The Historiography of the Holocaust

Jewish Leadership in Extremis 321
Hilberg, who in some ways distanced himself from Arendt’s harsh conclusions
(on the moral level), nevertheless continued to perceive the Jewish Councils as
‘tools’ of the Germans. 7 Philip Friedman, one of the finest Holocaust scholars
of the first period, remained less well known to the widening community of
Holocaust researchers, because he focused on ‘the Jewish dimension’ of the Holocaust,
and – though living in the United States – published many of his most
important studies in Hebrew, aiming at the Israeli scholarly community and
the Hebrew-reading audience abroad. Accordingly, his views had a greater
impact on Israeli and Jewish research (more so because Hilberg and Arendt
were not translated into Hebrew until 2000). In a series of articles dedicated to
the major ‘Ghetto chiefs’ in the Polish ghettos – Mordechai Chaim Rumkomski
of Lódz, Moses Merin of Sosnowiec and Jacob Gens of Vilna – published in
1953–54, he made the following observations:
And:
The question of the Judenräte...has not yet been adequately discussed.
Some writers judge them harshly, while others try to defend them. The entire
Judenrat question deserves special treatment and careful analysis.... Many
ghetto writers and chroniclers have regarded them as Nazi ‘collaborators’,
enemies of their own people. This reaction is understandable, especially
among victims of the Holocaust. Historically and sociologically, however, so
simplistic and superficial an interpretation will not suffice. These ghetto
leaders were not simply ‘villains’. Their downfall was the result of complex
internal conflicts, coupled with tremendous pressure from the German
enemy.... Some of these leaders believed that they were chosen by God to
play a special role in the deliverance of their people.
The term ‘false messiah’ does not really suit those Jews who arose in the
ghettos of Nazi-occupied Poland and took upon them the task of saving
Israel. They were false saviours, not false messiahs.... The pseudo-saviours
who emerged in the Polish ghettos derived not from the messianic tradition
of Israel, but from foreign and profane sources.... The pseudo-saviours of
the ghettos were, consciously or unconsciously, influenced by the great
‘messianic’ craze of the fascists, and aspired to be saviours of their people in
ways that were devoid of Jewish spirit. 8
Thus, two equations became rooted in popular discourse on the Holocaust:
(a) Jewish leadership under the Nazi regime = Jewish Councils = collaboration;
(b) the Jewish leadership’s behaviour vis-à-vis the Nazi regime = failure. Not
surprisingly, the result was to make the word Judenrat in Jewish discourse
equivalent to ‘treason’ (or ‘Quisling’ in general discourse).