Unit 4: Nazis in Power

Students have a tendency to become fascinated with strong leaders, regardless of their moral inclinations. There has always been a fascination with Hitler, most likely because of the extent of pop culture references and monstrous characterization he has received throughout the years. This unit looks to highlight Hitler and the Nazi Party's use of Propaganda and Laws to gain the support and loyalty of the people. In this unit students have a chance to explore the power of euphemisms, determine for themselves the boundaries of what is morally vs. legally right. As well, students will have an opportunity to study some of the experiments conducted to evaluate varying levels of obedience. Ultimately students will be asked to assess the response of ordinary people in Nazi Germany and try to explain how it could be that ordinary people participate in or stand by during the mass execution of millions of innocent people?

Activity 1:

Hitler’s Rise to Power

Quickwrite: Imagine waking up in the morning to learn that the Obama shut down Congress, closed all of the courts, and cancelled elections. How might you react to such news? How might your life be different as a result of this change in government?

Vocabulary:

• Reichstag/Parliament — the government institution where laws were made, like the U.S. Congress.

• Chancellor — the leader of the Reichstag. The Chancellor decided which laws get voted on.

• President — the head of state. The President controlled the military, appointed the Chancellor, and decided when elections would be held.

• Constitution/Article —The Weimar Constitution, like the U.S. Constitution, is divided into articles. The articles explain how the government should be organized and the rights citizens should have.

• Veto —To disapprove of a law.

Mini-Lesson:

• What is a dictator?

• What is the difference between a democratic leader and a dictator?

• How might your life be different if you lived in a dictatorship instead of a democracy?

Activity: Human Timeline

What were the small steps made by Hitler and the Nazis to carve away at political and civil liberties between 1933, when Hitler became Chancellor, and August of 1934, when Hitler became dictator of Germany.

• 1. Hand out slips of timeline

  2. Students read their event and rewrite it in their own words, and answer the question what happened to allow Hitler to come to power?

  3. Students should then get in order and present their event the whole class.

  4. Record student observations on the board.

  5. Reflection: Who was responsible for the final death of democracy and the rise of dictatorship in Germany?

Homework: To what extent do you believe that leaders are responsible for what happens versus the general public? Take the classroom for example: is successful learning a product of what the teacher does or what the students do?

Activity 2: 

Obedience

Quickwirte: Once the Nazis came to power, why did most Germans follow the policies dictated by Hitler?

Vocabulary: Obedience, Authority, Oath, Resistance, Conformity

Mini-Lesson:

During the Weimar Republic, German soldiers had taken this oath: 

“I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will at all times loyally and honestly serve my people and country and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.”

Hitler created a new oath.: “I swear by almighty God this sacred oath:

"I will render unconditional obedience to the Fuhrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht [armed forces], and as a brave soldier will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath.”

Activity 1: Think-Pair-Share

What is unconditional obedience?

Create a web with definitions, ideas, and other words you associate with this idea.

Do you think many German’s would agree to take Hitler’s oath of obedience?

Activity 2: Do you take the Oath?

Read Part 1, allow students to answer questions. Then read the second half of the Oath Handout. If there is time, students should answer questions in class or complete it for homework. 

Do You Take the Oath?

A German man recalled the day he was asked to pledge loyalty to Adolf Hitler:

I was employed in a defense [war] plant. . . . That was the year of the National Defense Law. . . Under the law I was required to take the oath of fidelity [loyalty]. I said I would not; I opposed it in conscience. I was given twenty-four hours to “think it over...” [R]efusal would have meant the loss of my job, of course, not prison or anything like that. . . . But losing my job would have meant that I could not get another. Wherever I went I should be asked why I left the job I had, and when I said why, I should certainly have been refused employment. . . .

I tried not to think of myself or my family. We might have got out of the country, in any case, and I could have got a job in industry or education somewhere else. What I tried to think of was the people to whom I might be of some help later on, if things got worse (as I believed they would). I had a wide friendship in scientific and academic circles, including many Jews, and “Aryans,” too, who might be in trouble. If I took the oath and held my job, I might be of help, somehow, as things went on. If I refused to take the oath, I would certainly be useless to my friends, even if I remained in the country.

• 1. List reasons to support why he should obey authority (take the oath) and why he should resist authority (refuse to take the oath).

    Reasons in favor of taking the oath                    Reasons against taking the oath

    -                                                                                                -    

    -                                                                                                -

    -                                                                                                -

2. Predict! What do you think this man decided to do? Place an “x” on the place in the scale below that represents whether or not you think this man took the oath of loyalty to Hitler

I am certain this man                                                                                                           I am certain this man

did not take the oath.                                                                                                              did take the oath.

1                                     2                                          3                                          4                                                5

Explain the reasons why you placed an “x” at this place on the scale, referring to ideas from the passage and your own ideas about obedience to authority.

Do You Take the Oath? (Part Two)

The man explains his decision:

The next day, after “thinking it over,” I said I would take the oath. . . . That day the world was lost, and it was I who lost it.

There I was, in 1935, a perfect example of the kind of person who, with all his advantages in birth, in education, and in position. . . . If I had refused to take the oath in 1935, it would have meant that thousands and thousands like me, all over Germany, were refusing to take it. Their refusal would have heartened millions. Thus the regime would have been overthrown, or, indeed, would never have come to power in the first place. The fact that I was not prepared to resist, in 1935, meant that all the thousands, hundreds of thousands, like me in Germany were also unprepared, and each one of these hundreds of thousands was, like me, a man of great influence or of great potential influence. Thus the world was lost. . . .”

Questions:

1. What does the man mean when he says, “If I had refused to take the oath in 1935, it would have meant that thousands and thousands like me, all over Germany, were refusing to take it. . . . Thus the regime would have been overthrown”?

2. Do you agree with his statement? To what extent do you believe that the choice of one individual can make a difference?

3. The man says that he “was not prepared to resist.” What does it mean to resist? Under what conditions are people more likely to resist authority?

Homework:

One page: Are there instances when it is appropriate to obey authorities? Are there instances when it is not? Give examples and explain.

Activity 3: OBEDIENCE

Milgram's Experiment

Many are familiar with Milgram's famed experiment on obedience. I have done this lesson in a number of ways, sometimes informing the students that the electro shocks that are administered in the video are not real, and sometimes allowing students to believe the shocks are real. The key, is to debrief and discuss students reactions. Studying their own reactions is another level of studying human behavior. Many students in the past have laughed while watching the video, and so we discuss why it was that so many students chose to laugh at the sound of someone in pain. Was it nervous laughter, did they assume the man screaming was acting etc?

Obedience: Milgram Experiment

Overview:

Working with pairs, Milgram designated one volunteer as “teacher” and the other as “learner.” As the “teacher” watched, the “learner” was strapped into a chair with an electrode attached to each wrist. The “learner” was then told to memorize word pairs for a test warned that wrong answers would result in electric shocks. The “learner” was in fact, a member of Milgram’s team. The real focus of the experiment was the “teacher.” Each was taken to a separate room and seated before a “shock generator” with switches ranging from 15 volts labeled “slight shock” to 450 volts labeled “danger – sever shock.” Each “teacher” was told to administer a “shock” for each wrong answer. The shock was to increase by 15 volts every time the “learner” responded incorrectly. The “teacher” received a practice shock before the test began to get an idea of the pain involved.

Predictions:

• 1. What percentage of volunteer “teachers” do you think will refuse to give the “learner” any electric shocks?

  2. What percentage of volunteer “teachers” do you think will refuse to give electric shocks of more than 150 volts?

  3. What percentages of volunteer “teachers” do you think will give shocks up to 450 volts (labeled “danger – sever shock”)?

Respond after viewing film clip:

(There used to be a 20 minute clip on line that showed the man in a lab coat explaining the experiment and allowing the "teacher" to feel the electroshock, followed by a few clips of different "teachers" participating in the experiment. I was unable to find that video, but this is a link to the full 44 minute original video of Milgrams' experiment.)

• 1. What is the teacher’s body language? 

  2. How did the teacher act as he administered the shocks?

  3. What did he say?

  4. What pressures were placed on him as the experiment continued?

(I usually print the next part on the back or on another sheet)

Results:

   65% of the volunteers gave the “learner” the full 450 volts. 

Before the experiment began, Milgram hypothesized that most volunteers would refuse to give electric shocks of more than 150 volts. A group of psychologists and psychiatrists predicted that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the volunteers would administer all 450 volts. To everyone’s amazement, 65 percent gave the full 450 volts!

Later Milgram tried to isolate the factors that encouraged obedience by varying parts of the experiment. In one variation, he repeated the test in a less academic setting. Obedience dropped to nearly 48 percent, still a very high number. In another variation, the volunteers received instructions by telephone rather than in person. Without an authority figure in the room, only 21 percent continued to the end. Milgram also noted that when no one in authority was present, some volunteers reacted to the “pain” of the “learner” by repeating a relatively low level shock rather than increasing voltage as instructed – an innovative compromise in Milgram’s view.

In a third version of the test, each volunteer was surrounded by authority figures who argued over whether to continue the experiment. In this variation, no “teacher” continued until the end. In yet another variation, it appeared as if three “teachers” were giving shocks at the same time. Two, however, worked for Milgram. When they “quit,” only 10 percent of the real volunteers continued.

The distance between the volunteer and the “learner” also made a difference. Only 40 percent of the “teachers” obeyed when the “learner” was in the same room. Obedience dropped to 30 percent when volunteers had to place the “learner’s” hand on a metal plate to give the shock. On the other hand, when they had a lesser role in the experiment, 92 percent “went all the way.” Gender had little effect on the outcome of the experiment. Men and women responded in very similar ways. Women did, however, show more signs of conflict over whether to obey.

Questions:

1. Define Obedience. 

2. What is blind obedience? How does it differ from other forms of obedience?

3. What is the difference between obedience and conformity? 

4. What encourages obedience? Is it fear of punishment? A desire to please? A need to go along with the group? A belief in authority? 

This next reading I often give to students who have missed the film or would like to read more about the experiment and others like it. Depending on the class, I will sometimes read with them, or tell them to read the section about Zimbardo's prison experiment. I have not had a chance as of yet, but Phillip Zimbardo gave a TED Talk that essentially summarizes this course. He too references Wesley Autrey (who we studied in Unit 1) as a counter example bystander behavior and offers his take on human behavior through the lens of his experiment. Well worth a gander even if you do not use it in your own class. 

A Matter of Obedience?

In her study of totalitarian regimes, Hannah Arendt wondered, “How do average, even admirable, people become dehumanized by the critical circumstances pressing in on them?” In the 1960s,

Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale University, decided to find out by recruiting college students to take part in what he called “a study of the effects of punishment on learning.” In Milgram’s

words, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim... At what point will the subject refuse to obey the experimenter?”2

Working with pairs, Milgram designated one volunteer as “teacher” and the other as “learner.” As the “teacher” watched, the “learner” was strapped into a chair with an electrode attached to each wrist. The “learner” was then told to memorize word pairs for a test and warned that wrong answers would result in electric shocks. The “learner” was, in fact, a member of Milgram’s team. The real focus of the experiment was the “teacher.” Each was taken to a separate room and seated before a “shock generator” with switches ranging from 15 volts labeled “slight shock” to 450 volts labeled “danger – severe shock.” Each “teacher” was told to administer a “shock” for each wrong answer. The shock was to increase by fifteen volts every time the “learner” responded incorrectly. The volunteer received a practice shock before the test began to get an idea of the pain involved.

Before the experiment began, Milgram hypothesized that most volunteers would refuse to give electric shocks of more than 150 volts. A group of psychologists and psychiatrists predicted that less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the volunteers would administer all 450 volts. To everyone’s amazement, 65 percent gave the full 450 volts!

Later Milgram tried to isolate the factors that encouraged obedience by varying parts of the experiment. In one variation, he repeated the test in a less academic setting.

Obedience dropped to nearly 48 percent, still a very high number. In another variation, the volunteers received instructions by telephone rather than in person. Without an authority figure in the room, only 21 percent continued to the end. Milgram also noted that when no one in authority was present, some volunteers reacted to the “pain” of the “learner” by repeating a relatively low level shock rather than increasing voltage as instructed – an innovative compromise in Milgram’s view.

In a third version of the test, each volunteer was surrounded by authority figures who argued over whether to continue the experiment. In this variation, no “teacher” continued until the end. In yet another variation, it appeared as if three “teachers” were giving shocks at the same time. Two, however, worked for Milgram. When they “quit,” only 10 percent of the real volunteers continued.

The distance between the volunteer and the “learner” also made a difference. Only 40 percent of the “teachers” obeyed when the “learner” was in the same room. Obedience dropped to 30 percent when volunteers had to place the “learner’s” hand on a metal plate to give the shock. On the other hand, when they had a lesser role in the experiment, 92 percent “went all the way.” Gender had little effect on the outcome of the experiment. Men and women responded in very similar ways. Women did, however, show more signs of conflict over whether to obey.

Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University, said of the experiments:

The question to ask of Milgram’s research is not why the majority of normal, average subjects behave in evil (felonious) ways, but what did the disobeying minority do after they refused to continue to shock the poor soul, who was so obviously in pain? Did they intervene, go to his aid, did they denounce the researcher, protest to higher authorities, etc.? No, even their disobedience was within the framework of “acceptability,” they stayed in their seats, “in their assigned place,” politely, psychologically demurred, and they waited to be dismissed by the authority. Using other measures of obedience in addition to “going all the way” on the shock generator, obedience to authority in Milgram’s research was total.3

Zimbardo observed similar behavior in an experiment he supervised in 1971. He chose twenty-four young men – “mature, emotionally stable, normal, intelligent college students” – from seventy applicants. These men were arbitrarily designated as “guards” or “prisoners” in a simulated prison. The “guards” met to organize the prison and set up rules. Zimbardo reported what happened next.

At the end of only six days we had to close down our mock prison because what we saw was frightening. It was no longer apparent to most of the subjects (or to us) where reality ended and their roles began. The majority had indeed become prisoners or guards, no longer able to clearly differentiate between role playing and self. There were dramatic changes in virtually every aspect of their behavior, thinking and feeling. In less than a week the experience of imprisonment undid (temporarily) a lifetime of learning; human values were suspended, self-concepts were challenged and the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced. We were horrified because we saw some boys (guards) treat others as if they were despicable animals, taking pleasure in cruelty, while other boys (prisoners) became servile, dehumanized robots who thought only of escape, of their own individual survival and of their mounting hatred for the guards.

Reflection for the following day or for homework:

Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience Reflection

In her study of Hitler, Hannah Arendt wondered, “How do average, even admirable, people become dehumanized by the critical circumstances pressing in on them?” In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale University, decided to find out by recruiting college students to take part in what he called “a study of the effects of punishment on learning.” In Milgram’s words, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim... At what point will the subject refuse to obey the experimenter?”

1. What does Milgram’s experiment reveal about what may have happened in Nazi Europe and others who were killed and persecuted? 

2. Although Milgram’s experiment is often referenced and cited as proof of human tendencies toward obedience to authority, many argue that his experiments were cruel and unethical. 

3. Do you think Milgram's experiment violated ethical guidelines? 

Activity 4: LAWS

Nazi Laws

Quickwrite: Now that Hitler is Fuhrer (dictator), the Nazis have power to declare any laws that he wants. Based on your knowledge of the goals of the Nazi Party, what new laws might he declare?

Vocabulary

Discrimination, Prejudice, Aryan

Activity: Jigsaw

Students will divide up into groups to study and answer questions about each document. (6 groups) Student who were absent when we studied the oath should analyze that document.

Laws Passed by Hitler and the Nazis

Laws for the Protection of German Blood and Honor (Nuremberg Laws)

The Reich Citizenship Law

Oath of Reich Officials and German Soldiers

Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Service

Law Concerning Hitler Youth

Law Against the Establishment of Parties

Comprehension questions:

1. Name of the law you are presenting: 

2. What is the meaning of this law? Explain the law in your own words.

Interpretive questions:

1. Who did you think might have benefited from this law? 

2. Who suffered as a result of this law? 

3. How might this law have influenced the attitudes and actions of the German people? 

4. How might their lives and beliefs have changed as a result of this law? 

5. Why do you think the Nazis created this law?

Universal questions:

1. Do you think this law is fair? Why or why not? 

2. What are the qualities of a fair or “just” law?

Notes on Hitler Laws - During the share out

For each set of laws students should take notes on:

1. When was the law was passed?

2. What was the purpose of the law?

3. How might this law influence German attitudes?

4. What is your personal reflection on this law?

Discussion questions:

1. How did the laws passed by Hitler support the principals in the platform?

2. Did Hitler pass any laws that went against the platform?

3. How might different Germans feel about these laws?

4. What is discrimination?

5. Who benefits from discriminating laws?

6. Why are more people vulnerable to being discriminated against under a dictatorship than a democratic system?

7. How does a democracy help to prevent discriminating laws?

Homework:

Identify an experience (from your own life or from history) with a rule or law that you thought was unfair to a particular group of people in your neighborhood or school (i.e., girls, boys, older students, younger students, non-English speakers, immigrants, athletes, etc.) How did you respond to this rule? Did you follow it or resist it? Why?

Activity 5:

Defining a Jew

I don't always assign this reading, but if you find the time it is helpful in explaining how Jews were legally defined and what were the implications.

Defining a Jew

    The Nazis passed forty-two anti-Jewish measures in 1933 and nineteen more in 1934. Each was designed to protect “Aryan blood” from contamination with “Jewish blood.” Then in 1935, Hitler announced three new laws at the party rally in Nuremberg. The first two stripped Jews of citizenship. The third law isolated them from other Germans. Realizing that the purity of the German blood is the prerequisite for the continued existence of the German people, and animated by the firm resolve to secure the German nation for all future times, the Reichstag has unanimously passed the following law…

1. Marriages between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood are hereby forbidden. Marriages performed despite this ban are void, even if, to contravene the law, they are performed abroad.

2. Extramarital intercourse between Jews and citizens of German or kindred blood is forbidden.

3. Jews are not permitted to employ female citizens of German or kindred blood under 45 years of age as domestic help.

The law raised a question that had not yet been resolved: Who is a Jew? 

On November 14, the Nazis answered that question by defining a Jew as a person with two Jewish parents or three Jewish grandparents. The children of intermarriage were considered Jewish if they practiced the Jewish religion or were married to a Jew. They were also Jews if one parent was a practicing Jew. A child of intermarriage who was not Jewish according to these criteria was considered a Jewish Mischling – a person of “mixed race.” By isolating Jews from other Germans and forbidding any mixing of races, the Nazis hoped that the problems of defining a Mischling would eventually disappear.

The Nazis passed over four hundred additional laws between 1933 and 1945.

Being a Jew was no longer a matter of self-definition or self identification. Now a person was considered a Jew because of what his or her grandparents had chosen to believe. Who you were no longer depended upon you. After noting that by 1935, “at least a quarter of the Jews who remained had been deprived of their professional livelihood by boycott, decree, or local pressure,” historian Martin Gilbert noted:

More than ten thousand public health and social workers had been driven out of their posts, four thousand lawyers were without the right to practice, two thousand doctors had been expelled from hospitals and clinics, two thousand actors, singers and musicians had been driven from their orchestras, clubs and cafes. A further twelve hundred editors and journalists had been dismissed, as had eight hundred university professors and lecturers, and eight hundred elementary and secondary school teachers.

The search for Jews, and for converted Jews, to be driven out of their jobs was continuous. On 5 September 1935 the SS newspaper published the names of eight half-Jews and converted Jews, all of the Evangelical-Lutheran faith, who had been “dismissed without notice” and deprived of any further opportunity “of acting as organists in Christian churches.” From these dismissals, the newspaper commented, “It can be seen that the Reich Chamber of Music is taking steps to protect the church from pernicious influence.”

Questions:

1. Define neighbor.

2. What responsibility do you have to your neighbors? What responsibility to non-Jewish Germans have to their German Jewish neighbors?

3. Why were these laws passed?

4. What types of laws ensured that there would not be confusion about who was Jewish?

5. Being a Jew was no longer a matter of self-definition or self-identification. What does it mean to lose the right to define yourself?

6. Look up the word pernicious. Why do you think those half Jews and converted Jews were dismissed?

Activity 6: PROPAGANDA 

Propaganda

Quickwrite: What do you do to convince a friend or family member of something?

Vocabulary:

Propaganda – information of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a prticular political cause or point of view

Definitions of Propaganda

• The spreading of ideas for the purpose of helping or harming an institution, a cause, or a person. 

• Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

• A manipulation designed to lead you to a simplistic conclusion rather than a carefully considered one .

• The deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions [thoughts], and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist. 

Is propaganda misleading? Does it have to be untrue? Is it always harmful? 

Kristallnacht Excerpts:

Klaus Langer

Excerpt from Klaus’s Diary from Salvaged Pages

(Excerpted from Salvaged Pages: Young Writers’ Diaries of the Holocaust, pages 19–23.)

Klaus Langer, from Essen, Germany, wrote the following words in his diary when he was 12 years old.

November 11, 1938

The past three days brought significant changes in our lives. On November 7 a German [diplomat] was assassinated in Paris. He died two days later. The day following, on November 10. . . came the consequences.

At three o’clock the synagogue and the Jewish youth center were put on fire. Then they began to destroy Jewish businesses. . . . Fires were started at single homes belonging to Jews. At six-thirty in the morning the Gestapo came to our home and arrested Father and Mother. Mother returned after one and a half hours. Dad remained and was put in prison. . . .

We . . . returned to our neighborhood by two o’clock . . . When I turned into the front yard I saw that the house was damaged. I walked on glass splinters. . . . I ran into our apartment and found unbelievable destruction in every room. . . . My parents’ instruments were destroyed, the dishes were broken, the windows were broken, furniture upturned, the desk was turned over, drawers and mirrors were broken, and the radio smashed. . . .

In the middle of the night, at 2:30 A.M., the Storm Troopers [also known as the Brownshirts] smashed windows and threw stones against store shutters. After a few minutes they demanded to be let into the house. Allegedly they were looking for weapons. After they found no weapons they left. After that no one was able to go back to sleep. . . . I shall never forget that night. . . .

Books could be written about all that had happened and about which we now begin to learn more. But, I have to be careful. A new regulation was issued that the Jews in Germany had to pay one billion reichmarks for restitution. What for? For the damage the Nazis had done to the Jews in Germany. . . .

November 16, 1938

A number of events occurred since my last entry. First, on November 15, I received a letter from school with an enclosed notice of dismissal. This became [unnecessary] since that same day an order was issued that prohibited Jews from attending public schools. . . .

December 3, 1938

Taking up this diary again is not for any pleasant reason. Today, the day of National Solidarity, Jews were not allowed to go outside from noon until eight at night. Himmler . . . issued an order by which Jews had to carry photo identity cards. Jews also are not permitted to own driver’s licenses. The Nazis will probably take radios and telephones from us. This is a horrible affair. Our radio was repaired and the damaged grand piano was fixed. I hope we can keep it. But one can never know with these scums.

Glossary:

Reichmarks: the German currency or money (like the U.S. dollar)

Restitution: Making things better after a crime or injury

Himmler: One of the most powerful Nazi politicians after Hitler

Alfons Heck

(From the biography of Alfons Heck, a leader in the Hitler Youth Movement, excerpted from Parallel Journeys by Eleanor Ayer)

On the afternoon of November 9, 1938, we were on our way home from school when we ran into small troops of SA and SS men [Nazi police]. . . . We watched open-mouthed as the men . . . began to smash the windows of every Jewish business in [our town]. Paul Wolff, a local carpenter who belonged to the SS, led the biggest troop, and he pointed out the locations.

One of their major targets was Anton Blum’s shoe store next to the city hall. Shouting SA men threw hundreds of pairs of shoes into the street. In minutes they were snatched up and carried home by some of the town’s nicest families—folks you never dreamed would steal anything.

It was horribly brutal, but at the same time very exciting to us kids. “Let’s go in and smash some stuff,” urged my buddy Helmut. With shining eyes, he bent down, picked up a rock and fired it toward one of the windows.

My grandmother found it hard to understand how the police could disregard this massive destruction. . . . [She said,] “There is no excuse for destroying people’s property, no matter who they are. I don’t know why the police didn’t arrest those young Nazi louts.

Andre

(Excerpted from “Taking a Stand” pp. 268–70 in Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior)

In November, 1938, twelve-year-old Andre came home from a youth group meeting. He told his father that his youth group leader said that everyone was supposed to meet the next day to throw stones at Jewish stores. Andre said to his father, “I have nothing against the Jews—I hardly know them— but everyone is going to throw stones. So what should I do?” Andre went for a walk to help him figure out what he should do. When he came back, he explained his decision to his parents. “I’ve decided not to throw stones at the Jewish shops. But tomorrow everyone will say, ‘Andre, the son of X, did not take part, he refused to throw stones!’ They will turn against you. What are you going to do?” His father was proud and relieved. He said that the following day, the family would leave Germany. And that is what they did.

Melita Maschmann

(Excerpted from “Taking a Stand,” pp. 268–70 in Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior)

Melita Maschmann lived in a small suburb of Berlin and knew nothing of Kristallnacht until the next morning. As she picked her way through the broken glass on her way to work, she asked a policeman what had happened.

After he explained, she recalled:

I went on my way shaking my head. For the space of a second I was clearly aware that something terrible had happened there. Something frighteningly brutal. But almost at once I switched over to accepting what had happened as over and done with, and avoiding critical reflection.

I said to myself: the Jews are the enemies of the New Germany. Last night they had a taste of what this means. . . . I forced the memory of it out of my consciousness as quickly as possible. As the years went by, I grew better and better at switching off quickly in this manner on similar occasions.

Frederic Morton

(Excerpted from “The Night of the Pogrom,” pp. 263–67 in Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust andHuman Behavior)

The writer Frederic Morton recalls his experience in Vienna, Austria (which had been taken over by Germany) on November 9, 1938:

The day began with a thudding through my pillow. Jolts waked me. . . . By that time we’d gone to the window facing the street. At the house entrance two storm troopers lit cigarettes for each other. Their comrades were smashing the synagogue on the floor below us, tossing out a debris of Torahs [holy scripture] and pews.

“Oh, my God!” my mother said. . . . The doorbell rang. . . . Ten storm troopers with heavy pickaxes . . . were young and bright-faced with excitement. . . . “House search,” the leader said. “Don’t move.”. . .

They yanked out every drawer in every one of our chests and cupboards, and tossed each in the air. They let the cutlery jangle across the floor, the clothes scatter, and stepped over the mess to fling the next drawer. Their exuberance was amazing.

Amazing, that none of them raised an axe to split our skulls. “We might be back,” the leader said. . . .

We did not speak or move or breathe until we heard their boots against the pavement. “I am going to the office,” my father said. “Breitel might help.” Breitel, the

Reich commissar in my father’s costume-jewelry factory, was a “good” Nazi. Once he’d said we should come to him if there was trouble. My father left. . . . I began to pick up clothes, when the doorbell rang again. It was my father. “I have two minutes.”

“What?” my mother said. But she knew. His eyes had become glass. “There was another crew waiting for me downstairs. They gave me two minutes.” Now I broke down. . . . Four months later he rang our doorbell twice, skull shaven, skeletal, released from

Dachau [a prison], somehow alive.

The United States

(Excerpted from “World Responses” pp. 270–72 in Facing History and Ourselves: Holocaust and Human Behavior)

On November 15, six days after Kristallnacht, President Franklin D. Roosevelt opened a press conference by stating, “The news of the last few days from Germany has deeply shocked public opinion in the United States. . . . I myself could scarcely believe that such things could occur in a twentieth-century civilization.”

As punishment to Germany, he announced that the United States was withdrawing its ambassador to Germany. But he did not offer to help the thousands of Jews now trying desperately to leave Germany. Few Americans criticized Roosevelt’s stand. According to a poll taken at the time, 72 percent did not want more Jewish refugees in the United States. In the 1930s Americans were more concerned with unemployment at home than with stateless Jews in Europe. Although many were willing to accept a few famous writers, artists, and scientists who happened to be Jewish, they were less willing to let in thousands of ordinary Jews. Then in February 1939, Senator Robert Wagner of New York and Representative Edith Nourse Rogers of Massachusetts sponsored a bill that would bypass the immigration laws and temporarily admit 20,000 Jewish children who would stay in the country only until it was safe for them to return home. As most were too young to work, they would not take away jobs from Americans.

Furthermore, their stay would not cost taxpayers a penny. Various Jewish groups had agreed to assume financial responsibility for the children. Yet the bill encountered strong opposition and was never passed.

Kristallnacht: The range of choices

Directions: How would you classify these responses to Kristallnacht? Were these individuals acting as bystanders, upstanders, victims, or perpetrators? You can assign more than one label to an individual or group.

1. Gustav Mark’s butcher shop is broken into and destroyed during Kristallnacht. Nazi troops arrest him and take him to a concentration camp (prison).

In this situation, Gustav Mark is a ______________________________ because . . .

2. Alfons Heck watches silently as his friend throws stones at a synagogue (a Jewish place of worship).

In this situation, Alfons Heck is a _______________________________ because . . .

3. Hannah Richter, a German of non-Jewish descent, helps her Jewish neighbor clean up after her home was broken into during Kristallnacht.

In this situation, Hannah Richter is a ____________________________ because . . .

4. The Schimmels, a German family of non-Jewish descent, choose not to participate in Kristallnacht and leave Germany the next day.

In this situation, the Schimmels are _____________________________ because . . .

5. Herschel Frank, a Jewish boy, runs around the neighborhood to warn his Jewish neighbors to hide their valuables and to warn Jewish men to hide so that they do not get arrested. His home is broken into, but his father and brothers were not caught and arrested by the Nazis because they were hiding in the basement.

In this situation, Herschel Frank is a ___________________________ because ... 

6. The events of Kristallnacht are reported in newspapers all over the world. After Kristallnacht, thousands of Jews in Germany, Poland and Austria try to move to other countries. Many nations, including the United States, maintain tight restrictions (limits) on the number of Jews allowed to emigrate (move) to their countries. 

In this situation, the United States and many other countries are ________ because . . .

7. After Nazi troopers break into their Jewish neighbor’s home, Martin and Karla Schneider rush in to steal their neighbors’ belongings.

In this situation, Martin and Karla Schneider are ___________________ because . . .

8. After Kristallnacht, the city of Shanghai (in China) welcomes all Jewish refugees.

 In this situation, the government of Shanghai is a __________________ because . . .