This is probably the best scholarly work I've ever read on the Holocaust. Not only is the main figure - Emanuel Ringelblum - deeply inspiring in both his human foibles and his ability to so often overcome them, but Kassow's overarching discussion about the purpose of history as a crucial foundation for a people's identity (helped by Ringelblum's own thoughts on the topic) is extraordinarily well done. Kassow's ability to weave historical theory/philosophy and emotional accounts of the real people in the ghetto throughout a largely fact-driven linear narrative achieves the kind of history all historians should aspire to emulate.
Notable ideas:
"From the very beginning Ringelblum understood the need to encourage writing 'from inside the event,' writing that would not be skewed by the distorting lens of retrospective recollection and selective memory. To collect material, to gather impressions, and to write them down immediately--these were the watchwords of the Oyneg Shabes. Memory was tricky, Ringelblum insisted, especially in the ghetto. Under the pressure of unprecedented events, Jewish society changed at lightning speed. In wartime, months turned into days and years into months. By December 1939 the tough prewar days seemed like a picnic. A year later, after the Jews were herded into a ghetto, the pre-ghetto period of the German occupation evoked a kind of nostalgia. After the deportations to Treblinka began in July 1942, then even the ghetto hell of 1941-42 seemed like the 'good old days.' Ringelblum realized, even before he was aware of the Final Solution, how quickly trauma would efface memories of all that had preceded it, how unimportant the 'everyday' would seem when viewed through the prism of greater suffering. Thus it was all the more vital to capture the 'everyday' of Jewish society under German occupation, to meld thousands of individual testimonies into a collective portrait."
"Over time Ringelblum realized more and more clearly that survivor identity would overshadow the prewar past: The 'before' would be erased by the 'after.' As he confronted the unfolding disaster he fought all the harder to preserve the 'Now' and the 'Before,' to keep the posteriori label of 'victim' from effacing who the Jews were before the war. In a very real sense he saw history as an antidote to a memory of catastrophe which, however well intentioned, would subsume what had been into what had been destroyed."
"Now that Jews once again found themselves under Polish sovereignty, the history of Polish Jewry took on a new urgency. Supports of the anti-Jewish National Democratic party used historical arguments to bolster their call for a political and economic campaign against a Jewish minority which they viewed as harmful alien interlopers. ...In turn, Jewish historians in the young Polish republic began to see themselves as front line soldiers in a battle to convince the Polish public that anti-Semitism was not only self-defeating and harmful but rested on a totally erroneous interpretation of Polish history. Historical research quickly turned into a weapon to defend Jewish honor."
"In their search for a Marxist-Borochovist voice, these young historians grappled with one of the major problems facing the Jewish Left: If it rejected religion and nationalism, then on what basis could it justify its fight against assimilation? One important answer to this dilemma was to build an attractive and intellectually challenging secular culture based on literature, history, and folklore. The historian could use the past to transform the image of Jewish society by including previously neglected groups and by fashioning thick descriptions of everyday life that would highlight the creativity and resilience of the folk."
"Mahler argued that there was no contradiction between the study of general history and the study of Jewish history. Indeed, one complemented the other. Even though Marxist theory clarified the nature of the powerful economic forces that would transform all human societies, individual national cultures would survive because alongside general cultural ideals, common to all nations, each people had its own specific cultural conditions, shaped by the particular character of its historical development. To understand this interplay of the national and the universal, of general economic forces and specific national cultures, one needed to study national history alongside general history. Only with a thorough knowledge of their own history could Jews understand the specific problems they faced and fashion solutions to them."
"The YIVO scholars, otherwise a diverse group, shared the common conviction that there was a vital link between the East European Jewish past and present, one that required serious study--in Yiddish. In the words of Dan Miron: They were not to study the cultural past as a finished product, a sealed off enterprise that could now be archaeologically dissected, but rather as the source of an ongoing creative activity. Therefore, they must also pay close attention to the cultural present, because it offered the only perspective through which the past could be creatively examined."
"Could a committed leftist be an objective scholar? Ringelblum implicitly, if surprisingly, acknowledged a certain tension between political commitment and scholarly integrity as he discussed the problems of researching the history of 19th century polish Jewry. There were many sources, he declared, perhaps even too many, but there was also a danger posed by the subject's proximity to the present day. The more recent the period, the more the historian had to deal with political pressures and passions, especially his own. In Ringelblum's words, 'The historian who has not isolated himself from public life' faces these dangers more acutely. 'Although history is--to quote a handy phrase -- past politics and politics is current history, it is all too possible to make history into politics, and bad politics to boot.'"
"Could a historian also defend one's people without becoming an apologist? To write Jewish history in Poland, Ringelblum noted, exposed one to the temptation of obsessively responding to anti-Semitic attacks, or to us one's scholarship to praise the achievements of the Jews in all fields. Friedman, Ringelblum wrote, had successfully manged to navigate between the Scylla of apologetics and the Charybdis of nationalist megalomania."
"Gutchke the cook often infuriated the fastidious Auerbach with her casual approach to hygiene, but she somehow made the soups taste halfway decent. In the kitchen on Leszno 40 she would sing a Yiddish ballad, bustle around, talk to the pots (she gave each a nickname: Maciusz was her favorite) and sample soup (with her fingers). Before the war she had run her own restaurant in Praga. Childless, she had recently married an elderly widower and scholar. Gutchke, barely literate herself, was devoted to her learned husband, for how could such a common woman have married a scholar in ordinary times? She did her best to keep him alive. Auerbach once caught her taking a tiny bit of food from the kitchen to make a meal at home. As Auerbach guiltily reported after the war, she scolded the crestfallen woman and warned her never to do that again. At the time it had seemed her duty. 'Why did I shame her and depress her? Why didn't I understand that through this little transgression she wanted to gladden and strengthen her elderly helpless husband who had become like a child? How blind, how stupid we were then-- on the brink of extermination.'"
"But the secret archives could accomplish much more than solitary individuals. They drew their strength from the collective energy of dedicated workers who could pool their talents and establish a hierarchy of priorities and objectives. The more diverse the archival staff and the greater the range of their prewar political and cultural backgrounds, the more likely it was that the archive would develop fruitful contacts and sources of information. Archives, although not entirely free of politics, generated a sense of common purpose that helped allay political rivalry. A collective could mobilize financial resources and gain the protection of important people in the Jewish Councils or social welfare organizations more easily than individuals. In some ghettos the official Jewish leadership and the archival staffs came together in a complex relationship fraught with mutual suspicion and mutual need. Ghetto leaders might feed the archive important documents--even as they concealed others."
"Ringleblums' essay was a unique synthesis of the immediacy of contemporaneous testimony with the analytic dispassion of retrospective historical analysis . The essay reflected the tension between the imperative of historical objectivity and shock at the enormity of the crimes he had witnessed not as a bystander but as a direct victim. Detached historians could make necessary distinctions between perpetrators and bystanders, between Polish and Germany anti-Semitism, between active complicity and indiffernece. But for a member of a victimized people to do so required a major effort of intellectual discipline. Ringelblum, writing both as a historian and a witness, wrote an essay that decades later retained its scholarly relevance."