What concentration camps reveal is that modern people are squeamish about killing.
Consider the Mongol empire. While the Mongol empire had some things in common with a modern state, squeamishness about killing was not one of them. There are cases where they decided a city needed to be destroyed and they took great pains to make sure that destruction was total. Every man, woman, and child they could find was put to the sword (or axe). Depopulating an entire city was a difficult task before carpet bombing became an option. Mongol soldiers were given quotas and expected to produce enough ears to show that they had met that quota. Punishments for not meeting that quota were harsh. Ears were put into sacks and carted off in wagons to be counted. Even dogs, cats and chickens were killed in some cases. There are recorded instances of Mongol armies leaving towns after doing this and then deliberately returning a week or two later, just to make sure they got anyone who had managed to hide in a basement or who was out of town when they were first there.
Consider the Romans. After the third Punic war Carthage's population was sold into slavery en masse and the city burned for 17 days. The earth was salted. There was no fourth Punic war because there were no Carthaginians left alive and free. Let's not even talk about the Assyrians!
Many states throughout history have committed genocide against enemies and many others have persecuted populations within their own borders. Concentration camps are only necessary now because most people won't stand for such atrocities, and states therefore feel compelled to carry them out in relative secrecy. Modern human society is gentler now than at any point in our past, although perhaps navel-gazing and self-accusatory articles like this are part of the reason why, no matter how uninformed they might be.
I don't think you're wrong about modern squeamishness, but I think it goes further than that. The purpose of concentration camps is to not kill people.
Methodical killing of any type at scale is very rare in the modern world. It's even rarer for it to to be conducted through camps; to my knowledge, only the Nazis ever did it (and their allies, the Croatian fascist Ustaše regime). Most mass killing simply consists of taking groups of people somewhere remote and shooting them. Concentration camps are what you do when you don't want to do that and are basically a cheap form of prison. Even in the Soviet Gulag, where the harsh conditions and threat of death were part of the punishment, the majority of prisoners survived.
Even where death is tacitly the expected outcome of a camp (rare), it's mostly done by slow starvation and overwork. I think that's interesting, given how inefficient that is. It provides a kind of mental "plausible deniability".
Cambodian genocide (1975 - 79) had insanely high fatality rates at it's camps which where mostly there to torture people before death. ~25 percent of the total Cambodian population died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide
> The purpose of concentration camps is to not kill people.
I agree with this even more than you do. If my understanding of history is correct, the Nazis, whom you single out as an exception, weren't so from the beginning. This:
> Most mass killing simply consists of taking groups of people somewhere remote and shooting them.
was what they did with their 'undesireables' for a long time, too; and, as you point out:
> Concentration camps are what you do when you don't want to do that and are basically a cheap form of prison.
I think that they originally intended their concentration camps as a marshalling point for future deportation, and (later?) a source of slave labour. It was only at the Wannsee Conference in 1942, I think, that they decided to turn some concentration camps into extermination camps. (Indeed, one could make the point that your statement is true by definition; a camp intended for killing ceases to be, or just to be, a concentration camp. However, probably this sort of semantic quibble is not what you meant.)
Your history is not quite correct, although the timeline of how they eased themselves into it makes for insightful reading. While the Wannsee Conference made it official, the "final solution" grew organically out of the pre-existing "Action T4" "euthanasia" program - the first mass gassings were actually in October 1939. The systematic extermination of Jews began in June 1941 during the invasion of the Soviet Union, beginning with Jews in political positions but rapidly expanding to include all male Jews, then all Jews. By November 1941, three months before the conference, the construction of Bełżec (conceived from the start as a dedicated extermination camp) had already begun.
Thank you for the background. Please forgive my asking for further clarification; I'm not arguing, just trying to come to an accurate understanding. The linked article says:
> [the Nazi concentration camps] became part of the genocide of the Jews only late in the war; for most of the period of the Third Reich, the camp system was separate from the ‘war against the Jews’ and the extermination camps were not part of the regular concentration camp system.
Is this a wrong statement that conflicts with what you are saying, or a right statement, carefully worded (initially, extermination camps were separate from concentration camps), that I overgeneralised to a wrong conclusion (initially, there were no extermination camps for Jews)?
As horrifying as it is, I can't seem to read enough on the fascinating but ghoulish history of this period. The linked article cites Wachsmann's KL, which I have not yet read. Do you think that is a good reference, and/or do you know of any (other) good reference?
Using ocean water could 'work', though transportation would be more problematic unless you where figuratively destroying a small garden or something. It's presumably just as effective, and vastly cheaper.
PS: Salt was expensive because of transaction and transpiration issues plus the need for a lot of land as water only evaporates at ~1/8th inch of water per day. So at 3.5% concentration that's ~4/1,000th of an inch of salt per day. But, having soil absorb sea water would likely work just as well.
As someone said, ocean water is all you need. My history knowledge is basic at best, but as far as I know ruining fields was exactly part of the Romans' goal to ensure that no city gets rebuilt there again (Delenda est Carthago).
People are and have never been squeamish about killing. They just don't like to witness gore in their own backyards while they are enjoying brunch with their families. Concentration camps eliminate the inconvenience of having your day ruined by unsightly executions by moving the fate of undesirables out of your sight.
And regarding Mongols, most of what you learn from history is greatly exaggerated. Mongols fought to conquer and the cheapest way to conquer is to intimidate the enemy. It was in their interest to spread terror through stories of murder and brutality and it was in the interest of their victims to spread the same stories to elicit sympathy.
I don't know that I agree with the parent's conclusions, but it is certainly true that people in the past were much more used to seeing death, whether of humans or animals.
>> What concentration camps reveal is that modern people are squeamish about killing.
Well, there's a difference between exterminating a foreign and/or conquered city-state, and isolating/quarantining undesirable sub-groups from within a larger civilization (often for reasons that are more ideological than political). What the Mongols, Romans, Assyrians, etc., did was less like isolating an ethnic sub-group and more like inflicting punishment upon a city-state for not paying tribute. (Also, I think the Assyrians would also export the population of a city-state and resettle them elsewhere, to remove their national identity, just as often as they would kill and/or skin-alive everyone in a targeted city-state.)
It's probably worth noting that what happened recently to the Yazidis in North Iraq was closer to what used to happen in antiquity.
> There was no fourth Punic war because there were no Carthaginians left alive and free. Let's not even talk about the Assyrians!
What do you have in mind about "the Assyrians"? Control of Mesopotamia flipped back and forth many times until it was eventually conquered from the east by Persia. The Assyrians neither destroyed any land nor were they destroyed by any enemies.
It was common for conquered populations to be deported elsewhere in a Mesopotamian empire, and for conquered cities to be burned (particularly the local palace) -- that's why we have so many contemporary records. But there was no ethos of killing the people or salting the earth, and those things just didn't happen.
There is a myth that the late Assyrian capital of Nineveh was sacked, destroyed, and completely abandoned, but this is contradicted by a wealth of archaeological evidence showing that it was sacked, recovered, and sustained its population continuously for several hundred more years.
> Consider the Mongol empire. While the Mongol empire had some things in common with a modern state, squeamishness about killing was not one of them.
The mongols were just as "squeamish" about killing as any other empire - british, spanish, american, etc. Hell, by any measure, the mongols were a far less "brutal" empire than the british, spanish, american.
> There are cases where they decided a city needed to be destroyed and they took great pains to make sure that destruction was total.
Yes. It's called "sacking" a city. It has happened throughout history. The mongols weren't special. You are just perpetuating stereotypes and myth. The US, british, soviets annihilated cities far worse than anything mongols ever did.
It's absurd that you have to resort to silly myths. If you want to see pure evil, go look at what the british empire did to the natives and aborigines. Go look at what we did in hiroshima or nagasaki. You don't have to push racist myth about the mongols.
> Ears were put into sacks and carted off in wagons to be counted
If you think that was horrific, go read about what we did to the japanese in ww2.
> Many states throughout history have committed genocide against enemies and many others have persecuted populations within their own borders.
No they didn't. Genocides, as we see define them, are relatively new european concept based on racist ideology.
You brought up the mongols. Try and find out anyone the mongols "exterminated". You won't find anything other than perhaps mongols tribes that they "merged" into larger mongol tribes.
> Modern human society is gentler now than at any point in our past
It really isn't. You misunderstood why concentration camps were created initially. They were created for slave labor. When the germans realized they were losing, they decided to exterminate the people in concentration camps.
You say modern society has gotten "gentler" but there hasn't been a more evil and callous action in human history than the dropping of nukes on cities.
Humans haven't "evolved". We are just more sated and nukes make it harder for serious war. That's it. But sooner or later, it's inevitable we will get a serious war. And then you'll see how much "gentler" we are.
Sure humans haven't evolved, but the parent poster didn't say that. Society has evolved. We still make desperate actions during wartime, meanwhile during peacetime we are even outraged these days when death row prisoners have their executions moved forward.
This strikes me as a massive overgeneralization. States are just an organizational structure of institutions, tasked with operating a society. They are not intrinsically inclined towards building concentration camps any more than they are intrinsically inclined towards providing healthcare or delivering a basic income. States operating under an ideology of madness will operate as if mad. States operating under an ideology of reason will operate reasonably.
And for me at least, the main take-away from the image of the concentration camp is clear: elections have consequences, so take your vote seriously. Form a functional coalition with others to elect the least terrible person you can. If you don't, you may end up handing the machinery of the state - capable of harm on a massive scale - over to the unsavory or the insane. That's the lesson of the concentration camps and the lesson of recent history.
So I think the distinction between the nature of the state and the nature of its citizens is important for effective democratic participation. If you are so cynical that you think that 'concentration camps reveal the nature of the modern state,' why would you participate in such a thing? If we are collectively down on the very concept of the state, there's no way to run a good one.
> And for me at least, the main take-away from the image of the concentration camp is clear: elections have consequences, so take your vote seriously. Form a functional coalition with others to elect the least terrible person you can.
At least in the U.S. a potent mix of cynicism and tribalism with the two party system makes this extremely difficult. Lots of people take for granted that the system is broken. But when you actually begin to discuss policy they are likely to interpret criticism of their cynically chosen party's position as cynical politically motivated flak and defend accordingly.
In that kind of environment "least terrible" doesn't seem to function anymore.
I've wondered if one attack on this vicious cycle could be flippism. Exercising my right to vote for a randomly chosen candidate may be repulsive enough to most Americans that they may actually prefer to use their critical thinking skills to convince me not to do that. (I.e., I don't think most Americans are as cynical as they claim to be.)
The concentration camps showed humanitys tendency to shirk responsibilities towards processes. The same apparatus is at work today in states and companys.
What can I do, im just a , i have to perform * or else i will loose my *.
This applies to any kind of large organization like states, military or corporations. Individuals don't really see anymore what the organization does but they just play their little role. In such a system it's easy for the organization to do evil while each individual just thinks they are doing their job without being responsible for the bigger picture.
I think this will get worse because technology allows even tighter control of large organizations.
States, or Nation States, are not just an organizational structure. They are THE organizational structure of the modern world. It is no coincidence that concentration camps are created by modern states and not for example tribes or criminals.
Great little summary. It's a shame the author didn't get to / have space for the discussion of refugee camps, which are structurally little different from the german internal camps of the eRly 1930s or the DP camps at the end of WWII.
The nature of the Nazi/Soviet/cpc/nk camps provides "air cover" for the widespread and more pervasive networks of camps still in use around the world.
I'm glad to have such a clear opportunity to see the vast difference in quality of results achieved by a professional historian on the one hand, and an armchair historiographer like me on the other. I'm looking forward to reading his book.
tldr 20th century nation states are based on a world of fear and paranoia around mutually exclusive notions of ethnic and national homogeneity and territorial integrity.
Incarceration techniques employed in concentration camps were borrowed in a transnational framework. They aided each state in isolating the unwanted (racial, religious, etc) and controlling the rest of the population through the implied threat of ending up in a camp for not conforming.
[...] a more analytically fruitful approach is to examine the impact of the First World War. Here, for the first time in modern Europe, we see [...] the willingness of the state to incarcerate huge numbers of civilians considered threatening.
This statement was the one I found most intriguing in the entire article, but then the author did not expand on it. Maybe he does so in his book. It was strange to me to consider that this state of the world has not always been the norm.
When I looked into it, I found conflicting sources of information. Anyone with knowledge on the subject feel like expanding on this?
Sounds interesting. By contrast Timothy Snyder in _Black_Earth_ argues that concentration camps were created as institutions that were deliberately outside of the state to facilitate slaughter: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/09/438943243/black-earth-explores...
We obviously haven't seen the last of them when the US has a network of prisons that holds almost 2.5 million people, many of them concentrated for rather obvious racial reasons. Just because they are built of brick and steel does not change their basic tenet. Nor does the use of prisons for such purposes or the fact that there are actual criminals in prisons in addition to the concentrated populations.
Stephan Zweig describes this new sense of nationalism as state policy after WWI in the 'World of Yesterday'; actually before the great world one could travel without passports or identification papers at all - that serves him as the detail that serves to explain the big thing.
"Nationalism emerged to agitate the world only after
the war, and the first visible phenomenon which this intellectual
epidemic of our century brought about was xenophobia : morbid
dislike of the foreigner, or at least fear of the foreigner. The world
was on the defensive against strangers, everywhere they got short
shrift. The humiliations which once had been devised with criminals
alone in mind now were imposed upon the traveller, before and
during every journey. There had to be photographs from right
and left, in profile and full face, one’s hair had to be cropped
sufficiently to make the ears visible; fingerprints were taken, at first only the thumb but later all ten fingers ; furthermore, certificates of health, of vaccination, police certificates of good standing,
had to be shown ; letters of recommendation were required, invitations to visit a country had to be procured ; they asked for the
addresses of relatives, for moral and financial guarantees, questionnaires, and forms in triplicate and quadruplicate needed to be filled
out, and if only one of this sheaf of papers was missing one was lost.
Petty details, one thinks. And at the first glance it may seem
petty in me even to mention them. But our generation has foolishly wasted irretrievable, valuable time on those senseless pettinesses. If I reckon up the many forms I have filled out during
these years, declarations on every trip, tax declarations, foreign
exchange certificates, border passes, entrance permits, departure
permits, registrations on coming and on going ; the many hours
I have spent in anterooms of consulates and officials, the many
inspectors, friendly and unfriendly, bored and overworked, before
whom I have sat, the many examinations and interrogations at
frontiers I have been through, then I feel keenly how much human
dignity has been lost in this century which, in our youth, we had
credulously dreamed of as one of freedom, as of the federation of
the world. The loss in creative work, in thought, as a result of
those spirit-crushing procedures is incalculable. Have not many of
us spent more time studying official rules and regulations than works
of the intellect ! The first excursion in a foreign country was no
longer to a museum or to a world-renowned view, but to a consulate, to a police office, to get a “permit" When those of us
who had once conversed about Baudelaire’s poetry and spiritedly
discussed intellectual problems met together, we would catch ourselves talking about affidavits and permits and whether one should
apply for an immigration visa or a tourist visa ; acquaintance with
a stenographer in a consulate who could cut down one’s waiting-
time was more significant to one’s existence than friendship with
a Toscanini or a Rolland. Human beings were made to feel that
they were objects and not subjects, that nothing was their right but
everything merely a favour by official grace. They were codified,
registered, numbered, stamped and even today I, as a case-hardened
creature of an age of freedom and a citizen of the world-republic
of my dreams, count every impression of a rubber-stamp in my
passport a stigma, every one of those hearings and searches a
humiliation. They are petty trifles, always merely trifles, I am
well aware, trifles in a day when human values sink more rapidly
than those of currencies. But only if one notes such insignificant symptoms will a later age be able to make a proper clinical record
of the mental state and mental disturbances with which our world
was seized between the two World Wars.
Consider the Mongol empire. While the Mongol empire had some things in common with a modern state, squeamishness about killing was not one of them. There are cases where they decided a city needed to be destroyed and they took great pains to make sure that destruction was total. Every man, woman, and child they could find was put to the sword (or axe). Depopulating an entire city was a difficult task before carpet bombing became an option. Mongol soldiers were given quotas and expected to produce enough ears to show that they had met that quota. Punishments for not meeting that quota were harsh. Ears were put into sacks and carted off in wagons to be counted. Even dogs, cats and chickens were killed in some cases. There are recorded instances of Mongol armies leaving towns after doing this and then deliberately returning a week or two later, just to make sure they got anyone who had managed to hide in a basement or who was out of town when they were first there.
Consider the Romans. After the third Punic war Carthage's population was sold into slavery en masse and the city burned for 17 days. The earth was salted. There was no fourth Punic war because there were no Carthaginians left alive and free. Let's not even talk about the Assyrians!
Many states throughout history have committed genocide against enemies and many others have persecuted populations within their own borders. Concentration camps are only necessary now because most people won't stand for such atrocities, and states therefore feel compelled to carry them out in relative secrecy. Modern human society is gentler now than at any point in our past, although perhaps navel-gazing and self-accusatory articles like this are part of the reason why, no matter how uninformed they might be.