The story of Chaim Rumkowski - a challenge towards writing history

 For the past two weeks I have been reading a book called "The poor in lodz" (om Swedish de fattiga i lodz") which deals with life in a Polish ghetto during WWII. This ghetto was an exception in many ways, both due to its large production for the German army and that it never rebelled. Instead it stayed in operation until the summer of 1944, when Germany in a last desperate attempt to finish its dark deeds deported all of its inhabitants to finish its dark deeds.

At the center of the story is Chaim Rumkowski, who for decades have allured historians. He was the elderly jew of the ghetto and had chief responsibility for almost a quarter million persons. During the war, he tried to negatotiate with the German authorities and tried to reach an agreement in which the Jews would not be deported to concentration camps in exchange for their slave labor. As a leader Rumkowski is remembered as a traitor, since he collaborated with the German authorities. Furthermore, he was prone to purging his political enemies and use his influence to sexually abuse women and children 

What however is quite interesting is the awareness within Holocaust studies that this picture of Rumkowski would have been largely different if he had suceeded in his efforts until the end of the war, thus saving a quarter of million souls through his harsh leadership. Many historians have pointed out that if the red armys offensive in Poland would have gone quicker by just a few weeks, his efforts would have been seen in a radical different light. And perhaps this is were the hardships of historians come into the picture:

Since the early 19th century historians have aimed to re-create history as it actually unfolded. What makes the discipline of history science is thus the historians neutral stance. But since we often know the outcome of historical events, we have to take this as point of departure. Therefore historians become biased, since we are the result of a society which are in turn the result of how these events unfolded.

In the in end Rumkowski both suffocated every chance of resistance and is remembered for his brutality. But perhaps if his efforts would have succeeded, he would have been remembered in an other light. Therefore his deeds would also have been seen another way: thanks to Rumkowski, thousands of lives were saved instead of perishing as in the case of the Warsow ghetto. Now, all we have is a picture of a broken man whom failed. And perhaps this story shows just how dependent we are of how events actually unfolded, instead of the intentions behind the events outcome. And the problem is that neither narrative is true. Was Rumkowski a man we should condem? Most certainly, none the least due to him being a sexual predator. Should we condem him for the outcomes? Perhaps not.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The use of history and why historians should mind the gap

Contemporary Sexual Politics: Efforts to Silence Sexuality in Politics

Contemporary Sexual Politics: a Background