Between Dignity and Despair – First Impressions
I didn’t like this book very much. I thought it was a rather unique book at first, as Marion Kaplan compiled a bunch of anecdotes from Holocaust survivors together and fitted them into this book, giving us a truly realistic and personal view of the Jewish life in Nazi Germany.
The anecdotes are heartbreaking, touching and celebratory all at once. You cheer when you read a German standing up to a Nazi soldier during the 1933 Jewish boycott, or Germans insisting on continuing their friendships with Jewish friends. And then there are stories of Jewish women having to perform sexual favours in order to get their immigration papers, or how Jews were slowly excluded from the most basic of clubs. It’s incredibly interesting to read, and the glimpse into Jewish life is fascinating and truly different from a normal ‘historic’ book.
The problem is Kaplan won’t stop hammering it in on how ‘brutal’ or ‘cruel’ or ‘painful’ it was for the Jewish people. Kaplan uses the word ‘brutal’ 4 times in 3 paragraphs, and by the end of the Introduction(!) I was already screaming ‘Yes, I know Jewish life was painful; everyone knows that, so stop using all these loaded words!’ Kaplan doesn’t need to tell us that it was horrible to live in Germany in the 1930s; the anecdotes she collected speak volumes already.
The way she writes is weak, and the anecdotes are the only things that hold this book together. Firstly, for all her attempts to show that the Jewish experiences were diverse, she does a fantastic job in colouring the German side the same shade of evil. All Germans – be it a civilian or a member of the SS – behave the same. There are the occasional hopeful stories, but it seems like the Germans are never human. They are simply grouped into a single word – ‘Germans’. Coupled with the loaded words Kaplan loves to scatter in what moments she can spare between anecdotes, the whole thing just smacks of bias.
Granted, Kaplan writes the book wholly from the viewpoint of the victims in Nazi Germany, and after some thought, I could let the German homogeneity and loaded words slide. What I cannot forgive, however, is speculation, and getting horrendously biased sources.
At times Kaplan attempts to give us a brief summary of the events that happened in a certain year, and the aftermath of said event. No historian in their right mind can ever say “Well, I have no sources on this, but I can say that…” You can’t do that. You are not a historian if you speculate on events that you have no proof for. Kaplan, unfortunately, speculates so eagerly and explicitly, and she actually used the phrase “There are no sources, but…” She seems to want to capitalize on the Jewish suffering so badly she winds up adding on more theories of how Jews suffered when she even lacks the evidence for it. I can assure you that the lack of proof is not going to add on my sympathy for what happened in the 1930s. It makes me pissed that I’m reading a completely biased source and now I have to take all the anecdotes I read with a grain of salt.
Also, getting data from German sources about almost anything Jewish in the 1930s would be biased. Percentages will be skewed, attempting to show progress, or just for propaganda. The same thing can be said for Jewish sources. Isn’t there a possibility that the percentages might have overinflated? I can’t remember which year the data was published, but either way, there is a possibility that it might be biased, simply because you’re taking Jewish data for Jewish suffering in WWII. There isn’t any comparison to German sources or even independent sources for balance. I cannot just take Jewish sources as fact and leave it there. Once again, Kaplan seems to want to bludgeon us on the head with the phrase ‘THE JEWS SUFFERED IN WWII!’
I KNOW. IT HURTS BAD, AND YOU’RE NOT EXACTLY HELPING MY SYMPATHY ANY.
I don’t think Kaplan wanted this to be a historical or accurate source. She has provided us with anecdotes, and we all know how tricky the memory can be. I can accept that, but when Kaplan switches to a summary of events that everyone knows (translation: turns historian), takes percentages from biased sources and conjures theories out of thin air, I have reason to disbelieve anything she says.
