First European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Summer School in Holocaust Studies

First European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Summer School in Holocaust Studies

Organisatoren
Centre for Holocaust Studies, Institute of Contemporary History Munich (IfZ)
Ort
Munich
Land
Deutschland
Vom - Bis
22.07.2013 - 09.08.2013
Url der Konferenzwebsite
Von
Jack Woods, School of History, University of St Andrews

Over the last several decades Holocaust studies has evolved into a successful and diverse inter-disciplinary field. Publications continue to burgeon on a wide range of topics and a visit to former centres of National Socialist persecution indicates that public interest in this period continues unabated. Between July 22nd and August 9th, 2013, twelve graduate students took part in the first of two European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (EHRI) Summer Schools in Holocaust Studies.1 The Summer School, conducted by the newly established Centre for Holocaust Studies at the Institute of Contemporary History Munich (IfZ) was led by Johannes Hürter (Munich) and Andrea Löw (Munich) and organised by Giles Bennett (Munich). The first two weeks of the program were held at the Akademie für Politische Bildung Tutzing, with the participants moving to Munich for the final week.

The focus of the three week meeting was to review recent historiographical developments, acquire new research techniques, especially related to digital databases and to discuss fruitful directions that future research might take. During the Summer School, renowned historians led sessions on topics consisting of a lecture and seminar element during which participants discussed primary source material prepared by the presenter. The topics covered issues such as Jewish life under German occupation, the role of German functional elites in the Holocaust, as well as more specific country and regional surveys covering the situation in both Eastern and Western Europe. The Summer School also offered the valuable opportunity for the graduate participants to present their own research projects.

ANDREAS WIRSCHING (Munich) opened the proceedings of the Summer School. Charting the development of Holocaust Studies in Germany, he noted the division of labour that existed within Holocaust historiography. German historians focused on the history of National Socialism, whilst research on the Jewish experience was largely published outside of Germany. Interestingly only two out of 650 German university courses on National Socialism dealt with the victims during the late-1970s. This divide has in the last decades closed due to the synthesis between ideological explanations and research in the East, exploiting new archival material after the fall of the Soviet Union. DIETER POHL’s (Klagenfurt) paper ‘The Germans and the Holocaust’ was a useful introduction to the Summer School. Covering much ground, he analysed where we are now in terms of our understanding of perennial questions such as how far back the Holocaust can be traced in German history and what was specific to German anti-Semitism. In his analysis of the perpetrators, he concluded that they were a wide category but there existed a core group of several thousand in number. However, for Pohl, the Holocaust should be placed in a wider European framework to account for the motives and actions of the estimated two million auxiliaries who facilitated the genocide’s destructive dynamic.

On the second day of the Summer School, MAGNUS BRECHTKEN (Munich) examined the milieu-induced world-view and actions of the ‘Old Elite’ and bureaucracy. This group whose ranks filled the higher echelons of the military, justice system, diplomatic, functional and professional institutions shared ideas that meshed with the Nazis. In particular a strong tradition of German nationalism; the concept of German ‘Kultur’; a specific perception of freedom which allowed expansion Eastwards and the opportunity to re-establish a Great German nation-state facilitated the dovetailing with Nazi ambitions. After 1939, it was the ‘Options of War’ in light of traditions, assumptions and prejudices that led to cooperation with the SS. JOHANNES HÜRTER’s (Munich) presentation dealt with the Wehrmacht’s role in the Holocaust. He examined pre-existing anti-Semitism within the officer corps and the Wehrmacht’s conduct during the invasion of Poland. The invasion of the Soviet union presented a new dimension to the ‘Jewish question’ and a combination of anti-Semitic indoctrination amongst the troops socialised during the Third Reich, the shortage of manpower to control the vast sectors behind the front and a ‘cumulative radicalisation’ which progressed from the targeting of ‘Jewish-Bolshevik’ intelligentsia to Jews regardless of gender and age helps to explain how the Wehrmacht was drawn into genocide.

MORITZ PFEIFFER (Tübingen) discussed the ideological foundations and practical objectives of the SS. He discussed the prominence placed by this new elite on the maintenance of the Volkskörper and the casting of a new Europe along blood frontiers. Tying the threads of his discussion together, he showed how Wewelsburg castle as a retreat for SS officers and a concentration camp, embodied the ideology and brutality of the SS. SUSANNE HEIM (Berlin) in her paper on German scientists took as her starting point the now defunct interpretation that islands of respectable science amongst a sea of pseudo-science existed under Nazism. In exchange for financial help and favourable research conditions, scholars gave the ethics of the regime legitimation. During the seminar, participants discussed the relative importance of ideological motivations and the furthering of careers as well as where to draw the line between science and propaganda. ALAN STEINWEIS (Burlington, Vt) in his analysis of the 1938 November pogrom provided a reappraisal of the events with the benefit of new source material. Countering former assertions, he concluded that a larger minority and wider cohort including the SS, Hitler Youth and non-NSDAP members participated in the violence that was not planned in advance.

EVA PFANZELTER (Innsbruck) in her presentation showed the participants how the internet has changed research. On the one hand, it has provided access to thousands of documents located in dispersed locations; whilst on the other hand, the freedom of the internet has aided the spurious claims of Holocaust deniers. MICHAL FRANKL’s (Prague) presentation on E-science and the Theresienstadt archives continued on the same bearing providing a concrete example of the often difficult digitalisation process and copyright laws which must be navigated by specialised archives in order to deliver the online material for the viewer.

ANDREA LÖW (Munich) shifted the attention away from the perpetrators and on to the victims in her full-day workshop on Jewish life in the ghettos. Summarising recent research on the ghettos, Löw demonstrated how the popular conception of the large and sealed ghettos such as Lodz and Warsaw were for the most part the exception rather than the rule. The approximately 1110 ghettos erected by the Nazis and their allies differed markedly in nature. Local and regional variances meant that some were closed and others were open, whilst in some Jews provided labour and others were solely holding areas from which to transport the inhabitants to the death camps. Consequently, historians should be cautious of painting Jewish daily life and their responses with broad brush strokes.

DIETER POHL (Klagenfurt) kicked off the second week of the Summer School with a paper on the Holocaust in the Soviet Union. Jewish pre-war life, Soviet society prior to 1941, Jewish responses to persecution and the post-1945 aftermath were discussed. In his analysis of source materials, Pohl suggested that Soviet administrative documents have been under-exploited. He noted that the further East one travels and outside the urban areas, the more precise the details and events recorded. He also put forward the convincing argument that the anti-partisan war’s connection to the Holocaust has been overstated. In much of the Wehrmacht controlled areas the Jewish populations had already been killed. For Pohl, a significant issue is the compartmentalised approach to research, to resolve this future projects should treat Soviet Society as a whole rather than individual victim groups in order to gain a fuller picture of the German occupation. KAREL BERKHOFF (Amsterdam) in his analysis of the Holocaust in the Ukraine showed the special place that the Ukraine held within Nazi ideology: an imagined space where the Aryan race would be revitalised. Paying attention to the regional nuances of the Holocaust, he emphasised that the majority of the Jews in this region were shot close to their homes in a short space of time.

In his presentation, JÜRGEN ZARUSKY (Munich) showed that Jews were singled out from other inmates in the concentration camp system from the earliest stages. During the first year of Dachau’s existence, nine of the first seventeen deaths were Jews. He also called for the Holocaust to be placed more fully in the context of Nazi crimes. For instance at the SS-Schießplatz at Dachau, Soviet POWs were shot and the operators of the gas chambers in the Operation Reinhardt camps had gained their practice at Hartheim. In MICHAEL MAYERS’S (Tutzing) discussion of the persecution of Jews in France, he maintained that researchers should pay particular attention to institutional shifts and drives. He noted that in the early years of the French occupation, there existed just one German officer in charge of French aryanisation and that whilst French anti-Semitic perceptions and measures were different to those of the Germans, anti-Jewish policy developed on a parallel path towards an increased radicalisation. In KATJA HAPPE’S (Freiburg) case study of the Netherlands, she posed the question as to why 75 per cent of the country’s Jews were murdered, a significantly higher percentage than neighbouring Western countries. She demonstrated that a particularly brutal civil administration combined with the country’s lack of organised resistance before 1943 as well as the small country’s lack of suitable hiding places were of central importance.

In her discussion and preparation of source material, EDITH RAIM (Munich) showed how the records of post-war trials can be used as valuable documentation for research into Nazi persecution. During the discussion, debates surrounded the legal and physical problems of bringing perpetrators to court in order to face their crimes as well as the variations between the post-war occupation forces treatment of the trials. On Monday 5th of August, the participants listened and posed questions to lecturers of the summer school. Particularly of interest were the scholars’ opinions of where future research may profitably head. SUSANNA SCHRAFSTETTER (Burlington, Vt) noted the dearth of work focusing on restitution in Poland, France and the Soviet Union and furthermore that such files from those seeking claims can reveal details of the mechanisms of persecution. JÜRGEN MATTHÄUS (Washington, D.C.) called for a greater degree of integration within the broader framework of genocide studies. FRANK BAJOHR (Munich) posed the question as to what was done with the money of individual Nazi officials after the war. CHRISTOPHER BROWNING (Chapel Hill) identified further need to study how communities that had lived side-by-side for generations advanced into murder. In the afternoon, MAX STRNAD (Munich) used his research on Munich to discuss with the help of photographs and documents, the task of researching and writing an urban history during the holocaust period. In the evening, CHRISTOPHER BROWNING (Chapel Hill) presented a public lecture on ‘Forty-five Years as a Holocaust Historian’ during which he discussed the researching, conclusions and debates surrounding his successful projects.

On the last day of the summer school CHRISTOPHER BROWNING (Chapel Hill) and JÜRGEN MATTHÄUS (Washington, D.C.) presented a lecture on the uses of photographic material on holocaust research exploiting photographs taken by members of Order Police Battalion 101 and a guard from the Lodz ghetto. In particular, the two historians discussed how the photographs indicated how the perpetrators viewed their work, the relationship between the Germans and the local populations and the manner and environment in which the shooting actions transpired. Such sources add an extra layer to our understanding of the world of the victims which written documents can often only hint at. The seminar highlighted the profitable ways in which scholars can incorporate photographic evidence into their source base.

The summer school received very positive feedback from the participants. Many were enthusiastic about the breadth and depth of topics discussed. In many respects the lectures covered by the presenters reflect the increasing amalgamation of the perspectives of the perpetrator, victim and local population. The summer school also provided an excellent opportunity for the students to discuss their research with their peers and with leading historians. Seminars were supplemented with visits to archives as well as trips to places of historical significance such as the concentration camp at Dachau and the Obersalzberg Documentation Centre.

Conference Overview:

Welcome and Introduction:
Michael Schröder (Tutzing) / Johannes Hürter / Andrea Löw / Giles Bennett (Munich)

Andreas Wirsching (Munich): Holocaust Research in German Historiography

Dieter Pohl (Klagenfurt): The Germans and the Holocaust

Magnus Brechtken (Munich): The “Old Elites” and the Bureaucracy

Johannes Hürter (Munich): The Wehrmacht and the Holocaust

Moritz Pfeiffer (Tübingen): The Terror Apparatus: The SS and Police

Susanne Heim (Berlin): The Scientific Elites

Alan Steinweis (Burlington, Vt): The November Pogrom 1938

Eva Pfanzelter (Innsbruck): Digital Humanities and Holocaust Research

Michal Frankl (Prague): How Can EHRI E-Science Aid Holocaust Research? The Example of the Theresienstadt Guide

Andrea Löw (Munich): The Ghettos: Contemporary Jewish Sources on the Struggle for Survival

Dieter Pohl (Klagenfurt): The Holocaust in the Occupied Soviet Union

Karel Berkhoff (Amsterdam): The Holocaust in Ukraine

Jürgen Zarusky (Munich): Jews in the Concentration Camps

Michael Mayer (Tutzing): Persecution in France

Katja Happe (Freiburg): The Example of the Netherlands

Edith Raim (Munich): Post War Trials

Panel Discussion with lecturers of the summer schools:
“The Holocaust in Modern German History: The Sources Behind the Debates”:

Christopher Browning (Chapel Hill), Wendy Lower (Claremont, Ca), Jürgen Matthäus (Washington, D.C.), Susanna Schrafstetter (Burlington, Vt), Frank Bajohr (Munich), Alan Steinweis (Burlington, Vt), Andrea Löw (Munich)

Max Strnad (Munich): The Holocaust in Munich: Researching and Writing an Urban History

Keynote Address:
Christopher Browning (Chapel Hill): Forty-Five Years as a Holocaust Historian

Jürgen Matthäus (Washington D.C.) / Christopher Browning (Chapel Hill): Session on Orpo 101 Photographs

Note:
1 The second took place in Paris and was organised by the Mémorial de la Shoah. The 2014 EHRI summer schools will be held at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies in Amsterdam and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.


Redaktion
Veröffentlicht am
Autor(en)
Beiträger
Klassifikation
Epoche(n)
Region(en)
Weitere Informationen
Land Veranstaltung
Sprache(n) der Konferenz
Englisch
Sprache des Berichts