In her article “Deportations from Western Europe”, Holly Arendt explores the role that ‘ruthless toughness’ played in shaping the way in which Germany interacted with the world under Nazi leadership. She begins the article by pointing out the way in which men manifesting this particular character trait to a great degree were selected as emissaries to other countries beginning in 1941. By 1942, these relations led to plans for the deportation of thousands of Jews from France, Belgium and Holland. Most of the Jews to be deported in this way had reached these locations after fleeing German influence in places such as Russia, Austria, Poland, Rumania and Hungary while few realized the true intentions behind the term ‘resettlement’. However, this influence was not necessarily as strong or as ruthless as it might seem.
As Arendt illustrates, it was due to the eagerness of the Germans to ‘resettle’ as many Jews as they could within their borders despite their apparent hatred for them that brought suspicion upon them. Eichmann’s attempts to assert his authority in France caused some to question his true intentions and his request that French Jews be included in the deportations triggered a complete change of heart on the part of French officials. Rather than moving forward with the deportation efforts, France agreed to uphold naturalizations granted to Jews prior to 1933 and intentionally delayed efforts to deport even stateless Jews.
These problems weren’t present in France alone. Arendt discusses several ways in which Belgian officials did what they could to prevent or interfere with deportations. Local law enforcement was reluctant to participate in collection efforts, those guarding trains were careless in ensuring train cars were locked and the nature of the Jewish population as a result of recent events made the community highly unorganized and therefore difficult to pick out. Holland was largely at the mercy of the Germans after their entire government fled before occupation, but this country also managed to interfere with deportation issues due to disagreements between Eichmann and Himmler as well as opposition by the population. Unfortunately, the public was divided on this issue and an equally strong faction worked diligently to uncover Jews in hiding and turn them in while native Jews worked against their refugee brethren under the mistaken belief that they would be safe as natural citizens. Denmark’s officials resigned their positions rather than take part in deportation efforts in that country, finding asylum in Sweden. “Italy and Bulgaria saved their Jews by playing “a complicated game of double-dealing and double-crossing … but they never contested the policy as such” (337). The Danes simply refused to make any distinction between Jews and non-Jews, native Jews or foreign Jews. The Danish resistance through measures such as refusing to work on German ships encouraged other nations’ resistance and began changing the mindset of German officials placed in Denmark.
What impressed me most about these stories was the way in which strong people in other countries worked to reduce the number of Jewish people that were killed in the concentration camps. Although it is deplorable that so many were killed, far many more were saved because these other countries were willing to take them in and protect them to various degrees. These kinds of stories are important for people to hear because they encourage others to resist evil thinking.
Works Cited
Arendt, Holly. “Deportations from Western Europe.”