Modernity And The Holocaust Summary

In AD Moses’ Modernity and the Holocaust, he analyzes the book Murder in Our Midst: The Holocaust, Industrial Killing, and Representation written by the historian Omar Bartov. In addition, he also briefly explains Zygmunt Bauman’s book Modernity and the Holocaust. Bauman was a major influence on Bartov’s understanding of the Holocaust, so Moses does a good job of bringing him into the analyzation process. Finally, Moses discusses an opposing position through the book Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust written by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen. This paper will discuss the themes and reasons behind the Holocaust brought up by Bartov, Bauman, and Goldhagen as well as other themes and reason from sources outside of this

critique.

Zygmunt Bauman had a heavy influence on Bartov and his understanding of modernity and modernity’s role in the Holocaust. Bauman was a communist and historically communists hated national socialists even before the atrocities of national socialism was public knowledge. Bauman himself was influenced by Karl Marx which was the father of communism. Bauman argued that modernity removed unknowns and uncertainties in an attempt to make the disordered aspects of human life appear organized and accustomed. By so doing so, opened a gateway for the Holocaust. The Holocaust could have been triggered by abnormal behavior treated as normal behavior. For example, the government was anti-Semitic and the people thought that was normal. Citizens trusted their democratic-turned-totalitarian government to do what was right for the people.

Bartov’s understanding is that “there is a common tendency to view the Holocaust as a well-ordered plot, in which antisemitism led to Nazism, Nazism practiced genocide, and both were destroyed in a spectacular ‘happy end’. This is a tale most people would like to believe, university students and filmgoers. book readers and television viewers” (Moses). Bartov wanted to remove this narrative in order to warn people about the dangers of modernity and contemporary civilization and to educate the general problems we may face a modern society. This view states that this “happy ending” is just a myth and blames modernity for the holocaust and leaves the door open for another event like the Holocaust. This underwrites the actions taken by the Allied Powers during World War II to liberate these death camps. These countries aligned with Allied Powers were modernized as well. Furthermore, this view does not recognize the extreme case of antisemitism, a failed economic system that was blamed on the Jews, and the continuation of modernity as we see it today lacking the traits Nazi Germany had.

According to Goldhagen, the reasoning behind the Holocaust was due to the Nazi’s intense racism. The racism factor plays hardly any role in Bauman’s nor Bartov’s explanation of the Holocaust. Goldhagen preserves the fact that the Nazis were historically prejudiced against Jews. He also brings up the fact that early Christianity was anti-Semitic as well. This antisemitism coupled with economic hardships and heavy propaganda made it easy for the ordinary German population to buy into the “Jews are equal to rats” narrative. He argues his position against modernists saying that historical implications localized in the Nazi’s motives. In addition to that, the willingness to kill Jews as well as the cruelty they inflicted on them can’t be reduced to a simply instrumental reason. He also points out that blaming modernity for the Holocaust can’t explain why industrial killing doesn’t happen in fully modernized countries as well as the willingness to kill certain groups is lacking in western countries.

Not everyone in Nazi Germany supported the Nazi regime.

For the regime to succeed, they only need the majority of people to obey their laws and to promote their interests. In German-occupied areas, the people living there were hoping to receive special treatments if they complied with their rules and regulations. Throughout the course of the war, cooperation with the Nazi regime fluctuated. Fear of bad consequences was the main reason for cooperation. For most people, what happened to themselves rather than what happened to the Jews was their main priority. An example of one fear tactic used by Nazi leadership was executions of soldiers due to their lack of cooperation in killing unarmed civilians. This created conformity to the Regimes ideals and made simple guards into hardened killers. Another explanation was the potential gains that were available in the extortion of Jews, both individually and country-wide. Individuals were able to acquire stolen material goods from Jews. German-owned businesses were able to accrue capital from the liquidation of Jewish-owned businesses. Impoverish Germans were now able to seek employment and a means of survival. In Schindler’s List, Oskar Schindler is seen taking over a nice Jewish home that was evicted minutes before. This wasn’t an isolated incident. Property, homes, and household belongings were taken after the forced migration to Ghettos and were auctioned off to Germans. Another reason is the great respect given to authority. At the time, police and military were trained to follow a strict chain of command. If someone were to act out on self-interest, they would be jeopardizing their career. The willingness to follow such chain of command began at an early age and was a priority for the Nazi regime (Hitler Youth). Finally, there was major pressure to conform. True believer Nazi’s supported anti-Semitism. Very quickly, the culture began to Nazify, and the public began to accept the regime's ideals more rapidly because

that is what the majority was perceived to be doing. If you didn’t conform, then you weren’t really a German.

In conclusion, the reasoning behind why the Holocaust happened shouldn’t be boiled down to just one ideology. Germany was in one of the roughest spots in their history coming out of World War I. With a poor economic climate, the outcome of the Treaty of Versailles, and calls for a revolution Germany was aching for a political leader everyone could rally around as well as a scapegoat for their hardships. Through that scapegoat, many individuals saw an opportunity to gain from the situation. Bauman’s and Bartov’s take on the Holocaust is very centralized on this one centralized idea that modernity is to blame. This idea, in my opinion, has many holes. Since western countries lack the urge to kill groups of people this narrative is extremely refuted. In addition, Bauman and Bartov undervalue the level of anti-Semitism the Nazis had. Anti-Semitism stands as an irreducible component of Nazism that cannot be avoided.