View the h-holocaust Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-holocaust's March 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-holocaust's March 1997 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-holocaust home page.
Many thanks to Nathan Stolzfus for his reply. The convolutions of Nazi policy regarding the Mischlinge can certainly make this issue a confusing one, and I thank him for clarifying some of these problems. I'd like to ask a follow-up question, if I may. Since my original posting, I have found a source in Saul Friedlaender's _Nazi Germany and the Jews_, published just recently. In it, he quotes a book by Wilhelm Stuckart and Hans Globke (both worked in the Reichsinnen- ministerium) written in 1936, which aimed at demystifying some of the Nuremberg Laws' more obfuscating sections. Allow me to quote Friedlaender at some length: "In order to illustrate the absolute validity of religious affiliation as the criterion for identifying the race of the descendents, Stuckart and Globke gave the hypothetical example of a woman, fully German by blood, who had married a Jew and converted to Judaism and then, having been widowed, returned to Christianity and married a man fully German by blood. A grandchild deriving from this second marriage would, according to the law, be considered partly Jewish because of the grandmother's one-time religious affiliation as a Jew. Stuckart and Globke could not but state the following corollary: 'Attention has to be given to the fact that ... [in] terms of racial belonging, a full-blooded German who converted to Judaism is to be considered as German-blooded after that conversion as before it; but in terms of the racial belonging of his grandchildren, he is to be considered a full Jew'." (p. 152) Strange indeed. As Friedlaender himself says, "The racial mutation caused by such temporary contact with the Jewish religion is mysterious enough ... an ephemeral change in environment mysteriously causes the most lasting biological transformation." (p. 152). But what we take from this passage is that, under the Nuremberg Laws, "Aryan" converts TO Judaism were not THEMSELVES considered Jewish. Here is my problem, however: according to Raul Hilberg, such German-blooded converts to Judaism WERE INDEED considered Jewish. In his _The Destruction of the European Jews_, he writes: "... there are a few very curious cases in which a person with _four_ German grandparents was classified as a Jew because he belonged to the Jewish religion. In its decision one court pointed out that Aryan treatment was to be accorded to persons who had the 'racial' requisites, 'but that in cases when the individual involved feels bound to Jewry in spite of his Aryan blood, and shows this fact externally, his attitude is decisive'"(p. 77). It would seem from Hilberg's example that this would have contravened the Nazis' own stipulation that race was determined by the GRANDPARENTS' religion, not one's own religion. How do we reconcile these two conflicting interpretations? As far as I'm aware, the Nazis DID obey their own laws, certainly in the Altreich. For instance, we know that Mischlinge were never part of the "Final Solution" throughout the war, notwithstanding the personal views of "hard-liners" like Heydrich who wanted first-degree Mischlinge classified as full Jews. Hilberg's examples (he provides evidence of other such cases) seem to point to an instance where the Nuremberg Laws were not adhered to. Do we know what exactly the Nuremberg Laws themselves had to say about "Aryan" converts to Judaism? On a related topic, you also make the argument that, regarding the treatment of Mischlinge, Nazi ideology took second place to practical contingencies. You use the example of Nazi hard-liners wanting to qualify half-Jews as full-Jews to show that other factors won the day on this issue over ideology. I wonder, however, if this may not also be regarded as a case of ambivalence WITHIN Nazi ideology. For instance, the same racialist rationale prompting Heydrich and others to catergorize half-Jews as full Jews was used to argue for the protection of half-Jews. According to Noakes, "... in [Stuckart's] view ... the deportation of the half-Jews would involve giving their German genes to Germany's enemies and thereby providing them with future leaders" (Noakes, "Nazi Policy towards German-Jewish 'Mischlinge'", _LBIYB_, 346). Even if we were to argue that somehow Heydrich was a more ardent Nazi than Stuckart, the fact remains that the logic of this argument is still based on the notion of hereditary character and the primacy of race: hence its validity for ideologues like Heydrich would have been that much harder to refute. And indeed, Stuckart's interpretation won the day, even when extermination replaced deportation as the "solution". Similarly, if the Nazis' desire to maintain the German family unit may have counteracted the drive to label all half-Jews as full Jews, may this not also be the result of an ambivalence WITHIN Nazi ideology -- namely, the importance of the German family unit to the "Volksgemeinschaft" versus the need to eliminate even the smallest Jewish influence -- instead of the subordination of ideology to other, more "practical" factors? Richard Steigmann-Gall University of Toronto