The juiciest, most tempting “what if†scenario most 20th century historians ponder is the victory of the Wehrmacht over the Soviet Union in the fall of 1941 and the taking of Moscow. But we can envision a hypothetical situation of a slightly different tone than is normally extrapolated by the military experts. The Nazis, as it is, are the perfect example for the game we will play, for two reasons: (1) their reference figures prominently, in some respects exclusively, in the current controversy over Ward Churchill and (2) they are easily the apex of metaphorical evils in our society–both the right (Saddam was the new Hitler!) and the left (Bush is a new Hitler!) continually evoke the Nazis without much historical precedent.
So let us put this situation together. The year is 2005 and the fascist Nazi state, after achieving its goals of lebensraum–conquering the living space that included substantial parts of Russia–and the Final Solution—the suppression of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals and many other groups in Germany–have firmly established themselves in the eastern hemisphere. “Minority†groups continue to exist but are excluded from participation in society and are extremely poor. In some small, liberal-arts college in the German empire, a group of young, liberal-minded students (fascists, but open-minded ones nonetheless), discuss Elie Wiesel’s Night in hushed, terse tones.
One of them brings up frightening possibility: was the Final Solution wrong? After all, Germany has made slight reforms, remaining minority groups have been allotted small plots of land (don’t think “reservations†but “politically powerless regional non-statesâ€). “Germany is, in fact, in great shape now! Look at our highways!†the young student justifies.
“Okay,†another student pauses before posing his conundrum, “let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Jews didn’t lose the war, but they were completely massacred in the millions. Are we, as the children and grandchildren of those who established the 3rd Reich, at all responsible for their actions? We didn’t make these decisions, we didn’t act them out. We can’t help having been born in Germany, but that doesn’t give us the responsibility to do anything about the state we currently live in, does it? After all, we can’t change history.†Their history courses always taught them that they had fought the Jews and Romas and everyone else. If you don’t fight, no one can really lose, in a fair way, at least. History has a way of controlling determining morality.
Needless to say, this young student is taking a very courageous step: admitting the possibility that his own state did something wrong. He is clearly in the minority of the population.
In the United States we hear of this conversation and throw up our hands in exasperation. Of course it was genocide! Who could possibly believe that the Jews “lost the war?†Even thinking the issue is debatable is ludicrous.
Americans become very angry when they witness the blatant disregard of historical fact.
But such a reaction from anyone, anywhere is completely natural. The Holocaust is, beyond dispute, one of most atrocious events in modern history, and it is absurd that either sheer immorality on which it stands or the evidence of its extremes would be debated. Shouldn’t it be acknowledged and shunned by the government and the German populace?
Our look at the individual’s currently living in (hypothetical still) Germany is no less critical. Isn’t it their responsibility to rebel against a government which caused the Holocaust, if for no other reason than to prevent its recurrence? If they don’t openly rebel, shouldn’t they admit the errors of their mothers and fathers and attempt to mitigate, by any means possible, the suffering of the very few who survived?
Again, agreement on these points, I would imagine, is near universal. Yet, in hypothetical Germany, they are all debated.
And we have a relatively clear understanding as to why, if the Nazis had won, this debate would likely be occurring–despite our exasperation–in 2005. Its because, for most Americans, we still have this debate about the Native American.
Yes, of course, the terms are different. Most Americans, to one degree or another severely regret what happened to this country’s original inhabitants. There were severe differences between Nazi Germany and the United States: Germany was a fascist state which intentionally had a plan for the Jews, committing its crimes in concentration camps over the span of only a few years; America is a democracy which intentionally had a plan for individual tribes, committing its crimes across the open plains over a span of centuries. They were totally different.
And on top of it, look how things are now? We are a thriving democracy, with the most powerful economy in history and are universally respected as a peace keeper and protector of sovereign autonomy. Our interstate system is top-notch. Native Americans have reservations and casinos, which are being used to enrich their society. Surely, if the price wasn’t worth it, then it was inevitable. Let’s not cry over spilled milk. So the reasoning goes, in text books and high school history courses.
I live in an upper-middle class community in Wisconsin with a very liberal school district; honors history classes read Howard Zinn, a not-so-small achievement in the public school system. Those not lucky enough to reach honors history were treated to another book of historical debates. The first chapter had the title (I’m paraphrasing, but this is pretty close), “There was a Genocide against the Native Americans v. The Indians lost the War.†In a very liberal high school (where most people learn their allotted degree of history for their lives) in a state with a progressive school system, the debate about genocide is still happening.
Just as we look at the hypothetical young Germans and their obvious debate with incredulity, we remain unaware and unwilling to admit that we need not create a hypothetical Germany to grasp the profound moral implications of this discussion.
The single largest substantive difference between real Germany and the United States is that the Wehrmacht no longer exists (in fact, Americans cite quite often, we brought the Nazis down and established democracy in Germany) and the United States government, the same government responsible for the genocide, does exist. The same system which ruled over the elimination of a culture is the one whose jurisdiction we fall under today. Might it be necessary to picture German youths debating the Holocaust to grasp the import of this fact?
We should ask ourselves, what responsibility do we, as Americans, have? We didn’t commit the crimes of our grandmothers and grandfathers and shouldn’t be blamed for them. So the reasoning goes.
Our answers to these questions should be the same answers we would give to the citizens of hypothetical Germany: since you are living in the same system which allowed genocide to occur, you have the responsibility to disassemble that system as quickly as possible to prevent its recurrence. If nothing else, you should be attempting to mitigate, through any means possible, the suffering of those who survived and continue to live under the same system.
Ward Churchill has spent his career reminding us of these very basic, elemental facts which concentrated power has attempted to blind us to. And when we take him seriously, when we read A Little Manner of Genocide or Agents of Repression (the latter co-written with James Vander Wall), we do feel in part burdened by a bloody history, but much more so do we feel liberated from the mask of mythology and able to confront our world for what it is, and what we can do about it.
Neutrality always harms the oppressed, never the oppressor, Elie Wiesel said.
Whoever controls the past, controls the future, Orwell said: whoever controls the present controls the past. This is the value of Ward Churchill, and why we should celebrate his contribution (if not always his wording); he is the antithesis to those who control the present. He helps to give us the power to understand the past–not to impose it upon others as a measure of control because the past, if we are honest, cannot be controlled–so that we may create a better future for ourselves and those who continue to suffer.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate