In the Balkan States

Chapter 11 describes the deportations of the Jews from the Balkans in Europe. These countries include Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. Throughout the Balkan states, Jews were not a minority of any region and, unlike the Jews in Western Europe, it was rare to assimilate into their respective nation, and the Jews were not dispersed throughout Eastern Europe. Another difference between Balkan Jews and Western European Jews included economic status. The few Eastern European Jews who did assimilate belonged to the upper-middle class and intermarried with the Gentile population. Despite these uniting characteristics, each of the four Balkan nations mentioned in chapter 11 reacted differently to Hilter’s Final Solution.

Croatia protected those Jews who married government leaders, the very rich who cooperated and gave up their property and Jews who helped “The Croat cause.” These groups were not included in anti-Semetic legislation, so although on paper the country appeared to be judenrein, in reality a number of Jews still lived throughout Croatia. Arendt comments that assimilation provided security and a better chance of survival for Jews in Eastern Europe, especially in comparison to the rest of Europe.  The fact that assimilation provided security proves that nationalism was present throughout all of Europe, not just Germany, but other countries such as Croatia did not introduce such “ruthless toughness” to ensure the purity of their nation. Nevertheless, the idea of contributing to your nation was still highly valued.

In Serbia Jews were executed on the spot. Men were shot and women and children were gassed.

In Bulgaria antisemeitism was present long before Hitler came to power, yet when the Nazi Party ordered the deportation of Bulgarian Jews, Bulgarian legislation protected Baptized Jews, Jewish physicians and business men and other members of the higher class were excluded from the anti-Jewish laws. This practice returns to the idea of killing a culture versus killing a people and how the Nazis failed to recognize the significance of a single life whether it be the life of little Hans Cohen around the corner or Albert Einstein. Arendt writes that the Nazi needed to teach them the policy of totalitarianism and “enlighten them about the requirements for a ‘solution of the Jewish problem'” (186). The use of the word “enlighten” implies honor  and shows the propaganda and cliched phrases that Eichmann is still unable to escape. Bulgaria further hindered Hitler’s plan when the government dispersed the Jews throughout the nation rather than concentrating them. Also, the Jewish leaders did not cooperate with the Nazi Party, preventing thousands of Jews from boarding trains to Treblinka. High Ranked Clergy in Bulgaria also protected Jews from deportation. The description of Bulgaria’s policies and actions during the Holocaust contradict Eichmann’s earlier claim that no nation or people opposed Hitler’s Final Solution, which provided him with justification for complying with the Nazi Party’s violent demands. This chapter provides evidence that a nation’s government, clergy, and Jews resisted deportation, which causes the reader to doubt Eichmann’s claims and Arendt’s apparent trust.

Greece faciliated deportation. Dr. Merten, a representative of the military government, moved the Jews into a ghetto near a railroad station so that they could easily be deported. Jews were relocated in Auschwitz and worked as death commandos. When Dr. Merten was placed on trial he spoke respectably of Eichmann and said that only Wisliceny was responsible for the atrocities, but in court Eichmann denied any relationship to Merten. This highlighted Eichmann’s inability to recognize an opportunity to defend himself and use facts and quotes to his benefit. Instead, he relies on his faulty memory and cannot properly represent or defend himself. This adds to the reader’s pity for Eichmann because clearly he is disabled and raises the question of to what extent does a handicap alleviate the apparent brutality of the crime and alter one’s perception of the criminal.

The chapter also discussed Rumania, which did not follow Hitler’s orders, but rather appeared to be one step ahead of the Nazi Party’s plan. Arendt writes taht “Anoenescu, from beginning to end, was not more ‘radical’ than the Nazis (as Hilter had thought), but simply always a step ahead of German development” (193). I thought this related to the idea that no ideas can flourish in a totalitarian society, so the practices and the policies of the Nazis were derived from the atrocities committed in Rumania. This also shows that the Rumanians, who have fallen away from the spotlight during post-WWII times, were not simply mitlaufers, but perpetrators themselves.