Just how did the hierarchy and structure with the camps decide survival?
Word Count: 2030
How did the hierarchy and framework of the camps determine survival?
During the incidents of World War II the Nazi party began the methodical destruction of minority organizations, in particular the Jewish people, in what started to be known as the holocaust. This genocide has since become the blue print of all other genocides and even motivated the coining of the term itself. To assist in the systematic killing in the Jewish persons, the Fascista regime installation death camps which started to be notorious for dehumanisation and efficiency in exterminating harmless people. Within just these camps the Nazi regime would institute a social structure or hierarchy among the camp prisoners which Primo Levi describes as being a sinister ritual which helps bring about moral collapse1. This framework was used to both aid in the administration with the camp nevertheless also like a method to deliver those oppressed closer to the perpetrators through degradation and guilt. Glicksman divides this structure into five sets of ‘organisers', the very best being those closest towards the SS with all the greatest rewards, known as the notables and the lowest being the majority of the camp2. The top administrators from the camp, with the highest rewards, were individuals known as the ‘Kapos', they would frequently be common criminals at times drawn from prisons and had been put in place to minimize the workload on the SS. Many individuals were selected to ‘organise' for the SS due to a distinct skill set that they can possessed including nurses or perhaps intellectuals yet others managed to maintain a role being a small ‘organiser' through other ways within the camps. Although many everyone was selected for sure roles due to the skill set they possessed, some were also picked for horrific roles such as that of the Sonderkommando, individuals bestowed with the task of operating the gas chambers.
Although signing up for a role inside the hierarchy or becoming a ‘notable' would typically delay loss of life for a period time it was only stalling the unavoidable. Those amongst what Primo Levi explains as the ‘grey zone', the space between the victims as well as the perpetrators, will inevitable come to their death and good luck was generally the only component which identified who were living.
Glicksman's clear splitting up of five distinctive groups in the hierarchy of the camps helps with determining how these several groups of ‘organisers' were able to manipulate their survival through the position in which they had be given. The five sets of ‘organisers' that Glicksman recognizes are (1) Organisers of gold, sterling silver and forex (part with the notables and associated with SS), (2) Organisers of goods, (3) Small organisers (with the sole goal to secure more food), (4) Brokers and Porters (Work for the best hierarchy of organisers through smuggling or other small roles) and (5) Most camp, that to ‘organise' meant to plead for extra rations. 3 The very best organisers of the hierarchy were those put in a position of authority by the SS, including the notorious kapos, and had been therefore in order to live in larger standards together some function in deciding their destiny while under the strict training of the SS. This best group in the camp social structure could secure there life and relatively good living conditions through horrific brutality towards the camp masses and by following instruction from the SS. These in the next three groups of ‘organisers' often proved helpful for the best hierarchy to varied degrees, it was done throughout the accumulation and smuggling of products into the camps. Although this is strictly unacceptable by the DURE, and staying caught designed certain abuse, the DURE were the very best ‘organisers' over a hierarchy and would profit through the exploitation of the criminals. Those on top of the hierarchy, the notables, would generally be forgotten during queries by...