A cowardly success: The Final Solution as a reaction to German failure in war

WAR & CONFLICT BOOK ERA:  PRISONERS

Holocaust historian Timothy Snyder advances an interesting and plausible hypothesis about some of the motivations behind the Final Solution. Snyder also believes that the accelerated timing of the plan to annihilate European Jews arose from Himmler’s and Heydrich’s efforts to compensate for the (partial) German failure in the war against the Soviet Union. When it became clear that the plan to conquer, starve and enslave the people of the Soviet Union was not moving as quickly as Hitler anticipated and desired, Snyder argues, “Heydrich and Himmler were able to turn the unfavorable battlefield situation to their advantage, by reformulating the Final Solution so that it could be carried out during a way that was not going according to plan. They understood that the war was becoming, as Hitler began to say in August 1941, a “war against the Jews. Himmler and Heydrich saw the elimination of the Jews as their task” (Bloodlands, 188).

When he attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941, Snyder elaborates, Hitler and his henchmen had in mind a dystopic plan for the East:

1) attacking and conquering quickly the Soviet Union;

2) implementing a Hunger Plan that would blockade and starve entire areas of the Soviet Union, causing the deaths of over 30 million people;

3) a Final Solution that would eliminate all Jews after the war was won, and

4) a Generalplan Ost in which native Germans would colonize the western part of the Soviet Union and enslave its people for the German economy

Competing for Hitler’s favor (and for power) with Göring, Himmler started implementing these objectives in 1941. The Hunger Plan, however, didn’t work as effectively as the Nazis had hoped. It achieved only partial success in Leningrad, parts of Belarus and the Ukraine. Overall, the conquest of the Soviet Union was taking longer than anticipated. According to Snyder, “As these utopias waned, political futures depended upon the extraction of what was feasible from the fantasies” (Bloodlands, 187). So Himmler and Heydrich, eager to prove their “courage” and resourcefulness in the face of Germany’s partial failure on the military front, engaged in an act of ultimate cowardice: He ordered the ruthless mass murder of all the Jews in the conquered territories in the Soviet Union, and soon afterward in most of Nazified Europe.

Himmler personally travelled to the Soviet Union in June 1941 to make it clear to the Waffen SS troops and to the Order Police battalions that they needed to kill not only Jewish men—all of whom he labeled as “Communist partisans”–but also Jewish women and children. Himmler and Heydrich worked closely together, engaging in a kind of division of labor of genocide. Heydrich made arrangements for the Final Solution in Berlin, while Himmler managed the administrative details to carry it out, directing the Waffen SS, the Einsatzgruppen and the Order Police under his control to mass shootings of Jewish civilians in the occupied regions of the Soviet Union. By August 1941, Snyder estimates, the Nazis had murdered over one million Jewish civilians in the Soviet Union. “The East,” Himmler pompously declared, “belongs to the SS” (Bloodlands, 189).

While Snyder’s hypothesis that the earlier implementation of the Final Solution had a lot to do with Germany’s partial failure in their conquest, colonization and destruction of the Soviet Union is exceptionally well argued and persuasive, this argument doesn’t take away from the fact that the Final Solution was a central goal for the Nazis regardless of German success or failure in war. The annihilation of the Jews would have no doubt happened had Nazi Germany won the war. Soviet Jews—along with the Jews of conquered nations throughout Europe–were trapped in an impossible situation by Nazi ideology itself, for which anti-Semitism and the annihilation of the Jews was a central priority.

Claudia Moscovici, Literature Salon

Comments Off

Filed under Claudia Moscovici Holocaust Memory, Himmler's plans for the Final Solution, Nazi Germany, the Holocaust, Timothy Snyder Bloodlands

Hitler’s 1936 Berlin Olympics: Review of The Boys in the Boat

The US Olympic rowing team in 1936

 

In 1936 Hitler held the Summer Olympics in Berlin, having won the bid for the event over Barcelona. He spared no expense to impress the world with the prowess and superiority of Nazi Germany. He built six gymnasiums, numerous arenas and an enormous track and field stadium (state of the art for its time) with a capacity of 100,000 seats. He commissioned his favorite filmmaker, Leni Riefenstahl, to create a documentary about the event, called Olympia, which highlighted the talent of the German athletes. The groundbreaking film employed many new techniques that would become the staple of documentaries on athletic events: including extreme close-ups, smash cuts (abrupt changes of scenes without transition), and unusual camera angles that captured the viewers’ attention. Olympia received high praise, internationally.

Daniel James Brown’s new bestselling book, The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics (New York: Penguin Books, 2014) captures this historic event from an American perspective. The book focuses in particular on the point of view of Joe Rantz, a poor boy from Seattle abandoned by his father and stepmother at a young age and left to fend for himself.

Brown’s prose, reminiscent of another bestseller about this era—Laura Hillenbrand’s Unbroken—captures with simplicity, eloquence and pathos Joe’s tribulations with his dysfunctional family; his long-lasting love with Joyce, his loyal teenage sweetheart, and the arduous practice with his teammates in preparation for the Olympics.

Offering an engaging perspective on the sport of rowing and a slice of life into the Great Depression in the U.S., The Boys in the Boat also captures especially well the moment in European history when the Nazi regime consolidated power and gained international recognition.

By 1936, Hitler had already instituted the Nuremberg Race Laws in Germany. In 1935, at the annual Nazi party rally held in Nuremberg, he had announced laws that defined the racial concept of a “Jew” and a half-Jew”, excluded German Jews from citizenship, prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with Aryans, and imposed numerous economic sanctions and restrictions on German Jews.

The implications of the Nuremberg laws extended to the 1936 Olympics. Hitler desired to ban Jews and black people from the Olympic games. The official Nazi newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter, explicitly declared that these groups should not be allowed to participate in the Olympic Games in Berlin. Once several nations objected to this racism and threatened to boycott the Olympics, however, Hitler relented. He abandoned the racial prohibitions at the event and even allowed a half-Jewish German woman—Helene Mayer—to participate on the German team. He also ordered the temporary removal of discriminatory signs such as “Jews not wanted” from the streets of Berlin.

The Boys in the Boat delves into Nazi history and propaganda, even capturing the mutual attraction–as well as the tension and competition for Hitler’s favor–between filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Notorious for his voracious sexual appetite and affairs with young movie stars, Goebbels tries to seduce Riefenstahl following their flirtatious interactions. In several dramatically described episodes in the book, Riefenstahl rejects his advances and even complains to Hitler about his interference into her filming of the Olympics. Nonetheless, the author makes it clear that the talented filmmaker and the lecherous Minister of Propaganda share a common goal. Like Hitler, they want to see the triumph of the German athletes.

To the readers’ delight, their desires are frustrated by the unexpected victory of the underdogs. The American team wins despite all odds: despite the fact that two of their rowers fell ill before the race; despite the fact the home crowds cheered for Germany, and despite the fact they were given the worst lane. Italy gets second place and Germany comes in third. In some ways, the American athletic victory is conveyed not only as the personal triumphs of Joe Rantz and his teammates, but also as a political victory over Nazism of sorts, as Hitler is described leaving the balcony in fury over his country’s loss. The Boys in the Boat thus transforms an American personal interest story into an unforgettable part of world history.

Claudia Moscovici, Literature Salon

Comments Off

Filed under 1936 Berlin Olympics, Claudia Moscovici, Daniel James Brown, Holocaust Memory, Leni Riefenstahl, Nazi Germany, Olympia, The Boys in the Boat

Hitler’s ban on modern art: The “Degenerate Art” exhibit of 1937

DegenerateArtExhibitWikipedia

Hitler’s Ban on Modern Art: The “Degenerate Art” Exhibit of 1937

Artistic and political freedom usually go together. “Where books are burned, people are burned,” declared the poet Heinrich Heine, almost prophetically, as if anticipating the destruction of art and literature by the Nazi regime. Indeed, regimes that restrict art tend to also restrict the freedom of speech, the press: practically all areas of society and culture. This holds as true for today’s tyrannies as it did for the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Not surprisingly, ISIL—the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is responsible for publicized beheadings of innocent civilians, burning or stoning people to death, kidnapping, rapes and murder, has implemented a sharia school in Mosul, a city it controls in Northern Iraq, where it banned the teaching of art, music, history and literature.

During the Stalinist and post-Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe, Communist states instituted the reign of Socialist Realism in culture. All artistic fields—the visual and plastic arts, music, theater, film, dance and literature—became subordinated to the goal of glorifying Communist ideology and the “workers’ revolution.” In reality, of course, this meant reducing culture to a personality cult of the tyrant in power, stifling creativity and expression.

The Nazis went a step further. To spread Nazi ideology throughout German society and culture, Hitler essentially banned most modern art, which his regime called “degenerate art” (“Entartete Kunst”), viewing it as a product of Jewish or Communist cultural corruption. Ironically, the term “Entartung,” or “degeneracy”, was coined in 1892 by the Jewish author Max Nordau. It referred to the atavistic, degenerate traits of “born criminals”. When the Nazis came to power, they used the concept of “degeneracy” to describe all aspects of culture that they considered to be contaminated by “the perverse Jewish spirit” and could corrupt the Aryan race.

By 1937, the works of Europe’s most famous modern artists—Dadaists, Post-Impressionists (including Henri Matisse and Vincent Van Gogh) Expressionists (Wassily Kandinsky, Paul Klee, Marc Chagall) and Abstract Expressionists (Pablo Picasso) as well as some of the world’s leading modernist writers, such as Ernest Hemingway and Thomas Mann, were purged from museums, libraries and private collections. Over 5000 modern works of art were confiscated.

In 1937, the Nazis, under the cultural leadership of Adolf Ziegler, head of the Reich Chamber of Visual Art, and Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, created a travelling exhibit devoted to mocking so-called “degenerate art”. It was first held in Munich on July 19, 1937, then moved around to cities throughout Germany and Austria.

A large and imposing portrait of Jesus greeted the crowds. The modernist paintings were strewn around haphazardly and often left unframed, sometimes hanging only by a cord. Signs posted next to them expressed slogans intended to undermine their value, such as “Revelation of the Jewish Racial Soul,” “An Insult to German Womanhood,” “The Ideal—cretin and whore,” and “Nature as seen by sick minds.”

As Carole Strickland explains, “The object was to discredit any work that betrayed Hitler’s master race ideology; in short, anything that smacked of dangerous free-thinking. Nazi leaders considered Modernist art so threatening they prohibited children from the show and hired actors to roam the halls loudly criticizing modern art as the work of lunatics. … Price tags displayed how much public museums had paid for the works with signs “Taxpayer, you should know how your money was spent.” (The Annotated Mona Lisa, Andrew McMeel Publishing, Kansas City, 1992).

The plan to undermine modern art at the 1937 Munich “Degenerate Art” exhibit backfired. The exhibit of modernist works was, despite the heavy attack, extremely popular, attracting three million visitors. Unfortunately, in 1942 the Nazis succeeded in burning, in the gardens of the Galerie Nationale du Jeu de Paume in Paris, countless modernist works by notable artists such as Picasso, Klee, Leger and Miro. Their hatred of modern art, however, didn’t prevent them from exploiting it for financial gain. The Nazis looted museums and private collections throughout occupied Europe as a means of enriching their regime while impoverishing European culture.

Claudia Moscovici, Literature Salon

Comments Off

Filed under Claudia Moscovici, Hitler's ban on modern art, Holocaust Memory, the "Degenerate Art" exhibit of 1937, the Nazi ban of modernist art

Holocaust Memory: Beyond the Jewish Genocide

RuthMaierRandomhouse.com.au

The Holocaust refers to the genocide of nearly 6 million Jews by the Nazis and Nazi collaborators. There is no doubt that the Jews were singled out for systematic extermination. However, it is also important to keep in mind that the Nazis murdered or sent to slave labor camps millions of non-Jews as well. Over 3 million Russians died as prisoners of war and in concentration or labor camps established by the Nazis.

Max Hastings documents that by February 1942, “almost 60 percent of the 3.35 million Soviet prisoners in German hands had perished; by 1945, 3.3 million were dead out of 5.7 million taken captive. (Inferno, 488). A large percentage of Russian civilians sent to Nazi forced labor camps—170,000 out of 2.77 million workers—perished there, along with large numbers of Polish and Italian prisoners of war. (Inferno, 489).

The Nazi policy of deliberately starving the inhabitants of conquered territories—in Holland, Poland and the Soviet Union–in order to channel food and supplies to their soldiers and to native Germans led to the slow and painful deaths of millions of innocent people. Their deaths, and their suffering, are part of the Holocaust and should also be commemorated and remembered.

Auschwitz statistics tell a grim story about the Nazi regime’s countless victims. According to Max Hastings, out of the over one million Jews who arrived at the camp only 100,000 survived, against all odds. Only half of the non-Jewish Polish prisoners survived in the camp. By the end of August 1944, when the Gypsy camp was liquidated, only 2000 out of the 23,000 Gypsies incarcerated at Auschwitz made it out alive. (see Inferno, 486).

Ruth Maier, a young Jewish Austrian woman, considered this more universal dimension of the Holocaust shortly before she herself was sent to die in Auschwitz:

“If you shut yourself away and look at this persecution and torture of Jews only from the viewpoint of a Jew, then you’ll develop some sort of complex which is bound to lead to a slow but certain psychological collapse. The only solution is to see the Jewish question from a broader perspective… We’ll only be rich when we understand that it’s not just we who are a race of martyrs. That beside us there are countless others suffering, who will suffer like us until the end of time… if we don’t … fight for a better…” (cited in The Diary of Ruth Maier, translated by Jamie Bulloch, Vintage Books 2010).

Ruth didn’t finish her sentence. She perished in Auschwitz on December 1, 1942. In 2010, her diary appeared in an English translation by Jamie Bulloch under the title of Ruth Maier’s Diary: A Jewish Girl’s Life in Nazi Europe. Some have compared her writing to that of Hannah Arendt and Susan Sontag. Others have likened it to the journal of Anne Frank. Indeed, her diary offers not only an eloquent individual testimony about the Holocaust but also an important universal message: The Holocaust targeted Jews first and most, but the Nazi ethnic cleansing touched millions of lives and would have annihilated entire peoples and nations had Hitler realized his evil dreams. Ethnic hatred poisons the lives of countless people, often reaching far beyond the victims it isolates and targets first.

Claudia Moscovici, Literature Salon

Comments Off

Filed under Claudia Moscovici, Holocaust genocides, Holocaust Memory, Ruth Maier, Ruth Maier’s Diary: A Jewish Girl’s Life in Nazi Europe, the Holocaust

The siege of Leningrad: Genocide by starvation

The Great Patriotic War. Blokade of Leningrad.

The Nazi siege of Leningrad—the historic capital of tsarist Russia, Saint Petersburg–lasted for several years: It begun on September 8, 1941 and was lifted on January 27, 1944. For Lenigraders, this encirclement constituted 872 days of sheer torture; of hovering on the brink between life and death. Hundreds of thousands didn’t make it. The blockade might as well have been called genocide through starvation because it caused the deaths of an estimated one million Russians. Marshal Zhukov, sent by Stalin to save the city, followed the dictator’s orders not to retreat. But, to the Russian’s surprise, the Germans didn’t advance much either. Hitler decided to kill the inhabitants of Leningrad in a slow, tortuous way by strangling all of their supply routes and starving a population of 2.5 million. He planned to wipe out the inhabitants, then raze Leningrad to the ground and hand over the area to his Finnish allies.

This genocide by starvation was therefore a premeditated decision–a crime against humanity–not an indirect or incidental result of a siege during war. According to historian Max Hastings, Hitler consulted Professor Ernst Zigelemeyer, in charge of the Munich Institute of Nutrition—to find out how much food (and calories) the average person requires to live. Zigelemeyer informed him that the Soviet government would not be able to provide Lenigraders with more than 8.8 grams of bread daily, which wouldn’t be sufficient for the majority to survive the siege. Hitler thus concluded: “It’s not worth risking the lives of our troops. The Leningraders will die anyway. It is essential not to let a single person through our front line. The more of them that stay there, the sooner they will die, and then we will enter the city without trouble, without losing a single German soldier” (Inferno, Vintage Books, 2012). His demonic plan almost worked.

Within months, tens of thousands of people perished from hunger and cold. Within a few weeks of the siege, the city was left without its coal and oil supplies, and thus without heat. Within a few months, the water supplies froze, resulting in much quicker deaths from thirst. The desperate population began hunting and eating birds and rats. Household pets weren’t safe either as many ate cats and dogs. Some even resorted to eating wallpaper paste, sawdust, grass cakes and even the dead. Corpses accumulated in the streets as the ground was frozen solid and people had little energy left to bury the bodies. Hastings cites Elena Skryabina, who captures with eloquence the pangs of hunger of Lenigraders in her diary: “We are approaching the greatest horror… Everyone is preoccupied with only one thought: where to get something edible so as not to starve to death. We have returned to prehistoric times. Life has been reduced to one thing—the hunt for food” (Inferno, 167).

The Soviets made some attempts at saving women and children and workers, but millions were left behind. Only the privileged few could count on escaping the horror. Once he realized that Hitler wasn’t planning a full-scale attack of the city, Stalin recalled Zhukov to Moscow. The composer Dimitri Shostakovich, who created a symphony about the plight of his native city–the Seventh Leningrad Symphony–finished the piece elsewhere.

If the Soviet army and bands of partisans hadn’t been resourceful enough to open up a small corridor to the city in mid-January 1943—which subsequently enabled them to send barges of goods during the summer and sleds on improvised ice paths during the winter—and channel some life-saving supplies to Leningrad, Hitler would no doubt have achieved his objective of starving to death the city’s entire population.

Claudia Moscovici, Holocaust Memory

Comments Off

Filed under Claudia Moscovici Holocaust Memory, genocide by starvation Leningrad, Holocaust Memory, Max Hastings Inferno, Nazi Germany, siege of Leningrad, WWII

The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward: Reviews of Red Scarf Girl and Mao’s Great Famine

culturalrevolutionhistory.com

Mao’s Communist experiments, the “Great Leap Forward” (1958-62) and the so-called “Cultural Revolution” (1966-1972) created a disaster of unprecedented proportions in China. In Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958-1962, Frank Dikotter documents that between 30-32 million people starved to death as a result of the Great Leap Forward. (New York: Walker and Company, 2011)

In an ill-hatched attempt to catch up quickly with the economy of the Soviet Union and the West in industrial production (particularly in the manufacture of steel), Mao Zedong launched China into a series of agricultural experiments with no basis in science that devastated the country. He mandated forced collectivization of private farms. At the same time, he encouraged the peasants to plant significantly less, allowing about a third of the farms to remain uncultivated. Despite the imposition of internal passports branding Chinese citizens as “farmers” or “city dwellers,” millions of peasants migrated to the cities, hoping to escape working for the Communist farm collectives and their often abusive and corrupt officials.

These disastrous measures, Dikotter elaborates, were compounded by the fact the grains were poorly stored and often diluted with water, to increase their weight and give the appearance of meeting the quotas. Out of a severely diminished agricultural supply, tons of grains rotted, were infested by vermin or caught on fire as a result of poor storage. To give the impression of prosperity, Mao earmarked for export most of China’s meager agricultural production. Domestically, the only stores that were well-stocked–the so-called “Friendship Stores”–were reserved for government officials and foreign visitors. Tens of millions of Chinese people suffered as a result of being deprived of adequate food, clothes and consumer goods.

The situation became so dire, Dikotter documents, that some desperate individuals sold their children to have fewer mouths to feed. Others went so far as to eat corpses or even kill the living to survive a few more weeks, or days. Some became so unscrupulous that they disinterred the corpses of family members or neighbors and used them as fertilizer: “Inside the house were four large cauldrons in which corpses were being simmered into fertilizer, the extract to be evenly distributed over the fields” (173).

Obsessed with silencing any opposition, however feeble and adulatory, Mao penalized any individual who reported even glimmers of the truth about the massive disaster consuming his country. Dikotter makes it clear that Mao became aware of the truth, but couldn’t accept any critique, much less the massive failure of his grand designs for setting China on an industrial fast track:

“Mao received numerous reports about hunger, disease and abuse from every corner of the country, whether personal letters mailed by courageous individuals, unsolicited complaints from local cadres or investigations undertaken on his behalf by security personnel or private secretaries” (69).

When the extent of destruction could no longer be hidden from view even by the heaviest oppression and propaganda, Mao, much like Stalin had before him, deflected any responsibility for the program’s failure on his underlings and colleagues. (84) At the same time, he purged from the government precisely the officials who had been critical of the Great Leap Forward and warned him about its disastrous effects. Only once the famine had already claimed tens of millions of victims, in November 1960, did Mao finally begin to reverse the fatal course of forced collectivization by restoring some local markets and allowing the starving peasants to cultivate some private plots. It took two more years for the country to emerge from the crisis.

While Dikotter’s book paints the big picture of the Maoist disaster, Ji-li Jiang’s memoir, Red Scarf Girl, (New York, HarperCollins, 2004), gives readers a glimpse of the same period through a personalized optic. A good student living in a normal, loving family, Ji-li Jiang’s life turns upside down with the beginning of the Cultural Revolution. Most of the values she had been previously taught become subverted by the new Communist indoctrination sessions: the value of education; respect for parents, grandparents and teachers; even feelings of loyalty and friendship. Private ownership, academic achievement, family love become discarded values: “Four Olds,” a highly pejorative term indicating something outdated, anti-Communist and old-fashioned, according to the Orwellian “Newspeak”.

Not surprisingly, the most mendacious and power-hungry students thrive in the new system, victimizing and bullying the rest. Jiang’s father, whose Communist dossier is suspect because he’s the son of a landlord, is sent to slave labor in the fields. Her mother falls victim to harrowing interrogation sessions, where she’s asked to turn against husband. With tremendous courage, she refuses. Her grandmother is humiliated by being forced to sweep the streets. Setting children against parents and grandparents, the Communist officials pressure the young girl to denounce her family.

Wavering between feelings of compassion for her downtrodden family members and a sense of shame for being associated with them, at one point Jiang decides to change her name. But she’s not ready to abandon her loved ones, as the Communist official suggests. For her, loyalty and empathy prove stronger than the ideological indoctrination. Long before her family immigrates to the United States, this important choice signifies Ji-li Jiang’s first step towards freedom.

 

Claudia Moscovici

Literature Salon

Comments Off

Filed under Claudia Moscovici Holocaust Memory, Communist China, Frank Dikotter Mao's Great Famine, Holocaust Memory, Ji-li Jiang Red Scarf Girl, Mao, the Cultural Revolution, The Great Leap Forward

On Kamikaze Warfare: Inferno, the World at War 1939-1945 by Max Hastings

kamikazepilotswikipedia

Japan’s kamikaze pilots during WWII bring to mind the operations of contemporary suicide bombers and terrorists. Heavily indoctrinated during their rigorous training in Japan’s imperial army, their suicidal missions did serious damage to Allied naval vessels in the Pacific, particularly towards the end of the war, in 1944-45, when Japan’s situation became more precarious, if not desperate.

Captain Motoharu Okamura, leading the Tateyama Base in Tokyo and the 341’s Air Group Base, was one of the first to propose kamikaze warfare in June 1944 and to explore its feasibility. In October 1944, Commander Asaiki Tamai led an actual mission composed of 24 student pilots he had personally trained.

Named after the fatal typhoons of the late Middle Ages (“kami”, meaning “god” or “spirit” and kaze”, meaning “wind”), these suicidal pilots would direct their whirling airplanes filled with explosives and fuel into enemy vessels, doing more damage than conventional bombs. Launching themselves with fatal accuracy, according to historian Max Hastings, “about 20 percent of kamikaze assaults scored hits—ten times the success rate for conventional attacks. Only the overwhelming strength of the U.S. Navy enabled it to withstand such punishment” (Inferno, the World at War 1939-1945, New York: Random House, 2012). During the length of the war, nearly 4,000 kamikaze pilots died. The damage they inflicted upon the Allies was extensive: the U.S. Air Force webpage indicates that about 3000 kamikaze attackers sunk 34 ships and killed about 5000 sailors: all in all, nearly 10 percent of ships hit by kamikaze pilots sank.

What drove these suicide bombers to sacrifice their lives for the Japanese Empire? And was their self-sacrifice coerced or voluntary? According to Hastings, most kamikaze pilots went to their final battles willingly, but some were coerced or peer-pressured into acquiescing. Psychological indoctrination, however, was part of the Japanese military system, where training was meant to induce blind patriotism, self-sacrifice for the Japanese Empire and a code of honor that dictated suicide over being captured by the enemy. Hastings emphasizes that the training of kamikaze pilots “was as harsh as that of all Japanese warriors, and attended by the same emphasis on corporal punishment” that would make them ruthless, and often very cruel, warriors (620). Even so, as it became more and more clear that Japan would lose the war, not all kamikaze pilots went willingly to their deaths. According to Hastings,

“The image of Japan’s kamikazes taking off to face death with exuberant enthusiasm is largely fallacious. Among the first wave of suicidalists in the autumn of 1944, there were many genuine volunteers. Thereafter, however, the supply of young fanatics dwindled: many subsequent recruits were driven to accept the role by moral pressure, and sometimes conscription” (620).

As with contemporary suicide bombers, heavy ideological indoctrination and a Manichean view of the world—a good versus evil, us versus them mentality—drove kamikaze bombers to their dark and desperate heroism.

Claudia Moscovici

Literature Salon

Comments Off

Filed under Claudia Moscovici, history, Holocaust Memory, imperial Japan, kamikaze pilots, Max Hastings Inferno, suicide bombers, WWII