Skip to main content

Stanford prison experiments and the holocaust

Concerning Claude Lanzmann's "The Last of the Unjust," Andrew O'Hehir wrote this:

I can understand why French documentary filmmaker Claude Lanzmann kept his interviews with Benjamin Murmelstein out of “Shoah,” Lanzmann’s 1985 magnum opus about the Holocaust. Murmelstein was a one-time Viennese rabbi who spent several years working closely with the notorious Adolf Eichmann and who was the final “Jewish Elder,” or community leader, in the ghetto of Theresienstadt (or Terezin, its Czech name), a faux-benevolent Potemkin village erected by the Nazis for propaganda purposes.  
To many people in the Jewish world, his name became identified with the way some leaders of Europe’s Jewish community had capitulated to Nazi domination and collaborated with a campaign of mass extermination. Gershom Scholem, the German-born Jewish philosopher and historian, suggested at one point that Murmelstein should be hanged as a traitor. 
Murmelstein was a powerful and well-connected figure in the Jewish world; he could easily have emigrated to England as late as 1939. Indeed, he almost did: He accompanied a fellow rabbi to London shortly before the war started, and then returned to Vienna on a nearly empty commercial flight. He could have refused to work with Eichmann and other Nazi commanders, and accepted the alternative: a bullet in the back of the head, or a one-way rail journey to “the East.” (Murmelstein says, by the way, that he didn’t learn the precise nature of what happened to deported Jews in Eastern Europe until 1945, although he knew that none of them ever came back.) Instead, he stayed behind, risking his own life every day in tense diplomatic encounters with murderers and psychopaths. He admits that he relished power and followed a strong drive for self-preservation — largely so that someone would be alive to tell the story. ("The Last of the Unjust,"
Patrick McEvoy-Halston
In the Stanford prison experiment, students were randomly divided into two groups -- and if they were guards they became thorough sadists, and if prisoners, cringing, placating masochists. Personally, I don't think this experiment was about human nature. I think you can be someone who never loses their head, switches into some other kind of person, owing to circumstances "permitting" them … you can be the person doing something abominable only because there was no way out, no choice -- the fully rational person is simply caught completely out. 
The Germans weren't like that, though. The ones who just ten years previous were Weimar permissive liberal became the conservative Volk -- millions of them -- that thought it only sensible that all the "filth" in society be cleansed away -- anyone, anything, "unfit." So is this what happened? All the Germans became Stanford prison experiment perfect examples who clearly aren't obeying orders but following deep inner compulsions, and the Jews were immune to it throughout? 
In my judgment, it depends on how they were raised. Germans had about the worst childrearing in all of Europe -- their parents told them they themselves were the filth that needed to be eliminated -- and when they started guiltily allowing themselves a permissive, enjoyable culture, they were driven to kill their bad child selves, that they'd introjected into other people. Jews had far warmer family relationships, but those who didn't would have taken advantage of an authoritative situation to switch into "guards" as well.  I have no idea if this applies to this person, as I'm not familiar with him. 
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston   You might try reading Lifton's The Nazi Doctors -- apparently to a large extent they simply "compartmentalized" their lives, so their jobs and those objectives were distinct from whatever was "personal" warm and fuzzy. Much as an engineer, say Werner von Braun, was concerned only with propulsion and payload, and not interested in the human suffering and/or politics.  All that massive record keeping was part of the bureaucracy of the "job" -- through-put, if you will.  Easier perhaps for those brought up to be stoic except for the sentimental (patriotics/familial/religious) realm, but it can be trained into a person. 
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston Yes, yes, yes--- after living in Germany for some years I have slowly come to appreciate how absolutely horrible and sadistic pre-war "parenting" was.  Very patriarchal, husbands were brutes and proud of it, wives were treated like dogs, sons were treated like vermin, and daughters were raped by their fathers so frequently that Freud was dumbfounded by the numbers of women who came to him for psychological problems related to childhood sexual abuse.  Katherine Mansfield's short stories don't cover the half of it.
Today, German parents are quite conscientious and exercise very little control over their children.  Many have no idea how "streng" their grandparents generation was raised.
However I can see in my ex-husband's family the reprecussions still.
@Patrick McEvoy-Halston Of course you cannot say much about Victorian-style parenting methods of the same era, either, in Great Britain, where children were cavalierly abandoned as soon as they were weaned, the boys often to indescribable, abusive boarding schools.  There was some of that in Germany, too, but Germans called themselves proudly "the Home of the Family" in contrast to Great Britain, which appeared (in the eyes of Germans) to be doing nothing so much as raising masses of insitutionalized children to serve as soldiers and bureaucrats in their vast Empire.  In Britain, Queen and Empire were supposed to come first and family ties were deliberately discouraged to that end.  Germans found that reprehensible.


Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   

2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…