The Psychology of Genocide

Of all of the monumental events in history, there is perhaps no incident as fascinating from a social psychology perspective as the Holocaust. An entire nation of people took part, to some degree, in an ideology of hatred and a policy of murder towards distinct ethnic groups. An estimated 13 million people were murdered as a result of these policies, 6 million of whom were Jewish, the most hated group of all. And all of this took place in one of the most advanced nations in the world! While the Holocaust was happening, the world was largely ignorant to what was going on. In the years following Germany’s defeat, however, the grisly details began to come to the surface. A Diary of a Young Girl was published in 1950, and is the diary of a girl named Anne Frank. Anne Frank along with her family hid from the Nazi’s during their occupation of Amsterdam. One of her protectors, Miep Gies, was later interviewed in the documentary Dear Kitty: Remembering Anne Frank. From these sources we can gather information on all the people involved, not just in Anne Franks case, but in occupied Holland as a whole. This information is rich in the concepts of social psychology, as we can study the victims, the perpetrators, the bystanders, and the rebels. In this paper, we will examine why everyone involved in Anne Franks hiding and death acted the way they did, and what may have motivated them to do so. The main perpetrators used persuasion and stereotyping to achieve essentially the brainwashing of a nation. The entire nation of Germany played a role in the Holocaust. Many German citizens were bystanders, some rebelled, and some took an active role. The perpetrators were the Nazi government, the Gestapo, the SS, the German police and the informants. Of these perpetrators, we have two kinds: those that engineered the plan and those who followed orders. The engineers were the Nazi government and philosophers, and they were masters of using persuasion. According to Myers, persuasion is “the process by which a message induces change in beliefs, attitudes or behaviors.” (226). Through widespread and sophisticated use of propaganda, they changed the attitudes, behaviors and beliefs of the entire nation of Germany, and even gained international supporters. The Nazis did everything they could to seem attractive to the average citizen. Attractiveness, or “having qualities that appeal to an audience” (Myers 233) is a key element of persuasion. During the frenzied post-war years, they promised law and order. When Germany was impoverished, they promised employment and prosperity. They excited the Germans by telling them that they should be a mighty nation, that they were racially superior to the rest of the world. When they followed though on these early promises, they gained complete credibility. Credibility is also an important element of persuasion, and is defined by Myers as “perceived expertise and trustworthiness.” (231) When they blamed the Jews for the economic crises, it seemed believable. The Nazi propaganda aroused fear, portraying the Jews as evil, greedy and conniving. “Vivid progadanda often exploits fears. The Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer aroused fear with hundreds of unsubstantiated anecdotes about Jews who were said to have ground rats to make hash, seduced non-Jewish women, and cheated families out of their life savings.” (Myers 239) The racial theories that the Nazi’s disseminated, however, were not their own. In fact, these men had themselves been persuaded by 19th and 20th century antisemitic authors. These authors wrote literature that accused Jewish people of being evil and undesirable due to exaggerated stereotypes that Europeans had of them. One prominent antisemitic author was Henry Ford, the extremely successful American businessman. Ford clearly demonstrated a perceived trustworthiness and attractiveness based simply on his success. Due to persuading factors such as attractiveness, fear arousal and credibility, the Nazis and later the entire German nation developed a vehement anti-Semitism. Other perpetrators and bystanders acted out of conformity, obedience and aggression. Although the Nazi government engineered the genocide, there were thousands of other perpetrators in the Gestapo, the SS, the German military and the German police. There also were collaborators in all of the German occupied countries. The psychology behind these peoples’ actions is different; these people were not using persuasion to commit their atrocities. These people were following orders, and doing what they thought was right. Falling victims to the Nazi’s persuasion, coupled with a desire to be the best German they could be led them to do unspeakable things. Myers defines obedience as “acting in accord with a direct order or command.” (Myers 188) The average German citizen probably did not know the full extent of what was going on, but they were aware of the intense persecution and mistreatment of Jewish people, and most did nothing to stop it. These people acted out of conformity. Conformity is “a change is behavior or belief as the result of real of imagined group pressure.” (Myers 188) Due to Nazi propaganda and beliefs of the time, there was a societal pressure not to help the Jews. Many truly believed the racial theories the Nazis had taught them. These people were practicing acceptance. According to Myers, acceptance is “conformity that involves both acting and believing in accord with social pressure.” (188) Not all, however. Some knew that the persecution was wrong, but did not publicly express these opinions. These people acted out of compliance, or “conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with an implied or explicit request while privately disagreeing.” (Myers 188) The average German citizen did nothing because of compliance, conformity and obedience. Due to Nazi Germany’s aggression, many victims were forced to demonstrate obedience and conformity in an attempt to maintain their lives. Many Jews in Germany at the time realized trouble was on the horizon. Otto Frank was one of those Jews who fled Nazism. He took his family and his business to Amsterdam, where he assumed it would be safe. However, eventually the Germans invaded Holland and took Amsterdam. At this time, Otto had to demonstrate obedience and conformity to protect his family. He shifted to a behind the scenes role in his business and transferred control to people of Aryan descent. In this way, Otto Frank was also practicing stereotyping. His colleagues helped conceal himself and his family in the backrooms of the company headquarters, where they lived for over two years. After the arrest, Otto Frank and his family had no choice but to continue to act with compliance and obedience or risk death. While most people in German occupied countries at the time either were bystanders or collaborators, some people resisted the oppressive regime and worked tirelessly to help victims out of altruism. Altruism is “a motive to increase another’s welfare without conscious regard for one’s self interests.” (Myers 440) The people who helped the Frank family clearly felt empathy towards them, most likely exacerbated by the fact that they were Otto Frank’s trusted colleagues. Meip Gies remembers “you’d come up and there was a level of tension in the room…they waited anxiously for you in a row…they waited for whatever you might say….that made me feel dreadful.” (Dear Kitty: Remembering Ann Frank) Clearly Gies felt for this family. According to Myers, empathy is “the vicarious experience of another’s feelings; putting oneself in another’s shoes.” (454) Miep Gies, Jan Gies, Victor Kugler and Johannes Kleiman felt empathy for other persecuted people as well, evidenced by the fact that they hid two other Jews with the Frank family. Although most people in Nazi-occupied Europe were bystanders, there were some who rebelled against the regime’s policies and risked their own lives out of altruism and empathy. The Holocaust remains one of the most ugly chapters in western history, and it offers some of the best examples of social psychology theories at work. Perpetrators, victims, bystanders and rebels are all motivated by different things. The entire field of social psychology has developed out of the study of the Holocaust, with the hope of preventing another atrocity of that magnitude. With the knowledge that we have today of concepts such as persuasion, stereotyping, compliance, obedience, acceptance and conformity, incidents such as the Holocaust become much more preventable. Most importantly, it shows us the frightening reality that the Holocaust was not the deed of some sick group of unthinkable monsters, but participating in genocide is something that we all are capable of under certain circumstances. By studying the social psychology of all parties involved, we may prevent an atrocity of that scale from ever happening again.

Works Cited

Myers, David G. Social Psychology. McGraw Hill. New York, 2013
Van Der Sluis, Wouter. Dear Kitty: Remembering Anne Frank. 1999. Film.