persecution and persecutors?

chic

chic

SF VIP
Location
U.S.
Persecution and persecutors

I was reading a book about Germany during WWII. A Jewish couple who weren't able to escape the country fast enough, were reduced to living in a single room in a Jewish ghetto, their wealth gone, their possessions stolen or destroyed.

The wife said she preferred to be the victim of such abuses rather than the perpetrator of them. She felt the Nazis had lost their essential humanity and were really the ones to be pitied, not her. Her husband disagreed.

This is a though provoking moral dilemna. Which would you choose. To be the persecutor or the victim?
 

Last edited:
Ohh yes definitely a hard choice...I have been a 'Victim' and at the time while suffering I suppose I would have preferred to have been the perpetrator...not that I wanted to harm anyone, I would have just wanted my own suffering to stop...so I suspect if I was given the choice in those days I might have swapped sides.

However, , if it came right down to choosing one or the other with a clear mind, I'd rather suffer and leave this world ... ..than live in it as someone who inflicts suffering on others!!
 
And most of us alive at that time almost had the same experience as Hitler could have won the war!
 
As a child subconsciously I must have wanted to be the persecutor. For I dreamed nightly of the Hansel Gretel scenario...of putting the wicked witch in the oven. As an adult, I pity the persecutor. Wondering what kind of internal hell they must be experiencing to act as they do.
 
It's interesting how often the "persecuted" becomes the "persecutor" later. Take for instance the early settlers of America, many of whom were fleeing religious persecution in England and then turned around and persecuted anyone who wasn't absolutely in-line with their religious convictions, i.e. Quakers and Jews.
 
Cowardly as I am, my first inclination would be to avoid pain, therefore be the perp. But this role also makes me feel disgusted. I believe I would finally choose to be victim over perp but I have to be honest, it would take me longer than the braver and finer people whom I feel are the majority.
 
For those interested in the sociological perspective of Holocaust victims and survivors I recommend " Resilience And Courage" by Nechama Tee. I find it remarkable to have survived in any case, on either side. The things that went on in that era would drive most people mad...to have the courage to live through it...I don't know how they found it in themselves.
 
jujube said:
It's interesting how often the "persecuted" becomes the "persecutor" later. Take for instance the early settlers of America, many of whom were fleeing religious persecution in England and then turned around and persecuted anyone who wasn't absolutely in-line with their religious convictions, i.e. Quakers and Jews.
Click to expand...

It IS interesting! Good point Jujube
 
chic said:
Persecution and persecutors

I was reading a book about Germany during WWII. A Jewish couple who weren't able to escape the country fast enough, were reduced to living in a single room in a Jewish ghetto, their wealth gone, their possessions stolen or destroyed.

The wife said she preferred to be the victim of such abuses rather than the perpetrator of them. She felt the Nazis had lost their essential humanity and were really the ones to be pitied, not her. Her husband disagreed.

This is a though provoking moral dilemna. Which would you choose. To be the persecutor or the victim?
Click to expand...

Well, preferably neither, but , yes. Both are victims. We are who we are solely because of who our parents were, the time and place of our birth, and the effect on our brains of the chance encounters of every day life. If those things were identical in both our lives and the perpetrator's, we would be the perpetrator.
 
If I had been there I'd be one of those poor souls who passed as Christian or whatever the heck the party wanted to save my family. But the people who stuck to their faith are the one's to be admired. In modern times it was Daniel Pearl, even as he knew they were about to murder him he said " I am a Jew".
 
The "Warsaw Ghetto"

Highly moving story which ought to be checked out by any who are interested in that history. Among the items most amazing to me:

The soldiers herding folks to their deaths had rifles but no ammunition.

The Jewish men huddled in abandoned buildings had many opportunities to obtain weapons with which to fight back, but did not, just as those being led away did not. The Jewish culture forbade violent retaliation. A story arose of a small group of them led by a teacher, who secured one by one, firearms by stabbing soldiers in the dark of night. That small group was thought to have survived until the siege was over.

No idea of the truth in this. imp
 
imp said:
Highly moving story which ought to be checked out by any who are interested in that history. Among the items most amazing to me:

The soldiers herding folks to their deaths had rifles but no ammunition.

The Jewish men huddled in abandoned buildings had many opportunities to obtain weapons with which to fight back, but did not, just as those being led away did not. The Jewish culture forbade violent retaliation. A story arose of a small group of them led by a teacher, who secured one by one, firearms by stabbing soldiers in the dark of night. That small group was thought to have survived until the siege was over.

No idea of the truth in this. imp
Click to expand...

I disagree with the statement that the soldiers herding prisoners to their death had no ammunition. They shot many who fell out of line or tried to escape.

I also disagree that their religion forbade violent retaliation. Look at Jewish history, and look at Israel today.

There were also Jewish underground fighters. No, their religion did not forbid retaliation. Many did, and died. They had no chance at all -- groups of civilians surrounded by Nazis with weapons. Perhaps they hoped if they could remain alive they had a chance. ALSO, most did not fully realize the horrors they were facing. Let's not blame the victim here.
 
Underock1 said:
Well, preferably neither, but , yes. Both are victims. We are who we are solely because of who our parents were, the time and place of our birth, and the effect on our brains of the chance encounters of every day life. If those things were identical in both our lives and the perpetrator's, we would be the perpetrator.
Click to expand...

I disagree -- we are not totally products of our upbringing -- we have the option to chose right over wrong, peace over perpetrating atrocities on others. I do not buy that we are totally bound by our circumstances. Each of us makes choices, and are personally responsible for the outcomes of those choices. It's a cop-out and an excuse to blame our parents or society for the bad choices and evils we commit. It's part of what's wrong with society today -- nobody takes personal responsibility for anything. In the end the responsibility for the choices we make is ours alone.
 
Hmm. Personal accountability is a good thing, but we all carry baggage which can cloud our perceptions. Clouded perceptions can lead to poor choices. It is not either or, but both background/experience, and personal responsibility. People are multifaceted, complex, and contradictory beings. Sometimes we lack the capacity to choose wisely, not the self discipline/moral fibre.
 
Victims can help no one. Not even themselves. A persecutor could, with his authority and knowledge of the workings of the machine, work with the resistance to help free many, while a victim frees no one. For his reason, I would prefer to be on the side of authority. Maybe I could do something to help? Like Michel Schindler of Schindler's List fame. Just a thought. It is a very difficult moral dilemna but I certainly don't pity those who perpetrate atrocities upon others like the woman in the book did.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top