Disclaimer: I received a review copy via Netgalley.
History is messy. It isn’t just the battles or the thousand, millions, who die for the most stupid and phobic of reasons. It’s messy because of judgment. What seemed like a good or even just a necessary idea then becomes an abhorrent injustice. Sometimes those of us who make those hindsight calls experience doubts because of what we know that they didn’t. Yet sometimes the question and judgment are far simpler if still messy. It is no secret, today, that after the Second World War America and other allied countries recruited people regardless if they had been registered as Nazis, and functioned, in cases, as Nazi guards and so on. Richard Rashke, though the case of John Demjanjuk, examines not only the US door policy on former Nazis but also though comparison of US policy towards refugees from Nazi Germany and Europe. Because of the look at the different policies, it also is a rather depressing and anger inducing read.
The scope of the book, a long book at over 500 pages, not counting notes, is not just America and post-War Europe but also Israel and post-Cold War Europe. The trials are described in detail – not just the courtroom battles but the posturing and arguments that occur outside of the courtroom. It is the outside posturing and reaction that make the book interesting. The politicians, judges, and various groups’ reactions and determination make engrossing reading. It is to Rashke’s credit that he is able to do so without demonizing the defense attorneys for the various defendants. It’s true, he doesn’t make you want to invite them out to tea, but they are not the devil incarnate. In fact, Rashke does an extremely good job of letting the reader reach conclusionsas opposed to reaching conclusions for the reader.
This book lacks the intimacy that existed in Rashke’s Escape from Sobrior. No doubt this is due to the darker subject matter. And this is to Rashke’s credit. To become overly emotional, no matter how rightly called for, would weaken the book. This isn’t to suggest that the book is all depressing and disappointing government stories, for there are heroes here as well. There is Elizabeth Holtzman who dug and dug and fought and fought to do what she knew was the right thing. There is prosecutor after prosecutor and judge after judge who battle to do what should have been done. There are those who face the enemies of the past in order to bring justice for the future.
The book, however, does make a reader think without preaching, something that few books are able to do today. Rashke does pose questions at the end of his work, but the questions are one that the attentive reader anticipates these questions. Rashke, however, does dispel some of the misconceptions that exists around the events. In many ways, this makes the book more of damning indictment of the policy and later day rejections to it. And that is what makes the book readable, because while there is shame there are also things to be proud of. It is the answer to the question to take the good with the bad.
1
