Thoughts on Eichmann in Jerusalem, and the New England Holocaust Memorial
Original Publication Date: 2018–01–05
I.
I read Eichmann in Jerusalem, by the famous philosopher and political scientist Hannah Arendt, in around April this year. The book discusses a prominent Nazi involved in the Holocaust, Adolf Eichmann, and his trial in 1961. Eichmann’s job was overseeing the deportation and transport of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps. Arendt profiles Eichmann as being psychologically rather unexceptional. To her, Eichmann seemed more like an office worker than a killer, coining the phrase “the banality of evil” in describing him.
II.
I wanted to read this book after reading a review of it by Scott Alexander, one of my favourite bloggers. After reading such an interesting review I was disappointed to discover I didn’t like Arendt’s writing style all that much. Her prose is very dry, and it was a real slog finishing the book.
I hadn’t thought about the book or the book’s ideas since finishing it, but I was reminded of it recently when walking the Freedom Trail in Boston. The Trail highlights the key locations associated with the beginning of the Revolutionary War and US independence from Britain. Close to Paul Revere’s house, right next to the Freedom Trail, is a Holocaust Memorial. In 1995, a number of Holocaust survivors living in Boston worked with the Town to create the Memorial, which has endured a number of acts of vandalism since then.
The Memorial is beautiful. It consists of six green, hollow glass towers. Each tower represents one million of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. Inscribed on each tower and the surrounding headstones are quotes from survivors. Under each tower lies a grate, and steam comes from underneath your feet as you walk through each tower. On the day I saw the Memorial, it was around negative twenty degrees Celsius and snowing. It was surreal to read the inscriptions with numb, freezing hands, and gas all around me.
III.
Several of the more interesting points made by Arendt were also made at the Memorial. Firstly, that several countries under Nazi control in Europe managed to resist exterminating their Jews, such as Denmark and Bulgaria. Resisting the will of the Nazis was very hard, but it could be done. Secondly, that the US and the Allies were aware that the Holocaust was going on from as early as 1942, and didn’t do anything. Now, a fair response to this is that the Allies couldn’t have done anything meaningful to prevent the Holocaust. Hitler wanted to exterminate as many Jews as possible, and over the course of the war he had access to a lot of Jews. Short of winning the war earlier, the Allies couldn’t have done anything.
This is a plausible view, but I think it is clearly false. As Arendt outlines, the Nazi objective wasn’t strictly to kill as many Jews as possible. The Nazi objective, at least originally, was to remove Jews from Germany. During their time in control of Germany, the Nazis slowly escalated the level of violence involved in achieving this goal; starting with an official endorsement of Jewish emigration and discriminatory measures levied only at Jews (1933–1939), to forcibly moving the entire Jewish population into concentration camps and ghettos (1939–1941), and eventually extermination (1941–1945). Wartime developments such as the British naval blockade of Germany eventually made the removal of Jews from Germany and Nazi controlled Europe infeasible. Eichmann actually published one well-known plan for forced removal of the Jews: the Madagascar Plan.
So, why did emigration fail to resolve the “Jewish question?” Well, one major reason was immigration restrictions in the US and other Allied nations. The flow of refugees out of Germany in the 1930s was so large that President Roosevelt convened a 1938 meeting specifically to deal with the problem. Out of 32 countries represented (Australia included) only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept more refugees.
If this historical account is correct (1, 2), the US and other Allied countries bear some responsibility for the scale of the Holocaust. Considerably more open Allied immigration policy would almost certainly have reduced the numbers of Jews murdered in concentration camps. It’s not like the Jews didn’t want to emigrate; halfway through 1939 over three hundred thousand German, Austrian and Czech Jews had applied for the twenty seven thousand spots available in the US for Jews. For reference, there were roughly 1.2 million Jews living in those three countries in 1933. Approximately twenty-five percent, then, were trying to escape to the US through official channels in 1939. (Sources: 1,2)
By 1941, with coincidentally the year the Final Solution began in earnest, the US had basically closed its borders to Jews. It would take until 1948 for the US to pass the Displaced Persons Act and reemerge as a feasible destination for Jewish people. Ultimately, from 1933–1945 only around 200 000 Jews were admitted to the US. If the US had allowed in twenty seven thousand Jews per year (the maximum amount established in 1924 by Congress), around three hundred and twenty thousand Jews would have been granted asylum.
IV.
The citizens of 18th-century Boston were right to fight against taxation without representation, and for the principle of freedom from an oppressive government. US citizens in the 20th century should have fought for an increased Jewish refugee intake, and for the principle of freedom of movement.
V.
The Memorial closes with the Niemoller poem:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
It’s a beautiful, timeless poem, but it doesn’t naturally translate to thinking about forced migration. Excuse my heresy in tampering with such a hallowed piece of writing, but consider this slightly altered version:
First they abandoned the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they abandoned the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they abandoned the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they abandoned me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
I don’t believe I need to spell out the implications for Australia’s current refugee policy, or what would happen if one day Australia is invaded, and large numbers of Australians need to flee the country.
