I mean if we’re having a pissing contest I literally have a BA in history focused on the Holocaust,
But sure buddy. I’m convinced by some random person on Reddit making claims with no evidence.
Another classic focusing on the publics role in the Holocaust via banality and not being evil.
https://www.amazon.com/Eichmann-Jerusalem-Banality-Penguin-Classics/dp/0143039881/ref=nodl_
Thats not true, arguably the best sociology book ever was wrote by the right wing, Eichmann in Jerusalem. Sociology is left biased because of modern academia, it hasn't always been that way. Modern sociology was basically created by the Frankfurt school, the French posmos and Gramsci, all marxists that base their ideas upon determinism, which could completely be argued.
An excellent read, and potentially a textbook or supplement for your class (one might even argue that it could be considered an essential portion of any curriculum that purports to cover this most philosophical of topics):
An excellent read, and potentially a textbook or supplement for your class (one might even argue that it could be considered an essential portion of any curriculum discussing this most philosophical of topics:
I'm going to challenge your assumption that non-violent 'protest' was ineffective against Nazis.
There's a book called Eichmann in Jerusalem, The Banality of Evil.
Amongst the many interesting things, it details how the holocaust was accomplished, and it wasn't through German engineering as it's often portrayed, but by simple local compliance. In other words, in regions that cooperated with the Nazis, extermination rates were upwards of 90%, in those that simply refused to turn in the neighbors, or actively harbored Jews from discovery, the rates were very low.
Non violence in Nazi occupied Europe was actually very effective a thwarting Nazi goals, and this is where the banality part comes in. We're comforted by the idea that evil is thrust upon us by overwhelming force, but the truth is far more insidious. It accomplished by simple cooperation. As impressive as the Nazi war machine was, it can't make people tell the truth or rat out their neighbors, and it's that kind of corporation that gets things done. The Nazis relied on local law enforcement and local institutions for control. They couldn't send an S.S. unit to every village.
The most controversial parts of the book even detail how Jewish organizations themselves helped seal their fate.
There wouldn't have been a holocaust if people had just refused to cooperate. Effective non-violent resistance is rarely about holding signs or posting graffiti.
War, by contrast, is sort of after the fact, and collateral damage is inherent to the process. Even "the good guys" engage in serious injustices. At all levels it represents the greatest of human failures, which is sometimes necessary, but only at the cost of much better solutions.
I really liked Man's Search for Meaning. I found it directly after reading Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jeruselem. You might try it out. They're not the same exactly, but I found Arendt's writing style similar to Frankl's. It was direct, immediately accessible, and philosophic.
Since most people here will have naver heard about the reasons why Poland's PM saud this, here is a list (far from complete) of those reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenrat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Ghetto_Police
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBagiew
Only as far as it takes to take the WHOLE truth, not just the parts Israel agrees:
And then I recommend "Eichmann in Jerusalem" by Hannah Arendt.
Lolek Skosowski, a Jew, a Gestapo agent, who in 1943 gave the Germans death to over 2,000 survivors so far during the so-called Polish Hotel scandal
there were also other Jewish voluntary organisations that were willing participants of Holocaust like the most famous https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBagiew which was operating by infiltrating Jewish and Polish resistance movements, giving away the Polish groups hiding the Jews etc - making it significantly harder to operate since they never could be sure if the next Jewish person to hide is not the one that will give all the others away, etc.
and other like:
Obviously, these examples being true doesn't mean Jewish involvement being significant, just like in case of the Poles there was a strict minority of people willing to collaborate voluntarily (e.g. Żagiew, Group 13, early Judenrats) and those forced to collaborate (late Judenrats, Sonderkommandos) - but that's exactly the whole point of Morawiecki's comparison.
Read "Eichman in Jersualem" which talks more about how this gets to happen. Also look into the Milgram Experiment. Also see Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room to see how it leads to the corporate world. Sure the leaders were greedy and corrupt, but the evilness they cause was only possible because they didn't do it directly, merely just let it happen.
See we believe in evil people, yet never catch them. And when we do catch them we realize that it doesn't really stop things. The greatest evil and corruption is done by delegating the pieces of action so no one does the actual thing. You realize that most people, 80% just let evil happen, 19% feel forced to do evil, and 1% have suffered such events that they feel the final (evil) consequences are justified, the other 99% justifies their part, but claims that the final consequence should have been prevented "by someone else".
Try reading Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Something in a similar vein might be Philip Gourevitch We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families. Both of those are books that were written while reporting for the New Yorker - Arendt reflects extensively on the ethical/moral lapses which permitted the atrocities to occur - the seeming "accidental" nature of it. Gourevitch reports on the sociological and political history of the area and the global lack of balls in intervening in Rwanda. They're tough books to read, but really good.
There's also Frantz Fanon, who wrote specifically about colonialism and ethnic identity; his oeuvre is more in defense of revolution - and the fight or resistance against invasive/oppressive cultures. He presents kind of a defense of violence in the right circumstances. His works have been influential for organizations like the Black Panthers, Malcom X and Che Guevara.
Ed: And, if you're ever just in too good of a mood and need to depress yourself, go get a good eyeball full of the effects of ethnic violence in the modern world in James Nachtwey's book Inferno.
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Penguin Classics) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0143039881/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_Z2TfBbAN379ER