Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Christians and Jews had lived in an adversarial relationship since the first
century of the common era, when the early followers of Jesus failed to persuade
significant numbers of their fellow Jews that he was the Messiah. They then
gradually solidified their identity as a new religion rather than a reforming
Jewish sect. First, Pauline Christianity took the step of seeking converts not just
among Jews but also among the pagan populations of the Roman Empire.
Second, the Gospel writers—some 40 to 60 years after the death of Jesus—
sought to placate the Roman authorities and at the same time to stigmatize their
rivals by increasingly portraying the Jews rather than the Roman authorities in
Palestine as responsible for the crucifixion—the scriptural origin of the fateful
‘‘Christ-killer’’ libel. Finally, the Jewish rebellion in Palestine and the destruction
of the Second Temple motivated early Christians not only to disassociate
themselves completely from the Jews but to see the Jewish catastrophe as a
deserved punishment for the stubborn refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah
and as a divine vindication of their own beliefs. Christians and Jews, two small
sects that had much more in common with one another by virtue of their
[2]
monotheism and scriptures than either had with the rest of the tolerant, syncretic,
polytheistic pagan Roman world, developed an implacable hostility to
one another.
This hostility became historically significant in the course of the fourth
century when, following the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, Christianity
became first the favored and then the official religion of the Roman
Empire. The religious quarrel between two small and relatively powerless sects,
both at odds with the pagan world in which they lived, was suddenly transformed
into an unequal relationship between a triumphant state religion and a
beleaguered religious minority. Even so, the Jews fared better than the pagans.
Triumphant Christians destroyed paganism and tore down its temples; but the
synagogues were left standing, and Judaism remained as the sole legally permitted
religion outside Christianity. Without this double standard of intolerance—
paganism destroyed and Judaism despised but permitted—there would have
been no further history of Christian-Jewish relations.
A cluster of anti-Jewish incidents at the end of the first decade of the 11th
century signaled a change that became more fully apparent with the murderous
pogroms perpetrated by roving gangs of knights on their way to the First
Crusade. 2 In the words of Langmuir, ‘‘These groups seem to have been made up
of people whose sense of identity had been seriously undermined by rapidly
changing social conditions that they could not control or understand and to
which they could not adapt successfully.’’3
Urban, commercial, nonmilitary, and above all nonbelievers, the Jews were
subjected both to the immediate threat of Europe’s first pogroms and to the
long-term threat of an intensifying negative stereotype. Barred from the honorable
professions of fighting and landowning, often also barred from the prestigious
economic activities controlled through guilds by the Christian majority,
the Jewish minority was branded not only as unbelievers but now also as cowards,
parasites, and usurers. Religiously driven anti-Semitism took on economic,
social, and political dimensions.
In the following centuries the negative stereotype of xenophobic anti-
Semitism was intensified and overlaid by fantastical and demented accusations,
such as the alleged practices of ritual murder and torturing the Host. Such
accusations seem to have originated in the actions of disturbed individuals
finding ways to cope with their own psychological problems in socially acceptable
ways. 4 In the fertile soil of xenophobic anti-Semitism, such chimeras
multiplied and spread, and were ultimately embraced and legitimized by the
authorities. As the Jews were increasingly dehumanized and demonized, the
anti-Semitism of the medieval period culminated in the expulsions and the
widespread massacres that accompanied the Black Death.
What can be said of the German people at large in the 1930s? Was the bulk of
the population swept along by the Nazis’ anti-Semitic tide? Only in part, according
to the detailed research of historians like Ian Kershaw, Otto Dov Kulka,
and David Bankier, who have reached a surprising degree of consensus on this
issue. 18 For the 1933–39 period, these historians distinguish between a minority
of activists, for whom anti-Semitism was an urgent priority, and the bulk of the
population, for whom it was not. Apart from the activists, the majority did [10]
not clamor or press for anti-Semitic measures. But the majority of ‘‘ordinary’’
Germans—whom Saul Friedländer describes as ‘‘onlookers’’ in contrast to ‘‘activists’’ 19
—nonetheless accepted the legal measures of the regime, which ended
emancipation and drove the Jews from public positions in 1933, socially ostracized
them in 1935, and completed the expropriation of their property in
1938–39. Yet this majority was critical of the hooliganistic violence of activists.
The boycott of 1933, the vandalistic outbreaks of 1935, and the Kristallnacht
pogrom of November 1938 did not have a positive reception among most of the
German population. 20
More important, however, a gulf had opened up between the Jewish minority
and the general population. The latter, while not mobilized around strident and
violent anti-Semitism, was increasingly ‘‘apathetic,’’ ‘‘passive,’’ and ‘‘indifferent’’
to the fate of the former. Many Germans who were indi√erent or even
hostile toward Jews were not indifferent to the public flouting of deeply ingrained
values concerning the preservation of order, propriety, and property.
But anti-Semitic measures carried out in an orderly and legal manner were
widely accepted, for two main reasons. Such measures sustained the hope of
curbing the violence most Germans found so distasteful, and most Germans
now accepted the goal of limiting, and even ending, the role of Jews in German
society. This was a major accomplishment for the regime, but it still did not
offer the prospect that most ordinary Germans would approve of, much less
participate in, the mass murder of European Jewry, that the onlookers of 1938
would become the genocidal killers of 1941–42.
If neither the conservative elites nor the German public were committed to a
further radicalization and escalation of Jewish persecution, the same cannot be
said of Hitler, the Nazi leadership, the party, and the bureaucracy. Hitler’s anti-
Semitism was both obsessive and central to his political outlook. 21 For him the
‘‘Jewish question’’ was the key to all other problems and hence the ultimate
problem. Hitler’s anti-Semitism created an ideological imperative that required
an escalating search for an ultimate or final solution.
The emotional and ideological priority of Hitler’s anti-Semitism and the
wider understanding of history as racial struggle in which it was embedded were
shared by much of the Nazi leadership and party. They defined and gave meaning
to the politics of the Third Reich. They also provided the regime with a spur
and a direction for ceaseless dynamism and movement. Within the polycratic
regime, Hitler did not have to devise a blueprint, timetable, or grand design for
solving the ‘‘Jewish question.’’ He merely had to proclaim its continuing existence
and reward those who vied in bringing forth various solutions. ["Workingtowards the Fuhrer"] Given
the
dynamics of the Nazi political system, a ratchetlike decision-making process [11]
permitted bursts of radicalization periodically alternating with tactical pauses
but never moderation or retreat. In the end ‘‘final solutions’’ would become
the only ones worthy of submission to Hitler. As Göring announced on Hitler’s
behalf following the Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938, the ‘‘Jewish
question’’ had to be solved ‘‘one way or another.’’ And in the case of the war that
Hitler both intended and prophesied in January 1939 (thus setting a new level of
expectation for his followers), an acceptable final solution would result in ‘‘the
destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.’’ Thus the combination of Hitler’s
anti-Semitism as ideological imperative and the competitive polycracy of the
Nazi regime created immense pressures for the escalation of Nazi Jewish policy
even without broad public support in that direction.
By the late 1930s, the escalation and radicalization of Nazi Jewish policy were
also furthered by a process of ‘‘bureaucratic momentum.’’ Within months of the
Nazi assumption of power almost every branch and agency of the German
government had appointed lower-echelon civil servants—some of whom were
longtime party faithful, some recent converts, some adaptable and ambitious
careerists—to a ‘‘Jewish desk’’ ( Judenreferat) to handle all matters related to
Jewish policy that impinged on their jurisdictions. No ministry affected by Nazi
Jewish policy could afford to be without experts to advise it about the impact of
Jewish legislation emanating from other sources, to participate in various interministerial
conferences to defend the ministry’s point of view, and of course to
prepare the ministry’s own measures. As this corps of ‘‘Jewish experts’’ ( Judensachbearbeiter)
proliferated and became institutionalized, the impact of their
cumulative activities added up. The existence of the career itself ensured that
the Jewish experts would keep up the flow of discriminatory measures. Even as
German Jews were being deported to ghettos and death camps in the east in
1942, for instance, the bureaucracy was still producing decrees that prohibited
them from having pets, getting their hair cut by Aryan barbers, or receiving the
Reich sports badge! 22 Such a bureaucratic ‘‘machinery of destruction’’ was
poised and eager to meet the professional challenge and solve the myriad problems
created by an escalating Nazi Jewish policy. In Raul Hilberg’s memorable
phrase, the German bureaucrat ‘‘beckoned to his Faustian fate.’’ 23 Not just for
Hitler and the party faithful but also for the professional experts of the German
bureaucracy, the outbreak of war in September 1939 and the ensuing victories
would o√er the opportunity and obligation to solve the ‘‘Jewish question’’ and
make history.