She was a concentration camp survivor who had agreed to share her story and recollections. I wish I could remember her full name, but I’m relatively certain her first name was Irene. Not remembering her name is of great embarrassment to me since what she shared has stuck with me all these years, resurfacing with a certain relevant poignancy over these past couple of months.
It was at the Yad Vashem in Israel, in early summer of either 1999 or 2000 during one of the educational pilgrimages that I once led. I happened to wander into the auditorium where Irene was scheduled to speak. Taking my seat, as the lights dimmed and Irene was introduced, I was soon captivated by this elderly woman’s fortitude, resilience, and insight as she shared her story of her family’s capture and interment in one of the Nazi concentration camps.
I could go on about the various details of her story that at times surprised me, at other times horrified me; that on occasion brought a smile to my face or a tear to my eye. However, what struck me most was when she discussed that there were four groups of people that contributed to the rise of Hitler and the Nazi Party in the late 20s and early 30s.
Irene shared how no one was “surprised” by the small, but very vocal group of people – what she described as Hitler’s closest and most ardent supporters. How could anyone be surprised? They weren’t shy about their loyalty, what they believed (no matter how offensive or hateful) and, more ominously, they didn’t try to hide what they would be willing to do to assure that their agenda was not only heard, but advanced in Germany, even if it meant violent force. She shared that this group defined themselves as the standard of what it meant to be “patriotic,” loyal to the Fatherland. I remember Irene sharing something about not being able to label them as hypocrites because, as horrible as was their rhetoric, they didn’t shy away from owning it.
The second group Irene shared about was what she called the “frightened people of conscience.” Initially, this group was vocal in its opposition to the Nazi Party loyalists, but as the efforts to silence their voices evolved from threats of violence to violent acts, the people of this group became increasingly more frightened and thus, more silent.
The third group is the one that surprised me the most. Irene shared that, in her humble opinion, this groups was more responsible than any other for the successful rise to, and consolidation of power by the Nazis. She referred to them as the “good Germans” (the first time I had ever heard that phrase) who knew it was distasteful to publicly agree with the Nazi’s, so chose instead to remain silent, but in reality that silence only “cheered them on.” This group, she shared, took a posture of downplaying the most outlandish aspects of Nazi rhetoric (“They’re just exaggerating to make a point”), rationalizing actions that contradicted their espoused beliefs (“Well, if they weren’t doing something illegal, they shouldn’t have to worry, right?”), or pretending to take some sort of “moral high ground” (“My politics are private.”). More than any group, according to Irene, these individuals were the most complicit and insidious because, on some level, their silence pragmatically manifested itself as agreement with the Nazis. The insidious part was that they were also collectively and sufficiently aware that by making any public confession or affirmation of this they would at best, be hypocritical and at worst, make them “on par” with Hitler and the most ardent and rabid of his supporters — options which were distasteful to them. Irene shared that she believed this group had to be the largest group and, sadly, comprised primarily of the educated, the religiously devout, the good neighbor running a shop or little business, and the family enjoying Sunday dinner together. They were “good Germans” who knew better than to publicly cheer on the ardent supporters and loyalists of the Nazi Party, so instead, justified simply turning a blind eye.
At this stage of the program, Irene looked at her watch and, like a guest who realized that they might have overstayed their welcome, apologized for running over the allotted hour and began thanking us for listening. Before the moderator was able to begin the wrap-up however, someone in the audience politely asked “Who was the fourth group? You said there were four groups.”
At first Irene seemed puzzled by the question, then glanced down and quietly said, “It was us – the ones in the camps.”
The room was silent – collectively sensing that there wasn’t any statement or words that would be appropriate – acknowledging that silence was the only fitting response.
As the room sat in quiet heaviness, Irene eventually took a deep breath and said, “We were rounded up by the most ardent supporters of Hitler, while the frightened became increasingly more silent and the ‘good Germans’ silently applauded. It was us – the ones in the camps. We were the fourth group.”
Nationalism masquerading as Christianity is heresy. Nationalism that descends into a void that self-justifies inhumanity and violence as patriotic, is evil.
There are many in my social circles who speak about the current, red-hatted nationalistic movement in disbelief: “Can you believe what they did now?” Yes, I can! They are beginning to do what they have been saying they would do. Irene is right. On a macro level, these most ardent followers cannot be called hypocrites. They are unapologetic about what they believe, the ills (perceived or real) that they feel and, more distressingly, who they believe is at fault for those ills – evidence to the contrary be damned.
We can definitely see the emerging “frightened people of conscience” being cut off professionally from colleagues and even family, simply because they dared to disagree with these “loyalists.” This past year we’ve seen a plot uncovered to kidnap, put on trial in a kangaroo court, and execute a state Governor who disagreed with the ardent supporters. We watched on live, national television as a mob attacked and pushed through the blue line they claim to honor and respect on their way to commandeering the Capitol. Despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, they self-justified an attempt to seek out, apprehend and harm those who disagree with them – calling it “patriotic duty.” So, will we really be surprised if the “frightened people of conscience” become increasingly more silent? If they were willing to storm a national capitol, do you think hunting down someone with whom they disagree in their private residence is somehow “out of bounds?”
What is most disturbing however, is the number of “good Germans;” the “good Americans” who know that it is distasteful to publicly affirm the most abohorant and ardent segments of these self-proclaimed “true patriots.” Instead, this group quietly cheers and emboldens them through their silence, downplaying increasing more atrocious acts or finding peace with demonizing people groups; some even finding a divine mandate to do so. They are the “good Americans” who are your neighbor, your child’s teacher, a police officer, your local pharmacist, the cable company technician, and the elder at your church. They won’t ever admit it, but they will find a way to be “piously quiet” and thus complicit through their lack of willingness to, through proper and appropriate channels, register their objections.
My question is this: what will be the name of the elderly person sitting on some stage 50 years from now, glancing down for a moment in order to gather herself before answering, “This time it was us – the ones in the camps.”
