Jews for Sale? Nazi-Jewish Negotiations, 1933-1945
Bauer, a well-known Israeli historian, tries to uncover the murky story that some Nazis negotiated with some Jews -- even at the height of the Holocaust. He begins with the only actual agreement reached between Nazis and Jews at the very beginning of Nazi rule. That agreement gave German Jews a chance to transfer some of their capital to Palestine. It was reached when the Nazis were aiming to exterminate the Jews, but even in that period some Nazis, Himmler included, made tentative gestures at bartering Jews for material or political gain. A few self-chosen Jews were used to contact Allied representatives, including agents of the Office of Strategic Services, in hopes of reaching an accommodation with the West so as to press the fight against the Soviet Union. Much of the book deals with the fate of Hitler's last victims, the Hungarian Jews.
Bauer engages in contemporary controversy: he defends most Jewish "negotiators" against charges that their efforts smacked of collaboration or treason. Although it somewhat neglects the vast secondary literature of recent years, the widely researched book touches on moral-psychological themes including the difference between having information and "internalizing" or believing it. An inconsistent work but of considerable interest to students of the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and World War II.
Related
German history teaches that malice and simplicity have their appeal, that force impresses, and that nothing in the public realm is inevitable. It also proves that democratic reconstruction is possible, even on initially uncongenial ground.
Daniel Goldhagen's book on the Holocaust--condemning the German "eliminationist" mindset toward Jews--has become an international bestseller and a datum in German-American relations. Pity, because it is a simplistic, monocausal, and unhistorical explanation of one of the most complex horrors in history. For Goldhagen, as for the Nazis, Hitler is Germany.
The Afghanistan crisis has dramatized and intensified antecedent changes and strains in the Western alliance. There was unanimous, if separate, condemnation of Soviet aggression, but there were also divergent, and often acrimoniously divergent, assessments of the causes of aggression and the nature of the challenge. The difficulties of orchestrating a common response or of at least preventing a discordant one suggest a new balance of forces within the alliance and a set of divergent interests.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.