Why? Explaining the Holocaust, by Peter Hayes

Beware the beginning is one lesson to take from a vital and timely study, says Robert Eaglestone

February 23, 2017
Halt sign at Auschwitz
Source: iStock

If times were different, I might review this book differently. Peter Hayes, trained as an economic historian, aims to answer, calmly and sensibly, the issue of why the Holocaust happened by addressing, in detail, eight questions the public or students frequently ask him: a book of public pedagogy and explanation.

In doing this, not only does he show a sophisticated and judicious mastery of the most up-to-date historical scholarship, but he also tries to demonstrate his conviction that the Holocaust is as “historically explicable” as “any other human event”. But if times were different, I’d suggest that this meticulous book was heavy on facts and light on, well, let’s quickly call it metaphysics (understood roughly as what the philosopher Adrian Moore calls “the most general attempt to make sense of things”). Does it answer the question – posed not only by philosophers and poets but by nearly everybody – why? Not really, unless you think that explaining how the optic nerves work explains why we find a shade of orange beautiful, or that the wetness of water, or how it refreshes, is explained by its molecular composition. Within the academy, it’s the job of “theory” people like me to ask recondite questions about frameworks and categories (and what constitutes an explanation, anyway?). So if times were different, I’d say something like that.

But these are not those times and this clear, well-written, if occasionally dense, book has much of importance to tell us in an age of sudden fear, propaganda and fake news, in which the Third Reich and its crimes reappear often as a “touchstone”. To begin at his conclusion – could the Holocaust have been stopped? – Hayes writes: beware the beginning. He cites the events of early April 1933: Nazi thugs demanded that Gustav Krupp, boss of a huge arms and steel firm, sack its Jewish and anti-Nazi employees. He did. And so capitulated to “bullying” and “deprived the organization of all basis for future noncompliance with Nazi demands”.

The book is also full of no-nonsense “myth-busting”: did many top-ranking Nazis escape justice? No: for example, all 16 commanders of death camps died or were sentenced. Did the genocide take up huge amounts of resources? No: as an indicator, Hayes estimates that during its height only two trains a day were used, while the German railways ran 30,000 trains per day in the same period. Hayes does a good line in detail, too. He points out that the hyphen that Microsoft Word puts into “anti-Semitism”, coined in 1879 to make hating Jews sound respectable or even scientific, implies a “semitism” to which one could be “anti”.

As well as telling, Hayes’ prose also shows us. Some historians of the period resort to accounts of horror that swamp argument and analysis. Hayes, while not avoiding suffering, demonstrates the unshowy anger and scholarly restraint that characterises the best work by historians. In a field that can be partisan, he explains the views of contemporary scholars and then what leads him to his conclusions – allowing room for understanding and even informed disagreement. Overall, this timely, level-headed book is a model of public engagement by a historian.

Robert Eaglestone is professor of contemporary literature and thought, Royal Holloway, University of London.


Why? Explaining the Holocaust
By Peter Hayes
W. W. Norton, 432pp, £20.00
ISBN 9780393254365
Published 26 January 2017

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline: Level-headed amid the horror

Reader's comments (1)

Hi Peter, I watched your speech that you gave about the why it happened and were things done or not done to prevent and why. First to complement you, real nice job done here and lots of research. However I have a few issues but most I will assume I am wrong because you maybe did more research then me, so your info may be better then mine. But 1 thing I must disagree with you, is about why the US did not bomb the tracks to the death chambers. You explained that at the time to only place the US was able to fly from and was GB and it was impossible to do it at that time without being able to refuel. I can agree to this on the Jews in Poland and in Germany, however the Hungarian Jews were deported almost at the end of the war and in 8 weeks about (dont get me wrong if the number here is off then your numbers) 1 half million - 800,000 Jews were gas up and burned in 8 weeks. This was a time when America kept on bombing Germany daily and yet it did not care to throw one Bomb on these tracks and let the Jews be gassed up. Yes the Germans did it but America cant just look aside and say we were unable to! Congress knew about it the Jews in America begged and they just did not care. I would really like your answer and input on this. from a whole family in Hungary my grandfather is the only survivor one bomb on the tracks would save his family, he is still alive and almost 100 years yet lived a life in a shadow of his lost family just because no one cared to do anything! Again real good job and we can agree to disagree on items but i would like to get your input on this

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments