THE SOLUTION TO THE RIDDLE OF THE HOLOCAUST:
The Logic of Genocide grew out of the Logic of Warfare

Richard A. Koenigsberg

As the first phase of the Final Solution progressed in the Soviet Union, Hitler claimed that he was not disturbed by the murder of men, women and children:

If I don’t mind sending the pick of the German people into the hell of war without regret over the spilling of precious German blood, then I naturally have also the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin.

Hitler reflected that if he did not mind sending the best people to die—German soldiers—why should he have compunctions about sending Jews—members of an inferior race—to their deaths? Since society endowed him with the authority to kill his nation’s soldiers, did he not also have the authority to kill his nation’s mortal enemy?

The logic of genocide grew out of the logic of warfare. If Hitler could require German soldiers to be “obedient unto death,” why could he not require the same from the Jewish people? Hitler initiated the Final Solution based on the idea that if millions of his own soldiers had to perish in war, millions of Jews would have to be killed too—in order to balance the scales of death.

The Final Solution represented a diabolical enactment brought into being in order to depict the true meaning of “dying for the country.” The Holocaust depicts the ugliness of submission to the nation-state: Sacrificial death stripped of words such as honor, heroism, and glory.

The Logic of Genocide grew out of the Logic of Warfare

Hitler believed that the willingness of a soldier to sacrifice himself in warfare—to be obedient unto death—was the supreme human virtue. He reflected that if he as leader of the German nation had the right to send “the best” into bloody battles, then he also had the right to sacrifice the lives of “inferiors” and “shirkers” as well. The handicapped and the Jews would be compelled to forfeit their lives—to offset or balance out the losses of the brave soldiers.

Much of this story derives from Hitler's desire to continue to glorify and idealize warfare despite his first hand experience with the horrors of battle. Hitler could not bring himself to blame the heroic figures of Paul von Hindenburg or Eric Ludendorff; nor could he hold his nation responsible for the deaths of so many fine young men. Instead, Hitler shifted his focus—proclaiming that Aryans were the superior race precisely because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the sake of the community.

Hitler believed that sending the best of men into battle was part of Aryan tradition. By contrast, Hitler believed that Jews were shirkers—out only for self-preservation. Hitler conceived of Jews as the antithesis of all that the Aryan's sacrificial bravery stood for. Hitler's mindset revolved around the idea of a “balance sheet:” If brave men of the superior race had to die, then Hitler would make certain that shirkers and members of an inferior race died as well.

The words that dominated Nazi ideology—honor, loyalty, faithfulness, courage, bravery, and obedience—were not mere words. German soldiers, members of the Hitler Youth, and men of the SS all swore oaths incorporating these fine sounding words. These high-minded, idealistic virtues required that soldiers, HJ, and SS become “obedient unto death;” but also that they become ruthless, methodical killers of defenseless men, women and children.

If the Führer could require that German soldiers give up their freedom and die, why could he not also require that Jews do the same? 

The solution to the riddle of the Holocaust requires deconstructing the ideology of warfare. Hitler understood that war represents the occasion when a political leader is permitted to send his own soldiers to die. If a nation's commander-in-chief can send his “superior” citizens to their deaths, why can he not also send its “inferior” citizens to their deaths?