Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews

Home > Other > Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews > Page 30
Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews Page 30

by Peter Longerich


  German regulations, 76 whether they applied to handing over money and goods or organizing gangs of forced labourers. The Jewish councils, which were usually set

  up by the German authorities, were also responsible in particular for providing

  accommodation and nourishment for the Jewish population and they organized

  cultural and educational activities within the ghettos. 77 The Jewish councils had their own ‘police force’ with which to assert their authority.

  The situation of the Polish Jews was characterized by the systematic under-

  provision of goods necessary for survival78 and the permanent terror to which the German occupiers subjected them: mistreatment, raids, organized shootings by

  the gendarmerie, the Gestapo and the SS were commonplace, but so were attacks

  by members of the German civilian administration and the army. A regime of

  terror was the norm in the forced labour camps and the death rates were high. 79

  Anti-Jewish policies were accompanied by parallel campaigns of systematic anti-

  Semitic propaganda. 80

  German Judenpolitik from Spring 1940 to mid-1941:

  Comprehensive Resettlement Plans

  The Madagascar Plan

  In the early summer of 1940 plans for a ‘final solution’ to the ‘Jewish question’ via

  mass deportations were once more making headway within the National Socialist

  government. Now, after the victory in the West, the French colony of Madagascar

  began to look like a suitable target destination. 81

  162

  The Persecution of the Jews, 1939–1941

  The idea that it would be possible to ‘export’ large numbers of European

  Jews to Madagascar of all places had enjoyed a certain resonance in the anti-

  Semitic circles of various European countries since the end of the nineteenth

  century. Such ‘Madagascar Projects’ were combined with various other ambi-

  tions and were vigorously revived after 1937/8 not only by leading National

  Socialist functionaries, 82 but by politicians of other countries, too, and by the speculations of the international press. 83 On the German side these utopian, impracticable notions were to some extent turned into concrete plans in early

  summer 1940.

  An important stimulus evidently derived from Himmler, who presented a

  memorandum to Hitler on 25 May 1940 in which he set out his intention of

  ‘seeing the concept “Jew” . . . completely extinguished by the possibility of a huge

  emigration of all the Jews to Africa or one of the colonies’. 84 Interestingly, in this memorandum the Reichsführer SS had mentioned a radical alternative to his

  resettlement plans, namely the ‘Bolshevist method of the physical extermination

  of a people’, but for reasons of personal conviction he had rejected this as

  ‘un-Germanic and impossible’.

  After Hitler had approved the basic principle underlying this memoran-

  dum, 85 the idea of a ‘colonial’ solution was taken up by the Foreign Ministry, too. On 3 June Franz Rademacher, who had just been named Director of

  the new ‘Department of Jewish Affairs’, presented a memorandum to the

  Director of the Department for German Affairs, Hans Luther, in which he

  asked for ‘a fundamental definition of German war aims in the matter of

  the Jewish question by the Reich Foreign Minister’. Rademacher saw three

  possibilities:

  (a) ‘all Jews out of Europe’;

  (b) a ‘separation of Eastern and Western Jews’, the Eastern Jews, who

  were considered to be ‘the future Jewish intelligentsia, potent and well

  grounded in the Talmud’, would remain ‘in German hands (Lublin?)

  as a bargaining counter (Faustpfand)’ in order to ‘paralyse the

  American Jews’, whilst the Western Jews would be deported ‘out of

  Europe’, possibly to Madagascar;

  (c) a ‘Jewish national homeland in Palestine’ (where Rademacher

  immediately committed his doubts to paper with the note ‘danger of a

  second Rome!’). 86

  Within a short time Rademacher was given the task of writing a first draft of a

  comprehensive deportation plan, 87 and began his work at a point where the Madagascar Project enjoyed a high level of support among the National Socialist

  leadership: Hitler and Ribbentrop explained the plan to Mussolini and Ciano on

  17 and 18 June; 88 Hitler mentioned it on 20 June to the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy, Erich Raeder; 89 at the beginning of July Frank informed his colleagues of Deportations

  163

  the Madagascar Plan; 90 at the beginning of August Hitler mentioned the plan to drive all the Jews out of Europe to the German ambassador in Paris, Otto

  Abetz;91and in mid-August he spoke of it to Goebbels. 92 Even representatives of the Jewish communities were semi-officially informed about the Madagascar Plan,

  including those from the Reich Association, who were told at the end of July 1940,

  and the Chair of the Warsaw Jewish Council, Adam Czerniakow, who learned of it

  on 1 July. 93

  By 24 June Heydrich had already intervened in the Foreign Ministry’s

  preparations for the Madagascar Project via a letter to Ribbentrop. 94 The problem of the millions of Jews under German rule (to which Heydrich

  assigned the figure 3¼ million) could no longer be solved by emigration:

  ‘therefore a territorial final solution is necessary’. Heydrich asked ‘to take

  part . . . in the discussions that are envisaged on the final solution to the Jewish

  question’.

  A few days later, on 3 July, Rademacher presented a draft for the Madagascar

  project. 95 His deft formula, ‘all Jews out of Europe’, showed unambiguously what kind of territorial solution was being sought at this point. He imagined that France

  would ‘place Madagascar at [Germany’s] disposal for the solution of the Jewish

  question’, as a mandate: ‘the part of the island that has no military importance

  would be placed under the administration of a German police governor who

  would report to the office of the Reichsführer SS. The Jews will be able to run their

  own administration in this territory . . . ’ Rademacher’s goal was to ensure that the

  Jews remained ‘a bargaining counter in German hands to guarantee the future

  good behaviour of their racial associates in America’; the Madagascar Project,

  then, was to function as a form of ‘hostage taking’, as the ‘Jewish reservation’ in

  Poland had been intended to.

  Another document by Rademacher, dated 2 July (‘Plan for a Solution to the

  Jewish Question’96) contains further information about his intentions. ‘From a German perspective, the Madagascar solution means the creation of a huge

  ghetto. Only the security police have the necessary experience in this field; they

  have the means to prevent a break-out from the island. In addition, they have

  experience of carrying out in an appropriate manner such punishment measures

  as become necessary as a result of hostile actions against Germany by Jews in

  the USA.’

  Whilst Rademacher was obtaining expert opinion on the feasibility of his

  project, 97 and whilst the Reich Office for Area Planning (Reichsstelle für Raumordnung) was confirming to Goering (who was thereby also involved in

  the ‘planning for the final solution’) the existence of sufficient ‘settlement possi-

  bilities’ on the island, 98 the Reich Security Head Office was putting together its own version of the Madagascar Plan, which was ready in booklet form by 15

  August.
99 It contained the suggestion that a ‘police state’ be set up for the four million Jews who would be on the island at that point under German rule. The

  164

  The Persecution of the Jews, 1939–1941

  RSHA estimated that a period of four years would be necessary to transport these

  people to Madagascar by ship.

  In a later note, dated 30 August, Rademacher explicitly supported a sugges-

  tion that had in the meantime been made by Victor Brack, 100 who was based in the Chancellery of the Führer of the NSDAP and responsible for overseeing the

  ‘euthanasia’ programme. Brack proposed ‘using the wartime transport systems

  that he had developed for the Führer for the transport of Jews to Madagascar at

  a later date’. The mention of Brack and the fact that another key figure

  responsible for the ‘euthanasia programme’, the Director of the Chancellery of

  the Führer, Philipp Bouhler, was being considered for the role of Governor in

  Madagascar, taken together cast the Madagascar Project in a very dark light

  indeed. Furthermore, Rademacher’s document shows that the estimate of the

  number of Jews that were to be settled on Madagascar had by then reached 6½

  million, which suggests that the Jews from the south-east European states

  and the northern French colonies were now being included in the plans for

  deportation.

  Fantastic though the Madagascar Plan now seems, it cannot simply be

  dismissed as merely distraction tactics for a Judenpolitik that had reached a

  dead-end. 101 It is precisely the lack of feasibility in this plan that points up the cynical, calculating nature of German Judenpolitik: the idea that millions of

  European Jews would be deported to Madagascar for years and years, and the

  fact that—without even considering the ‘punishment measures’ that Radema-

  cher envisaged—a large proportion of the transported Jews would presumably

  die there relatively quickly as victims of the hostile living conditions they would

  meet, all this makes it perfectly clear that behind this project lay the intention of

  bringing about the physical annihilation of the Jews under German rule. How-

  ever, this was an intention that appropriate ‘good behaviour’ on the part of

  the United States might cause to be revised. From the point of view of the RSHA

  the Madagascar Project was a means of perpetuating the plans for a ‘Jewish

  reservation’ in the General Government that were at that time unrealizable,

  and of extending them to the Jews of Western Europe. When the Madagascar

  Plan had to be suspended in the autumn of 1940 because of the failure to make

  peace with Great Britain the preparations for Barbarossa immediately opened

  up a new perspective for a ‘territorial solution’ of the ‘Jewish question’. For a

  period of a few months, then, ‘Madagascar’ stood for ‘anywhere’ that might

  permit the execution of a ‘final solution’, or in other words for the option of

  initiating a slow and painful end for the Jews of Europe in conditions inimical

  to life.

  Inspired by the intention to annihilate the Jews under German rule, Hitler was

  to keep coming back to the Madagascar Project time and again until 1942, by

  which time the idea of ‘anywhere’ had been replaced by that of ‘nowhere’. 102 In the Foreign Ministry the plan was officially shelved in February 1942. 103

  Deportations

  165

  Judenpolitik between the Madagascar

  Plan and ‘Barbarossa’

  The German Regime and the Polish Jews

  The progress of the war and the overall plans of the National Socialist regime for

  the fate of the Jews under German rule had direct consequences for Judenpolitik in

  the General Government.

  The halt put to deportations of Jews into the General Government in March

  1940 was initially seen as a provisional measure. 104 However, in the summer of 1940, after the victory in France, the aim of establishing a ‘Jewish reservation’ in

  Poland was definitively abandoned. On 8 July, Frank informed his colleagues a few

  days later, 105 Hitler had assured him that no further deportations into the General Government would take place, in view of the Madagascar Project. On 9 July

  Himmler made the definitive end to deportations into Frank’s area known

  internally. 106

  Besides putting an end to the deportations, the war in the West had other

  consequences for the German occupation of Poland. From September 1939 to

  April 1940 the occupying power in Poland had carried out mass executions of

  people who had been held in the context of the so-called ‘intelligentsia campaign’

  or the waves of regional arrests; 107 now, after May 1940, such executions were to be continued on a much greater scale as part of the so-called ‘AB campaign’ (where

  AB stands for Außerordentliche Befriedungsaktion or ‘extraordinary pacification

  campaign’). As Frank explained to representatives of the police at the end of May,

  the beginning of the war in the West had presented them with a chance ‘of

  finishing off the mass of seditious resistance politicians and other politically

  suspect individuals in our area and at the same time of eliminating the inheritance

  of earlier Polish criminality’. Frank stated quite explicitly that this campaign

  would ‘cost a few thousand Polish lives, above all those from the leading intellec-

  tual cadres of Poland’ and in this context he cited Hitler when he said, ‘the

  elements of the Polish leadership that we have now identified are to be liquid-

  ated’. 108 This is in fact what happened: during the ‘AB campaign’ some 3,500

  members of the intelligentsia and political functionaries, as well as about 3,000

  people who had been designated criminals were killed. This policy of the system-

  atic mass murder of the Polish elites was itself bound to have a radicalizing effect

  on the persecution of the Jews.

  After the Department for the Internal Administration of the General Governor

  had in August 1940 already confirmed the necessity of establishing ghettos that

  were, however, not to be hermetically sealed, 109 the construction of new ghettos in the General Government evidently gained further impetus in autumn 1940. In

  166

  The Persecution of the Jews, 1939–1941

  Warsaw110 and other cities further closed Jewish quarters were set up111 after the legal basis for such action had been established in September when the Order

  concerning Domicile Restrictions was issued. 112 However, the formation of ghettos did not follow a unified plan; local authorities’ need to gain control was the

  decisive factor, rather than the failure of the Madagascar Plan. The establishment

  of ghettos or the designation of certain quarters or areas of a city as Jewish

  represent only one of the measures that the occupying administration used to

  deal with the astonishing lack of living accommodation for the Jewish population.

  Since the occupying power usually tackled its need for space at the expense of the

  Jews—and moreover undertook several ‘deportations’ (Aussiedlungen) to the

  ‘capital’ of the General Government, Cracow, for example, or to recreational

  resorts—it found itself repeatedly forced to intervene in Jewish living arrange-

  ments in a regulatory fashion. This trend increased after spring 1941 when more

  space was needed to accommodate the eastern army marching
into Poland. 113 The original aim for ‘concentrating’ Jews in larger cities was often not achieved,

  however; on the contrary, Jews were deported from such places and divided

  between the surrounding smaller towns. 114

  In the rationing scheme for foodstuffs Jews were in the lowest of ten consumer

  groups. These rations, which often only existed on paper, were already set at such

  a low level that they did not permit survival. 115 In order to survive the Jewish population was dependent on smuggling and the black market; the danger of the

  ‘Jewish black market’ was a further reason for the occupation administration to

  intensify their control over the Jewish population and step up their persecution of

  the Jews.

  Until autumn 1941 the authorities generally continued to count on the Jews

  soon being removed, which is why most anti-Jewish measures were essentially

  provisional. The situation of the Jews did not worsen as the result of a carefully

  planned set of policies on the part of the Germans but because of the cumulative

  effect of inadequate support measures and a regime fundamentally uninterested in

  their fate. Even the establishment of ghettos was carried out so haphazardly and

  slowly that it would be wrong to see it as a systematic policy ultimately aimed at

  the physical annihilation of the Jews. It is quite clear that there was no uniform

  and unified policy towards the inhabitants of the ghettos. Using the examples of

  the Lodz and Warsaw ghettos, the historian Christopher Browning has shown

  that there were two contrasting positions represented simultaneously within the

  German departments responsible: according to one view, the population of the

  ghettos should be left to starve, whilst according to the other, opportunities for

  employment had to be created in order to give the Jews the possibility of sustain-

  ing themselves—although in this case the motive was less humanitarian than

  connected with the fear of disease. 116 In both ghettos the ‘productive’ line of argument prevailed over the argument for starving the Jews to death. However,

  it is significant that in the course of this discussion the possibility of gradually

  Deportations

  167

 

‹ Prev