|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Raul Hilberg and Robert Wistrich have extremely different views on Jewish responses to Nazi persecution. Hilberg believes “ The Jews were not oriented towards resistance,” while on the other hand Wistrich believed that the Jews put forth a great effort to protect themselves and to fight for their own rights against the Nazis. I believe that Wistrich’s interpretation is more realistic than Hilbergs, therefore making it more convincing. Hilberg argued the Jews resistance delt with four main ideas: alleviation, compliance, evasion and paralysis. Wistrich based his views on mainly physical resistance and Jewish councils.
Hilberg argued that the Jews barely put forth any forms of physical resistance and that when they did it was exceedingly limited and ineffective. Hilberg focused more on intellectual forms of resistance, such as alleviating the Nazis threat. ...
Hilberg also noticed the reaction of compliance. ... Hilberg views the councils as groups to save work for the Nazis, “. ...
Hilberg argued the reaction of evasion was weak. ...
Hilberg argued the reaction of paralysis. ...
Wistrich on the other hand argued his points very differently. ... They were given the responsibility for “ life-or-death decisions”
Wistrich argued that there was a common cliché that Jews did not resist their persecutors and simply went “like sheep to the slaughter” In fact there are many situations where the Jews stood up for themselves.
Approximate Word count = 927
Approximate Pages = 3.7
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|