Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T00:52:03.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nazi Ghettoization Policy in Poland: 1939–41

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Christopher R. Browning
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nazi ghettoization policy in Poland from 1939 to 1941, like so many other aspects of Nazi Jewish policy, has been the subject of conflicting interpretations that can be characterized as “intentionalist” on the one hand and “functionalist” on the other. The “intentionalist” approach views ghettoization as a conscious preparatory step for total annihilation. For instance, Andreas Hillgruber has described the ghettoization of the Polish Jews as a step parallel to Hitler's conquest of France; in both cases Hitler was securing himself for the simultaneous war for Lebensraum in the east and Final Solution to the Jewish question through mass murder. Together these steps constituted the nucleus of his long-held “program.”

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 343 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The research for this article was made possible by the generous support of the Institute for Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

1. The terms “intentionalist” and “functionalist” were coined by Mason, Tim, “Intention and Explanation: A Current Controversy about the Interpretation of National Socialism,” Der Führerstaat: Mythos und Realität, ed. Hirschfeld, Gerhard and Kettenacker, Lothar (Stuttgart, 1981), 21–40Google Scholar. Prime examples of the two interpretive approaches can be seen in the articles by Klaus Hildebrand and Hans Mommsen in the same volume. The intentionalists place primary emphasis on Hitler's ideology, leadership, and long-held “program” in explaining the course of the Third Reich. The functionalists emphasize institutional and social structures as more determinative than individuals and ideas. For a pro-intentionalist discussion of the historiography of the Nazi period, see: Hildebrand, Klaus, Das Dritte Reich (Munich, 1979)Google Scholar, now translated as The Third Reich (London, 1984)Google Scholar. More sympathetic to the functionalists is Kershaw, Ian, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation (London, 1985).Google Scholar

2. Hillgruber, Andreas, “Die ‘Endlösung’ und das deutsche Ostimperium als Kernstück des rassenideologischen Programms des Nationalsozialismus,” Hitler, Deutschland, und die Mächte, ed. Funke, Manfred (Düsseldorf, 1976), 98–99.Google Scholar

3. Friedman, Philip, “The Jewish Ghettos of the Nazi Era,” Roads to Extinction: Essays on the Holocaust (New York and Philadelphia, 1980), 61, 69.Google Scholar

4. Trunk, Isaiah, Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe under Nazi Occupation (New York, 1972), 61.Google Scholar

5. Broszat, Martin, “Hitler und die Genesis der ‘Endlösung’: Aus Anlass der Thesen von David Irving,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25, no. 4 (1977): 753–55Google Scholar. This article is available in English translation as: “Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’: An Assessment of David Irving's Theses,” Yad Vashem Studies 13 (1979): 61–98.Google Scholar

6. SS-Sturmbannführer Rolf Heinz Höppner reported to Eichmann on a meeting of a group of SS men in Poznań, who had considered the possibility of killing the non-working Jews in the Warthegau with a “quick-acting agent” because this would be more “humane” than having them starve the following winter. Hilberg, Raul, Documents of Destruction (Chicago, 1971), 87–88.Google Scholar

7. Mommsen, Hans, “Die Realisierung des Utopischen: Die ‘Endlösung der Judenfrage’ im ‘Dritten Reich’,” Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9, no. 3 (Autumn 1983): 410–11, 414Google Scholar. This article is now available in English translation as: “The Realization of the Unthinkable: The ‘Final Solution of the Jewish Question’ in the Third Reich,” The Policies of Genocide: Jews and Soviet Prisoners of War in Nazi Germany, ed. Hirschfeld, Gerhard (London, 1986), 93–144.Google Scholar

8. For the development of Nazi demographic plans, see: Browning, Christopher R., “Nazi Resettlement Policy and the Search for a Solution to the Jewish Question, 1939–41,” German Studies Review 9, no. 3 (1986): 497–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For Heydrich's instructions: National Archives Microfilm, T175/239/2726524–28 (protocol of conference of 21 Sept. 1939); and Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Washington, 1946), 6: 97–101Google Scholar (PS–3363: Heydrich Schnellbrief of 21 Sept. 1939). For the Hitler-Brauchitsch meeting: Halder, Franz, Kriegstagebuch, ed. Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf (Stuttgart, 1962), 1: 82Google Scholar. For the expulsion of Jews from the incorporated territories: Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord (Berlin [East], 1960), 42–43Google Scholar (NO–5586: Himmler order of 30 Oct. 1939); and Trials of the War Criminals before the Nürnberg Military Tribunal (Washington, 1949–1953), 4: 873Google Scholar (NO–4095: undated memorandum of Creutz).

9. Deportation of the Łódź Jews was initially excluded by Higher SS and Police Leader Wilhelm Krüger at a conference of 8 Nov. 1939, because it was not yet clear whether Łódź would be included in the “incorporated territories” annexed from Poland and allotted to the Warthegau or remain part of the General Government. Biuletyn Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni Hitlerowskich W Polsce (hereafter cited as Biuletyn) 12 (Warsaw, 1960): 11F–14FGoogle Scholar (conference of 8 Nov. 1939). Subsequently łódź was included in the Warthegau.

10. Berlin Document Center: Greiser Pers. Akten, Besuchs-Vermerk of the Staff of the Führer's Deputy, 11 Jan. 1940. I am grateful to Dr. Hans Umbreit for a copy of this document.

11. Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord, 81 (Rundschreiben of Uebelhoer to party and police authorities, 10 Dec. 1939).

12. Dokumenty i Materiały Do Dziejów Okupacji Niemieckiej W Polsce, 3: Getto Łódzkie (Warsaw, 1946; hereafter cited as DiM), 168–69Google Scholar (conference of 1 Apr. 1940, and Baur to Landräte, 8 May 1940).

13. Frank, Hans, Das Diensttagebuch des deutschen Generalgouverneurs in Polen 1939–1945, ed. Präg, Werner and Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang (Stuttgart, 1975), 261–63Google Scholar (entry of 31 July 1940).

14. Gutman, Yisrael, The Jews of Warsaw 1939–1943: Ghetto, Underground, Revolt (Bloomington, Indiana, 1982), 49.Google Scholar

15. Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord, 108–9 (Schön report, 20 Jan. 1941).

16. Yad Vashem Archives (hereafter cited as YVA), O–53/102/391–99 (Halbjahres Bericht von Dr. Kreppel, Abt. Innere Verwaltung, Warschau Distrikt, 14 May 1940).

17. Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord, 109–10 (Schön report of 20 Jan. 1941).

18. YVA, JM 814: Lambrecht report, 3 Sept. 1940, and report of Div, of Internal Affairs, 4 Sept. 1940. Faschismus, Getto, Massenmord, 110 (Schön report, 20 Jan. 1941). Trials of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg, 1947–1949), 29: 406Google Scholar (2233–PS: conference of 6 Sept. 1940). Frank, , Diensttagebuch, 281 (Abteilungleiterssitzung, 12 09 1940).Google Scholar

19. YVA: JM 799/209 (Vermerk of conferences of 26 and 27 Apr. 1940); O–58/78/296–97 (Rumkowski to Marder, 6 Apr. 1940); JM 800/387–89 (Vermerk by Dr. Nebel of conference of 27 May 1940). DiM, 74–75 (Oberbürgermeister to Rumkowski, 30 Apr. 1940).

20. YVA, O–6/79, Report of the Statistical Office of Łódź on the Jewish population in 1940.

21. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for July 1940.

22. YVA, JM 799/139 (Palfinger Aktennotiz, 16 July 1940).

23. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for Aug. 1940.

24. YVA, JM 798, Auditor's report of Feb. 1941.

25. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for Sept. 1940.

26. YVA, JM 798, Auditor's report of Feb. 1941.

27. DiM, 102–4 (conference of 18 Oct. 1940).

28. YVA, O–53/78/76–82 (Palfinger's “critical report” of 7 Nov. 1940).

29. DiM, 177–79 (Marder to Uebelhoer, 4 July 1941).

30. YVA, JM 799/167–68 (Ribbe to Marder, 22 Nov. 1940).

31. YVA, JM 1113, conference of 2 Dec. 1940; The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, ed. Hilberg, Raul, Staron, Stanislaw, and Kermisz, Josef (New York, 1979), 223Google Scholar (entry of 4 Dec. 1940).

32. Ibid., 394 (appended document: conference of 3 Feb. 1941).

33. Frank, Diensttagebuch, 328 (conference of 15 Jan. 1941).

34. Ibid., 334 (entry of 22 Mar. 1941). YVA, JM 10016, “Die Wirtschaftsbilanz des jüdischen Wohnbezirks in Warschau,” Mar. 1941. Trunk, Judenrat, 287.

35. That Fischer was simply trying to allay interference from Kraków and was a strong advocate of the attritionist policies of Schön and Palfinger can be seen from his statement quoted by Philip Friedman: “The Jews will disappear because of hunger and need, and nothing will remain of the Jewish question but a cemetery.” Cited in: “The Jewish Ghettos of the Nazi Era,” Roads to Extinction, 69.

36. Frank, Diensttagebuch, 343–46 (conference of 3 Apr. 1941).

37. Ibid., 354–55 (conference of 9 Apr. 1941). Documenta Occupationis (Poznań, 1949), 6: 556Google Scholar (Verordnung über den jüdischen Wohnbezirk in Warschau, 19 Apr. 1941).

38. Frank, Diensttagebuch, 359–62 (conference of 19 Apr. 1941).

39. YVA, JM 1112, Bischof Aktenvermerk on discussion with Fischer, 30 Apr. 1941.

40. YVA, O–53/49/103–4 (personnel questionnaire of Auerswald).

41. YVA, JM 1112, Bischof Aktenvermerk, 8 May 1941.

42. The Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum, ed. Sloan, Jacob (New York, 1958), 158.Google Scholar

43. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 230–39 (entries of 6, 12, and 21 May 1941).

44. DiM, 241–42 (conference of 24 Oct. 1940).

45. YVA, O–53/78/70–74 (conference of 9 Nov. 1940).

46. Ibid.

47. YVA, O–S3/78/137–39 (Gettoverwaltung memorandum of 24 Mar. 1943);DIM, 114–16 (Biebow to Treuhandstelle Posen, 26 Mar. 1942).

48. YVA: JM 798, Activity reports of Feb., Mar., Apr., and May 1941; JM 800/148 (Aktennotiz of 10 Mar. 1941).

49. Trunk, Judenrat, 84.

50. YVA: JM 798, Activity reports of Oct. and Dec. 1940; O–53/78/137–39 (Gettoverwaltung memorandum of 24 Mar. 1943). DiM, 177–79 (Marder to Uebelhoer, 4 July 1941) and 243–45 (Biebow to Fuchs, 4 Mar. 1942).

51. YVA: JM 800/217–20 (Marder to Reich Trustee for Labor, Poznań, 21 Aug. 1940), 227–28 (Marder to Regierungspräsident, 10 Sept. 1940), and 239 (Aktennotiz, 17 Sept. 1940); JM 798, undated memo “Beschäftigung von Juden durch Privatunternehmungen”).

52. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for Nov. 1940.

53. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for Dec. 1940.

54. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for Nov. 1940.

55. YVA, JM 800/160–61 (Aktenvermerk of conference of 14 Jan. 1941).

56. YVA, JM 798, Activity report for Feb. 1941.

57. YVA, JM 798, Auditor's report of Feb. 1941.

58. YVA, JM 798, Activity report of Nov. 1940.

59. YVA, JM 798, Auditor's report of Feb. 1941.

60. YVA, JM 798, Activity reports for Mar. and Apr. 1941.

61. YVA, JM 800/82–83 (Poznań conference of 7 June 1941) and 94 (Aktennotiz, 11 June 1941).

62. DiM, 243–45 (Biebow to Fuchs, 4 Mar. 1942) and 245–47 (Biebow to Ventzki, 19 Apr. 1943).

63. DiM, 248 (Ventzki Aktenvermerk, no date).

64. YVA, JM 1112, Auerswald report of 26 Sept. 1941. The Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum, 191–92. Gutman, The Jews of Warsaw, 63–65.

65. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 264 and 269 (entries of 7 July and 19 Aug. 1941).

66. YVA: JM 1112, Transferstelle report of 8 Oct. 1941: JM 21/4 (Frank Tagebuch, 15 Oct. 1941).

67. YVA, JM 1112, Transferstelle report of 7 Jan. 1942.

68. YVA, JM 1112, Auerswald report, 26 Sept. 1941. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 248 (entry of 13 June 1941).

69. YVA, JM 1112, Auerswald report, 26 Sept. 1941.

70. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 301 (entry of 21 Nov. 1941).

71. YVA, O–53/101, Hummel's monthly reports to Bühler in Kraków from Dec. 1941 to July 1942. In Dec. 1941 1,971 new cases of spotted fever were reported. This dropped to 784 in Feb. 1942 and to a mere 67 in July 1942.

72. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 301, 330 (entries of 21 Nov. 1941 and 26 Feb. 1942). The Journal of Emmanuel Ringelblum, 234. I am more comfortable with the evaluation of Auerswald in Gutman, The Jews of Warsaw, 97–99, than the more negative one in Trunk, Judenrat, 294–98. Trunk bases his characterization of Auerswald as “a successfully indoctrinated Nazi functionary who strictly abided by popular National Socialist slogans about the Jews” in large part on the unsavory rhetoric of his report “Zwei Jahre Aufbauarbeit im Distrikt Warschau: Die Juden im Distrikt Warschau.” He does not note, however, that Auerswald's initial report of 26 Sept. 1941, both sober and critical, was rejected by the Krakow authorities as “unsuitable” for inclusion in a series of essays celebrating two years of Frank's rule in Poland. Auerswald was told to produce something more fitting for the occasion. See the correspondence concerning these two reports in YVA, JM 1112.

73. YVA, JM 1112, Auerswald report, 26 Sept. 1941.

74. Ibid.

75. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 401 (appended document: Auerswald to Medeazza, 24 Nov. 1941).

76. YVA, JM 1112, Auerswald Vermerk, 4 Mar. 1942.

77. YVA, JM 1112, Transferstelle report, 7 Jan. 1942. Gutman, The Jews of Warsaw, 75; Trunk, Judenrat, 78–81.

78. YVA, JM 3462, conference on Jewish labor of 20 Mar. 1942.

79. YVA, JM 3462, Hoffmann reports of Apr. and May 1942, and Czerniakow report (no. 65) of May 1942.

80. YVA, O–53/101, Hummel's monthly reports to Bühler for Jan. through May and the bimonthly report of June/July 1942.

81. YVA, JM 1112, Transferstelle report of 7 Jan. 1942.

82. Concerning the German data on economic activity in the Warsaw ghetto, Raul Hilberg has cautioned the historian that, “Standing alone, such data had a seductive effect; they implied productivity and viability. Economic enterprise could not, however, ensure survival.” The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 53. If he means that the economic productivity of the ghetto could not alter the German decision for liquidation of the ghetto, he is most certainly correct. If he means that the bulk of the ghetto population would not have survived even if the ghetto population had not been deported to Treblinka, I disagree.

83. Hilberg, Raul, The Destruction of the European Jews, rev. ed. (New York, 1985), 1: 269 and 3: 1212.Google Scholar

84. DiM, 241–42 (conference of 24 Oct. 1940).

85. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 402 (appended document: Auerswald to Medeazza, 24 Nov. 1941).

86. Hilberg, Raul, The Destruction of the European Jews, 1: 54–55, 269, 3: 993–99.Google Scholar

87. Ibid., 212–14. Browning, Christopher R., Fateful Months: Essays on the Emergence of the Final Solution (New York, 1985), 8–38.Google Scholar

88. Browning, Christopher R., Fateful Months, 30–31, 59, 62–63.Google Scholar

89. Frank, Diensttagebuch, 413 (Aktennotiz, 14 Oct. 1941).

90. Hilberg, Raul, The Destruction of the European Jews, 2: 403.Google Scholar

91. Frank, Diensttagebuch, 457–58 (Regierungssitzung, 16 Dec. 1941).

92. The Warsaw Diary of Adam Czerniakow, 317–18 (entries of 19 and 23 Jan. 1942).

93. Not only the Germans but also the ghettoized Jews of Warsaw were increasingly aware of their impending fate in the spring of 1942. See: Browning, Christopher R. and Gutman, Israel, “The Reports of a Jewish ‘Informer’ in the Warsaw Ghetto: Selected Documents,” Yad Vashem Studies 17 (1986): 247–93.Google Scholar

94. Even after the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto, Auerswald did not attempt to rewrite with hindsight what he considered to be the successes of his term as commissioner of the Jewish district in order to make it appear as if he had prepared for and contributed to the subsequent mass murder. “Achievements of the Agency: simplification of the boundaries, construction of the wall, maintenance of peace (in May 1941 the Higher SS and Police Leader feared the outbreak of hunger revolts!), construction of an essentially satisfactorily functioning Jewish communal administration, improvement of the hygienic situation in the interest of combatting epidemic (decline of spotted fever), and—together with the Transferstelle—prevention of an initially feared economic failure (employment of a large number of skilled workers in armaments industries).” YVA, O–53/49/132 (Auerswald report on his activities in Warsaw, undated but after Jan. 1943).