Nationalsozialismus
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Online Publication (8)
- Journal Article (7)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Language
- English (17) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (17) (remove)
Keywords
- Begriffe (2)
- Ebsdorfergrund-Rauischholzhausen (1)
- Geschichte 1933-1942 (1)
- Judenverfolgung (1)
Version 2.0: In the Roman Republic, a dictatorship (dictatura in Latin) referred to an institution of constitutional law. In times of emergency the senate would temporarily grant a dictator extraordinary powers to defend and restore state order. This classic meaning was reshaped in various ways during the twentieth century. Dictatorship became an ambiguous term whose range of meanings could encompass positive expectations as well as moral condemnation. The modern concept of dictatorship has been used as both a self-descriptor as well as a label employed by others to describe communist, fascist and Nazi rule.
Few of Hannah Arendt’s declarations have had as enduringly a controversial legacy as the one she gave in her famous 1964 West German television conversation with Günter Gaus, proclaiming uncompromised loyalty to her first language – German – despite Hitler. The statement was misconstrued as a privileging of the language of the perpetrators and expressing a bias against Eastern European Jews. In conversation with the recent ›Taytsh turn‹ (Saul Zaritt) in Yiddish Studies, this article focuses instead on two Yiddish newspaper articles published by Arendt in 1942 and 1944 and explores what I call a ›Taytsh move‹ in Arendtʼs language politics. Taytsh, an alternative name for the Yiddish language meaning, literally, German, foregrounds (Jewish) cultures’ inherent translational mode and interconnectivity with the world that makes and sustains these cultures. Arendt reactivated the inherent unbordered nature of languages – with an awareness of the dangers of monolingualism; for the sake of overcoming reductive constructions of Jewishness and modern identity; against the atomizing forces of fascism.
Northeim is a town on the Leine River situated in the hilly region of Lower Saxony between Hildesheim and Göttingen; to historians it is known as the location of William Sheridan Allen’s path-breaking study of the Nazi Machtergreifung. The book was based on a 1962 dissertation at the University of Minnesota, and Allen first published it while at the University of Missouri in Columbia in 1965. Within two years, it appeared in England and was translated into German and French. Allen had settled at the State University of New York in Buffalo by the time I read the second, revised edition (New York 1984), which I used to write this review. In the forty years since its publication, Allen’s readable history became a standard for undergraduates in North America; and his microhistory of the Machtergreifung has been replicated in most German localities. A number of American scholars in particular have followed in Allen’s footsteps: Peter Fritzsche, David Imhoof, Rudy Koshar, and others, including myself. Part of the reason for the interest of American doctoral students in German Mittelstädte is, of course, pragmatic. When one has limited time and money for a research trip abroad, it seems reasonable to select for study an ‘überschaubare’ provincial town. The peculiarities of American culture is surely another reason that historians from the United States look for the German equivalent of ‘middle America’ in what Mack Walker called ‘German home towns’.1 But in the end, German historians from many countries, including Germany, have adopted Allen’s method because close investigations of events ‘on the ground’ offer a necessary balance to modern German histories ‘writ large’.
"There’s nobody left". Anti-Semitic exclusion and persecution in Rauischholzhausen, 1933-1942
(2018)
"I just can’t go back there. [...] I [would] like to go once more to Holzhausen, to the cemetery, and to Kirchhain. I want to see, but ... there’s nobody left." – Martin Spier, New York City 2009.
The people no longer left there are the Jewish residents of Rauischholzhausen. They were persecuted and deprived of their rights, then expelled and murdered. At the same time, the history of Jewish life in this village goes a long way back, as does the antisemitism there. In 1933, the village still had 20 Jewish residents.
On September 6, 1942, the last 18 Jewish individuals from Rauischholzhausen and the surrounding areas were forced onto lorries at the village square and transported from there to Theresienstadt. Three of them survived the Holocaust, returning to the village in 1945.
This book is the result of searching for those who are missing and the reasons for their absence. It is the result of an extensive search in archives and conversations with contemporary witnesses from the village. Yet, in particular, it is the result of conversations with four Jewish survivors, the siblings of the Spier family. On the basis of their memories, this book attempts to describe those years between 1933 and 1942—years that beggar description. It presents a history of events in Rauischholzhausen that developed their own dynamic and that in many respects preempted the state’s policies of exclusion and persecution.