Timothy Snyder’s “Black Earth” offers a mixed bag for
readers. Those familiar with the topic
will undoubtedly find themselves making notes in the margins of practically
every other page, while those new to the subject will be awed by what, at best,
can be classified as historical “sound bites” or factoids. As such I have to admit that in places this
book is very readable, much more so than your usual historical monograph on
these topics. Snyder is a historian of
Poland and it shows well enough as at the heart of “Black Earth” is not so much
the Holocaust as is Poland. The problem
is that putting Poland on a pedestal as Snyder so often does leaves a bad
aftertaste. Although Poland participated
in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia (using the same ideas of
self-determination that both Germany and the Soviet Union utilized during the
Second World War) and had similar plans to the Germans in the mid-to-late 1930s
in removing Jews from Polish territory, according to Snyder it wasn’t so bad. Polish citizens and institutions helped train
Jewish Zionists to fight in Palestine against the British so that they could
pave the way for a Jewish state and rid Poland, and, by extension, Europe, of
its Jews sooner rather than later. The
party in power in Poland in 1938 “announced its preference for the emigration
of about 90 percent of Poland’s Jews” (59). But it’s not a big deal, as, according to
Snyder, the leader of the party was married to a Jew. The real difference between the two, for
Snyder, is that Germany eventually aimed for the “destruction” of states where
Jews lived whereas Poland wanted to create a new state in the Middle East for
Jews. But such a “sound bite” seemingly
puts ideology as it would develop in Germany above everything else, the
numerous exceptions made by Hitler in regards to decisions dealing with Jews
and occupied territories, etc.
In more than one instance Snyder also seems to be working
backwards, with hindsight in mind to make his arguments hold water. For instance, in discussing the creation of
the first concentration camps in Germany he claims that “the concentration
camps were training grounds for the more general SS mission beyond Germany: the
destruction of states by racial institutions” (42). But such a claim means that Hitler knew
exactly how the Second World War would unfold before it even began. Snyder also claims German plans for
resettling Jews in Madagascar were equivalent to the “Final Solution” (76). Further examples of using hindsight would be
Snyder’s discussion of Stalin wanting to “seize” the opportunity to destroy the
Polish state, leaving out any discussion of Soviet foreign policy in the 1930s,
the more than two weeks spent by the Soviet Union after Germany invaded Poland
in seeing how the western allies would react, or the threats made to the Soviet
Union by Germany in regards to what they’d do with territories within the
Soviet “sphere of influence” if the Red Army did not invade.
On numerous occasions Snyder shows a lack of knowledge or
understanding for the Soviet position in either the 1930s or throughout the
Second World War. Whether it’s Stalin
“waiting for an alliance with Hitler,” for which no evidence is presented, or discussing
the crisis over Czechoslovakia where he posits that the Soviet offer of help to
defend Czechoslovakia against Germany would, in the end, have turned into some
type of “truce with Germany that allowed it to take territory from Poland
without having to engage the Germans” (92). I was not aware that “fantastical what if
scenarios” were now the norm for historians.
Snyder also makes the familiar claim that Soviet foreign minister
Litvinov, a Jew, was dismissed and Molotov assumed his position just in time to
make the non-aggression pact with Germany.
Recent research by Geoffrey Roberts on Molotov suggests that the move
had less to do with Litvinov being a Jew than his inability to make a coalition
with the western allies work and Stalin wanted someone new to make a foreign
policy move that would last.
Similar to a lack of any understanding in Soviet foreign
policy is Snyder’s take on Hitler’s foreign policy. The claim is made that “Hitler was
consciously provoking a European war, and would have taken it in whatever form
it came.” (93) Is this why Hitler
consistently said he would avoid conflict if the allies did anything to
initiate a war when he remilitarized the Rhineland or when the Anschluss of
Austria occurred? Is this the same
Hitler who was surprised when Britain and France declared war over Poland? Worse was the statement that “Hitler
understood the minutia of war; indeed he grasped its details far better than
any other head of state and better than most of his generals.” (241) Once
again, the sound bites are running the asylum.
No real evidence or further explanations are offered for either that
make sense.
When it comes to the Holocaust itself I am somewhat
ambivalent about Snyder’s claims. Some
of the arguments presented are comical: “people in Poland tended to hate those
from whom they stole because they had stolen from them” (109). Sure.
But at other times the analysis seems to go deeper and provide an
interesting take on events that have been covered in so much detail
already. One of the most important
arguments for Snyder is his idea that the Holocaust was, in part, the creation
of both the “east” and the “west” meeting in an area that was without coherent
rule or institutional policies (143). That area is within the territories that were
“doubly occupied” (he uses that phrase a lot) in what his previous book called
the “Bloodlands.” In some ways it seems
self-evident that when you introduce violence and anarchy, little if anything
is off-limits. Thus I cannot say this is
a revelation when it comes to the evolution of the Holocaust, more so because
today more than ever many researchers are looking toward local collaboration
and accomplices to the Holocaust. In
many ways I would agree that the Holocaust would have been impossible to
achieve without the numerous variables inherent in both the rise of Nazism
within Germany after the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles, as well
as its evolution on the Eastern Front, starting with the Einzatsgruppen and
reserve police battalions leading the way for locals to help perpetrate the
“Holocaust by Bullets” and eventually leading to gas vans, death camps and
death marches.
Snyder’s look at the perpetrators themselves also offers a
look at research on collaborators that’s already been done. Often it was the same men (and perhaps women)
that offered their services to the institution or government in power and
readily switched sides when those in power altered. Thus those who served the Soviets readily
served the Nazis and then once more the Soviets. They worked within the German military and
police institutions and did the same under the Soviets. They killed Polish or German “spies” under
the auspices of the NKVD or Soviet partisans and Jews just as readily under the
Nazis. The latter parts of this text
offer a look at what happened to Jews in other states with the argument that
those who deemed Jews “citizens” and where state institutions continued to
exist, there the majority of Jews survived the war or at least had a better
chance to survive the war. Finally, the
second to last chapter looks at those who risked their lives to help Jews, mainly
Poles (surprise!). There is no doubt
that tens of thousands risked their lives to save Jews, and, in part, Poles
make up the majority of those among the “Righteous” because there were so many
Jews in Poland and because of the numerous connections and networks that
intertwined both Poles and Jews. Neither
takes away from the selfless actions of the many men and women that chose to go
above and beyond what was expected and saved thousands of Jews throughout the
war years (and not just in Poland). Snyder also provides numerous examples of diplomats
throughout Europe (from countries like China, Japan, etc.,) doing their utmost
in trying to get visas and passports for Jews to get them to safety. As they are the faces of state institutions,
this once more supports Snyder’s larger argument(s).
In the end Snyder’s “Black Earth” is a nice popular history
with the needed sound bites to make the general reader shake their head in
agreement without actually understanding many of the intricacies at work. The topics Snyder covers, and forgets to
cover, have volumes already written on them that offer much more in-depth
analysis. But, unfortunately, they are
not as well written or as accessible to the general public, for whom Snyder is
writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment