Polish-Jewish Relations: 1,300 Keyword-Phrase-Indexed Book Reviews (by Jan Peczkis)

Jews and Intermarriage in Nazi Austria, by Evan Burr Bukey. 2011. Cambridge University Press, New York

Intended Totality? Hardly. Far From Targeting All Jews, the Nazis Deliberately Let Many Jews Slip Through the Cracks

The cornerstone Holocaust supremacist myth is the claim that Jews under Nazi rule, unlike the victims of all other genocides, were all to be put to death. This is supposed to justify the elevation of the Holocaust over all other genocides. The intended-totality argument is far from the truth. I explore some means by which the Third Reich actively spared certain Jews.

NAZIS ALMOST ALWAYS SPARED THOSE JEWS MARRIED TO GENTILES

The author, a historian, makes this revealing comment, “Recent research has concluded that well over 90 percent of Jews living in mixed marriages in both Germany and Austria survived the Nazi era.” (pp. 82-83).

Why so? Bukey adds that, “That most of Vienna’s surviving intermarried Jews avoided deportation and death can be attributed primarily to concern for civilian morale, although in several cases factors such as employment in war-essential enterprises seem to have come into play.” (p. 199).

So the Holocaust is not different from other genocides. It was not unique, not exceptional, and not unprecedented. Like all other genocides, the Holocaust ran its course until it collided with practical realities that hindered its continuation or expansion. The Nazis backed off their presumably redemptive antisemitism just as soon as they ran into difficulties.

NOT ALL JEWS IN MIXED MARRIAGES FACED DISCRIMINATION

While some Jews married to gentile Germans or Austrians experienced discriminatory restrictions, others did not. Bukey writes, “Jewish partners living in ‘privileged mixed marriages’ may have even breathed a sigh of relief. They were not obliged to wear the Star of David, move into ‘Jew houses’, or suffer a cut in food rations. For the most part, they were free to come and go as fellow citizens. Some even managed to lead a relatively normal existence.” (p. 117).

NO REDEMPTIVE ANTISEMITISM. JEWS COULD IMPROVE THEIR STANDING IN THE THIRD REICH AFTER ALL

Historian Bukey makes these eye-opening comments, “Of greater significance for Jewish mixed families in Vienna was S 7 of the First Supplementary Degree of the Reich Citizenship Law. It allowed persons classified as Jews or Mischlinge to appeal for a change in their ‘racial status’ based on gaps or errors in their ancestral tree, dubious paternity, or outstanding performance in the Nazi cause or on the field of battle.” (p. 17. Emphasis added). The latter contradicts the Holocaust supremacists (e. g, Michael Shafir), who would have us believe that, unlike the case of the victims of Communism, there was nothing that a Jew could possibly do, in Nazi Germany, to improve his status. In actuality, the Jew sometimes could, thus vitiating this oft-repeated argument.

In addition, Holocaust supremacists like to mystify the Holocaust and to make the Holocaust out to be unique. They tell us that the Nazis felt that they were on a grand mission to free the world of the Jews by killing every single Jew (redemptive antisemitism). They tell us that the Jew was doomed simply for being born a Jew, no matter what, and that it did not matter whether the Jew was disloyal or loyal to Germany, etc. As we have seen, conduct did matter. The accused Jew could potentially “earn off” his Jewishness by “outstanding performance in the Nazi cause or on the field of battle”! So much for the myth of Nazi redemptive antisemitism.

NAZIS LENIENTLY ALLOWED JEWS AND PART-JEWS TO SUCCESSFULLY CONTEST THEIR RACIAL STATUS IN COURT

Bukey tabulates the contested heritage cases in Vienna from 1938 to 1944. (p. 31). He summarizes the table as follows, “Examination of the following table reveals that 418 (84.1 percent) of known Viennese applicants succeeded in elevating their racial status. Nearly one-third of those classified as Jews were promoted to half-Jews…” (p. 30. Emphasis added). That is, 27.8% of Jews were reclassified as First-Degree Mischlinge. In addition, 19.7% of First-Degree Mischlinge were reclassified as Second Degree Mischlinge, and an astonishing 35.2% of First-Degree Mischlinge were reclassified as “German blooded. (p. 31). Other tallies from the Vienna area (p. 34) are comparable to these figures.

The Nazis were also prone to re-define those who challenged their status in other regions of the Third Reich. Bukey comments, “Nearly half of those Gentile parents who filed appeals on behalf of their children sought to prove that according to the Nuremberg Laws, their sons and daughters should not be ‘counted as Jews’ (Geltungsjuden). Because many were widowed, divorced, or had lost contact with husbands in exile, this was an approach that proved surprisingly successful, as it did in Hamburg. Forty-eight of the appellants were elevated from ‘Jew’ to ‘Mischlinge of the First Degree.’ Of the other cases, four were elevated to “Mischlinge of the Second Degree,’ and seven to ‘German or kindred blood.'” (p. 41. Emphasis added).

INTENDED TOTALITY? HARDLY. A HODGE-PODGE OF NAZI CONTRADICTIONS ABOUT JEWS

Far from having a unique laser-like focus on destroying Jews, the Nazis were, if anything, beset by confused, internally inconsistent policies. Bukey writes, “What of those plaintiffs who failed to convince the court of their non-Jewish ancestry? As with those who succeeded, it is impossible to discern a distinctive pattern–partly because of insufficient documentation, partly because of the capricious, arbitrary nature of Nazi racial policy.“ (p. 72).