There was a time when the genocide of European Jewry was not on anyone’s mind, not even the Nazis. As time went on it not only became an idea, but reality. By the time the “Final Solution” came to be, many of the German people had adjusted and even accepted that this was how things are going to be and nothing could be done. The Nazis did what they could to try and hide the heinous crimes they had committed, but after a while, there was only so much they could do to cover up the murder of millions. Psychological denial was used as a defense mechanism by the bystanders to lessen the guilt and psychological damage often caused by their inaction and by perpetrators for similar reasons but regarding their involvement in the killing of millions of innocent people.
One of the most important factors regarding why the people of Germany did not do more to help during the Holocaust is the Bystander Effect. The Bystander Effect is a phenomenon where people are less likely to help victims of a situation when other people are around to witness the event (Fredricks, 2011). As the number of people present increases, the likelihood that someone will help decreases. This is mainly attributed to what is referred to as the diffusion of responsibility. This states that people feel that if others are around during an emergency they will help, so the burden of helping is not on them (Fredricks, 2011). But when everyone is thinking that someone else is going to help, then it is unlikely that the victim will receive any help at all. In certain situations, the bystander effect is also used to explain why normally ethical and moral people may do something unethical based on what those around them are doing (Fredricks, 2011). If they notice that the people around them are not doing anything to help, they may feel more okay with just being a bystander.
While it is understudied and often overlooked, the personality traits of the bystanders should be mentioned. Whether someone is capable of committing evil lies in the personality traits they possess. But those same personality traits will also allow us to understand whether someone is going to be obedient, a follower, or a resister (Staub, 2014). A few years after conducting his famous study, Milgram wanted to look more into the personality of his participants (Staub, 2014). Milgram found that participants who were obedient seemed to look up to the experimenter, while reducing the learner (Staub, 2014). These findings can be used to get a better idea as to why people chose to stand by during the Holocaust. In the case of the Holocaust, the Nazis were often times looked up to. Their supporters felt that they were doing what was right for Germany. The Jews were then looked down upon and seen as enemies of the state. In the eyes of many Germans the Nazis could do no wrong.
It is also more likely for someone to become a bystander if what they believe in aligns with what their authorities are doing (Staub, 2014). If they believe or agree with the ideology of the authorities then they will feel less inclined to intervene in the situation. If they see they authorities as doing no harm, then there is no reason for them to intervene. With this in mind, it would seem that Nazi supporters and sympathizers should be considered. They believed that what the Nazis were doing was right and for the good of Germany, so they did not try to stop the cruelty or intervene in any way. This fact also rings true for group members. When someone is a member of a group, they believe in the group’s values and beliefs, and will continue to do so in order to remain a member in that group (Staub, 2014). Personal goal theory states that everyone has values and goals, but they are often times arranged in a hierarchy with what people view as most important sitting at the top (Staub, 2014). However, these hierarchies are not static and may change depending on the situation the person is in or presented with (Staub, 2014). Personal goal theory can help explain how passive bystanders often encourage perpetrators with their inaction. Someone may be prosocial but also feel a great need to protect their family. In the case of being a bystander, they must choose if they want to help or keep their family safe. Many chose the latter, even though they may still have the desire to help others, their family was ultimately more important in that moment.
As was found in the Milgram studies, people with a strong authority orientation are more likely to obey the authorities and less likely to resist (Staub, 2014). As well as low resistant rates, those who live in authority-oriented communities, speaking out against authorities is unlikely and bystanders tend to remain passive (Staub, 2014). Passive bystanders are those who stand by and do not do anything to help the situation. Passive bystanders also tend to distance themselves from the victims. By doing this they are able to reduce the distress and guilt they feel for being a bystander (Staub, 2014). On the other end of this is what is called an active bystander. Active bystanders are the ones who at least try to step in and help somehow. Most often, active bystander will use their word and actions to get others to resist, or they may simply refuse to cooperate (Staub, 2014). Active bystanders also tend to present much more moral courage than passive ones, which may help explain why they decide to act instead of simply standing by (Staub, 2014).
Bystanders often see themselves as people who are ignorant and do not have a say in the matter (Monroe, 2008). They truly believe that there is nothing they can do, so they remain passive. Even if they knew what was happening to the Jews, they were convinced that there was nothing they could to do help, so they did not (Monroe, 2008). Even if they witnessed something terrible, many did not know what to do or how to react (Yale University, 2009). Bystanders also tend to feel that the suffering of others is not something they have to worry about and when compared to rescuers, they have a weak sense of human connection (Monroe, 2008). Without that sense of connection, bystanders of the Holocaust feel less guilt for standing by. Another reason they may have chosen to stand by is because for a time, the genocide of Jews was not in anyone’s mind. Many of the bystanders could not comprehend what was going on during the Holocaust, so they tried to convince themselves that it was not really happening (Monroe, 2008). In the past, the idea of killing centers and murdering millions of innocent souls seemed out of place (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).
Ignorance also played a big role in the lives of bystanders. Many people, especially Nazi wives, were suspicious about what was going on but they never asked (Monroe, 2008). Very few people knew exactly what was going on, but there was a time when almost everyone knew something about the “Final Solution.” (Johnson & Reuband, 2005). At first it was just rumors going around, but after a while it was being talked about on radio broadcasts and more information was available to the public.” (Johnson & Reuband, 2005). This caused some people to think that maybe the rumors were true, while others continued to tell themselves that this was not really happening. Not knowing what was truly going on allowed many people to continue with their lives and do what they had been doing before the war started (Monroe, 2011). If civilians could continue going on with their life as if nothing was wrong, was anything really wrong?
As previously mentioned, the thought of millions of innocent people being murdered was unthinkable, which is why many of the bystanders tried to deny themselves the truth (Monroe, 2008). While many of the bystanders simply chose to look the other way, those who saw firsthand what was happening to the Jews were often greatly impacted. After witnessing the shooting of a Jewish woman, Hubert Lutz father was sent to the hospital for having a nervous breakdown (Johnson & Reuband, 2005). Even after learning about this incident, Hubert’s mother was still in denial, and continued to say how she could not believe that there were people in the world who would to such a thing (Johnson & Reuband, 2005). Instead of considering that their own inaction may have caused more harm to come of the Jews, bystanders often found ways to blame the Jews for what was happening (Goldhagen,1996). The phrase “out of sight, out of mind” also rang true for many Germans (Johnson & Reuband, 2005). Hubert mentioned how they did not think about the Jews because we could not see the Jews and other would stick their heads in the sand as to not know and see what was happening to the Jews who were once their neighbors (Monroe, 2011). Psychological denial caused many bystanders to make up stories about how they could not do anything to help, but in the end it allowed them to continue with living as if nothing was wrong, thus lessoning their guilt (Monroe, 2011).
The bystanders were not the only ones to blame for the dismissal of information regarding the genocide of Jews, nor were they the only ones in denial. The Nazis, as well as others involved in the genocide, were doing everything they could to get people to believe that no harm was being implemented on the Jews. To deceive the public, they would deny that anything was wrong, claim that the rumors were not true, and play the victim (Monroe, 2008). Denial was not just seen during the last years of the war, but after it ended as well. In War Crime trials, denial was seen in the form of people saying that they had no role in the genocide of the Jews (Jockusch, 2012; Reich, 1992). In the cases mentioned below, denial was used by the Nazis in order to avoid coming to terms with their previous, and often inhumane actions committed during the war.
German propagandists made national unity and a utopian future appealing to the general public (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). With more people on board with the ideology of the Nazis, it is understandable that many people decided to stand by in the later years of the war. After anti-Jewish policies turned toward genocide, propagandists began to find ways to cover up certain details about the "Final Solution" (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). This was made possible with the help of Joseph Goebbels who felt that deceiving not only the Germans, but the outside world, was the best way to keep certain details from reaching those who were not in positions of authority (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). People may have had suspicions about what the Nazis were doing to the Jews, but if there was no information available to the public, then suspicions were lessened.
Besides using propaganda, what was published, whether in books or papers, was highly censored by the press. One of the main things that were kept from public eye was statements by Allied and Soviet leaders condemning German crimes (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). When an article was published regarding the treatment of Jews, it was often fabricated and said that the Nazis were treating Jews well and no harm was to come of them (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). One of the most famous cases of denial/deception occurred between 1941 and 1944 in a transit camp in the Czech Republic (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). Theresienstadt was publicized as a residential community were elderly and disabled Jews could retire and life out the rest of their lives in peace (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). The was partially because the Nazis were worried that the public was going to find out what they were doing to the Jews (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). It was also because in 1944, the International and Danish Red Cross was granted permission to visit the camp (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). Before the Red Cross came to visit, the Nazis speed up deportations and had the remain prisoners “beautify” the camp (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). Around this same time the authorities of the camp decided to make a film depicting the conditions of the camp; the film showed prisoners going to concerts, gardening with their families, and relaxing in the sun (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum). Why the film was created remains unknown. If it was for international viewers, they never saw it; the film was completed but, like many others, did not survive the war (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum).
These cases can be related not only to denial in the basic sense (i.e. choosing to believe that something is not true), but also to psychological denial. Denial as a psychological defense mechanism is defined as the simple refusal to face certain facts, especially if the facts are hurtful or have the potential to cause harm to one’s self-esteem (Baumeister, 1998). The Nazis were powerful and, in many aspects, successful; they did manage to kill around six million Jews while in power. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, those responsible for the killings would say that the Jews brought the foul treatment on themselves, again denying that they were not responsible for what happened to them (Pick, 2009). As was seen with the bystanders, perpetrators projected the cause of the Holocaust onto the Jews (Monroe, 2008). This not only helped with the guilt they felt, but may have also been a way for the them to deal with the trauma and psychological damage they personally experienced during the war.
Many of the German soldiers and policemen, especially those who were directly in charge of the killings, were greatly affected by doing so (Browning, 2017). Ordinary Men (Browning, 2017), gives a detailed account regarding the actions of those in the Reserve Police Battalion and how members were given the option to be excused from the act of killing. And when given the option, around 20% decide to excuse themselves (Browning, 2017). In the end, very few of the men in the Reserve Police Battalion claimed to have stopped shooting because they felt that killing innocent Jews was ethically wrong; many stated that they were only physically repulsed (Reich, 1992). However, members of the Reserve Police Battalion were not the only ones to refuse in assisting with the murder of innocent Jews (Kitterman, 1988). Kitterman (1988) reviewed 85 cases where individuals from police units, the SS, and SD refused to partake in Nazis sanctioned killings of the Jews. In these cases, there were numerous reasons people gave for refusing, damage to psychological heath and fearing it would cause and emotional disturbance were among them (Kitterman, 1988). With the previous information in mind, using denial as a defense mechanism after experiencing trauma has been found to be a beneficial technique (Baumeister, 1998).
In the future, it would be beneficial to look more into the common personality traits that bystanders share as well as if perpetrators share any of those traits. Both bystanders and perpetrators have often have authoritarian personalities (Staub, 2014). However, it would be interesting to investigate why this is. Why is it that two very different groups of people share this trait? More importantly, why is it that there were instances of people refusing to kill Jews? Knowing that many of the perpetrators had authoritarian personalities, refusing to kill Jews would be something they would not even consider doing. This is also an understudied area in history because there are so few documented cases of those in charge of the killing refusing to do so (Kitterman, 1988). For both of these questions, it would be best to simply interview both bystanders and perpetrators to determine what personality traits they have in common. As for those who refused, something similar could be done. But seeing as we have so little information on these subjects currently, other means of acquiring information may need to be considered. Such as looking at more current genocides or even looking at any event to where bystanders and perpetrators are present to gain a better understanding about the personality traits they two groups share.