The Historiography of the Holocaust

Jewish Leadership in Extremis 325
that precisely because there is an agreement regarding the leadership status of
the Councils, fierce controversies regarding the Councils’ behaviour have
accompanied research throughout the past six decades: one has certain expectations
from ‘leaders’, and the Councils’ policies were thus assessed according to
these expectations (see, for instance, the clear tone of disappointment in
Arendt’s above-quoted verdict).
Two major ‘schools’ can be discerned in the research literature on the Jewish
Councils: the ‘Hilberg school’ and the ‘Trunk–Weiss school’. The first followed
Raul Hilberg’s depiction of the Holocaust as a ‘machinery of destruction’, in
which the Councils were presented as necessary cogs, instruments that did the
bidding of the Nazi administrative system. The other, named after Trunk and
the Israeli historian Aharon Weiss, emphasized the positive role these Councils
played in Jewish society in trying to preserve its existence in spite of persecution.
Both schools accepted the fact of nomination by the Germans, as well as that
the Councils also served the Jewish community. The two, however, differed
regarding the emphasis they put on the two functions (service to the Germans
or sustaining Jewish life), and consequently regarding a positive or negative
evaluation of the people who served on the Councils. Scholars belonging to
either one of these schools usually also differ considerably regarding the sources
they utilize: while the Hilberg school usually uses predominantly German
documentation, that is, takes the point of view of the authorities, scholars of
the Trunk–Weiss school usually employ a broad variety of Jewish sources (written
in Yiddish or local languages), including post-Holocaust memoirs and questionnaires.
15
Yet, in spite of the differences and polemics, both schools agree on the ‘leadership’
status of the Councils. This should be challenged, however, when taking
into consideration findings of general organizational research. Sociologists
make a distinction between leadership and ‘headship’. C.E. Gibb has pointed
out, that (1)
headship is maintained through an organized system, and not by spontaneous
recognition by fellow group members of the individual’s contribution to
group locomotion; (2) The group goal is . . . not internally determined
by the group itself; (3) in the . . . headship relation there is little or no sense
of shared feeling or joint action in pursuit of the given goal; . . . (5) Most
basically, the two forms of influence [leadership and headship] differ with
respect to the source of authority which is exercised. The leader’s authority
is spontaneously accorded him by his fellow group members. The authority
of the head derives from some extra-group power which he has over
the members of the group, who cannot meaningfully be called his
followers. They accept his domination on pain of punishment, rather than
follow. 16