Ian T; pages 471 to 508
The most important sections of the reading from page 471 to 508 are Liss's inspections of the concentration camp facilities beginning on page 471, his meeting with Obersturmbannfuhrer Eichmann on pages 476 to 484, and Grossman's discussion of anti-Semitism on pages 484 to 487.
The cold efficiency of the camp programs and facilities that Liss inspects at the beginning of the reading mirrors the Nazi officials' callousness and inhumanity. Liss is first impressed by the efficiency of Voss engineering works, but he is dissapointed by the chemical firm in charge of producing drugs for the concentration camp. The comparison of the two firms demonstrates the German's proficiency in mechanics, and their incompetence in matters of health. This comparison hints that the Germans' mechanic, ultra-rational outlook overpowers their ability to appreciate life and human emotion.
The Nazi inhumanity is made clear in Liss's inspection of one of the gas chambers being constructed at the camp. Liss praises the efficiency of the chamber and says, "It was capable of transforming life itself, and all forms of energy pertaining to it, into inorganic matter" (474). The gas chamber is representative of the Nazi's ability to destroy life and humanity and turn it into "inorganic matter."
The meeting between Liss and Eichmann is also worth noting. Liss first believes Eichmann to be a blindly devoted idealist, but he realizes that Eichmann is much smarter than that after Eichmann forgets to make a toast to the success of the Nazi party. Liss then describes the four types of Nazi officials. He says the first type of Nazi is unintelligent, dogmatic, and blind devotionalist. The second category is made up of "intelligent cynics" (482), who see the faults of the party but follow blindly to maintain their positions. The third category is comprised of top officials who are free from the party idealism, and able to think objectively about Nazism. The fourth group is the industrialist who profit from Nazism. It is interesting that Liss believes Nazis become less attached and emphatic about the party as they ascend in ranks. Liss is afraid of Hitler because he believes Hitler combines the rationality of members of the third party with the dangerous dogmatism of the first.
Grossman's discussion of anti-Semitism is the last important section of this reading. In chapter 31, Grossman argues that anti-Semitism is a result of the failures of various governments that seek to blame their problems on another group. Grossman writes, "It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of - I'll tell you what you're guilty of" (484). He then writes, "And in accusing the jews of racism, a desire for world domination and a cosmopolitan indifference towards the German fatherland, National Socialism was merely describing its own features" (484-485). Grossman believes that many countries, but specifically Germany, used anti-Semitism as a tool to transfer its peoples frustrations towards their government onto another group of people. The strategy clearly worked in Germany, as ignorant masses blamed Jews for the problems that Nazism caused.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice post, Ian.
ReplyDeleteYour comments regarding the "cold efficiency" of the camps sparked an immediate comparison in my mind of the Nazi concentration camps described in this section of the novel to the Russian gulag camps described earlier on in the book. As I began to process it and effectively weigh out each side on a scale of inhumanity and condemning, horrific, incomprehensible actions, however, it seemed as though I would always arrive at the same broadened, encompassing conclusion. The only difference between the two was that the overtness of the genocide, the systematic efficiency of one side versus the other, the perverse goals created by the dictatorial ideologues that preached the path towards absolute truth. The Nazis would slaughter Jews in an almost robotic, organized fashion. Because it was deemed necessary in order to achieve the utopian Aryan state. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, would rather try to change their prisoners, mold their minds into the perfect homo sovieticus. And if that didn't work, then they would quietly execute them. All in the name of Stalinism, in the name of creating the perfect communist society. So, in essence, the ambitions and goals may be quite different, however the methods through which they were attempted were one in the same. Regardless of the system, regardless of the ideology, camps were decided upon as the solution. They deprive the individual of his liberty, his ability to distinguish and effectively identity himself in a society. One cannot truly say that one was worse than the other, and the deplorable destructiveness of each should not be measured or quantified or compared. We must just accept the tragedies for the horrific events that they were, and make sure that they never happen again.
Ecch. Eichmann. When he says that in two years he and his associates will have solved a problem that humanity was unable to solve in twenty centuries… ecch. Grossman never met Eichmann, as the man’s described in actual historical works (rather than fiction like Life and Fate) as nothing smart. In fact, he was a clownish buffoon with more than a little incapability of original thought who always felt the need to follow others – a true minion. And I find there to be a huge difference between the gulags and the death camps. One is a prison. The other is a bloody death camp. The gulags were an awful way to death with political dissenters, but they were not genocide. The only comparable Russian crime to the Holocaust was the Holodomor. And, yes, you need to look that up if you don’t know what it is. I’m not going to tell you because reading about these things puts me in a bad mood.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Ian.
ReplyDeleteI think both you and Grossman have hit the nail on the head with this one. As we all know, the Jews were always the target of Nazi's not because the Aryans had not place for them in society but because they had become the subjects of an uncontrolled dictatorship fueled by the hatred of nationalism. I think you are exactly right in saying: "anti-Semitism [is] a tool to transfer its peoples frustrations towards their government onto another group of people." That's all it ever was. Good job outlining Grossman's position on this topic.
Andy, what is the Holodomor? Please, enlighten us? How could reading ever put you in a bad mood?
Ayo, Nedwin's out.
great post.
ReplyDeletei think grossman's analysis of anti-semitism is particularly interesting. To me, it seems to go hand in hand with his view of nationalism. As he says, "It (anti-semetism) is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems." I would very much agree that anti-semetism, like nationalism, is used simply as a device by those in power to deflect blame. The concept that you can be better than another because of simple family genetics or where you were born is a driving force and reason why nationalism and anti-semetism are so attractive to a majority. By implementing such things you are able to unite a people and play on their emotions as they fall under "mob mentality."
Ian is indisputably incredible in initiating interesting, insightful, individualistic information.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, for those of you wondering (Ned), the Holodomor was a terrible famine in Ukraine that was basically caused by Stalin. Though some claim that it was an intentional killing of Ukrainians, it still falls short of the German’s death camps (although to compare such things is like comparing different sizes of infinity; they are simply both terrible and is there really a way to tell, or desire to find out, which was worse).
Moving on, the inhumanity that the Nazi are showing in this section is of the same breed that the Russians displayed on the battlefield. Referencing all the way back to Nick’s post, we see the same dehumanization of the enemy that was employed on the front lines in Stalingrad. Even though these aspects of Russia might be difficult to compare to the United States, there is still one similarity in both cultures. Here, our marks determine our jobs, just like in Russia where Marx determines their jobs. (sorry)
Hello again my fellow children. I hope you enjoy my fun little beginnings. (Sorry Mr. H)
ReplyDeleteOne thing I would like to discuss is this description of the camps and the ultra-rationality employed by the guards. I really don't think that this is showing their inability to show human emotion. I think this rationality serves as a tool. Many people worked in the Concentration camps during this era, and I would argue that they almost had to ignore the inhumanity going on. This is the only way the job can get done. If you have seen "The Reader," this will make more sense. I'm not trying to garner sympathy for Nazi workers. Obviously, what they did was horrible. But many of them, having been brainwashed by the regime, really thought their job was important and had to be done. So, they chose to ignore the humanity and ultra-rationalize everything. This idea of choosing makes them human, in my opinion.
The description from 474-475 of the transformation of humans (real people with individual feelings and existences that mattered) to "phosphate fertilizer, lime, cinders, ammoniac, and sulphurous and carbonic acid gas" is particularly chilling. I've heard the quote before that one death is a tragedy, while a million deaths is simply a statistic. But we all know that that simply is not really the case. A million deaths should and is a million tragedies. This reduction of human existences into something insignificant is one of the most disturbing things I've come across in this book so far. This is just so disgustingly wrong in so many ways. If our existences don't mean anything as this scene seems to depict, then what point is there really? All of this becomes even more poignant at the end of the chapter when Liss presumably hopes to see his family, and perhaps some "pretty young lady as well." Apparently his life, his relationships, his happiness matter, but those of others do not.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Ian.
ReplyDeleteAs you said, Liss’s inspection and praising of the gas chamber represents the dehumanization of men into “inorganic matter.” Additionally, Grossman describes the flow of men into concentration camps: “Once life had entered the supply canals, it was impossible for it to stop or turn back; its speed of flow down the concrete corridor was determined by formulae analogous to that of Stokes regarding the movement of liquid down a tube (a function of its density, specific gravity, viscosity and temperature, and of the friction involved)” (474). Indeed, as you mentioned, the Germans’ “ultra-rational outlook overpowers their ability to appreciate life and human emotion.” All of this mechanical and empirical language starkly depicts the terror found in the concentration camps. Yes, the Germans deprived themselves of emotion and the joys of passion and life. But they also engendered a process that mechanically slaughtered millions of Jews. The aforementioned quote boldly accentuates how efficiently the Germans treated the killing of the Jews. By comparing the flow of men into concentration camps to that of a liquid down a tube, Grossman emphasizes the cold, mindless atrocity found in concentration camps.
One quote that particularly strikes me in Grossman’s discussion of Anti-Semitism is: “Anti-Semitism is always a means rather than an end; it is a measure of the contradictions yet to be resolved. It is a mirror for the failings of individuals, social structures and State systems. Tell me what you accuse the Jews of – I’ll tell you what you’re guilty of” (484). Thus, Grossman believes that Anti-Semitism is a tool rather than a consequence. He condemns the use of Anti-Semitism in WWII as it is reflective of the “failings of individuals” – primarily the Germans. Grossman acutely notes that for every crime the Germans accused the Jews of committing, one could find another German crime that was just as reprehensible.
it is chilling to read the description of the gas chambers, the step by step process of how it works. It is all so scientific, and so precise and that it makes the reader think that some other process is being described and not the execution of human beings. The workers merely view it as a project, and he says "you could sense the peculiar excitement which always grips builders and fitters when a new installation is about to be tested". The workers were actually excited to see whether or not they were successful
ReplyDeleteI also like his categorization of the different types of Nazi's. The higher up you are, the more you use the ideals of the party as a tool instead of following them. Their purpose is to keep as many people as possible into the blind devotion category, unless their is an "especially bloody task" to fulfill
Ian, the question of what is inhuman is an important one, and I for the sake of being different will try to discuss it from a different point of view. I pose the questions, and I think that Grossman has elaborated on them throughout the book and yet it is still important to state them if only with the intention of reexamining one of his points from a different angel, what is truly inhumane ( because everything that we talk about was done by humans), who are we to decide what is and is not humane, and, when we have answered these other two questions, is this "inhumanity" inherent to humans? I don't know the answer to these questions, but it seems as if, and this has been said before, that regiems do not simply create themselves, bu they are created and supported by people, and the"atrocities" that occur as a result of these regiems are really the result of the actions of people as an ideology can no more kill a person than it can take a breath of air. So, how can we attempt to explain something as the result of an ideology when we are the ones making the choices?
ReplyDeleteLiss's analysis of the Nazi idealists is definitely applicable to the Russian regime. Grossman has focused on many of the more educated Russians that are having second thoughts about the regime; or, if they aren't, they are somehow manipulating the system. They support the mob mentality of the common man because it is beneficial to their own well-being.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Hitler capitalized on the common man's ignorance by blaming the status of post WWI Germany on the Jews. This promoted the infamous nationalistic pride and common German identity. An enemy of an enemy is a friend.
Ian is right in his assessment of how Grossman, like many others, makes a sincere effort to come to grips with the unimaginable horrors of Nazism, the anti-Semitism that is such a big part of it, and the Holocaust. In particular, he is right to pay attention to the way Grossman picks up on the Nazis’ obsessive focus on efficiency. What seems clear is that the Nazis figured out that you could get people to do things they would never do on their own if you found a way to just make them think they are a part of a group and that the Jews are not even really human. Treating the whole process of the Holocaust as an almost manufacturing challenge, and combining it with the Nazi terrorizing of their own people, and making the Jews the scapegoats for all the problems that Germany faced after World War I, made it possible for people like Eichmann to actually make the Holocaust happen.
ReplyDeleteThe “cold efficiency” of the camps you referred to only speaks more to the heartless method of dehumanization necessary to maintain not only the intense fortitude of the concentration camps and gulags alike, but also the totalitarian regime in general. Based on the sense of ideology voice by a unilateral cause, the regimes held in place could only last through the condemnation and suppression of those subject to them. This cold efficiency also refers to not only the conditions rendered by the totalitarian regimes but also the apathy necessary as a proponent of such a cause, because without such robotic, emotionless way in dealing with such matters, they, being the men they were, would not have prevailed. Grossman has an interesting way of making sure the reader understands that no matter where totalitarian regimes exist, this cold efficiency is one commonality they all share at the root of them all.
ReplyDelete