Assess Forms Of Jewish Resistance By Jewish Organisations In Nazi Occupied Europe Between 1940 And 1945 And How Have They Been Seen By Scholars?

During the Holocaust, up to 6 million Jews lost their lives at the hands of National Socialism. Historiography concerning the Holocaust has seen many topical debates such as the Functionalist vs. Intentionalist debate incorporating in who to blame in construction of the mass genocide, moreover debate arose from Daniel Goldhangen s Hitler s Willing Executioners, as to the psych of the men committing such atrocities.[1] However, one field of Holocaust study that remains largely undernourished, encompassing a lack of general consensus on the topic, is Jewish resistance. This can be attributed to many factors: the lack of evidence, the ambiguous terminology, the Western as opposed to Jewish perspective. In 2001, the Holocaust Encyclopaedia defined Jewish resistance, this definition furthering the question that has remained at the core of debate about Jewish resistance since 1945, why did Jews not resist more? Hence, building upon what scholars refer to as the passivity myth. [2] Clearly the issue of Jewish resistance and the supposed lack of it from 1940-45 still holds the common consensus that Jews failed in organised forms of resistance. The purpose of this essay will be to prove otherwise, conveying the success of Jewish resistance during the period 1940-1945. Although proving this claim involves a number of complex steps, engaging in critical debates concerning the definition of resistance and Jewish. Moreover, tracing back Jewish organisations, further assessing their significance in Nazi Occupied Europe.

Historiography from the 1950 s until the present day, interprets and applies the term resistance diversely, hence it becomes necessary to define how I will apply the term. From the 1950 s, the prevalent opinion was that the only form of organised resistance that was deemed to be of any success was armed resistance. A common trend, Phillip Friedman in 1954, glorifies the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising spanning from 19^th April to 16^th May 1943, organised by the Jewish Combat Organisation (ZOB).[3] He portrays the uprising as symbolic in overcoming tyranny, using the uprising as a paradigm as to how the whole of the Jewish community should have acted, inferring the failure of other Jewish organisations. This was not a unique view in the 1950 s, further books being published on the success of armed resistance such as Book of Jewish Partisans 1954 and Lexicon of Heroism 1956. Memoirs too, involving survivor testimony, were abundant on the topic& Shalom Grayek, Mark Edelman, David Wdowinski all focusing in on the success of the uprising.[4] All men in the memoirs were involved directly with the ZOB, hence glorification should be expected. Although, as later historians will present, the Warsaw Uprising in terms of success can be questioned it is true that 300 Nazis lost their lives however 13,000 Jews too lost their lives. If one was to measure success by survival rates, this would be a failure although this is not a method I will apply, in the instance of the Warsaw uprising, the death of 300 Nazis is better than none. Throughout historiography in the 1950 s there was clearly an absence of any other form of resistance, thus the question arises as to why armed resistance was so highly focused on? This can be partially answered by focusing on more primary accounts such as Elie Wiesel s Night, who claims that Jews post war became ashamed by their supposed lack of resistance and loss of cultural identity.[5] Armed resistance presents a direct confrontation with the enemy, which acts as a Spartan like uprising, free from a sense of shame. From this, we can understand the multitude of primary sources focusing on armed resistance rather than any other form& presenting any other form risks the label of shame or cowardice. However, a portion of secondary literature still focuses on armed resistance, Nathan Bracher in his study on French resistance in 2014 only recognises armed resistance, ignoring any other alternative.[6] This signifies that the line and definition of resistance still remains disputed.

Only recognising armed resistance created a sense of hostility between the Jewish community and historians. From the 1960 s, there was an increase in Jewish historians, counteracting the idea that only armed resistance was valid. Benzion Dinur represents the extremity of this argument, claiming the daily struggle was more important than armed resistance.[7] Dinur, may have based his argument off primary sources by Yehuda Bauer, who claims that armed resistance was never to be successful, Dinur concluding this to mean, that it would always fail thus an invalid type of resistance.[8] What Dinur represents, is something I align with, that other forms of resistance were also valid. However, needless to say, as other historians claim such as Leon Poliakov, this does not mean that armed resistance was altogether a failure.[9] Dinur underrepresents the courage evoked in armed resistance, and the loyalty to the maintenance of identity undertaken, which as historians we must remain sensitive too. Thus, the debate was introduced, as Poliakov presents, between passive and armed resistance. Passive resistance meaning non-violent opposition to authority, often with no form of cooperation.

However, this new concept of passive resistance was not met without criticism. Leni Yahil claimed that passive resistance was not a form of resistance, although this view is not so prevalent within historiography now.[10] Yahil alongside Yehudi Lindeman, focus on the topic of Danish Jewry discussing the success of specific organisations such as Group CS-6 (a university group, who successfully derailed trains).[11] With the Danes saving over 96% of their Jewish population, passive resistance was less visible, although she remains significant in recognising rescue as a form of resistance.[12] Moreover, in the 1960 s, not only was type of resistance questioned, but defining resistance in a time frame, introduced by Hillel Kieval stating resistance in France only occurred when homes were invaded, acts before this were not resistance, suggesting passive resistance to be a fallacy.[13] With the ever-growing lack of clarity upon the definition of resistance, the Yad Vashem Conference was called in 1968, continuing until 2012. The debate incorporated two key arguments, Steinberg arguing the definition of resistance should be narrowed and not be inclusive of all acts.[14] Alternatively, Isiah Trunk claimed the definition of resistance needed to be broadened to include acts of sabotage, rescue etc.[15] Although the conference, significant in concluding armed resistance was not the only form of resistance, it was also an instigator to further debate and discrepancies. The conference still placed most success and emphasis on armed resistance. What this presents, is a hierarchical structure of resistance, undermining other forms of resistance. Agreeing with Michael Marrus, this presents a historical methodology flaw, to judge resistance by its type remains outdated presenting a lack of research.[16] In actual fact, as historians, we should also assess resistance based on context. When judging primary sources, not only do we judge them based on their type, but their context in assessing their usage and validity, thus a method that should be applied to the study of resistance. Armed resistance was not always possible, a view that is supported by an array of primary sources, Yehuda Bauer as already discussed makes this point. More so, Yitzhak Arad & a Jewish partisan clarifies that regarding resistance collectively is an impossible task.[17] The conditions in concentration camps such as Dachau in Poland, were different to conditions in occupied Belgium, presenting different contexts as well as different aims. Hence how can we assess how successful armed resistance was, to an objective definition despite differing contexts. This form of methodology needs to be avoided throughout historiography of organised Jewish resistance, as it doesn t present a clear image of the event.

The late 1980 s and the 1990 s saw a revelation, that caused a significant turn in historiography. The publication of Isaac Kowalski s four volume Anthology on Jewish Resistance in 1986 presented primary documents (originally lacking), that portrayed a diversity of resistance than just armed resistance. The concept of resistance as rescue was bought to light. Avihu Ronen recognised the significance of rescue from Jewish organisations, such as Oeuvre de Secours aux Enfants, which aided in rescuing hundreds of Jewish children in France from being sent to gas chambers, a clear success.[18] Nancy Lefenfeld develops this idea through secondary literature, focusing on French resistance, &commenting on the success of the Amelot Street Committee in who rescued 1000 children.[19] Examples alone are not just limited to France, Dieter Kuntz draws our attention to rescue missions in Vienna including the organisation Circle of Pioneers, who while also rescuing children (the demographic most prevalent in rescue missions) also provided aid and continued the running of Jewish hospitals, by nurses and groups risking their lives to leave hospitals and collect medicine. [20] As such, one can conclude that the various rescue missions were a huge success. Not only did the anthology place rescue into the category of resistance, but also placed a lot of emphasis on the underground movements organised by Jews throughout Nazi-occupied territory. Underground movements, due to their secrecy, are often less presented through primary sources and were not discussed until later after the war. Underground movements ranged in their location, however still all presented a form of success. The anthology presents memoirs from Moshe Kahanowitz, who was involved in the underground movement in Ivic Ghetto.[21] This account is significant, because it presents that many underground movements achieved their aims of remaining secret. The rise of publication on underground movements, led to further memoirs. Rafi Benshalom in 2001, writes and presents oral interviews on his time as leader of the Hashomer Hatzir in Hungary, an organisation that receives increasing attention, due to its global status.[22] The success of this organisation is unprecedented, the Romanian sect were arrested and executed. However, this was the only part of Nazi-occupied territories where this happened, in the Warsaw they saw the formation of Group 13, otherwise known as the Jewish Gestapo. Overall the organisation encompassed 70,000 members worldwide yet managed to maintain their secrecy and Jewish identity. This is an example of an extremely large Jewish organisation and its successes. In hindsight, the majority of underground organisations presented a huge success& overall 100 underground movements are now known to have taken place in ghettos and camps even including the circulation of underground newspapers such as Unzer Wort and Unzer Kamp in Belgium. This demonstrates the impeccability of their collaborative effort, presenting to the historian a wider field of resistance movements to study, retracting from the original assumption posing a lack of resistance.

The term resistance has seen an evolution in its meaning, even to the present day new forms of resistance are still emerging. Recent debate has focused on the role of the Judenrat (Jewish Councils) and the rise of a spiritual resistance, both in their preliminary phase of debate. However, I feel it necessary to reinforce and expand on an earlier point. Historiography has been shaped by forms of resistance, and as to how we should classify resistance in terms of armed resistance, rescue and passive resistance. This retains a limited scope, and is in some respects a poor way of defining and assessing resistance, it undermines the aims and context of Jewish resistance. As historians, it is our role to contextualise, hence when assessing a form of resistance, we must consider its aims and results. Following this line, resistance , rather than encompassing the definition of opposing the enemy in a particular way, should actually mean opposing tyranny in any way possible within a certain setting, a point that Yahil later picks up on.[23] To illustrate further, discrediting a smaller act of resistance, based on saving or rescuing less people, or resulting in more Jews killed, is an insult to the group committing the action. For they may have been under much harsher restrictions, and that small act of resistance may have been much more difficult to accomplish than an act of bigger resistance. For say, an act in occupied Hungary may have saved more lives than an uprising in the Vilna Ghetto, however the conditions in Vilna in 1943 were much harsher than those in Hungary in 1941. This issue is still one prevalent throughout historiography, a method I wish to avoid.

The problem of defining resistance through strands, has led to the rise of the passivity myth, presenting a direct attack on the Jewish community involved in the Holocaust. The debate poses the question, why did the Jews not resist more? In extreme cases, claiming there was no resistance from Jews at all. The origins of this myth, as Deborah Lippstadt inquires, dates back to the Eichmann Trial in 1961.[24] Hannah Arendt s book The Banality of Evil which covers the trial, created the perception that the Jews went like lambs to the slaughter, [25] overall implying that Jews actively and knowingly went to their death. This view is typical of the 1960 s in aligning with a number of historians, such as Raul Hilberg and Bruno Bettelheim. Although the key protagonists in this debate, align within the same category, their reasons for doing so vary. Moreover, the supposedly strong points posed by the argument, are also essentially flawed, as will be discussed in the next part of this essay.

Hilberg and Bettelheim present the extremities of the passivity myth, arguing the absence of any Jewish resistance.[26] A point both men bring forth, is the lack of organised resistance before the Jews entered the gas chambers. Although such a point lacks historical research and contextualisation. Taking the case of Auschwitz, upon arrival at the selection platform, 90% were headed straight for the gas chambers, masked with the perception they were heading for the shower. Contextualising this encompassing a Jewish as opposed to Western perspective the Jews were in unfamiliar territory, with no indication of their fate, exhausted from the gruelling journey they had made and emotionally exhausted. Hence, I question, why would the Jews create a unified uprising? Would collaboration not have seemed the best option? Would the offer of a shower have been appealing? Although, in cases where Jews did recognise their fate, a form of organised resistance did occur in several cases. M ller s primary account signifies the singing of Hungarian songs, but this makes no difference. [27] Although it was impossible for a Jew to escape gas chambers, there was a collective effort to maintain their identity and culture, through such an act. Placing this in context, this was the only demonstration of resistance that they could undertake. Hence, the assessing of resistance must be relative to the setting and context and an act of resistance. Moreover, it must be asserted the amount of primary accounts that describe the scenes prior to gassing, are highly limited, as many who experienced the gas chambers, died shortly after.

Hilberg would not classify the above example as an act of resistance, for he identifies with the prevalent claim of the 1950 s that armed resistance is the only form of resistance which already holds inherent historical issues, as it narrows the diversity of sources available.[28] Bettelheim claims that Jews made no effort to make things hard for the enemy, thus shifting responsibility to the Jews, referring to the Holocaust as a Jewish suicide. [29] Bettelheim s argument can be regarded as lacking periphery. He targets the Jews, failing to acknowledge that other groups too were involved in the Holocaust, such as homosexuals, Communists, gypsies, all groups we rarely hear examples of resistance from. Thus, as Robert Paxton rectifies, there was no less resistance from Jews than other groups, making the myth a uniquely Jewish matter.[30] Arendt is not so extreme in her claims she acknowledges forms of organised resistance, but claims they were weak, unorganised and leaderless.[31] In some cases Arendt could be correct, in Camilla Neumann s memoir, she draws upon the lack of communication.[32] However, to claim something was unorganised poses the question was there any means that allowed a group to become organised? Using Camilla Neumann s memoir, it become apparent that ghettos had a lack of communicative means, hence to expect a large amount of organisation would be absurd. Moreover, despite such difficulties, there were examples of organised resistance, that were in fact organised with a hierarchical structure. The Treblinka Uprising, was composed by the

Jewish Councils were administrative organisations based within ghettos, the actual role of these councils remains disputed, although primary sources lead the historian to believe they drew up deportation lists and so on. Doran Rabinovoci inquires more into the position of Jewish Councils, demonstrating opposition to Arendt and Hilberg. Placing Vienna in context, Anschluss took place in 1938, with the Final Solution beginning in 1941. Thus, Jews in Vienna were the one of the first targets of deportations. Inferring from this, Jewish Councils in Vienna were not aware of the outcome of deportation lists they were drawing up. Moreover, with the already terrible conditions within ghettos, they would not have assumed much worse could be possible. Underlying this, the pressure exerted onto the Jewish Councils, through blackmail or bribery, may have seemed worse than collaboration with no other possible alternative& as historians, it is our role to consider external influences. Needless to say, attempting to pose blame on Jewish Councils becomes meaningless. Rabinovoci suggests that Jewish Councils were insignificant, referencing them as kultsgemeinde, meaning authority with no power. This is supported by Camilla Neumann s memoir 1942, stating that the SS did not often use or listen to drafts, they ignored the Council s attempt to save particular Jews, and deported them regardless. Thus in such cases the blame cannot be shifted onto the Jews, instead remains with the perpetrators.

This lacks sense, for the debate discusses Jewish resistance, yet has failed to acknowledge sources in Yiddish or Hebrew, the two predominant languages in Jewish culture. Hence, I place increased emphasis on Isaac Kowalski s anthology, for it uses such sources, drawing much more valid and concluding arguments, opening up new debates within historiography. The extent of Jewish resistance will never be fully known, as the aims of such organisations were to remain secret, meanwhile many involved in such activities are now deceased. Drawing from this view, as historians we can only conceive that there was more organised resistance in the Holocaust than we already know about, rather than vice versa. Thus, the argument forwarding a lack of resistance, from Arendt, Hilberg and Bettelheim, becomes falsified.

This debate was prevalent within the 1980 s, Georges Wellers studied the French underground movement, which compromised both Jews and Communists, concluding the movement to be classed as Jewish resistance. However, others have opposed this standpoint.

Her conclusion being that organisations in France should not be labelled Jewish. The issue Latour incorporates, is that many involved in resistance movements throughout occupied territory were not real Jews, but Jews who did not practice tradition and had assimilated into society. Thus, they had already lost their cultural identity. From this she claims, such Jews only came to aid other Jews due to a rising Jewish solidarity throughout Europe, perceiving themselves to be victimised too. Susanne Vromen discusses Belgian resistance recognising the success of organisations however acknowledges organisations had strong links to Communism, thus demonstrating Latour s view.

This view should be expected from Foxman, having been saved by a Polish Catholic family, thus acknowledging other nationalities role in resistance. Looking at other examples, such as Steven Bowman s study of Greece, Jewish resistance was seen as invaluable to the resistance effort. Moreover, high ranking Jewish Chaplain, Rabbi Judach Nadich witnessed the role of Jewish men in resistance in Italy, as they completed the most dangerous missions. Foxman uses the example of Belgium to further his view, whereby a rescue mission composed by Jews and non-Jews saved 3000 children. To claim this was not an act of organised Jewish resistance would be discrediting the Jewish role in the success of resistance.

in France. I pose the argument that the merge of Jews into other organisations was a tactful move, allowing increased success of resistance. Joining One hundred Jews were involved in this movement, others being from different groups of society. They successfully derailed links to Chelm, Lublin and Warsaw, all major links to concentration camps. How this becomes tactful is explained by Moshe Kahanowitz, another Jewish partisan involved in underground movements. In 1968, he responds to the Later he asserts only when the Russian partisan movement began to take shape that an avenue opened up for Jewish young people. Thus he implies the Jews had no other options than to join other partisan units. Needless to say, Jews did attempt to create their own separate partisan units, demonstrated in , a Jewish partisan movement portrays this need, as due to its lack of non-Jews throughout the organisation, they failed to obtain resources, failed in sabotage and resistance on a whole. Thus, it remains evident that Jewish organisations joined other organisations to help in their means to resist. Kahanowitz here can be credited for placing the organisations in a wider context, understanding the motives behind their unification. Had Jews not united with other groups, they would not have been nearly as successful. Yet they still maintain the label as Jewish organisation, as they made a conscious group decision to join other organisations.

, whereby he acknowledges success of resistance in other camps. He presents the case in Jwaniska, involving an underground Jewish movement smuggling in weapons, battling SS officers under the terms self-defence. Similarly, in Pilicia, several Jewish organisations such as Hashomer Hatzair and Paolei Zion unified, involving 60 people, who hid weapons and created bunkers, resulting in an armed fight between SS men and the Jews. Historians often fail to recognise other uprisings and movements from within the camps and ghettos, due to the focus on Warsaw Ghetto Uprising.

Organisations made this plausible and obtainable, as evident in Henny Durmashkin Gurko s memoir. Here, he discusses his role in orchestrating ghetto choirs. Choirs who sang in Hebrew, as an effort to maintain cultural identity. He further discusses the formation of a theatre company throughout camps and ghettos. Although not seeming to be a direct form of resistance, it can be classified as such, for it opposed what the Nazis wanted, which was the eradication of all Jewish culture. Moreover, in Phillipe Sands When singing in Hebrew to Nazi officials in Paris, often made insulting jokes and references to the Nazi s without them realising, mocking them. Thus, the cultural resistance here can certainly be validated as a successful form of organised Jewish resistance.