11/13/2006

Auschwitz

I recently finished the book "Auschwitz: A New History," by Laurence Rees, the Creative Director of History Programs for the BBC. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in the Holocaust or WWII.

Its harrowing descriptions of the death camps of the National Socialist German Workers Party will, I think, trouble even the most hardened reader. For example, in describing the first few months in Treblinka, a death camp in Nazi occupied Poland, the author describes the chaotic atrocity:

To begin with, Treblinka operated more or less as the Nazis had planned, with about 6,000 people arriving to be killed each day. But by August the numbers had doubled and the operation of the camp began to fall apart. Yet the camp Commandant, Dr. Irmfried Eberl, still kept it open. "Dr. Eberl's ambition," said August Hingst, another member of the SS at Treblinka, "was to reach the highest possible numbers and exceed all the other camps. So many transports arrived that the disembarkation and gassing of the people could no longer be handled." As a result, many people were simply shot in the lower camp, but that, of course, destroyed the subterfuge that was the basis of the camp's operation -- no one believed they were at a disinfecting station when they saw corpses on the ground.

One survivor of Treblinka described the scene as thus:

As we disembarked we witnessed a horrible sight: hundreds of bodies lying all around. Piles of bundles, clothes, valises, everything mixed together. SS soldiers and Ukrainians were standing on the roofs of the barracks and firing indiscriminately into the crowd. Men, women and children fell bleeding. The air was filled with screaming and weeping.
The author goes on to describe the death rate in Treblinka: "In slightly more than a month's time, from between the end of July and the end of August 1942, an estimated 312,500 people were murdered at Treblinka. This is a phenomenal figure, a killing rate of around 10,000 a day and a death toll not even approached by any other camp until the height of the Hungarian action at Auschwitz -- in 1944 --when the four crematoria of Birkenau were functioning at full capacity."

Starting in Germany, with their own citizens, Hitler and the Nazis rounded up millions of Jews, Poles, gypsies, and others, loaded them onto freight trains and sent them to their deaths. For example, toward the end of the war in 1944:

400,000 Hungarian Jews were transported to Auschwitz. The percentage on each transport selected for forced labor varied -- sometimes it was as low as 10 percent, sometimes around 30 percent -- but the majority of people on board each train were always sent to the gas chambers. The camp had never seen a killing spree like it, with more than 320,000 murdered in less than eight weeks -- indeed, for sustained killing within the Nazi State the only comparable slaughter on that scale was the initial murders in Treblinka...
It was against this backdrop, then, that I watched the recent election coverage where I heard some left-winger refer to the Patriot Act as "fascism" and President Bush as a "Nazi." I realized then that these cutesy elitist references are not merely 'harsh rhetoric,' but are instead ridiculously repugnant. What a sickening ignorance one betrays to suggest that we live under a regime comparable to one that systematically carried out the execution of millions of its own citizens. Whether such a heinous lack of historical perspective is a failure of our educational system or a simple lack of moral restraint on one's vocal cords matters not. One can be free to vigorously oppose President Bush, the GOP, and all of their policies but I cannot think of a comparison more offensive to the memory of entire families weeping together on their way to the gas chamber than to suggest that our safe, consumptive little lives are similarly impacted by the policies of the present administration.

So the next time you see someone knowingly chuckle at a cartoon like this, remember Auschwitz. The next time you hear someone complain about the Abu Ghraib prisoners being forced to pose in a pyramid, remember this stack of bodies. The next time you hear someone condescendingly cluck at the "torture" of Abu Ghraib's prisoners posed for photos with underwear on their heads, remember "Dario Gabbai and Morris Venezia, cousins from Thessalonika in Greece, ...unwittingly caught in the Nazis' Sonderkommando recruitment drive":

Morris and Dario were taken to a brick building in Birkenau, given huge scissors, which they thought more suitable for shearing sheep than cutting human hair, and led into a room that was packed with naked human bodies. "We couldn't believe it," says Morris. "They looked like sardines in a can. The Kapo who accompanied them started clambering over the bodies, cutting off the women's hair at a frantic rate, demonstrating what he wanted Morris and Dario to do. But when the two of them both tried to cut the hair of the dead women, they were wary of standing on the bodies and moved carefully around them. This angered the Kapo, who beat them with his cane. So they cut more quickly, moving among the corpses, but as Dario stood on the stomach of one dead woman he pushed gas out through her mouth and the body emitted a groaning noise. "Dario was so scared," says Morris, "that he jumped from the top of the dead bodies."

There had been no explanation from the Kapo or the Germans about the nature of the job they were now expected to do, no preparations just immediate immersion in a world of horror. "Unbelievable!" says Morris. "How could I feel? Nobody can imagine what really happened and what the Germans were doing to us." What they did not know at the time was that the authorities at Auschwitz and other concentration camps had been ordered by the SS economic division in August 1942 to collect any human hair longer than about a couple of centimeters. It was to be spun into thread to make "felt socks for the submarine crews and felt hose for railways."

Dario and Morris learned that, to survive, they needed to adapt -- and quickly. As transport after transport was brought down into the basement of the crematorium,
they swiftly mastered the routine of their job. The new arrivals would be forced into the long, underground undressing room. Then, as the Germans shouted, "Schnell! Schnell!" they were told to take their clothes off and to remember where they had placed them, because the Germans also said they would need to recover them after their shower. Many of the women shouted "Shame! Shame!" as they were forced to rush naked towards the gas chamber that lay beyond. Says Dario Gabbai,

"There were people who were starting to understand that something funny was going on, but nobody could do anything. The process had to go [on], you know. Everything was done from the Germans' point of view. They'd been organizing this for many, many years --so everything was going through well."

The gas chambers of crematoria 2 and 3 were below ground, so the delivery of the Zyklon B (cyanide) once the chamber was crammed with people and the door secured was relatively straightforward. Standing outside on the gas chamber roof, members of the SS would take of hatches that gave them access to special wire columns in the gas chamber below. They would then place canisters of Zyklon B inside the columns and lower them, sealing the hatch again once the gas had reached the bottom.

From the other side of the locked door, Dario Gabbai and Morris Venezia heard children and their mothers crying and scratching the walls. Morris remembers how, when the gas chamber was crammed with around a thousand people, he heard voices calling out, "God! God!" "Like a voice from the catacombs -- I still hear this kind of voice in my head." After the noise ceased, powerful fans were turned on to remove the gas, and then it was time for Morris, Dario and the other Sonderkommando to go to work. Dario recalls,

"When they opened the door, I see these people that half an hour before were going [into the gas chamber], I see them all standing up, some black and blue from the gas. No place where to go. Dead. If I close my eyes, the only thing I see is standing up, women and children in their hands."

Well, at least Dario and Morris didn't have to wear underwear on their heads.

Am I suggesting we ignore or minimize what happened at Abu Ghraib prison? Absolutely not. It is disgusting. But for the left compare the excesses of a few soldiers, or the perceived legislative excesses of this adminstration, with the Nazis' systematic infliction of cruelty and death on entire races of people, and to do so for political gain, betrays an indifference to the plight of millions of dead people that makes a mockery of the whole concept of cynicism.

Note: All quotes from Auschwitz: A New History.

11 comments:

GeeGuy said...

Wulfgar, I am not surprised that you commented here; I was expecting it and looking forward to it.

First, you make a valid point about my "slight of hand." I wish it was intentional, but I am not nearly that clever. I heard a comment recently from "some left-winger," and did then slip to "the left." Fair point. Although to suggest that these 'analogies' to Hitler and the Nazis are rare among the left is disingenuous as well.

I try not to compare liberals to communists in favor of arguing that their ideas are socialist, or at least leaning that direction.

And, I think you are reading only what you want to read by suggesting I am trying to "silence" anyone. Dissent! Disagree! But to suggest that our present "abhorant political structure" comes even close to what the Nazis did is, in my opinion extreme overstatement and offensive to the memories of those who were truly persecuted, rather than those of us with enough time and wealth to sit around and argue on computer weblogs.

WolfPack said...

I googled "Bush Hitler" and got 2,800,000 hits in .25 seconds. Of the ones I read most concerned comparisons of Bush to Hitler. Now Wulfgar is not required to base his opinions on facts or spend the .25 seconds it takes to find them, lest he might attain right-wing enlightenment.

Anonymous said...

GeeGuy you may want to follow-up your reading on Auschwitz with "Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz", that tells how surviving Polish Jews, having escaped the fate of 90 percent of their community, returned to their homeland to be vilified, terrorized and, in some 1,500 instances, murdered, sometimes in ways as bestial as anything the Nazis had devised.

For David Margolick's New York Times review of "Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland After Auschwitz", by Jan T. Gross, please go here.

David Margolick, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is the author, most recently, of "Beyond Glory: Joe Louis vs. Max Schmeling, and a World on the Brink".

Anonymous said...

It's good to be aware of mankind's ability to be inhumane to other members of mankind. We can be inhuman individually as well as collectively. But what are the lessons to learn from these atrocities?

I suspect the allusions of Bush's leadership to that of Hitler refer more to the 1937 Hitler rather than the 1944 Hitler. Generally, but not always, a group sacrifices its humanity gradually.

Having someone else to blame for an atrocity seems to alleviate a sense of personal (and collective) responsibility. Is there a lesson to be learned from the Holocaust that can be applied to us, either individually or collectively or both?

The genocide in 1994 Rwanda, is still continuing, invisibly, today in the Congo and neighboring states although at a slower pace. Do we as individuals or as Americans have any responsibility there? Or in Dafur? Or in the northern part of Central African Republic? Or numerous other invisible places with invisible (disposable) people?

Romeo Dallaire posed the question “Are we all human or are some more human than others?”

The answers to the questions are complex, but for the most part we (individually and collectively) don’t appear to be trying too hard to find workable solutions.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I remember a Times (?) poll during the Watergate era to identify the most hated man in history.

Nixon was number one. Hitler, Stalin, and Attila were distant also rans.

Was that mass insanity, mob mentality, or what?

GeeGuy said...

Um, I took a geography class once when I was a freshman.

Does that count?

GeeGuy said...

I wasn't trying to knock you, Norseman. Just tryin' to bring a little levity to the conversation...

If it's possible to bring levity to a conversation about Auschwitz.

GeeGuy said...

What's the MCA?

Anonymous said...

Wulfgar - Your immediate rush to avenge any perceived slight seems to impart a shallow mind, something that I know you aren't really guilty of. But the fact is that there is a significant difference between GWB and Hitler, and to combine them is to cause Hitler to be raised up and his crimes diminished. For what purpose is that?
I have stood on the grounds of Dachau where, even after all of the barracks had been removed, you can't help but feel that this is one of those portals to Hell. Maybe Abu Ghraib is another such portal. But the comparison of American soldiers who were acting without authority or direction to the planned and systematic destruction of 10,000 people a day is not only factually incorrect, but it diminishes the crimes of the Nazis in the very same act. This is not to say that you are trying to mitigate what the Nazis had done, but linking them to a few rogues is way out of line and reason.
Even the Military Commissions Act is not nearly horrific as you seem to want to paint it. I suggest that we follow the Geneva Conventions and execute anyone who is carrying out military operations without wearing a distinctive uniform, or using hospitals, schools or mosques to engage the enemy. All of these are war crimes. As such, they can all be punished by summary execution.
That would eliminate the need for any such commissions. Would that make you feel better?

GeeGuy said...

Wulfgar, I'm going to jump in here. I do not profess to be an expert on the Military Commission Act (MCA) or even to have researched the subject in detail. But I have looked at the act with specific reference to the complaints you lodge.

First, you engage in a "clever bit of sleight of hand." Most of your argument refers to "enemy combatants," but from what I can see some of your complaints are directed against what the law defines as "unlawful enemy combatants," as distinguished from "lawful enemy combatants."

More important, though, you argue that any one of us can be seized at any time, held without rights or due process and, presumably, killed by firing squad on orders from the President. I guess I just don't see it.

First, only "alien unlawful enemy combatants" are subject to trial by the Military Commissions. (Sec. 948c) Thus, no American citizens or foreign soldiers who are sworn in allegiance to another nation are subject to these trials.

As far as no due process, it appears that even "unlawful enemy combatants" will get lawyers at their trials. (Sec. 948k(a)(3)) Further, the charges must be sworn, and the accused is free from self incrimination. (Sec. 948r) The accused as subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear and testify. (Sec. 949j(b))

And, finally, as far as the right to go before a court and contest one's detention (habeas corpus), that is only denied to aliens who are determined to be at war with us. (Sec. 7)

So, it seems to me that people who are found to be engaging in war against us have certain limited rights. If they are non-citizens, their rights are curtailed to a greater degree.

Let's consider the alternative. Would you suggest that if we have prisoners of war they should each be entitled to lawyers (at our expense) to go to court and challenge their status (habeas corpus) and have full due process rights in U.S. Federal Court? Are you suggesting that, for example, German POW's during World War II could have filed habeas corpus petitions in U.S. Federal Courts with taxpayer provided attorneys?

I'm not trying to pick a battle with you here, Wulfgar, because as I said, I am no expert. But tell me where I am going wrong. I just can't seem to find the part about dragging the arrogant guy from Vermont out of his house.

Anonymous said...

Geeguy, good coverage of the MCA, especially with regards to the provisions of counsel for the accused. Once again facts dispel fear, thank you.

But Wulfgar, your cheap shot:

"She orders her minority minions (they're always minorities, aren't they?) to arrest Limbaugh, Colter, Moore ... anyone that might stand against her. Those poor folk all get 'renditioned' to camps somewhere, and have no recourse whatsoever to argue their case. After all, they're enemy combattants. That's the whole point of the MCA. It's to thwart an enemy that can remain hidden. But if we give the Executive branch the power to remain hidden while hiding those who wished to remain hidden, then we offer unlimited power to those who may use it against us. Bush may not, Clinton may not. But someone will."

is way out of line. Why your emphasis on "minorities" as the agents of illegal activities. You don't really believe that they would follow such unconstitutional orders just because they are minorities do you?
Oh, wait, it must have been a cheap shot implying that I am a racist. Thanks, but I will decline your attempt to make me into a "monster." The use of allegations of racisim in order to quiet debate reminds me of Cynthia McKinney. I realy don't think you want to be associated with that do you?
If Bush really was the dictator that you claim him to be, why would he allow the Democrats to win both houses of Congress? Is he a totalitarian, or is he a wannabe that is incompetent? Or is your hyperbole just that?