The Holocaust: Never Again?
Dan Morgan
Most people today, if questioned, would probably agree that the Holocaust we have learned about from history in Europe at the hand of the Nazis did, in fact, occur. Most would recoil at the mention of the unthinkable acts that we are told were incited by madness and evil. And most would certainly understand what is meant by "never again", the credo for those whose lives and lineages have been irreparably ravaged by the annihilation. Still, there seems to exist a feeling among those of us who live in the latter part of this century that the rise of Hitler was somehow an aberration; an "accident of nature," and now that he is gone, so is the threat of anything like the Holocaust happening again. Even Habermas believed that the Holocaust "was born out of nothing, but came from us, 'good Europeans that we are'".1
I assert that the possibility of another Holocaust happening again most certainly does exist; that it is precisely the systems that we have in place and operating today that would allow for another Holocaust to occur. The bureaucracies that are all around us, the dehumanization of work, and the separation between the worker and the product of his/her work have all served as catalysts in the fragmentation of society, turning neighbors into opponents. Moreover, while it is comfortable to believe that there were a few very "bad monsters" that were responsible for the Holocaust, the truth is that most participants were ordinary citizens who did not harbor a great deal of malevolence toward Jews.2
The purpose of this paper is twofold; first, to illustrate that the "Holocaust enterprise" was an efficient, systematic venture that could not have happened without the participation of ordinary citizens, and second, to show how the systems that are in place today are not unlike those that were so instrumental in Nazi Germany. I do not argue that these systems will necessarily lead to another Holocaust, but I will demonstrate that they are certainly conducive to another Holocaust.
When we think of those who were responsible for the internment and execution of the millions of Jews and other people during the Holocaust, we usually think of Hitler, Himmler, Gehrig and others who we have read about in history books. Often we are reminded of their savagery, their madness, and their drive for power. Certainly we are aware of the genocide that had become a priority of these Nazis. If we are familiar with the Wansee Conference, however, we may be amazed at the lack of malice on the part of the 'line managers' who would be responsible for launching "The Final Solution." Further, many of the key players involved have been described as common, even uninteresting, people. Even Eichmann has been described as "an uninspired bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk and did his job".3 Indeed, Harrower has even gone so far to say, "the Nazis who went on trial at Nuremberg were as diverse a group of people as one might find in our government today, or for that matter, in the leadership of the PTA".4
Even if all those with high ranks had been insane, or evil, or both, the reality is that an extermination of such a grand scale could not have taken place solely at the hands of a deranged and malevolent few. The system could not have worked without the participation of secretaries, bus drivers, messengers, factory workers, and a host of other 'ordinary' people simply doing their jobs within organizations that were operating in an industrial, bureaucratic society. In the now infamous Milgram experiments, Stanley Milgram concludes, "that ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process".5 Indeed, "the Nazi mass murder of the European Jewry was not only the technological achievement of an industrial society, but also the organizational achievement of a bureaucratic society".6
Presthus describes what can happen in a bureaucracy that is highly specialized: "each decision is the result of various technical and personal considerations, the sum of the contributions of everyone involved in the deciding process. This diffusion means that 'everyone' (that is, no one) is responsible".7 Indeed, only 'the system' is responsible.
There are those who offer alternative explanations to this theory of systematic compliance. One explanation is that of ordinary people 'cracking' under the magnitude of what was happening. Aronson, for example, suggests that "occasionally...natural situations become focused into pressures so great that they cause people to behave in ways easily classified as abnormal".8
There is also the argument that 'the system' alone could not have been responsible for the Holocaust; that anti-Semitism and hatred were operating on a grand scale. Thomas Blass explored the possibility that situation alone did not account adequately for the Holocaust - that there were certain personality characteristics possessed by those in power that were responsible for what happened. Blass' conclusions were surprising. Although he found evidence that disposition played a role, disposition overall seemed to account more for the altruism of those who helped the Jews.9
Both of the above arguments assume that all who participated in the Holocaust were aware of what was going on, to the degree that it was going on. Implicit in this rationale is anti-Semitism so furious as to incite people to act in irrational and violent ways. Upon investigation, however, we see that this is not true - and could not be true. Bauman reminds us that mass murder is not a modern invention; that wars and massacres have been going on throughout history. This would, on the surface, seem to show that the Holocaust was not unique. What makes the Holocaust different from other mass murders, however, was the role that modern civilization has played. The Holocaust was done in a "rational, planned, scientifically informed, expert, efficiently managed, co-ordinated way"10, the same formula to which any major corporation today would attribute its success.
To illustrate this, consider the event that occurred on November 9, 1938, which has been referred to by historians as Kristallnacht. On that night, anti-Jewish mob violence was responsible for large-scale destruction in a Jewish community, including the death of about one hundred Jews. It is easy for this kind of fury to come to mind when searching for explanations for the Holocaust. Simple math, however, will show the error of this thinking: we know that the German state annihilated approximately six million Jews. If 100 Jews were killed every day, such as what happened on Kristallnacht, then the Holocaust would have needed to last nearly 200 years. Clearly, the Holocaust enterprise would need something much more modern and technological.
What are the components of 'the system' to which Presthus was referring? What are the factors that would allow for this systemized extermination in which many participated but for which few were held responsible? The basis for this answer lies in the bureaucratic structure. Weber lists four basis elements of bureaucracy: 1) efficiency of structure; 2) quantification of work; 3) predictability; 4) control over people through the replacement of humans with non-human technology.11
According to Weber, efficiency is necessary for handling large numbers of tasks and a large amount of paperwork. Quantification provides a way for people to measure their performance, and hence, to measure their success. The predictability of knowing what to expect from people in other departments allows workers to know when specific goods and services will be received, as well as when certain events will occur. Lastly, replacing human with non-human technologies allows for controlling a corporations employees and clients.
How can a claim be made that the mere structure of a bureaucracy could be responsible for the Holocaust? There is hardly anything about the structure itself that seems sinister, at least on the surface. When we look a little more closely, however, we see that there exists what Weber refers to as the "iron cage" of rationality; what Ritzer refers to as the "irrationality of rationality".12 Weber feared that bureaucracies would become "iron cages" where people inside them would be trapped, and their humanity denied. Similarly, Ronald Takaki describes the rationalized work setting as a place in which "the self was placed in confinement, its emotions controlled, and its spirit subdued".13 Milchman and Rosenberg go further, asserting that the Holocaust was:
The "brutal assault on alterity" to which Milchman and Rosenberg refer can give us insight into the anti-Semitism that existed, but that still leaves the following question unanswered: why were these people targeted for extinction? Bauman, for example, has suggested that the Jews were not particularly despised in Germany; "Germany was widely [perceived] by international Jewry as the haven of religious and nationality equality and tolerance".15 If we believe that the few Nazi leaders were able to fool an entire nation, how did this occur? How did the ideas of a few racist madmen translate into the rationally planned, expertly informed, efficiently managed system that was responsible for the death of six million people? Can it be possible, in a bureaucratic system, for the intentions of so few to be hidden from those who are to make these intentions into reality? How can an entire nation unwittingly carry out the evil plan of a powerful few? John Ralston Saul declares that secrecy is what allows a bureaucracy to carry through the plans of their leaders. He cites several examples, such as the drug trafficking by U.S. soldiers in Southeast Asia in exchange for the military aid of local residents. He implies that once the wheels have been set in motion, it is hard to stop this process, since there is often no procedurally acceptable or efficient way to do so. Rather than vilifying those in positions of seeming power, Saul sympathizes with them: "The officials in charge of all these procedures are decent people. It's just that there is no room for them to use their common sense. And from the structure's point of view, when there is an error, it is the error which is the wrong".16 It is disturbing to read Saul's words, "from the structure's point of view." The implication is that the fourth element of Weber's bureaucratic model (replacement of human technology with non-human technology) is in operation. The distinction Weber made between human technology (pencils, hammers, etc.) and non-human technologies (rules, structure, etc.) is that people are able to control and manipulate human technologies, while being controlled and manipulated by the non-human technologies. Understanding this can help us understand how many who are in positions of authority are not able to effect change within the system in which they operate. Also implicit above, again, is "the iron cage of rationality." Clearly, if a manager is in a position that does not allow for the use of common sense, then that manager has been denied his/her humanity. Given this scenario, the manager's options become quite limited and quite clear: go back to quantifiable, predictable work, within the efficient structure, using technology over which there is no control. It is easy to see, then, the similarities between the myriad bureaucratic workers today, and someone like Rudolph Hoss, who was the commandant at Auschwitz. All of these people were loyal to the system; their morals became quantified by how well their work was done, rather than on the basis of the ramifications of their work. When asked why he did not question his orders, Rudolph Hoss responded, "At that time I did not indulge in deliberation: I had received the order, and I had to carry it out...I do not believe that even one of the thousands of SS leaders could have permitted such a thought to occur to him. Something like that was just completely impossible".17 Modern examples of workers being dehumanized by the iron cage of rationality are obvious and endless. Consider, for example, the line manager who is given instructions to lay off forty people. Certainly most managers would not enjoy this task; many would actually experience a great deal of grief. Yet what manager could prevent this from happening? "The system" is at work, the wheels are in motion. Any line manager who would refuse to fire his workers would most likely be dismissed him or herself. There is very little that a manager in this position can do, other than decide exactly which forty people will be terminated. Here, the line manager and employee who is to be terminated are both dehumanized; both voices have been silenced, both have been chewed up by the system. Someone, though - some person is responsible for the pink slips. Someone - some person, is responsible for deciding the fate of others - other persons. Who is it? Who really is responsible? Does anyone really have the power and authority to put a stop the process? Webster's dictionary refers to a scapegoat as, "a person, group, or thing upon whom the blame for the mistakes or crimes of others is thrust." We know that the Nazi leaders found themselves superior to the Jews. We also have learned that the Jews became the scapegoat for many of Germany's problems. Certainly this scapegoating would make it easier for policies to be enacted that could be interpreted as 'rational' rather than inhumane. One rationale used by German doctors for ghettoizing Polish Jews was to stop the spread of disease, particularly spotted fever. This was also the reason cited for their eventual extermination.18 The doctors, Eberhard Wetzel and Gerhard Hecht, from the Racial Political Office (in a memo to Heinrich Himmler) wrote: "we are indifferent to the hygienic fate of the Jews. Also for the Jews, the basic principle is valid, that their propagation must be curtailed in every way".19 Similarly, recall the mid-1980's, when there was much public debate about quarantining those persons who were infected with the AIDS virus. What is important to remember is that the vast majority of persons known to be infected at that time were homosexual men, intravenous drug users, and Haitians. It was not until 'respectable people' and 'innocent victims' became infected that there was a push for public awareness and public funding. One can only wonder what may have happened had the virus not already spread into the 'mainstream' community. The intention to quarantine, we are led to believe, was to ensure the health and safety of the general population. The 'rational' implications, however, could not be clearer. An administrative system rife with secrecy, the scapegoating of the Other, and the 'iron cage' of bureaucracy that dehumanizes workers and removes their work from the ramifications of that work - all of these were contributory factors of the Holocaust. All of these are in place today. It is tempting at this point to want to 'solve' the problems and 'fix' the systems that have been mentioned here. That is not my intent, however, and for two reasons. First, even a rudimentary attempt to do so would be an enormous undertaking. The challenges at the national, corporate and personal levels are too numerous to begin mentioning here. Second, it would be premature to attempt to look for solutions to what most people have not even recognized as a problem. Yes, many grumble amorphously about the system, the state of affairs, our political leaders, our jobs or our neighbors. And many of us grope with the day-to-day problems that ensue as a result of these things. How many of us, however, realize that the systems and structures in place today that provide employment, security and comfort for so many may easily pave the road of annihilation for the next Other?
Dan Morgan is an instructor of Sociology at Hawaii Pacific University. His email address is dmorgan@hpu.edu. 1. Lacoue-Labarth, Philippe. 1990. Heidegger, Art and Politics: The Fiction of the Political. New York: Oxford University Press, pg. 127."embedded in the heart of a techno-scientific civilization; an objective real possibility linked to certain constitutive elements of modernity: planetary technology and modern science, the existence of modern man as a subject, the triumph of functional reason, the omnipresence of bureaucracy as the fulcrum of society, the longing for community actualized in 'pseudo-communities' based on race, religion or ethnicity, and the brutal assault on alterity, on the Other, which is characteristic of the 'pseudo-community' based on the modern state."14
Notes
2. Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pg. 31.
3. Arendt, Hannah. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem. New York: Viking Press, pg. 54.
4. Harrower, Molly. 1976. "Were Hitler's Men Mad?" Psychology Today, July-August, pg. 76.
5. Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row, pg. 6.
6. Browning, Christopher R. 1992. The Path to Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pg. 148.
7. Presthus, Robert. 1978. The Organizational Society. New York: St Martin's Press, pgs. 39-40.
8. Aronson, Elliot. 1984. The Social Animal, 4th ed. New York: W. H. Freeman & Company, pg. 49.
9. Blass, Thomas. 1993. "Psychological Perspectives on the Perpetrators of the Holocaust: The Role of Situational Pressures, Personal Dispositions, and Their Interactions." Holocaust and Genocide Studies, 7(1).
10. Bauman, op. cit., pg. 89.
11. Ritzer, George. 1993. The McDonaldization of Society. Newbury Park, CA: Pine Forge Press, pg. 19.
12. Ibid., pg. 20.
13. Ibid., pg. 22.
14. Milchman, Alan, and Alan Rosenberg. 1993. "The Unlearned Lessons of the Holocaust." Modern Judaism, 13(2), pg. 180.
15. Bauman, op. cit., pg. 32.
16. Saul, John Ralston. 1992. Voltaire's Bastards. New York: Random House, pg. 292.
17. Milchman and Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 183.
18. Hilberg, Raul. 1985. The Destruction of the European Jews. New York: Holmes & Meier, p. 224.
19. Browning, op. cit., p. 146.
