doing much to put a real stop to the problem, but that isn’t true. Many Jewish people hid, which preserved …show more content…

When you actively resist someone, you are not starting a positive movement or helping the society, it just creates violence and problems. Good parts of passive resistance were exemplified when the Jewish people “Printed and distributed underground newspaper, maintained religious customs, drew, painted”(Resistance During the Holocaust, page 1). Some may disagree and say that you aren’t stopping the core problem, but that is not the case. When you revolt passively, you show that you will not put up with the poor treatment, which will make them want to

Open Document